And one more delicious addition from the Guardian...
If George Osborne and co forget the common good, the planet will fryAs Durban limps towards failure, it seems the west's leaders, bankers and citizens refuse to take a lead on climate change
Fry? Oh dear? and now not only the leaders and bankers but also the citizens are not to blame for refusing to take action. Looks like this little religion is turning on its would-be adherents for lack of er commitment? smirk.
I loved this photo caption just in case anyone thought that the Guardian could even try to be objective:
Peter Wilby guardian.co.uk, Friday 2 December 2011 21.00 GMT Article history
'Osborne is an urban animal who, apart from the odd week on ski slopes in Switzerland, has spent nearly all his life in London.' Photograph: Rex Features
After he'd clobbered public sector workers and poor families on tax credits, George Osborne said in his autumn statement that he was "worried about the combined impact of … green policies … on some of our heavy, energy-intensive industries". He continued: "We are not going to save the planet by shutting down our steel mills, aluminium smelters and paper manufacturers." If we carried on "with endless social and environmental goals … businesses will fail, jobs will be lost, and our country will be poorer".
As the Kyoto protocol on global warming runs out and the Durban conference to agree a replacement limps towards failure, that was the message from the chancellor of what is supposed to be the greenest government ever. Two days later, Sir David Attenborough said in a newspaper interview that city dwellers are out of touch with what is happening in the natural world and therefore don't take responsibility for the future of the planet. Osborne is an urban animal who, apart from the odd week on yachts in the Mediterranean or ski slopes in Switzerland, has spent nearly all his life in London. So we can't expect him to take responsibility for global warming. He has reduced subsidies for solar panels, found £250m in tax relief for the most polluting industries, and scrapped plans to increase fuel duty by 3p next month.
So this writer believes that more Solyndras are needed? wise?
Chris Huhne, the climate and energy secretary, ploughs bravely on with his carbon plans and emission reduction targets. But though Huhne denies any cabinet differences, the man who controls the purse strings – and whose speeches are far more closely studied than Huhne's – sings a different tune. Osborne's message is that we may as well carry on belching carbon into the atmosphere because, if we don't, someone else will – an argument that could equally be used to justify selling your daughter into prostitution.
Oooohhhh. Selling your daughter to prostitution? Hmmm so if I do not care about global warming or refuse to take action, I might as well be selling my daughter into prostitution. That is er excuse the language fucked!
If the British chancellor won't take responsibility, most other political leaders in developed countries won't either. The implicit message is that the job of tackling global warming can be placed on hold while they sort out the economic crisis. That, on more optimistic estimates, will take until about 2017. The planet will then be perilously close, scientists predict, to the tipping point for irreversible climate damage.
You lost the election pal. Why should a Conservative prime minister be responsible for implementing a Labour prime minister´s policies?
Tipping point? Is it just me or is the deadline constantly being pushed back. Now, it is 2017. wasn't it like 1997 before and then 2007 and now 2017? Or am I hallucinating? probably from the record heat?
Some say we need a miracle to save the eurozone and the banks. We need a far bigger one to save the planet. According to the World Bank's 2010 world development report, if all coal-fired plants scheduled to be built in the next 25 years come into operation, their lifetime CO2 emissions will equal those of all coal burning since the industrial revolution.
Do non-religions believe in and need miracles as well? or are we miraculously close to calling global warming a religion here?
Business leaders, particularly in financial services, are now the true rulers of the world. Can they take responsibility? It seems not.
so it is back to the business leaders in their cabals controlling the world? Gosh. What a difference an election makes. It sorta is kinda like how after Obama won we do not here about Guantanamo anymore...
The world's banks may be running out of cash but a report just published by environmental groups shows that in 2010 they invested nearly twice as much in coal-fired electricity and coal mining as they did in 2005.
So the bankers don´t care and refuse to act because they are evil and now this reporter is mad and complaining that banks are if not evil interested in making a profit and that does not mean investing in solar energy or other green-approved programs? Geee....
Our own Barclays and RBS (the latter 84% owned by Osborne on our behalf) are among the top 10 in the world for putting money into coal. They account for more than 10% of total investment in coal-fired plants since 2005.
