h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>WTF??! Why should countries with average incomes of $9,000 and life expectancy 25 years behind us slow down? *WE* should slow down.

Oof! That was kinda my point - inadequately expressed. In a market system dependent on growth, how are we going to convince developing countries that they can't pull themselves up? And how are we going to convince ourselves to move away from a growth-dependent mode?

Ooh! Torygraph readers!

RF, are you saying that the West doesn't have a bigger eco-footprint or whatever than your average Kenyan?

SWL; yes! Especially when they steal our jobs and shag our women!

I agree that immigration *does* increase environmental impact. But, let's be honest, that's utterly irrelevant in the big picture. I wonder how much it'd compare to the Heathrow expansion, or the green light to new coal-fired power stations. Let it go on this thread, eh?

And, of course, if SWL's concern were really the environment, he could always offset immigration by moving to Kenya and consuming less.

>>Making it happen doesn't have to mean the end of capitalism; it will strengthen it if anything.

OK, so...if there are business opportunities in saving the planet...why aren't they being pursued at present?

Well, re the carbon market: if you own a forest near Balmoral, you can do* two things. One, keep it as a forest; two, clear the forest and set up a grouse shooting business. Even though we know that keeping CO2 out the air is good for everyone, it wouldn't profit you a penny not to clear the forest. If there was a market in CO2 emissions, it might be worth your while not to clear it. At the mo, where's the business opportunity?

If there was a CO2 market, there would be all sorts of opportunities for businesses to manage forests. Just now, there isn't.

*But*...assuming a market were created. Where does the money come from to pay for the forest?


Think of it this way...let's say we were to all plant trees to capture carbon. Wouldn't our tree planting involve the consumption of labour that might otherwise be expended on...building a car?...building something else that could be sod to yield a wage to buy a car?

What will convince us to divert the labour (=money) into saving the planet?



I've just been watching an *excellent* South Park about the economy. Catchable at 23:00 GMT on Paramount Comedy 1 + 1

Well, income depends on capital, whether it's you doing your job and getting paid well cos you've got an education and experience (human capital), or whether it's somebody living off the interest from the £5m in the bank. It seems to me that just now we're generating our income (GDP) by running down natural capital (ie the carbon cyclye, fisheries etc). If we realise that what creates 'wealth' is actually merely creating income, and that we're actually destroying wealth every day, then we're halfway home.

We don't even know how to work out if we're getting 'wealthier'.

>> RF, are you saying that the West doesn't have a bigger eco-footprint or whatever than your average Kenyan? <<

Nope. I'm saying "don't trust any information that comes from the WHO".

This is based on my previous experience of misinformation, bad information, and downright lies published by the WHO.

RF

All better stats are gratefull received.

<>

Really? If the figure of 132x is accurate allied with UN estimates of up to 20 million immigrants to the UK alone in the next few decades, aren't we talking about a significant rise in Western consumption?

Three years ago the WHO were trying to convince us all that we would all die of related death from China, remember?

In true 1984 style, however, they've changed all the information that they used to publish on their website about how we were all going to die. So I guess I'm like Mel Gibson in "Conspiracy Theory" now.

RF

So is that an argument against immigration or for the developed world cutting back?

My argument is against basing anything on information published by the WHO.

RF

I've no problem with an evening-out. The West switches to low carbon technologies, the developing world builds up industries. Create opportunities in the Third World so there's less pressure to move to the West.

Except of course then we'll hear the predictable whining about sweatshops & the like.

RF:
>>Three years ago the WHO were trying to convince us all that we would all die of related death from China, remember?

nnnNooo...the WHO were telling us that there were incidences of a previously unknown virus that seemed to be capable of rapid mutation and transmission between species. But the actual risk was unknown.

I hardly think it's fair to rubbish all WHO statistics because of the way that some information from them has been reported in the meeja.

The WHO probably gets its information from Wikipedia

SWL.

Compared to China and India getting wealthier all the time, as well as most of SE Asia, yes. It's trifling, as you probably know (wasn't the two coal stations a week in China last year's hobby-horse?).

RF, like I said, if you have better stats, let's see them. If the actual figure is 20X or 40X it doesn't really change the argument, does it?

Pedro - 20 million people consuming 132 times what they used to is trifling? Why the hell should I use low energy lightbulbs then?

To be fair, Ed...I researched this very deeply when I was working as an insurance analyst at the time. It was my job to analyse the effects of a pandemic on the markets I was covering at the time.

The WHO *were* publishing a lot of misinformation and bad information. They have now removed this garbage from their website. I also researched all the scientific and research data and compared it to the WHO information.

I have no faith in what they publish because they are, in effect, international civil servants with their agenda being pushed by various interest groups who ultimately pay their salaries.

RF

<>

It was 32 times. And not all the people were from freakin' Kenya ya numpty (again, as you well know). And against 2 1/2 to 3 *billion* people doubling their impact every 10-12 years it means <bleep) all.

RF, was this the same dept of the UN who collated these figures (as if you'd know, cos I thought it was more a theoretical argument anyway)?