Should I or shouldn't I?
I've been debating with myself whether to write the following post or not. Wondering if it is too simplistic or whether it is something that 'should/could' be aspired to. In the end I've decided to put it up anyhow simply because I think it's a good idea and should be considered.
What am I banging on about?
Copenhagen! I've been thinking, or should I say, it has occurred to me while thinking about the Copenhagen climate summit that the whole thing is just a bit on the hypocritical side of things. Or maybe farcical even. Here is why I think this. First thing I'm thinking is how are all these leaders of the world and their support staff going to get there? In a plane right! A lot of great big fat pollution spewing CO2 emitting bloody jet planes. Then aside from all the polluting greenhouse gasses there is the money needed to do this. That's your money and mine!
So what do I think could/should be done.
Ok. On the pollution (why doesn't anyone call it pollution anymore?) side of things. We live in the 21st Century. I'll repeat that, we live in the 21st bloody century, can't this thing be done by video conferencing. I know that sounds simple (the 'Kiss Principle', keep it simple Sally) and probably comes with a whole stack of problems but this is the 21st Century, we can fly to the moon, we can do heart transplant surgery, we can separate conjoint twins, why not this. Three benefits I see here are , number one 'no pollution'. No great big fat pollution spewing CO2 emitting bloody jet planes.
The second is the money saved. How much money? I wish I new but I doubt not much change out of 5 mill and thinking, again, what that could be spent on. It would sure buy a lot of trees, taking some carbon out of the atmosphere rather than adding to it.. Maybe a whole heap of solar panels, imagine that, a politician actually doing something constructive by introducing an industry that is carbon free and paid for by not flying around the world in a dirty great big jet plane. Oh and to the coal industry, get over yourself and stop being so selfish. All your worried about is your life style and pay packet.
The third, these are supposed to be our leaders so why not lead by example and show the people of their respective countries they mean business by not adding to the problem themselves.
It's win, win, win all the way.
Back to the beginning.
Is this all just to simplistic, altruistic, romantic thinking on my part or could these "leaders" be more (or maybe just be) proactive! Or could it cynically be said they like to sit around in big rooms huff and puff and then get a good pat on their backs from each other while they telling themselves what a good job they have done?
Btw.
How do you tell if a politician is a hypocrite? Easy, he's breathing!
Do I feel disappointed? Most of the time.
Cheers from a disappointed Stewart
The head of Australia's national science organisation says climate change poses extraordinary challenges to global food production in the future. CSIRO chief executive Megan Clark has warned higher prices on water and agricultural carbon emissions will make it difficult to sustain the world's growing urban population. Dr Clark told the National Press Club in Canberra that the amount of food needed over the next 50 years is equal to the total amount of food ever produced by humans. "That means in the working life of my children as much grain as has ever been harvested since the Egyptian time," she said. "As much fish as we've ever eaten, as much milk as we've ever taken from reluctant cows on frosty mornings, every frosty morning that we've ever known." She says the challenge will be made even more difficult because climate change will put a higher price on water and on agricultural carbon emissions. "One area where we will have to adapt very quickly is in food production," she said. "It is really hard for me to comprehend that in the next 50 years we'll have to produce as much food as we have ever produced in human history." (ABC News)