Looks like someone has figured out that the world will still need energy in the absence of solar salvation.
Can the rest of us save the planet, following the example of Vivienne Westwood, who said this week she would donate £1m to Cool Earth, an anti-logging group, because "governments are so slow, we can't wait for them any more"?
So, when Vivienne Westwood has saved the planet with her $1 million donation to Cool Earth (love the name) we can all follow her lead and we have seen how donations to climate change NGOs have changed the world. No? We have not? But ... they have raised awareness right? and that has to mean something right?
Or can we, as consumers, put pressure on the corporate sector to act? Alas, in all their many grievances against the banks, few people will rate collusion in environmental damage very highly. Since 1964 Gallup has asked Americans if the environment should take priority even at the risk of curbing economic growth – or, conversely, if they would prioritise growth even if the environment suffers – and every year until 2008 found Americans putting the planet first. Then the priorities reversed and this year, the economy wins, 54% to 36%.
So consumers don´t care either... What is an enlightened reporter to do?
As for Britons, their priorities can be judged from Downing Street's e-petitions website, where 125,000 have signed a demand for cheaper petrol and diesel while a petition last year "to take climate change seriously and invest in all forms of renewable energy" attracted just 11 signatures.
OH NO! only 11 signatures. How unholy are these people? caring about their personal lives at the expense of the planet!
Not all those who want fuel duty cut will be global warming sceptics and some may even think of themselves as enthusiastic environmentalists, which usually means sorting household waste into the correct recycling bins. Even in good times, when the majority profess support for action to prevent climate change, specific proposals to do anything significant, such as raising taxes on petrol and airline travel or even banning incandescent light bulbs, invariably meet determined public opposition.
They should be condemneed for shirking their duties.
The battle against climate change offers so many small guilt-reducing actions – switching off the TV standby, using a little less water to boil the veg, taking the bus to the shops – that almost anyone can say they're already doing their bit.
Yeah. That need to feel good even when it does not really lead to any practicable results can certainly irk one, right? God don´t I know it!
Right now, even the sort of people who used to occupy power stations prefer to march against bankers or student debt.
You cannot imagine the smirk on my face and the accompanying GUFFAW that went with it. JESUS This is a treasure.
No, if we want the planet to be saved, we must rely on the politicians. But persuading Europeans and Americans that they should tolerate nearly a decade of austerity is itself a daunting challenge for leaders who assured voters for 30 years that neoliberalism could deliver uninterrupted growth.
Ah... so let´s get our kicks in on neoliberalism but... the failure of the housing market in the US was caused by government not market intervention or how else would you term Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae subsidized mortgages. Neoliberalism? hmmm bit of a stretch of the definition me thinks...
Global warming presents an even greater challenge. People have to be persuaded to make sacrifices for the common good.
Yes, we need more sacrifices... MORE SACRIFICES.
Neoliberalism, however, has left western politicians holding the ring between competing demands for individual gratification. They run what the US political theorist Philip Bobbitt calls "market states", which have the sole duty of maximising opportunities for their individual citizens, and accept no obligation to social justice or collective welfare.
Last time I checked, no one had voted in either the communist or socialist parties so why are the pro-market politicians responsible for implementing communist and socialist policies? Because they are the right thing to do? So, are we to say democracy should be overthrown because the people are not voting the right way?
The common good has become, to western politicians of both left and right, a completely alien concept.
Common good? Oh I see you get to define that do you and then we all have to follow along even though we do not agree or we are not concerned about the common good?
They have no language in which to convey to their electorates the importance and urgency of what needs to be done. They will no doubt emerge from Durban with fine words and some semblance of agreement or, if nothing else, agreement on when they should make an agreement. But for now, the planet will just have to carry on burning.
Where is the planet burning? And where is the urgency? I read the introduction and summary of the latest UN report and compared to previous versions, there has been a lot of backtracking and qualifications regarding what we ¨know¨about global warming. IF the United Nations no longer believes that the threat is as serious as it did 5, 10 and 20 years ago, how is that a sign that more urgent action is needed? The UN has backtracked not accelerated the need for urgent action. Why is this reporter then so concerned?