Off Topic Political Debate

No.... To get there as Yorkie says probably have to sell your soul, it is a game that has to be played but can be played by anyone.... On your point about giving this is a tough one, I prefer that not to be public and I do not respond to campaigns or those asking as I have time and means to research and give where I think the needs are greatest in an informed and non emotive way. When in my red Jesus is a communist youth late one night my parents ardent labour supporting Christians answered the door to a down and out who they gave short shrift to and sent packing. I picked them up on it at the time and they agreed they should have offered food and shelter but human instinct of family protection kicked in. Regarding beggars on the streets I would not begrudge asking if they needed food and popping into a sandwich shop for them but just giving cash can be counter productive. Better to eliminate the problem with proper safety net and making it illegal in my opinion.

 

I am sure that genetics, environment education and many other factors affect it - but it is sometimes quite obvious when you are faced with someone either very clever or very stupid - I am sure in btween measures are difficult but that does not mean it does not exist. Also there is intellectual intelligence and sheer "nous"

 

Rarest and most valuable seems to be common sense. I despair sometimes of the youth of today now I am sounding old. My kids for example never put observations or what they're told to a simple smell test and come home at times with some ridiculous statements based on what they've been told, kids ages by the way vary from 21 to 25 and all been through University so in no way not intelligent but as you say lack nous......

 

Nobody talked about judging others. I want to live in a society where we care about others less fortunate than ourselves and offer help and support both personally and collectively through social welfare. I also want a decent education system that educates all as best they can - and a health system that means people are well enough to receive help education and support. But I think most people want that. I would lay odds David Cameron and George Osborne do too - no matter how they are Corbyn- style vilified by some. But these things in today's society are taken as read. The political debate is how to improve society in total - and whether that means economic or social society - and also who benefits how much , when and where. My main argument is that if you do not create wealth then sharing it out becomes harder

 

Yes don't disagree.....

 

This is all very well Leo, but. Wealth creation normally involves growth - is it possible to imagine infinite growth in a World of finite resources ? There is a natural limit to all growth. Already, if the whole World used resources at the same rate as the UK, Germany, USA. we would need the resources of 4 and a half planets to keep pace. At some stage we must come to a time where we decide we have enough wealth and that what is needed, from that stage, is better distribution. Or we need to rediscover the concept of 'quality of life' ie. that this is not inextricably connected to possession of material goods, and does involve things like community, environment etc.

 

You could of course argue that protecting resources and using them more effectively can in itself stimulate growth. It has certainly worked for the Scandinavians. It would take a big change in mindset but it is doable - and the prizes for doing so are huge.

 

Ah the four and a half planets argument again. Let's face it the whole world will never equalise up to the USA, UK etc and if they did those countries would move on further. The sun's resources are to all intents and purposes infinite so with the proper capture of infinite energy and sensible population reduction there is a good Green case to be made. Let's all enjoy consuming what we want and develop technology and introduce birth control.

 

Presuming that we can go on consuming at the rate we are but just with different technology is like trusting in Godot. It is what I have described elsewhere as a technofix solution, just about as sensible as telling a chain smoker that he should carry on with his habit because there may, one day, be a 100% cure for all his bronchial problems. Is it not just possible to admit that there might just be a limit to growth, as in all other things. I am 1,90 in height - I did not have the power to decide to carry on growing, the same goes for my feet and the rest of me. The same principles apply imo. in every sphere of human activity - when firms get too large they lose their human qualities, people get further and further away from the environmental results of their actions and the very freedoms which you cherish start disappearing because of their monopolies (which, ironically, lead to the very same lack of choice as found in the old Communist states).

 

Not sure your use of analogies ever helps. There are rarely only two options a) or b)
It makes sense to do reasonable things to not deliberately harm the planet. Back to my eco-light option from the environmental thread. However the population is the real problem - if everyone were to halve their consumption throughout the entire world we would be back to where we are now on the next doubling of the population - what is that 50 years or so? Greens need to understand that and however unpopular that is the real issue they need to push - until they do that they are just not a credible force.

 

And so Leo you are asking that the Green Party try to support something which, as far as I know, no party in any democracy has ever dared to suggest. We all know that birth control is desirable and, in truth, the best thing I can do for the environment is not to have children - but a political party which goes down this path would commit electoral suicide. Politics is not about having fundamentalist doctrines and being in permanent opposition it is about trying to get those things done which can be done. Other than asking people to have fewer children (ie. convincing 15 year old mother of 5 Tracey Smith from Luton to finally put a cork in it) how would you propose pressing the issue ?

 

If you are passionate about an issue which the Greens appear to be and the answer is obvious - which it is then I am afraid it is up to the supporters of that cause to find ways to argue and popularise it. I am not a Green so offer no suggestions. Giving people a list of things which are almost equally unpopular and which people can't and won't do is not a credible response. Did you know there were 40,000 people at the Paris meeting apparently. What was that carbon footprint. Did you know there are going to be another 2500 coal power stations built in the next 15 years despite Paris?
We all know nothing concrete will come of it because people / nations follow paths that suit them rather than the overall common good. China are opening a coal power station every week.

