Is it ok to exploit our environment for economic gain?

[The Don]

I probably do more for the environment than most on here so I won't be told that I do not care about nature.

Yes it is okay to 'exploit' our environment for economic gain. The Canadian tar sands have greatly helped Canada's economy by providing cheap, home-sourced energy. The oil wells of the Arabian Gulf have created paradises and welfare states for the UAE, Dubai and Qatar that had previously been economic backwaters - the people benefit greatly. The same can be said for mining in China, or the great dams that have been built that have flooded huge areas of forest. Energy does not come from thin air.

Obviously I am not saying KILL KILL KILL EVERYTHING - but you've got to be practical. If you want to live in a first world nation with a first world lifestyle, then the environment will be sacrified so you can enjoy such a lifestyle. Coal and oil are there to be used. In any case, many areas which are destroyed by mining, oil slicks and so forth recover in a decade or two very quickly - nature is an amazing thing and if humans disappeared off the planet tommorow, come back in a hundred years and you'll hardly notice we were ever here. Look at Chernobyl and the Red Forest in Ukraine, despite being one of the most radioactive places on earth.... after 30 or so years it's now a wildlife haven.

The Economy isn't the most important thing in life. If there are alternative methods which cost more, it would be responsible and conservative for us to use those instead.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Economy isn't the most important thing in life. If there are alternative methods which cost more, it would be responsible and conservative for us to use those instead.

It isn't no, but renewables simply cannot power a first world economy. It is not responsible for us to shut down our economy in the name of AGW madness when China and India are building a new coal (often dirty coal)/gas powered power station every week.

Renewables just don't work so it's not even as though we can debate whether we should switch to renewables because we can't.

[The Don]

It isn't no, but renewables simply cannot power a first world economy. It is not responsible for us to shut down our economy in the name of AGW madness when China and India are building a new coal (often dirty coal)/gas powered power station every week.

Renewables just don't work so it's not even as though we can debate whether we should switch to renewables because we can't.

Obviously we aren't at the point where we can rely solely on renewables, this doesn't mean we can't increase the amount we use whilst simultaneously reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use. Let us not forget that both China and India are in the process of industrialisation, something we did many years ago, which is why that's not a fair comparison. If we increase the amount of renewables we buy, we are also giving income to those companies which drives further research into newer technologies which will eventually find more conservative and cheaper alternatives.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Obviously we aren't at the point where we can rely solely on renewables, this doesn't mean we can't increase the amount we use whilst simultaneously reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use.

Which is a completely pointless exercise, as I explain below.

Let us not forget that both China and India are in the process of industrialisation, something we did many years ago, which is why that's not a fair comparison.

Well it is a fair comparison if you are proposing we saddle ourselves with more debt when, if the thing you wish to stop - AGW - won't be affected in the slightest even if Britain disappeared off the face of the Earth tommorow. Britain putting up a few token windmills will do as much difference to the weather as pissing in the wind. The only point in all this would be for hand wringers in the west to feel they've done some moral good.... something they want everyone else to pay for.

If we increase the amount of renewables we buy, we are also giving income to those companies which drives further research into newer technologies which will eventually find more conservative and cheaper alternatives.

Government is incapable of choosing winners and losers in economics.

[The Don]

Which is a completely pointless exercise, as I explain below.



Well it is a fair comparison if you are proposing we saddle ourselves with more debt when, if the thing you wish to stop - AGW - won't be affected in the slightest even if Britain disappeared off the face of the Earth tommorow. Britain putting up a few token windmills will do as much difference to the weather as pissing in the wind. The only point in all this would be for hand wringers in the west to feel they've done some moral good.... something they want everyone else to pay for.



Government is incapable of choosing winners and losers in economics.

Ah, so because everybody else is doing it, we should do it too! Solid logic. If we can reduce the amount we rely on fossil fuels our country won't go to **** as they are depleted/become more expensive. Again, you agreed previously that the economy isn't the most important thing yet the only argument you've put forth is entirely based on the economy.

[Kardan]

Simply, yes.
@Dragga; if you want the whole world to run on solar/wind/tidal power, I'm pretty sure we'll have to end up getting rid of the natural environment to place the solar panels/wind farms/tidal plants.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ah, so because everybody else is doing it, we should do it too! Solid logic. If we can reduce the amount we rely on fossil fuels our country won't go to **** as they are depleted/become more expensive. Again, you agreed previously that the economy isn't the most important thing yet the only argument you've put forth is entirely based on the economy.

Pretty much so, especially when us doing something won't make the slighest bit of difference. With this kind of soppy hand wringing nonsense, it's a wonder why - or if - the Chinese and Indians are laughing at us. If you believe we should essentially bankrupt our economy, lose our first world status and start chewing on lentils to look morally good then that's upto you ... personally i'd like to do what works and whats practical rather than implement Guardian-style policies based on the guilt of the upper, liberal, middle classes in Islington.

I don't even believe in AGW.... but even if I did, I wouldn't embark on economic suicide merely to look good.

[The Don]

Pretty much so, especially when us doing something won't make the slighest bit of difference. With this kind of soppy hand wringing nonsense, it's a wonder why - or if - the Chinese and Indians are laughing at us. If you believe we should essentially bankrupt our economy, lose our first world status and start chewing on lentils to look morally good then that's upto you ... personally i'd like to do what works and whats practical rather than implement Guardian-style policies based on the guilt of the upper, liberal, middle classes in Islington.

I don't even believe in AGW.... but even if I did, I wouldn't embark on economic suicide merely to look good.

No point debating someone who refuses to accept what almost all scientists agree as fact.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No point debating someone who refuses to accept what almost all scientists agree as fact.

Scientists can be wrong.

In the 1920s/30s science approved greatly of eugenics.....

[The Don]

Scientists can be wrong.

In the 1920s/30s science approved greatly of eugenics.....

Wow, this clearly shows how ridiculous you are. For starters you must be mad to attempt to compare Eugenics, which is a belief, a concept, something which cannot be measured, to a physical change which is taking place, which can be recorded and can actually be measured to study the change in it by comparing data. Not to mention the fact you seem to think you (a politics undergraduate) seem to know better than an overwhelming majority of accredited and published scientists who have spent more years than you have living, studying the subject themselves, and not relying on propaganda put out by shills payed off by big oil companies, which I proved the last time this topic came up. Literally couldn't make this stuff up.