Climate Change

Abe F. March wrote:

From relatives and friends I know, they are not willing to adjust and feel that if they own a piece of land they can do with it what they want.  If they have money, they can spend it any way they desire.  It doesn’t matter if their actions may infringe on a neighbor or their fellow-man, it is everyone for himself.   

My father owns farm land, a strip of which is natural marshland (swamp). This land lies between the road and a disused coal mine. When the mine was working, the owners rented the land from my father to gain access to the mine. They put in pumps to drain the land and laid a path from the road to the mine. When the mine closed, the pumps stopped and the land returned to its natural marshland state. Conservationists arrived and slapped a conservation order on the land to protect the natural habitat and ensure that the land could not be used for any purpose, agricultural or otherwise.

To conserve undeveloped land in the UK, the government set up Brownfield Development programs to encourage planners to re-use industrial land:

http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/brownfield-development

"'Brownfield' land is an area of land or premises that has been previously used, but has subsequently become vacant, derelict or contaminated. This term derived from its opposite, undeveloped or 'greenfield' land. Brownfield sites typically require preparatory regenerative work before any new development goes ahead, and can also be partly occupied."

Those who pollute should be held responsible.

5/8/2014

                 I agree. Here in the USA unlike Europe distances are far and wide
                 unless you live in a major city. To ride a bike one would take one's
                 life in your own hands, drivers are nuts ! I was thinking about a
                 horse and buggy ? Could start a new trend , at one time that's 
                 all that was used in this country before the railroad. I've come to
                 the conclusion the oil industry, car industry don't want the American
                 public to use small cars, if the Govt. is so dam adament about the
                 conservation then Congress could pass a law that starting on a
                 certain date American public must buy small efficient cars, trucks
                 only for farmers and deliveries. I really think no one has the answers.
                 I believe Europe all of it has the right ideas, as usual we're too slow
                 to catch on or Congress is being paid off with suitcases of money..

                                               Cheers.. Joe

"or Congress is being paid off with suitcases of money."

Has anybody considered the fact that we are discussing this?  Publicly?  Online?

Are these discussions, in and of themselves, a sign of waking up to a reality that we can no longer give blind trust to the media who have been reporting our "news" for a long time?

Our anger is just another sign that a major shift in the way we perceive the world around us has already taken place.

How can we continue to say that there is no possibility for change?  We are in the middle of enormous change, and the old ways of doing things are no longer acceptable.

Abe F. March wrote:

Those who pollute should be held responsible.

I agree. The polluters include every driver of every vehicle that uses oil-based products: gasoline, petrol, diesel etc.

alj wrote:

Has anybody considered the fact that we are discussing this?  Publicly?  Online?

Are these discussions, in and of themselves, a sign of waking up to a reality that we can no longer give blind trust to the media who have been reporting our "news" for a long time?

Our anger is just another sign that a major shift in the way we perceive the world around us has already taken place.

How can we continue to say that there is no possibility for change?  We are in the middle of enormous change, and the old ways of doing things are no longer acceptable.

Are you saying that the farmers in the 1930s were ignorant of the damage they were doing until the dust drove them off the land? If so, until the American economy collapses, Americans will continue to use up the resources available to them. Only then will they find a new way of life.

Are you guys in the UK doing away with cars and going back to horses and buggies, Shelagh?

Yes, according to this study, car ownership is falling:

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/1222278/generation-y-will-end-uks-love-affair-car-ownership-claims-study

Backed up by this article in The Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7652609/Britons-turning-back-on-car-ownership-as-cost-of-motoring-soars.html

It's hard to define a typical American of whatever generation, the country is so diverse - culturally, politically, economically, and geographically.

Different groups have different values. DK said we were unique as a country. We are also a country of unique communities and individuals.

No stereotypes here that I know.

Just me.

5/8/2014

                        I guess the horse and buggy is a better idea.
                        The Amish have the right idea..Horse & Buggy.

                                       Cheers.. Joe

The number of electric cars is on the increase:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/03/uk-electric-car-sales-speed-up

alj wrote:

It's hard to define a typical American of whatever generation, the country is so diverse - culturally, politically, economically, and geographically.

Different groups have different values.  DK said we were unique as a country.  We are also a country of unique communities and individuals.

No stereotypes here that I know.

Just me.

I wasn't asking about typical Americans. I was treating them as a whole made up of atypical groups, same as any other nation. Same with the farmers in the 1930s; they were just as individual as the present day population. However, they all suffered the same consequences when the land became barren.

