If your ideology has a base in material reality though instead of having its origins in thought processes there should be no contradiction (providing your ideology is not ossified orthodoxy)Quote:
Originally Posted by rebs23
Printable View
If your ideology has a base in material reality though instead of having its origins in thought processes there should be no contradiction (providing your ideology is not ossified orthodoxy)Quote:
Originally Posted by rebs23
Yes but "reality" is a different beast to different people.
Depending on their material circumstances. Or if they are junkies, in which case they are most likely not too interested in politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by rebs23
I agree. Once the blocks have been set on both sides who is to know what kind of insulation has been installed. Houses would have to be inspected during construction & that would be extremely difficult to implement...Quote:
Originally Posted by rebs23
There are insulation regulations now, so it wouldn't have been that difficult and you can test houses u values.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Maybe so but the regs are nowhere near what they should be and still the developers break them if they get away with it. There is an ongoing legal action (actually could be settled now, not sure) between a number of householders in the estate acccross the road from ours and the developer over this.
That was my point. The Government have delayed the introduction of higher specs for nearly 10 years, on the basis on the effect on the building industry. This is and was totally without justification, given the level of demand and the profitablity on houses in this period it would've had little effect on developers. However, I doubt many insulation manufacturers frequent the tents of Galway Races in the same way that Builders do.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
It's got to the stage that some forward thinking councils are putting insulation levels in excess of the building regulations in an effort to correct the Governments negligence on this issue.
Of course, but there are two roads that can followed up on this. As well as the developers/ builders, buildings have to be signed off by an engineer or architect with indeminity insurance who would be liable if they signed off on a house that wasn't infact compliant. You have to put in place regulations on the assumption that they'll be met, but the regulations are not in place there is zero chance of enforcement.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
are you george bush in disguise? once the economy is fine the environment will look after itself? why dont we wait until we are all dead before trying to put ourselves together again?Quote:
Originally Posted by rebs23
i must recommend everyone watches al gore's lecture 'an inconvenient truth' (available at all good video stores). a film that is easily more horrifying than films that usually come with such a warning. one point that i particularly raised my eyebrows at was that in a sample of 900 research articles by scientists over a period of 20 or so years not a single one(nil, no one, nada) of these experts doubted that global warming was a live threat, while 53% of newspaper articles questioned global warming.
to those who dont care, i hate ye all. the world is obviously not perfect but i'd prefer ireland now than a freezing hurricane swept craggy isle. the pacific islanders of tuvalu would prefer to stay at home than move to new zealand(something their gov's have provided for.) in short, the world is moving closer to dystopia than utopia, and what are we doing only doubting and wallowing.
WTF. Are you honestly saying that global warming/climate change can be reserved and if so by how many degrees? What is the safe number of degrees to go back to? Do we need a sustained period of an extra cold period to reverse the melting ice melts or will we try it gladually? if this happens are we in danger of a global ice age again? What measures will ensure that this easy task of global warming is reversed?Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
The most I have ever heard people propose are measures to stop the cuirrent rises in global temperature. Maybe I am wrong but I have always understood the reduction in our carbon emissions as attempts to stop the accelerating rate of climate change.
i have to laugh at that.do you think if we point cold fans up to the sky global warming will go away, by the way each person needs to point two fans for five hours three days a week at a 57 degree angle for the next six months then break for a week and continue the cycle.:p (sorry for being flippant)Quote:
Originally Posted by rebs23
it is carbon emissions we have to worry about.if we continue(with china and the us getting worse) things will be further exacerbated.i'm personally delighted some companies are taking steps, some gov's are, but its very difficult for individuals to make an effort. we can try to buy irish, cycle to work etc but without guidance/snactions on a political level we're effectively fighting a losing battle.bush the imbecile thinks technology through a healthy economy will solve the problem, having denied the problem for years in order to protect manufacturing jobs, or his own, whatever way you want to look at it.
the way we live at the moment is thoroughly unsustainable. you cant take the attitude that the environment will sort itself out because the levels of co2 in the atmosphere are ridiculously unprecedented, we just dont know what could happen, and with the evidence so far things arent going well. global warming may not be fully reversible but our way of living is, which unless we change humans wont be around much longer. i'm not blaming you of course but anyone who doubts or is unconcerned about the problem annoys me to be honest.
