If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Global warming hypocrisy.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
The title of my thread says it all. Why are westerners so hypocritical about global warming? The phenomenon has existed for a very long time and was accentuated by us Westerners from the industrial revolution onwards. The United States is still the country that emits the most amount of CO2 on a yearly basis and 7 out of 10 of the most polluting countries in the world are "Western" and "developped" countries. ( http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions) And yet, we blame countries like China and India for the pollution they cause with their "uncontrolled" socio-economic and industrial growth...
Why is it that it's not OK for these countries to pollute during their development process, but it was OK for the USA and other Western countries to pollute when they needed it? I'm beginning to think there are huge double standards in western societies when it comes to the environment. This is also reflected in the way for example Iran is being treated for their quest of Nuclear power. Does every sovereign nation not have the right to have access to technology? Is technology only reserved for "developped" and "civilised" countries? Even if they wanted it for a nuclear weapon, I would still say they have every right to have it. If Israel have it and the world's biggest rogue state, the United States have it, then so should Iran.
My point is that the West has always been hypocritical when it comes to the development of non-Western countries, who only have the right to do things the way the West wants them to be done.
Why is it that it's not OK for these countries to pollute during their development process, but it was OK for the USA and other Western countries to pollute when they needed it? I'm beginning to think there are huge double standards in western societies when it comes to the environment. This is also reflected in the way for example Iran is being treated for their quest of Nuclear power. Does every sovereign nation not have the right to have access to technology? Is technology only reserved for "developped" and "civilised" countries? Even if they wanted it for a nuclear weapon, I would still say they have every right to have it. If Israel have it and the world's biggest rogue state, the United States have it, then so should Iran.
My point is that the West has always been hypocritical when it comes to the development of non-Western countries, who only have the right to do things the way the West wants them to be done.
0
Comments
That's not to say that the policies of western countries aren't a tad hypocrticial at times, but I think that the environmental issue is simply a case of changing our policy to fit in with new knowledge, and since they're all willing to make the same changes themselves, I don't think it's hypocritical to expect developing countries to do the same with our help.
'Do as I say, not as I do'. That has always been the premise of the powerful.
It doesn't make it any more acceptable.
We also choose to have fruit and vegetable flown from thousands of miles away, because we've decided if we want to enjoy some produce out of season, we'll damn well do so!
And of course we will choose to fly to destinations 200 miles away because we 'don't do' trains.
And in any case, many Western nations have refused to introduce compulsory improvements for their coal-fired power industries in the all too familiar cry of 'protecting our economic interests' and blah blah.
So yes, I think we have very little right to lecture developing nations (nations that have real issues of poverty to deal with) about environmental issues when we continue to act like spoilt brats.
but at the same time just because we used to do it doesn't mean we can't criticise countries who still do. We used to keep slaves and deny women the vote, but I think we're right to criticise countries who do that now.
To an extent that's true, but I wouldn't underplay the amount we still make. We just make it with less people. A few years ago I went round a Steel Plant in Sheffield where they were boasting about how they introduced various forms of technology which cut waste and energy use massively.
If places like India have a comparative advantage because they have cheaper labour costs, our advantage is skills and reduced waste and energy (ie more bangs for your buck)
The point is, atleast we're trying to do something about it, they ened to coem up to par with us.
The governments are at fault more, they could convert cars to hydrogen, and support the research into making it even better than it currently is, but they wont because they will loose millions from the current oil there is left.
Most of it is utter nonsense. Only 30 or 40 years ago, scientists claimed that there was an Ice Age on the way. And when we had the last Ice Age, there were no cars around back then, were there?
Quite simply, nature will not have time to adapt to such rapid changes. Not will humans for that matter. And disaster is likely to ensue if we don't change the trend.
Just because temperatures are likely to rise in the next, say, 1,000 years and cause a rise of sea levels doesn't mean it's okay for it to happen in the next 50. That's akin to a man severing an artery in a road accident and refusing to go to hospital for a life-saving operation because he was still going to die one day anyway.
Meanwhile the likes of Brown continue to be ferried around in their Jaguars, while a family man watching his pennies closely finds that his Ford Galaxy, which he needs for his kids, is going to cost him more to tax and fuel now.
And what do the goverment say? buy a 'new, more efficient car'. Hypocritial little turds, the lot of them.
Easy when he's probably got at least two mouths to feed. and a mortage to worry about too.
Iran has been offered help for a peaceful nuclear energy programme and they've refused it so far. Israel and the US don't threaten to exterminate whole races of people. Their soldiers don't goose step either.
And before you say that Ahmadinejad has said he wants to wipe Israel off the map, no, he never said such thing actually.
There are still people out there who claim cigarettes don't have adverse effects or don't cause cancer. No evidence will convince them, overwhelming as it is. The same can be said of man-made global warming. But deep down most of the 'sceptics' know the truth just as well as the rest of us.
It's only because the issue is political that there are 'doubters'. If instead of discussing global warming we were discussing something that had no effect in people's lifestyles there would probably be a grand total of 0 people in the entire world who would question it, based on the thousands of tonnes of evidence.
Whens the next flight to the moon ?????????
as for china being entitled to pollute well we now do have the technology to do it better and considering most of what they make is rubbish they have a lot to answer for. they make the damn solar panels so why not use them themselves now thats hypocritical too isn't it ? they make the solar panels and sell them to us but do not use them themselves. when our industry was developing we strived to make quality products anything mostly made in china is utter crap and they have no right to do that !
I'd agree although i say it truly is an issue govs and companies are hyping on it to make more money and no as much as i beleive that we are at least partly to blame for global warming I don't go buying papers because they talk of it of all the so called green people I am probably one that really is green as i waste as little as possible and live to a "what is this using up in resources and how can i reduce the waste" want an example in autum my computer provides most of my heat along with the heat lost by the water boiler no need for radiators until it is seriously cold and put an extra cover on the bed its simple but people don't think they shout I'm green ! then jump in the car and run round the corner, put on their heating when they could do without it, and many other things
one of the biggest hypocrits is tescos - summer ? airconditioning blasting of open doors - Winter ? 10 KW of heating on at the wide open doors, they make a pamphlet about being green say bugger all in it use 3 X the paper needed 10 X the ink needed and 2-4 X the power needed to print it (Yes I know i used to operate printing presses) just to produce a "pretty" pamphlet and of course it was not stated that it was printed on rycycled paper (no it didn't look like recycled either) which I am sure they would have gloated over if it was. of course they have the money to run on solar panels with all that profit they make and all that roof space but do they do it NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !! I rest my case
It's not just that, it's the fact that a lot of what he says about Israel is either hate-filled or intimidatory, or both.
Anyway, he said that he wanted to "wipe out this zionist regime." But this isn't exactly important, because either quote would signal rather hostile intentions towards another country. And so the question is whether a country who has signalled such intentions should be stopped from developing such weapons. And the other point to consider is how stable is the country attempting to develop nuclear weapons. And given Iran's record in sponsoring terrorist organisations, or at least turning a blind eye to it, I don't think it could pass this test. Criticise the action of America, Russia or the UK all you want, but the fact is that there is almost zero chance that such a weapon would get into the wrong hands in these countries. And finally consider the number of terrorists in that region of the world that genuinely believe that the right thing to do is to bring on the apocalypse, and you begin to see the issue. And if you question whether they really do believe this, think about this: the man who set himself on fire at Glasgow airport was brought to hospital with burns all over his body, with one exception - he'd carefull wrapped his genitals in fireproof material, so that it wouldn't be damaged for him virgins in heaven. Now I don't expect that would happen, but Iran having nuclear weapons would bring it one step closer.