ETA: The weather/climate doesn't differentiate between typical and atypical Americans.

5/8/2014

                  From what I read of the dust bowl of the 1920's and 1930's, it
                  was caused by so many trees being pulled up from the land and
                  creating farms, when it rained everything was washed away, 
                  there was nothing to hold the soil, no roots...I still say horses
                  are the way to go, cheaper than cars...

                                                        Cheers.. Joe

I like it better when we are all just a bunch of people who like to write stuff.   

... but this thread was started because someone wanted to bring about change. I was the only one who said that climate change was not caused by human activity. However, I do accept that for those who do believe that human activity influenced climate change, the only solution is for EVERYONE to change.

If you heated your home with coal fires and received a fortnightly delivery of coal from your local coal merchant, eventually the chimneys in your home would require cleaning. Would you expect the coal merchant to pay the chimney sweep because he supplied the coal that produced the soot? Or would you expect the owner of the coal mine to pay because he is responsible for the coal coming out of the ground? All you did was burn the coal. Shouldn't they pay to deal with the polluting soot and not you?

5/8/2014

                  I'm ahead of everyone, I have a fireplace that burns gel fuel,
                  it's non toxic, no smoke, no fumes, burns for three hours, if
                  you light two cans it can heat a room in fifteen minutes. I
                  think we should start using kerosean lamps, Candles for light.
                  

                                               Cheers..Joe..  

I'm in agreement with Shelagh on the last several posts.  We are all responsible and it has nothing to do with diversity or location.  Looking back can bring insight, but it is not possible to return to the old ways.  That doesn't mean on an individual basis one can't go back.  Joe wants his horses, however with that comes other problems.  Would horse droppings be tolerated and accepted?  To return to the old ways isn't just a single act, but would require the infrastructure and mentality in place at that time.  The Amish didn't go back; they just didn't go forward with modern ways.  They are tolerated since they have proven to be responsible.  They care about nature and live off the land.  They build their own homes/farms and are for the most part, self-efficient.  They have been required to equip their buggies/wagons with lights when on the road at night after numerous road accidents.  They now use batteries for lights and switch them on when they hear an approaching car.
 
I think much of the problem has to do with quality.  We have become a throw-away society.  Repair is something of the past.  What is thrown away created other problems as with proper disposal.  Recycling in America is still having problems since it is done by private industry, and if they can’t make a profit, they don’t do it.  That’s where public services (Government) are needed to do the right thing and not the profitable thing.  Separating garbage is a big thing is some countries, and it is enforced, i.e., one does not throw an old battery into the garbage.  Glass has made a comeback replacing plastic.  It is safer and easy to recycle.
 
In the past, products were built to last.  Industry didn’t like that.  They wanted increased sales and therefore built products with a short life cycle.  Fast and cheap is the culprit.  How many shoe repair shops do you see – if any?  It is cheaper to buy a new pair than to repair the old ones.  Why?  Imports from the Far East are a major cause.  Cheap and fast also applies to home building.  They can make a structure look nice with cosmetic facing, but the structure is vulnerable to storms and deterioration.  People like quality, but don’t want to pay for it.  One usually gets what they pay for.  Do it right the first time and you don’t have to do it over again, at least not as often.

dkchristi wrote:

I do agree with you on this one, Shelagh.  Our taxing system is way out of whack, favoring the wealthy with little or no taxes and burdening the working class with what taxes are in the system.  When I was working and making a decent income to cover basic living expenses and have some disposable, I often said I was willing to pay more tax to protect the environment, insure healthcare for everyone, food, shelter and education.  My acquaintances said I was nuts and should go live in Europe then where I could pay all the taxes I wanted to and not have the choices I have in the U.S.  Well, I see my choices as going broke from health risks, seeing hard working people struggling to make ends meet under the current tax structure and seeing a lousy K-12 education system only saved by the greatness of the post-secondary education system.  We have pockets of poverty and children who are hungry.  I am embarrassed.

It isn't all good in the UK and all bad in the US. The extremely wealthy in the UK pay high taxes and, therefore, are unwilling to make the kind of charitable donations they made in the past. Conversely, Americans continue to give generously to alumni and local worthy causes, they prefer to have control over their money instead of it being used across the whole of the country to the benefit of a community three thousand miles away on the other side of the country.

