16 responses to “HAVE YOUR SAY: Should we put cheaper food and fuel before climate change?”

1. Claudia Vondrasek says:
   07 Jul 2008 15:28:23 GMT

   It is a struggle to show the longer term, more devastating effects of global warming when the money in your wallet or bank account doesn't cover what it used to, or what it should. There need to be two actions - public information sharing about effects of global warming, and actions to be taken to lessen its effects; and advocacy to government reduce heating costs, increase public transportation solutions.

2. John Coombes says:
   07 Jul 2008 15:29:46 GMT

   Climate Change â€" the only solution is to change our traditional beliefs

   We believe it is our right to take from this planet whatever, whenever and however we choose, without any thought or responsibility for managing what we are doing â€" and still continues today in spite of accelerating climate change. We are seeing increasing droughts and drying up of riverbeds, as well as flooding from whatever causes and rising temperatures. All of these changes in environmental balance directly affect our water supplies and seriously hinder food production, leading to our increasing inability to feed ourselves. We are now further increasing this dangerous situation as we begin to our use our food stocks for ethanol production to propel our transport. If we now place in this equation our belief in financial management and the law of supply and demand to regulate what we use, then a growing shortage of food means ever increasing prices. This in turn will see an increasing number of people unable to feed themselves as basic life sustaining nourishment is taken beyond their financial capabilities. We are already beginning to see the price of basic foodstuffs rise to feed the growing demand for ethanol. Rising grain prices directly affect the prices of our other food sources such as meat and eggs, where up to a 20% increase in prices has occurred over just the last 12 months in China alone â€" and theirs is quite a large population! As this problem escalates our traditional political institutions will need to be seen to be doing something, and so we lapse into blame as one race accuses another of hoarding. The application of “labels†begins as hatred is stirred up between supposedly differing groups, be they racial, religious or any other ethnic grouping. And so we deteriorate into conflict, further expanding the threat to our existence as a civilisation through the powerful weapons we have now developed, and our inability to manage them effectively because of the ancient beliefs we still hold about each other and our surroundings. The most powerful nation may come out on top by annihilating everyone else - but as global war escalates, who can say with any degree of certainty that they too will not blow themselves off the face of this beautiful planet, given the nature of modern terrorist warfare and the inability to determine who is the †enemy†? I do not believe I am exaggerating anything within this scenario, but simply applying the effects of our traditional and limiting beliefs to the growing problem we are creating, and which they can only fuel rather than resolve. By challenging what we believe, and in so doing changing our relationship with each other and our surroundings, I believe it is possible to create the opportunity for a huge evolutionary leap forward as a species. We are at a unique moment in time in our history and embedded within this era are the ingredients for either our destruction or survival â€" the choice is ours.

3. Ruth says:
   07 Jul 2008 17:04:37 GMT

   Aren't the solutions for feeding everyone and trying to safeguard the future of humanity on the planet compatible? Don't we need to waste less, and cut consumption by the richest?

4. Gracie says:
   08 Jul 2008 10:46:12 GMT

   Population control should come first. Overpopulation is the root of all our woes, yet you rarely see anyone talking about it. If its not addressed, nothing we do will matter.

5. julie says:
   08 Jul 2008 11:08:42 GMT

   It isn't a choice. Global warming destroys crops. Failure to figure out alternative energy leads to global warming. We need policies that reduce global warming while promoting alternative fuels. This will create jobs and wealth which tends to help people pay for food and fuel. Doesn't that make more sense than continuing policies that clearly don't work?

6. Genevere says:
   08 Jul 2008 11:09:44 GMT

   the more immediate need is to tackle soaring food prices. i live in a developing country where there are a lot more poor than rich. and the poor are feeling the effects of the price hike in food many times over and sometimes it means at the price of lives. it is the responsibility of policy makers and decision makers to honestly collectively tackle the problem since their decisions and policies are directly impacting in people's lives. the private sector - those owning capital - should also think about it now, how their decisions are affecting other people's. that is the kind of responsible thinking and decision making needed today. as with climate change. it is much more about responsibility at the individual level; if it starts there - e.g. using one's car only on weekends - can impact greatly in the reduction of global climate changes. in my country, it looks like even with the soaring price of oil this seems not to be a ! disincentive to use cars daily. there are as plenty cars on the road as there are before the price hike. it looks like a race between who remains the toughest - the car owner or the oil supplier. so it goes back to being responsible.

7. Shaun says:
   08 Jul 2008 11:10:41 GMT

   There can be substitutes for fuel, Hydrogen springs to mind, or fuel cells/elctricity. However, there is no substitute for food except other food. The question has a simple answer, doesn't it?

   But of course, the question is whether people will cut down their consumption if they can't see a result that effects them personally.

8. george scrivner says:
   08 Jul 2008 11:11:49 GMT

   'cut consumption by the richest' can i fear, only be accomplished by takeing away their toy's. I seriously feal that the environment issue will force it's own hand since we humans feel free to take and not give back. I would rather see a more concerted effort toward stopping the humanitarian crimes is the starving areas of the world be they controled by a ruthless dictator or not (i thought the world knew about dictators? My voice goes for the cheaper food and fuel. I love nature, but fear mankind may not anymore.

9. Christian Thomas Kohl says:
   08 Jul 2008 11:12:16 GMT

   I do not beleive in G8 governments. Christian Thomas Kohl http://ctkohl.googlepages.com

10. lmbjck says:
    08 Jul 2008 14:34:01 GMT

    First, clean air means little to anyone who died this morning from starvation, and they don't care that the planet is 2 degrees centigrade warmer than in 1980.

