The UN and green issues
So then this is something that most people are concerned with. The net is very concerned with the environment and the way the planet is managed
ecologically because it has a higher number of highly educated people as a group than the masses around the world as a whole.
So for us its one of the highest priorities that we manage the environment and do not destroy the earth with pollution or ourselves or our health.
And that is an area where Green Peace has been fighting for years as an example.
But mainstream scientists also support any initiative to preserve the environment realizing just how fragile it can be. One thing I want to stress and
I will give this to the UN to remind people that we know a lot about the environment but we don't know enough about Omega points, and if we pass an
Omega point, don't be surprised if you find mastodons frozen to death with grass in their belly or their mouths.
We might go over an Omega point and all of a sudden its 40 degrees C. in Toronto.
Or we might find that we have an irradiated food supply or lack of fresh water or of course wild fires everywhere from the hot dry conditions etc.
So in order to inform the general public you cannot talk about well 100 years from now it will be like this because people do not care what happens
100 years from now.
You need to talk about Omega points and how they effect local climates and agriculture and business and commerce. Do studies that show how a point is
reached where larger changes occur which can be unpredictable. Is it a scare tactic? No its reality. Thats the reality of the situation that if you
pass an Omega point the earth's system for moderating that part of the ecosystem will collapse. If not totally in all areas it only needs to collapse
in your area and affect your ability to grow food or employ your workforce.
So you see if you keep preaching idealism, then they will respond in the way that Socrates would predict which is an excess of one virtue will result
in a lack of virtue and a rebound effect.
So people will just say oh what a bunch of idealists.
If you approach them and say, according to our data, you know if you cross the Omega point here, that could trigger an effect that will cause you to
lose money. Now they are more interested in listening to what you have to say. But you have to go further and explain to them how it affects them in
monetary terms with examples.
If nuclear power plants do not conform to safety standards with backup generators and etc then X will happen.
Thats an easy one.
If you do not take lead out of gasoline then that will damage world health. Another easy one.
The price went up on gasoline when they stopped adding lead because they are capitalists and even if that meant not doing something to the gas which
you would expect might make it cheaper to produce, thats irrelevant, if you want to change something they want to increase the price as if you had to
Freon. Easy one.
Global warming? Air pollution? Quality of life. What is the quality of life for a coal miner?
You know you start getting into areas where they can just side step the issues.
So what if you said this particulate toxin? Oh, now you have a toxin that we can check for and it must meet safe levels and that is effective when it
is policed like polluting rivers and streams.
So its always best to not be vague if you want to see results according to relatively recent history.
Love Canal? Mothers milk.
You see in all these cases we have viable arguments for enforcing laws since the issues are rather straight forward and specific.
If you are being vague you are usually not going to achieve your goals. Divide and conquer works a bit in terms of finding the worst part of the issue
you want to address, show how it affects the most sensitive thing you can find, take it to the public to get support, use the law, and be specific.
So the UN can help emerging economies to realize the risks of their policies towards public health and the environment. Everyone wants their children
to grow up healthy.
edit on 19-6-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)