Its easy, all we have to do is mine comets for giant ice cubes to drop in the sea.
you'll play armageddon's bruce willis i hope:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
rebs, the problem is a lot bigger than just temperature, seasons changing(wont someone please think of the animals) more extreme weather,hurricanes in europe recently will all screw us, well, until bohs saves the day:)
We will all talk the talk but when it comes down to it we were to lose jobs in Ireland how many would choose the environment?
Thats exactly why I believe the problem of the environment is unsolvable on a capitalist basis. Because the profit motive rules, employers would close if environmental measures were introduced that impinged on their profit making ability. This is why the question of Socialism is now more urgent than ever. Engels wrote that the choice was between Socialism and Barbarism. Now its between Socialism and extinction.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
More to do with competition between Nations. If everyone on the same rules we'd be ok whereas biggest polluters are Communists countries like China & former communists like Russia & the Eastern bloc.Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
Capitalism is the only model that motivates for innovation in alternative energy sources. I don't see North Korea, Cuba or China driving any fuel cell cars or using wind & solar power...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Why is China communist when it suits your arguement? It was capitalist according to you in the Socialism thread when you wanted to give an example of a successful economy. And you already know my opinions on North Korea so stop using your straw man tactic. You know I don't consider those examples to be Socialism any more than you considered the German democratic republic (East Germany) to be a democracy.
Socialist Environmentalism
i know, i've been trying to get a visa to NK for years to see what they're up to, but the main man kim il sung just isnt having it:pQuote:
Originally Posted by pete
not really a fair point anyway, if capitalism wasnt embraced the problem wouldnt be half as bad.china is a growing problem but only because it has *******ised itself to capitalism on a broad scale, and not because its 'communist' which would appear to confuse your point. anyway, in fact the worlds largest polluter is.. de da da da the home of capitalism the mighty us of a.
all this philosophical meandering has led me to question who is our, ie capitalism, guiding philosopher and what was his thesis on the way of life..henry ford? was he concerned with the wider society? throughout history there have always been great thinkers that shaped the way we thought and lived, now we have..ah.....am i delusional, disenfranchised, too negative or what??
woah, just looking at my post above you'd swear i've been indoctrinated by mr.partisan..not quite the case.
although capitalism and its cosy partner political democracy are definitely to blame for the impending doom the answer lies not in an all out revolt on society, but rather a collective paradigm shift(no better waffle words!) on personal and corporate levels. governments should have(and i've no doubt would have under socialism!) acted at this stage. but failing that it is good to see that companies are taking some measure of responsibility, for eg the US Climate Action Partnership was recently established by ten large companies who are campaigning for the cap and trade program; legislation that would set a limit on emissions with any companies that undercut the level(cap) allowed to trade the remainder to companies that exceed the limit. as ever, the redoubtable president bush is a barrier to such legislation..where oh where is my gun. bush would do well to take on board the views of stephen hawking on this(although typically bland the point is important)
"The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to four decades climate change could cause drastic harm."
we all know how worked up bush got about so called weapons of mass destruction, akin to the nuclear explosions hawkings alludes to...so, i wonder will a war on deforestation in the amazon be launched, a war on smog bound china, a war on SUVs with billions of dollars and thousands of troops? :(
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
You see Capitalists are not all evil people, its the system thats the problem. There will always be a lot of well intentioned capitalists who are not as short sighted as others when it comes to the environment. Ditto for nations and politicians. The problem is to reverse the environmental damage, we need every country and every industry to comply. Under the profit driven market this is not possible. One of two things happen. Either the well intentioned capitalists get driven out of business by the more cost efficient but less conciensous producers or they succumb to the pressure of if you can't beat 'em join 'em. Thats why you need the commanding heights of the economy in public hands under a DEMOCRATIC plan of production.
BohsPartisan
You are obviously a very intelligent individual who uses their thought process to engage in often enlightening and somewhat egotisitical debates on what is good for the world. I enjoy and agree with a lot of your statements but there has been one thing that has been bugging me for ages .
Are you Hyde from the Thats 70 Show ;)
No, he's my father in law.Quote:
Originally Posted by First
Rofl :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
I hate to sound stupid, but what does this mean............I know LMAO, NSFW........but rofl?
cheers.
Ireland.com: UN Climate Panel Report
Hardly brings anything new to the debate as just summaries other reports...Quote:
The UN climate panel issued its strongest warning yet today that human activities are heating the planet.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the most authoritative group on warming, comprising 2,500 scientists from more than 130 nations, predicted more severe rains, melting glaciers, droughts, heatwaves and rising sea levels, especially if Antarctica or Greenland thaw.
