FinancialGuy Writes!

If we all make it through this financial nightmare, and lets hope that the financial system does not collapse completely sending society instantly into the Middle Ages, (no money equals no food, transport, utilities and who knows what else, leading to social unrest and mass disorder) can we survive the next big problem?

This story, from the BBC ( BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Earth on course for eco ‘crunch ) suggests that we will need 2 earths in just over 20 years time to cope with the damage that us humans cause.

The world, of course, will survive. The planet has been here for eons and will be here for eons more – with or without mankind. The issue, simply, is whether we can be unselfish enough to reign in our energy needs as individuals, corporations and countries to the extent that humanity makes it as well.

My guess is that we are in for a very rough ride for a very long time. Lets hope I am totally and utterly wrong.

Author :
Print

Comments

  1. I don’t think we have a choice. We have to take action – an extra earth isn’t going to be much help if we have wrecked this one with the effects of climate change. There is plenty we can do, we just need to get on and do it.

  2. I agree completely with you that we need to take very urgent action and that everyone needs to do this. For me, it is a question of education.

    I say that because I find friends and family in the UK still seem to think that “it might not be real”. This amazes me. Such logic suggests that we don’t need to worry about it until the entire ecosystem collapses – because that would be the only time that we know for certain that we are doomed.

    It would not be quite so bad, but the TV news is constantly talking about climate change now – it is a difficult topic to avoid. And yet, people still seem able to avoid it…

  3. War and meat consumption are major polluters. War industry pollutes, and the meat ijndustry even more. Just think that it costs about 4-5 times more to produce a kilo of meat than to produce a kilo of rice or beans or lentils, just as an example. Agriculture represents about 20% of the total output of greenhouse gases. Of that 20, 80 % of it is constituted by the meat industry, which in fact falls under agriculture. If the world is to save itself, it will have to become vegetarian. Now, this may seem radical right now, but it is fundamental that vegetarianism is no longer just an ethics issue, it is a planet survival issue. Meat production is simply not sustainable. Animals pollute tremendously, alive and dead. War of course is bad because it is a dis-equation. It makes no ecnomic sense whatsover from an environmental standpoint. A higher level of conscioussness is what the world needs.

  4. Good point. I recall reading somewhere a while ago that the greenhouse gas emissions from the beef industry alone are equal to the emissions from every car, train and plane in the world. Therefore, simply giving up our beef addiction is possibly enough to save us.

    In contrast, in countries like Japan, beef sales are growing rapidly.

    I’m fortunate … I decided in my teenage years that I didn’t much like beef and decided to stop eating it then. That is a lot of years ago now. Alas, this does not excuse my love of turkey or tuna. I fear that simply everything we do is harmful.

Comments are closed.