I read an article about the fall in philanthropy in today's Independent newspaper (which I buy and read daily in print), and found the article on line here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-tradition-of-philanthropy-has-seemingly-died-out-in-the-uk-9339812.html?origin=internalSearch

Very insightful article.  The argument against taxing the wealthy has often been that they contribute on their own through philanthropy.  Or in this country, that they provide jobs. The glitch here is that philanthropy is often to their own alma maters and charities that support more of their own kind and unevenly distributed philanthropy that still leaves children in need, hungry, and a pitiful hodgepodge of uneven elementary through high school education systems.

No balance will please everyone.  Our taxing system gives generous breaks to those who donate - generous such that donating for the tax breaks far exceeds true philanthropy.  While we can look to England as a message that balance needs to be found that still encourages philanthropy but doesn't allow the wealthiest 1% of the nation, whose income consistently rises while the rest sink lower, to pay zero taxes for the benefits of the nation in which they reside and from which they gained their opportunities for wealth.

They are not adding jobs to the U.S. economy.  They are sending them overseas every day in spite of our economy desperately needing jobs for our college graduates and for those whose lost jobs in the recession have not been recovered.

Health care, shelter, food, clothing and education are still wanting in many communities.  I live next door to one of the wealthiest counties in Florida and right up there in the nation.  My church just took up a donation to collect ninety sets of summer clothes for the children at the elementary school down the street.  Many of those children during the school year miss school for lack of shoes.  My church is not wealthy people but mostly retired people on limited incomes.

It is common in this country for people of limited means to participate in charitable giving beyond their capacity to give.  It is truly a calling.  However, their tireless work to build the food pantries, the clothes closets and tutorial programs for children not getting what they need in school should not be necessary in a country of extreme wealth such as the U.S.  We have pockets of poverty equal to third world countries. 

The wealthy in this country look at the few fraudulent social service users and say the poor in this country compare to the wealthy in other countries - they all have tv's and cell phones.  Some social service programs even provide cell phones!  Well, that's their only phone and is to help them obtain employment and communicate for emergencies. 

The answers to all these issues of waste and want are so complex that it is easy to take a strong position and not waver or to just give up. 

I have friends who are downsizing to smaller places and all those collections of "stuff" are being given away. The younger generations don't want our silver and our china.  They want their own if any at all.  All these things in which we put such value will just be tossed upon our death and actually be a burden to the tosser.  How much better to have just what we need and provide the rest to those who have none?

I have mentioned before my friends in Butzbach who had a modest home up on a hill.  The father rode his bike to and from work daily.  He had a wound on his face from serving on the Russian front during WWII.  They owned apartments in Frankfurt and were quite wealthy before the war.  The mother said as she huddled in the basement of one with her arms wrapped around her children and her husband in the war and the bombs hurtling down destroying all their property that nothing mattered except her children and her spouse.  After the war, they started over in the small town of Butzbach and lived a modest life with a small garden and family activities. 

Sometimes I think our drive for bigger houses that use more energy, bigger cars that destroy the environment, throw away clothes to stay in fashion, cheap food to eat in excess, and more - perhaps it's to fill voids in our life for which we should find other more generous ways of living so that what we have is sufficient and striving for more is to benefit the community, not just the individual.

I often interview small family business people.  They are such a pleasure, so eager to share how they started with nothing and now have a few to many employees and a growing business.  Most of them have shared their growth with long-term employees, not just moving ahead but contributing along the way to their employee families and to the community.  So, it's not all hopeless.

Good post, DK.  I can relate and agree with your post.

5/9/2014

                       I've down sized, it's true what DK says neither relatives or 
                       children want what we've collected. So I found a great
                       solution , I keep what really means something to me and I
                       donate everything I don't want to " The Barking Attic," it's
                       thrift shop run by an animal shelter, they sell furniture, etc.
                       and the money goes to feed the dogs, cats and their medical.
                       At least I know where it's going to, helping the animals.

                                                     Cheers... Joe  

Joe, you are doing a good thing.
I think many are horders by nature.  I like to keep things, just in case.  Often the "just in case" is useful.  More often than not, it just occupies space.

I have lots of  in case items. Then I put them away so well I can't find them.

Scott VanderWal, South Dakota Farm Bureau president, criticized the White House report. ... he said:

“This climate change thing, in my opinion, is the biggest hoax that’s ever been placed upon the people of the world. It’s all a political thing.”

http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2014/05/07/climate-report-drastic-changes-looming-farming/8795741/