 

Two wrongs do not make a right Leo.....what China decides to do I cannot directly influence other than to say that I will not be filling up Christmas stockings or baskets with cheap toys and appliances which were 'Made in China'. Unfortunately it is often the European consumer who is just as responsible for Chinese emissions as they are themselves. I can only influence what is close to me Leo.....and that is Engelskirchen (40 Km. east of Cologne) where I work in local politics and do what I can. If someone chooses to fly to Paris for this conference and claim that they are 'Green' I can do nothing about that (they are welcome to their illusion) I do know some German and Belgian Greens who went there by bicycle ! I am aware that some countries will be building coal fired power stations over the next few years - I can do no more than boycott their products. It is enough for me to be working on a developmental concept for Engelskirchen and what the town will be like in 10 years time - at the moment the Carbon Footprint of the town is 11.7 tons Co2 per head and if I can work together with others to reduce that then I am happy. The ethos of the Green Party is 'think global' but 'act local' and more of us should be doing just that.

 

We know that population control/reduction is absolutely necessary for the survival of the human race. In the do gooders world everything that can be done to eliminate natural population control (war, famine disease) is controlled and deemed undesirable. Maybe there is an unpublished elite political agenda to create a few wars here and there and allow disease to spread to a limited extent. By the time we get anywhere close to using up earths resources we'll all be long gone, i for one would like to think that the capitalists will find a way to push out into space anyway and my descendents can leave the earth to those who want to live in caves and loin skins for 20 to 30 years per generation....

 

It is very difficult to find things in France which are not made in China. You can find similar products sometimes that are made in France, but at double the price at the very least. Some people cannot afford to buy the home produced items. E.g A Chinese electrical socket €2.20. A French one €7.40

Our wonderful President flew from Paris to the voting station last Sunday which is a three hour drive or train journey, then back to Paris while the environmental talks were in progress. A great example for the host. No doubt he will do it again this coming weekend, but he could have registered in Paris where he lives and walked to cast his vote.

As you may have noticed on others threads I have been doing a lot of research recently on wind turbines. I have noticed that Germany has been forced to fire up some of the old coal fired stations because the wind has not revolved the sails enough and there is a shortage of power. Turbines in the north and solar panels in the south, yet the two nuclear plants that have been closed, which created a steady output needed for the days when the other systems fail, have been replaced by really bad lignite burning brown coal. Prior to reigniting these power plants 27% of Germany's electricity was generated by burning this high carbon content material, so what is the Green supposed to do? Refuse to use electricity?

 

No, simply use as little of it as he can. Between Cologne, Aachen and Mönchengladbach you can find Garzweiler 2, which is apparently the biggest hole in Europe - 88 Square Km. open caste lignite mining (brown coal) - the worst form there is. Right next to this is a power station, the smoke from which can be seen from my house (80 Km. away) - although I do live 300 metres above see level which helps. I have been to Garzweiler as a demonstrator on 2 occasions and can personally do no more - all I can do is to feel responsible for my own carbon footprint and try to reduce that as far as is possible.

 

Leo, in order to claim that population growth is the main problem you would need to be able to say that there is a 'natural' level of population density in relation to available resources - as far as I know, no such study exists. The Americans have a very low population density in relation to Europe yet are (per head) the worst sinners in terms of emissions. The Greens can only hope to have influence through working together with other parties (eg. in coalitions) because the choices of the future are sometimes so difficult that no one party should be blamed for them. If the Greens are grappling with problems which no other party is facing up to, and which have no precedent, then mistakes will be made. When all parties in the UK. get together and say 'we abide by the decision to reduce our emissions by so and so % by this or that year` and produce a plan to that effect - then the Green Party will no longer be necessary.

 

I do not need to say there is a natural level of population density at all and it concerns me if Greens believe that. What does "natural" mean anyway? "ideal" could be a measure but why bother? Just reduce the population - you know it makes sense.
People consume - less people consume less - that is all anyone needs to know.
If there are 8 billion people on this planet and that were cut by three quarters then resource useage (other things being equal) would also drop by three quarters. You do not have to have any study to tell you that the first 75% of energy reduction could come from the "bad" energy sources. Tell me I am wrong.
I repeat that the Greens MUST start to advocate population reduction. Every Green supporter should be trying to persuade his or her branch to push for it. Since when did the Greens only advocate popular policy? They should start by advocating an end to tax subsidies for having children. If the Greens will not advocate the case for the most obviously beneficial policy on Earth then they cannot be taken seriously.

 

Leo maybe you 'should' become a Green if that is what you think?

Then you can input what YOU believe?

I have voted Green many times and I am 'for' some of their policies and 'not for' others.

 

'You know it makes sense' - now where have I heard that before . Simply reducing population is not enough Leo.....it needs to be selective, can we start with the USA ? It is perfectly possible to keep some population growth (although there have been some studies recently which suggest that this will peek and then fall if left to itself) and reduce the World's carbon footprint - I believe to zero. Even the most optimistic cases are only talking about a return to the Co2 levels of the 1980s - we are not talking about returning to the stone age - it is possible and we need optimists. Talking about population reduction gets us nowhere because where do you start ? Of course we favour birth control - reducing tax help for families ? Or child allowances ? Ok. but any party which advocated that would be permanently frozen out of politics - and therefore unable to achieve anything. When the Greens tentatively spoke about a 'meat free' day of the week it came over as about as popular as a floating turd in a swimming pool - yet it makes sense. How else can we talk about reducing population other than through giving our consent either to war, spreading of disease, enforced sterilization or ethnic cleansing.....and I am sure Leo that neither of us would welcome those things. We need to be speaking about what is possible.