    Second, all of the comments so far ignore the economics of the situation. It seems that the only reason countries have any sort of emissions controls is because they can afford to do so. However, for the same reason, no country is going to disadvantage every industry within their borders by unilaterally 'going green' without the rest of the world following suit.
    I found Jan Egeland’s comment rather interesting: "Europe is drowning in luxury. The Americans are going to the extreme in military spending, and we cannot bring wealth to the women of Africa who walk from 4 a.m. to noon to bring a few litres of filthy dirty water to their families."
    Remember, the only reason China has been able to maintain such phenomenal growth is because others like the U.S. and the EU have been able to import the goods which China manufactures. Using economics to limit consumption, rather than a policy approach reminiscent of Marx and Stalin, one would expect to see people making consumption choices at every purchase.
    For instance, beef is a luxury good in many respects (USDA Prime steaks, not ground beef). I like the example since so many critics enjoy pointing out the resources that go into a nice 16oz T-bone. When the price, as a function of the cost of those input resources, rises too high then we buy chicken, fish, or some other protein. Oil is just now beginning to show similar changes in consumption as price increases begin cutting into budgets.
    So, environmental controls will make everything much more expensive (if ‘going green’ was cheaper, they would already produce under those guidelines). For those concerned about the environment only, the story stops there with victory. Those who are a bit more empathetic to the impact on human lives everywhere, the situation is complicated as more expensive production would drive competitiveness out of developing countries like China, India, and so on- just when another billion people were about to taste the economic freedom you and I were born into.
    Mr. Egeland’s comments fail to show how enforcing somebody’s strange perception of science (ahem, Mr. Gore) actually locks those poor people into poverty and cements indefinitely the very stinginess he decried. I hope you will make up your own mind regarding the global approach to the environment and poverty, and keep in mind it is not simply about one issue.

11. John Coombes says:
    09 Jul 2008 14:40:49 GMT

    Until such time as we move the emphasis of material measurement away from the production of profit - and nothing else - we are incapable of doing anything about climate change. After all it is the quest for profit that has produced this calamity in the first place. Broadening our goals beyond profit will reduce greed and introduce a more balanced outlook upon how we behave with each other and with the planet. An increase in corporate profits of whatever percentage means abuse of people and/or the planet and I defy anyone to deny this simple equation which is at the heart of climate change.

12. Zia says:
    09 Jul 2008 14:43:52 GMT

    I keep coming back to one conclusion repeatedly 'for every poor to become less poor, every rich is to become less rich'. Are you willing to become less rich? That is the question. The pie size is not getting any bigger. The truth remains 'if the developing world attains the living standards of the first world, our ecosystem will simply collapse'. Don't we need to revisit our development ideals? Far from development, we are increasingly trapped in emergencies and conflicts. I ask ordinary citizen of the first world why do you wait for disasters to happen, when you flock in so passionately to drop a coin in Oxfam's charity box? It is too late my friends. And stop worrying about the environment. Your coin ain’t going to spin it.

    On a more pessimistic note, it is all about money and more money than the next-door neighbor has. All those who can make things happen for the women in Africa or child in Asia, OR rising temperatures are busy inflating their wallets and tummies. I suppose the most obese are the most worried of the current food crisis. He wants his food no matter what. What is it â€" a cruel and unjust world that so much food is wasted in bins when someone is scavenging for a loaf of bread? No. That is our creation.

13. Tornado 27 says:
    09 Jul 2008 14:44:38 GMT

    Should we put cheaper fuel and food before climate change? Yep! I don't think I've got a darn thing to do with climate change, and I think Al Gore is full of &*it!

14. John says:
    16 Jul 2008 08:30:41 GMT

    Of course I agree with Tornado. Cheaper food and fuel, ie. economic growth, must come first. Climate change, if it is actually true, can be handled by simple technological fixes, or if this doesn't work, by adaption. The Chinese and Indians are correct in attempting to give their citizens the benefit of more wealth, and we would be foolish not to do the same for ourselves.

15. Global Warming Hoax says:
    16 Jul 2008 08:33:44 GMT

    We should be incredibly thankful of the educated elite, who have the education to teach us of their wisdom in understanding climate change. As an American in fly-over country, we will not believe the insane alarmism of the "educated socialist glitterati" and their supposed global warming tripe. We can't destroy this world, we didn't create it. Energy drives the engine of capitalism (oil)and progress. Why burn food when oil and other natural resources are in abundance for us? Why would anyone promote technology that takes food away from people and puts it in your gas tank? We are even paying for this with subsidies! What total ignorance. Screw climate change and global warming. Get protection and food to hungry people. Let dictators know where our bombs are - (in the air and ready to drop) in exchange for feeding the poor and improving their lives with all the necessities. Climate change is a religion of fear and loss of f! reedom. These socialists want to control every aspect of your life. Freedom is more precious than any other resource. You don't realize how good it is until it is gone. C'mon, we are all smarter than these empty power-mongers. Look all over the world, liberalism, progressive and socialist systems take away freedom and set all but the elite as slaves to government control.

16. Sebastian says:
    28 Jul 2008 18:10:29 GMT

    The G8 consume the most resources and their people are among the fattest on the planet.

    So as a start, they must simply eat less. G8: Burn those pounds, fight that fat!!!

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Enter the code shown on on the left *