The final text said it was "very likely", or a probability of more than 90 per cent, that human activities led by burning fossil fuels explained most of the warming in the past 50 years.
That is a toughening from the last report, in 2001, when the IPCC said the link was "likely", or 66 per cent probable. Signs of change range from drought in Australia to record high January temperatures in Europe.
I know, all these "revelations" they are coming out with are things the dogs in the street knew about 15 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BohsPartisan
ya, we could do with some sun editor in there to sensationalise something that is actually worthy of bringing to the attention to the masses(compare to big brother,argh:eek: ) i'd like to see a survey done asking people what they knew about global warming, i bet they'd no more about jade goody's early teenage years spent on a pig farm in deepest devon
by the way i read that socialist manifesto on the environment. i'd agree with a lot of it, its pretty comprehensive and given its four years old the current situation is shown up even more. but do you realistically think a united socialist front can sweep the world soon enough to solve the problem? if mankind can live a happy life under socialism could we not also bind under capitalism and evoke our survival instincts?
i just stumbled across a funny(in light of the above) story from one of the contributors of earlier reports on hurricanes and their link to global warming. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...1a1380121a&k=0
in short the man says that there was a press release saying that there was a causal link between global warming and hurricanes before any scientists concluded or advised on the issue, so he resigned his position on the study. todays report is the first one without him. hurricanes are very odd and tend to be cyclical and influenced by a range of factors such that their study doesnt lend itself to conclusive answers. i guess the moral is that scientists hate to be misrepresented, which adds further credence to todays report, and that people in power are willing to adapt and shape the truth for their benefit
carbon emissions per capita
Some very surprising figures & Ireland highest of Western Europe countries with Denmark (you would think they a Green country) just behind us. As those figures a few years out of date we will definitely be higher up the list now.
Ireland is addicated to fossil fuels so maybe time for the nuclear debate again.
i think that all this hype should serve to make politicans take more responsibity especially america. with america not in the kyoto protcol it is really only a joke. it will not work unless we all change. and we need to change
Surely a partial solution is to plant a lot more trees. Scandanavian countries probably have lower Net figures as their land mass covered in trees. Ireland has very few trees left.
Starting to see the effects all ready i had to cut the grass today :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
you have a point that our national level of emissions would be improved with more trees. however any gains we make will pale in light of the continuing destruction of the Amazon, a truly harrowing scenario. at current rates of deforestation it will be gone within a hundred years, and with it the wonderful flora and fauna that conjure mystical images of centuries old tribes, carnivorous fish and treetops bustling with chirping chicks inhaling their first sweet scent of forest life. a lot of global warming is a vicious cycle of ironic causes and effects. and here is no different as two thirds of brazil's co2 emissions are a result of the burning and logging of the world's lungs, our mightiest forest:eek:
wasnt it the english that burned most of our trees round plantation time, god, irony seems to be following me like a long shadow on a sunny summers day(when you look back at it you've no idea how it got there nor are you pleased to see it, you just know mistakes were made and the missus shoudnt fill you with wine at lunch):)
from unison.ie (indo)
Read the rest...Quote:
German car-makers weaken new EU green law
GERMAN car manufacturers have succeeded in weakening new pan-European rules designed to reduce emissions from new vehicles.
The heads of BMW, Volkswagen and DaimlerChrysler took part in last-minute lobbying to block proposals that would have forced manufacturers to make lighter cars with smaller, more fuel-efficient engines.
They demanded that Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, withdraw a proposed new emissions standard, claiming that the German industry, which makes most of its profits from large, fuel-hungry cars, would be penalised unfairly.
with the support of angela merkel too, i thought women would have been more sympathetic and in touch with their environmental side, i guess german women are different.
scientists and economists offered money to dispute climate report.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2007/0202/1170363380564.html
shows how bad things are. one line sums it up nicely; "They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."
Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
hmmm, looks like you may have hit the nail on the head, or tree with the saw. check thishttp://www.economist.com/daily/columns/greenview/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8653021&fsrc=RSS
it out. the piece contains one brilliant quote from a fund manager; "Even with 25 years of civil war,trees grow."
Read the restQuote:
Originally Posted by ireland.com
If we grew more trees in Ireland could build more timber frame hosues which are more environmentally sound as well as reducing timber imports. More supply means timber prices would drop too so cheaper houses.
The big problem is still Carbon emissions. That means in addition to planting trees we need to investigate alternative fuel sources and fast.