tcm
...
I must say i was a bit dissappointed with Brown sticking 5 quid on air flights as a "green" tax. None of the money will be spent on any climate-controlling issues, and even if it is it can't be making much difference. What's needed is some radical thinking.
First off, let's be clear: climate change is an issue of selfishly worrying about ourselves and the human race. Ok, yes, if there's too much climate change we all die. But we'll all die soon enough, and long term the planet will burn up too. The human race is ultimately doomed. Pure selfish self-interest is what it's all about, really.
So altho climate change sounds all high-minded it's actually just like all the old people clogging up your local surgery - they don't want to die just yet. Except of course - they will. And so will the planet, woof, burned up inthe sun, and even with no fossil fuel burning there'll be an ice age etc. All we're doing by being green is putting this off a bit.
WWe might learn some lessons from history. Cos life on earth has been here before, surely. Dinosuars, easily more successful than humans were around for few 100million years or so. I bet they though they had it taped. I spect they had got to the stage of carefully just nibbling plants a bit, to keep it all in balance, rationing how much dung they could dump in various places and so on. But all in vain, they got whammed by a meteor and all extinct in a few years.
As with dinosaurs, at issue now is the large number of humans using lots of fuel, for boats. planes,cars, everything. At the moment we are using fossil fuel, which will get used up soon ie next few generations or so.
One option is to just stop all the fossil fuel useage and live in raffia huts. Cept not many will join us. Mostly, greenness is just the politicians keeping themselves in a job - not actually having any real step-change effect.
We need something a lot moe radical than handwringing, reading the guardian and agreeing with any and all green taxes. Cos the green taxes and carbon trading are just spinning out those fixed resources. Our local uk taxes might make us use less fuel, a bit - but others like in russia or india or china will use it all instead! Dang.
Strand A is to find alternative fuels, Decent ones, though. In terms of finding alterantives, we need to get going on more physics and the like, pay nuclear physics grads 50grand for starters and free house in whereever the test site is based, and a bonus if they make some progress. Cos the first to find the alternatives will be like the middle east full of oil, rich as heck. The french are doing this already! Darnit.
But ....note that merely finding alternative fuels on its own is useless, climate wise: if there were suddenly loads of free wind/sun/fission power we would all use that, leave the heating on all day and so on with lots of overheating etc would result in just about the same as before, or worse. It won't be much good finding new fuels if al that happens is that 6billion, soon 7 billion people all use that new and limitless fuel, will it? No. And there is no sign of any real self-regulation in that regard - we're toolmakers we humans, and we like tools like airplanes and cars and all the rest.
Strand B is therefore to reduce the number of humans. A decent disease would be handy, or (better) a neutron bomb. Oh, you might scoff but whereas your local useless council is recycling milk bottles i'm actually putting forward plans that would most definitely have an effect. Ok, it's a pretty selfish approach - but then climate change concern itself is ultimately selfish too, as above.
In fact, there's not a moment to lose. Because i won't be the only one to think of this. The chinese, ruskies or yanks will wake up to this soon enough and by then it may be too late. Actually tho, the yanks and the ruskies are all having too much fun selling oil, so they won't do this just yet. But soon, whoever runs out of oil and gets the hump might do it. Which might easily be the UK anyway.
Logically, of course, we should actually combine strand A and B. Lets face it, the new fuels are going to quite hard to invent. Much more effective climatewise would be to PRETEND to be researching new fuels - but actually be sorting out a bunch of preemptive neutron bombs which will eliminate large numbers of people at a stroke. Reducing the current population from 6 or so billion to under 1 billion should do it, and still guarantee survival of the rest. Note that in nuking 5+ billion, we'e saving lots of fish, whales and all the nice furry animals too, so there's no need for being appalled or getting preachy at me.
There needs to be a bit of work on the bombs of course, maybe deliver them perhaps in diplomatic bags perhaps, or maybe a particularly enlightend head of Oxfam could send out container loads of them, open the box and pffft. Bit of work needed here.
But anyway, i thik you get the general idea - to really save the planet we should annihilate the american, asian and african populations. And it'll be in a very good cause too. Our namby-pamby leaders haven't quite got the stomach for this, but they should.
Oh and of course, with this plan the sailing will be much safer too - fewer people means fewer boats and ships so far less need for colregs.
