UN chief: economic model an environmental threat - BusinessWeekUN chief: economic model an environmental threat
DAVOS, SWITZERLAND
U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon says the current economic model is an environmental "global suicide pact" that will result in disaster if it isn't reformed.
He says political and business leaders need to embrace an economic "revolution" in order to save the planet.
Is he trying to say you can't have unlimited growth on finite resources? Clearly he's some kind of Commie!
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
Pfft! I'm sure they did."His words received a mixed reception from fellow panelists including Mexico's President Felipe Calderon, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Walmart CEO Mike Duke and Microsoft's Bill Gates."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Originally Posted by ibis
And what do they do with Commies!
I wonder, in the end, will it come to some kind of enforced birth control to restrict the human population, if nature does not do it first.
The so-called Green revolution was for the most part a revolution in using oil to produce food. Maybe food scarcity will impact before significant climate change.
Perhaps not. Methane release from tundra (which I first recall reading about in 1990) may well get the ball rolling once things warm up a little.
Science stunner: Vast East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane stores destabilizing and venting « Climate Progress
P.S. Is Bono going to sing for them after the dinner at Davos?
Population is not the problem, unequal overconsumption is.
Monbiot.com » The Population Myth
"A paper published yesterday in the journal Environment and Urbanization shows that the places where population has been growing fastest are those in which carbon dioxide has been growing most slowly, and vice versa. Between 1980 and 2005, for example, Sub-Saharan Africa produced 18.5% of the world’s population growth and just 2.4% of the growth in CO2. North America turned out 4% of the extra people, but 14% of the extra emissions. Sixty-three per cent of the world’s population growth happened in places with very low emissions(2).
Even this does not capture it. The paper points out that around one sixth of the world’s population is so poor that it produces no significant emissions at all. This is also the group whose growth rate is likely to be highest. Households in India earning less than 3,000 rupees a month use a fifth of the electricity per head and one seventh of the transport fuel of households earning Rs30,000 or more. Street sleepers use almost nothing. Those who live by processing waste (a large part of the urban underclass) often save more greenhouse gases than they produce."
Efficient, democratic provision of public goods for all is the way to go. The world has had a food surplus for decades since the end of WWII, yet millions go hungry. While a carbon market might ameliorate things, a market economy simply won't solve this one long term.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And a commie with a grudge at that!!!!
I think Ban Ki Moon is a couple of decades too late. Tipping point has been reached and passed for the planet. The political will isn't there for change and even if it was it would take a decade to implement meaningful change.
On the upside, things should stay relatively stable and the status quo prevail until I ascend into heaven. So that's good.
"Mother came to us destitute. Brings a child into the world, takes one look at him and promptly dies without leaving so much as a forwarding name and address" Mr. Bumble
He must be retiring soon. Unusal for one of those to break ranks.
The mods have now certified me as being a sweet and reasonable human being and Supreme Leader of the P.ie muppet alliance.
When I lived in Washington DC (in or about 1992) my wife's friend invited us over to her house for dinner and drinks.Her husband (a Swede) worked for the World Bank. One of his colleagues (a Brazilian) from the Bank was also there. Anyway, I got into an argument with these two guys about the merits of socialism(this was not long after the fall of the Iron Curtain). Their argument was that socialism (and a fortiori Communism) was a complete failure and specifically an environmental disaster (at this stage the dirty industries of the Eastern Block were open for all to see). They were absolutely sold on the ideology that only market forces can deliver optimum economic results. They had me well beaten in the argument. I still think about that discussion after nearly twenty years.
The one point I forgot to mention was the broader adverse effect which the economy of the West has had on the global environment. Things like the disproportionate share of global greenhouse gases emitted by the West. Also the fact that the apparent abundance and riches of the West compared to the Eastern Block masked the future costs inherent in an unsustainable model. Oil is just one key product that the West (and newly Westernised areas) is consuming to the point of non-existence. There are many other essential natural things in finite quantities that our Western lifestyles cannot consume except to rapid extinction. Fish, Phosphates(agriculture), rainforest and many many more. We hope that technological advances may save our bacon but we have hopes, no more than that.
Ban Ki Moon is absolutely right but he is a bit late to be bringing it to our attention now. We have managed to sell our Western ideas to a whole bunch of states and they too are busily in the rat race to hoover up what little is left to be consumed.
In response to this, Bill Gates said that it would not be fair to arrest the development of poor countries. Rather we should promote population control. But this would not solve the problem because even countries with declining populations are growing their total consumption - the real evil in Ban Ki Moon's eyes. So how does one go about meaningfully stabilizing consumption growth?
Moon states that the current model is unsustainable so maybe it's case that growth can continue so long as it is sustainable? But given that people are living longer and we need to consume more to do so, things are sustainable as is.
I think this is the Club of Rome concept all over again. I also feel it is inextricably linked with AGW alarmism.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote