Climate change- Blame the cows
A
It’s all to combat climate change you see. Despite the fact that the UN has just recently downgraded mans’ contribution to climate change by 25% and it is despite the fact that the UN has shown that cows are the greatest threat to climate, forests and wildlife, even more so than cars.
The climate change hobbyists, those that make it a hobby to get on the bandwagon of blaming human must realise that humans cannot change what it happening. Most of what is causing global warming is not human related. Now Gordon Brown can drop his green taxes because they won’t stop anything. Infact if he seriously wanted to stop global warming he would put a tax on cows… oops shouldn’t have said that, he might actually do it.
10 comments:
Funnily enough, I can't remember the last time I had a bath, you might not want to get too close!
In fact, it was when I stayed in Centre Parcs and had a jacuzzi in my room, it's one of my indulgences when I stay there, it's so relaxing.
I always take showers too. I like them more than baths.
youdontknowme, your arguments are inconsistent and flawed.
On one hand you're saying that we're not responsible for climate change and can therefore have no effect on it.
On the other hand, you're using an argument that suits your own purposes in saying that cows are "the greatest threat to climate", which would seem to imply that you accept the argument that it is possible for a species to threaten it's environment, while wanting to deny that man can have any effect. (Or, if you don't accept this, why are you using it to prove another of your points?)
Finally, you fail to make any connection about who the cows are being bred for, despite it appearing in the original article, so I'll spell it out here, in case you somehow didn't realise:
The cows are being bred for man to consume.
So to recap, you've said:
1. Humans can have no adverse effect on their environment.
2. Because it's cows that cause the adverse effect on the environment, humans don't need to change anything.
You aren't even consistent with yourself, taking a variety of opposing arguments and using them to somehow "prove" your point.
If you blame the cows farmed for man, you therefore accept the argument that it's possible for a species to affect the environment.
If you don't accept the Man Made Climate Change theory, then you can't use a variant of it ("it's the cows") to back up your points.
You fail miserably, I'm afraid. Just another climate change denier who will probably never take responsibility for their own actions, and not only that, can't even make a consistent argument as to why they shouldn't bother.
Why am I not surprised you vote for the BNP?
I never thought about that cows were being bread for us however you don't take india into account. for hindus the cow is a sacred animal. They do not breed them to eat them.
There are other stories which I have covered that contribute to global warming such as rays from far away stars.
Clutch at those straws, youdontknowme!
You hadn't considered that the cows were being bred for man's consumption? Well what did you think they were being bred for? Entertainment!?
Why is rainforest being cut down? Why does the article mention ranches? (I mean, you did read the article, didn't you?)
Or did you just jump to a conclusion that suited your own agenda, in order that you could continue your cushy life unchanged (for a little bit longer anyway, but not much longer).
Wakey wakey!
Are you just one of those people who can't admit when they're wrong, because to admit we all need to radically alter our lifestyles would spoil your fun? I know it's painful, but you can't run from the truth forever, and time is really, really running out.
I don't know what to do, because try as we might, there simply aren't enough people around willing to even think about, let alone take responsibility for their own actions.
Well, think about this: we change now, we take a few steps down our ladder of cushyness, and we get to live into our old age in relative comfort, and allow others around the world to do the same, as well as our children and grandchildren too.
Or we ignore this for another 10 years, by which time we have no choice or chance or resources left to put the infrastructure in place and make the necessary changes, and we all die of starvation, disease, or war brought about by the shortage of resources.
10 years, though some scientists say even less. I don't want to gamble with those odds. We have about 5 years tops to turn the world upside down, or we become extinct - it's that simple.
No ifs, no buts - we act now, or we are dead.
This isn't sci-fi, it's happening already. Why do you think there is a war in Iraq? Just be glad that Britain doesn't have much in the way of oil, otherwise some superpower (hey, maybe it'll be the USA, oh the irony) might decide to "liberate" us in order to get to them.
Capitalism's desire for unlimited economic growth can only ever be sustained if we have unlimited resources to support it. It's like writing a cheque that you can't cash, and the debt collector (nature) is on it's way round shortly.
As for India, I don't see your point. Cows aren't bred or kept in herds there - they're simply left to do as they please.
Don't you get it? If you and your loved ones don't take responsibility for your lives, and your individual impact on the environment while you can still make that choice, that choice is going to vanish in a matter of a years.
Do you make that choice now, or do you ignore the question again?
Bollocks to "the economy" - there won't be any economy left once the resources have run out, and once the cost of dealing with climate change spirals out of all control.
Even Sir Nicholas Stern, a top economist (one who barely gives a crap about the environment) has admitted that it's more cost effective to deal with this now, rather than wait any longer.
There are no excuses left - not a single one, not even the "it'll damage the economy" argument. To deny that we need to do something about this now is to deny reality, and it's going to get us all killed.
I for one will not stand by while delusional capitalist maniacs turn off our life support system.
Climate Change - lay the blame where it firmly belongs: CAPITALISM!
You hadn't considered that the cows were being bred for man's consumption? Well what did you think they were being bred for? Entertainment!?
I hadn’t thought about it.
Why is rainforest being cut down? Why does the article mention ranches? (I mean, you did read the article, didn't you?)
I posted this over a month ago. I am not going remember everything that was written afterall I must have read hundreds of articles since then.
Are you just one of those people who can't admit when they're wrong, because to admit we all need to radically alter our lifestyles would spoil your fun?
I have admitted I am wrong on many occasions. I have also said that we should be changing our lifestyles. I have said that we should put a limit on aeroplane journeys going in and out of this country then auction these journeys off to plane companies.
I don't know what to do, because try as we might, there simply aren't enough people around willing to even think about, let alone take responsibility for their own actions
I have been saying we should take responsibility for our own actions.
Even Sir Nicholas Stern, a top economist (one who barely gives a crap about the environment) has admitted that it's more cost effective to deal with this now, rather than wait any longer.
Stern was talking bollocks. Read what he said you will find that he said something like if his predictions turn out worse (which is unlikely) that will happen. He wanted to make an apocalyptic scenario so the media would take notice. The government enjoyed it too because then they had a reason to raise taxes.
Replying to youdontknowme:
I hadn’t thought about it.
Why does that not surprise me? Try asking more questions, not believing what you read, and not always jumping to the answers that feel nice for you.
I posted this over a month ago. I am not going remember everything that was written afterall I must have read hundreds of articles since then.
But you would have read it at the time you posted. I can only conclude you didn't read or didn't understand the article.
I have admitted I am wrong on many occasions. I have also said that we should be changing our lifestyles. I have said that we should put a limit on aeroplane journeys going in and out of this country then auction these journeys off to plane companies.
Yet you still want to vote for the far right? Perhaps you don't understand what they stand for either. Profit uber alles... including over the environment.
I have been saying we should take responsibility for our own actions.
Good! But then in almost the same breath you deny that we are responsible / can make any difference? Which is it?
Stern was talking bollocks. Read what he said you will find that he said something like if his predictions turn out worse (which is unlikely) that will happen. He wanted to make an apocalyptic scenario so the media would take notice. The government enjoyed it too because then they had a reason to raise taxes.
I did read what he said, or at least, I read the summaries of it (the full report is rather weighty and I don't have forever to be told the bleeding obvious).
Regardless of whether or not you believe in Man Made Climate Change, surely you must see that if everyone lived as we do in this country, the world's ecosystems would self-destruct under the strain?
Do you see that? Do you care if it affects other people? Do you care if it affects you? Do you care if it kills you?
Again I say - you are wasting your time pinning your hopes on the BNP. The far right are not interested in preserving the environment - profit uber alles, and everything else (including you) are secondary.
Why would you sign up for and support something in which you can only ever lose? You'd have to be a total sucker to do that - but I haven't given up hope for you yet!
I sincerely hope you do start to ask a lot more questions about the world around you, and take a long hard look at why it's the way it is... but you've got to really want to know the answers, because they are not pretty in the slightest.
Reality is too painful for most people to come to terms with - which is why so many never do.
Try asking more questions, not believing what you read
I do that.
Yet you still want to vote for the far right? Perhaps you don't understand what they stand for either. Profit uber alles... including over the environment.
Maybe you should read their manifesto on the environment?
surely you must see that if everyone lived as we do in this country, the world's ecosystems would self-destruct under the strain?
Yes I agree.
Do you see that? Do you care if it affects other people? Do you care if it affects you? Do you care if it kills you?
Yes
(Try asking more questions, not believing what you read) I do that.
Yet you jump to a conclusion that cows are responsible for pollution, not humans? You didn't realise the cows were being bred for humans?
I've been trying (on another post) to get you to question the nature of why we "need" cars, and you seem to take the first answer that comes along ("to get around"), without probing the issue any deeper, and asking "why do we really need to get around so fast?" / "why do we really need to travel so far?" and so on. So maybe you are asking the right questions, but you aren't finding the right answers because you stop before you reach the real bottom of the issue. Fair enough, that's exactly what most people do, but that's why we're in such a mess.
Maybe you should read their manifesto on the environment?
It wouldn't matter if they were greener than the green party (who I would not vote for anyway) - their other policies are so distasteful that I'd rather beat myself to death with a plastic spoon than vote for the BNP.
To be honest, I find all politicians, without exception, absolutely repulsive! Whatever their politics, anyone who wishes to be in power is the least suitable type of person to have it, and should not be allowed it under any circumstances.
The whole problem of government is government (power) itself, and thus it makes little difference to me who is at the wheel, because it's the system itself that is corrupt and oppressive, and no amount of reform can ever fix that. It must be completely overthrown and destroyed worldwide, and never allowed to come back.
I'm not sure we can manage that, but if we don't manage it pretty soon, it's all over for all of us.
(surely you must see that if everyone lived as we do in this country, the world's ecosystems would self-destruct under the strain?) Yes I agree.
So then it follows that bringing people out of poverty by the availability of cheap goods / cheap food can only happen as long as there are people left to be exploited - people who's equal share of the natural resources we can plunder, in order to make those cheap goods / cheap food.
Once we reach some critical mass of people who are not in poverty, by definition at that point we will run out of people to exploit (because there are not infinite natural resources), and thus the whole basis of this system is shown up to be the falsehood that it truly is and always has been.
The way we live our lives in this and many other countries has got to change, in a huge way. At the moment it is unfair and completely self destructive. We need a system based on equality and justice, not exploitation of other people's poverty.
Capitalism can only bring some people out of poverty as long as other people are kept in poverty (which at the moment is the case), and thus it is a bankrupt system (unless you don't give a crap about the people who get exploited, which of course, many people try not to think about because it's too horrific to come to terms with).
(Do you see that? Do you care if it affects other people? Do you care if it affects you? Do you care if it kills you?) Yes
Well, good, I am glad you actually do care and appear to have a heart, because it means all is not lost yet.
I am also glad that you do support freedom of speech, and I respect the fact that you are allowing me to post these opposing views in your blog - thanks for that.
Yet you jump to a conclusion that cows are responsible for pollution, not humans? You didn't realise the cows were being bred for humans?
I didn’t stop and think about it.
It wouldn't matter if they were greener than the green party
Which they actually are.
their other policies are so distasteful
Such as?
So then it follows that bringing people out of poverty by the availability of cheap goods / cheap food can only happen as long as there are people left to be exploited - people who's equal share of the natural resources we can plunder, in order to make those cheap goods / cheap food.
That is unfortunate. If you don’t want the third world to be exploited then you need to have tariffs on their goods so companies will find it unprofitable to do business there which will stop them from being exploited but sadly you might have a famine.
The way we live our lives in this and many other countries has got to change, in a huge way. At the moment it is unfair and completely self destructive. We need a system based on equality and justice, not exploitation of other people's poverty.
I agree but I don’t think it will change for many decades if not centuries.
Capitalism can only bring some people out of poverty as long as other people are kept in poverty
Which is why I am for limited capitalism. Capitalism is evil but its also a necessary evil.
I am also glad that you do support freedom of speech, and I respect the fact that you are allowing me to post these opposing views in your blog - thanks for that.
Always glad to have someone commenting whether you agree or not.
Post a Comment