Apart from the side issue of gigantic genocide on an unprecedented scale, I can't see much wrong with any of this, and I commend it to the forum.
First off, let's be clear: climate change is an issue of selfishly worrying about ourselves and the human race. Ok, yes, if there's too much climate change we all die. But we'll all die soon enough, and long term the planet will burn up too. The human race is ultimately doomed. Pure selfish self-interest is what it's all about, really.
So altho climate change sounds all high-minded it's actually just like all the old people clogging up your local surgery - they don't want to die just yet. Except of course - they will. And so will the planet, woof, burned up inthe sun, and even with no fossil fuel burning there'll be an ice age etc. All we're doing by being green is putting this off a bit.
WWe might learn some lessons from history. Cos life on earth has been here before, surely. Dinosuars, easily more successful than humans were around for few 100million years or so. I bet they though they had it taped. I spect they had got to the stage of carefully just nibbling plants a bit, to keep it all in balance, rationing how much dung they could dump in various places and so on. But all in vain, they got whammed by a meteor and all extinct in a few years.
As with dinosaurs, at issue now is the large number of humans using lots of fuel, for boats. planes,cars, everything. At the moment we are using fossil fuel, which will get used up soon ie next few generations or so.
One option is to just stop all the fossil fuel useage and live in raffia huts. Cept not many will join us. Mostly, greenness is just the politicians keeping themselves in a job - not actually having any real step-change effect.
We need something a lot moe radical than handwringing, reading the guardian and agreeing with any and all green taxes. Cos the green taxes and carbon trading are just spinning out those fixed resources. Our local uk taxes might make us use less fuel, a bit - but others like in russia or india or china will use it all instead! Dang.
Strand A is to find alternative fuels, Decent ones, though. In terms of finding alterantives, we need to get going on more physics and the like, pay nuclear physics grads 50grand for starters and free house in whereever the test site is based, and a bonus if they make some progress. Cos the first to find the alternatives will be like the middle east full of oil, rich as heck. The french are doing this already! Darnit.
But ....note that merely finding alternative fuels on its own is useless, climate wise: if there were suddenly loads of free wind/sun/fission power we would all use that, leave the heating on all day and so on with lots of overheating etc would result in just about the same as before, or worse. It won't be much good finding new fuels if al that happens is that 6billion, soon 7 billion people all use that new and limitless fuel, will it? No. And there is no sign of any real self-regulation in that regard - we're toolmakers we humans, and we like tools like airplanes and cars and all the rest.
Strand B is therefore to reduce the number of humans. A decent disease would be handy, or (better) a neutron bomb. Oh, you might scoff but whereas your local useless council is recycling milk bottles i'm actually putting forward plans that would most definitely have an effect. Ok, it's a pretty selfish approach - but then climate change concern itself is ultimately selfish too, as above.
In fact, there's not a moment to lose. Because i won't be the only one to think of this. The chinese, ruskies or yanks will wake up to this soon enough and by then it may be too late. Actually tho, the yanks and the ruskies are all having too much fun selling oil, so they won't do this just yet. But soon, whoever runs out of oil and gets the hump might do it. Which might easily be the UK anyway.
Logically, of course, we should actually combine strand A and B. Lets face it, the new fuels are going to quite hard to invent. Much more effective climatewise would be to PRETEND to be researching new fuels - but actually be sorting out a bunch of preemptive neutron bombs which will eliminate large numbers of people at a stroke. Reducing the current population from 6 or so billion to under 1 billion should do it, and still guarantee survival of the rest. Note that in nuking 5+ billion, we'e saving lots of fish, whales and all the nice furry animals too, so there's no need for being appalled or getting preachy at me.
There needs to be a bit of work on the bombs of course, maybe deliver them perhaps in diplomatic bags perhaps, or maybe a particularly enlightend head of Oxfam could send out container loads of them, open the box and pffft. Bit of work needed here.
But anyway, i thik you get the general idea - to really save the planet we should annihilate the american, asian and african populations. And it'll be in a very good cause too. Our namby-pamby leaders haven't quite got the stomach for this, but they should.
Oh and of course, with this plan the sailing will be much safer too - fewer people means fewer boats and ships so far less need for colregs.
Apart from the side issue of gigantic genocide on an unprecedented scale, I can't see much wrong with any of this, and I commend it to the forum.
