SEPT 8 – A few days ago Christian Aid put a full-page advert in a London newspaper. They asked readers to urge Gordon Brown to call the European Union to cut domestic carbon emission by 40 per cent by 2020, and ensure developing countries have all the resources necessary to reduce emissions, develop cleanly and adapt to climate change.
The advert was published in preparation for the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009. Several NGOs, including Christian Aid, have already started their campaigns in the run-up to the summit.
“Green” campaigns such as this one may look good superficially. After all, surely we all want to look after our planet. But examined more closely, there are traps that could create unnecessary hurdles for developing countries like Malaysia to prosper.
Let’s take the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act as an example. The legislation puts a cap on American carbon emission, and allows emission quotas to be traded.
By creating something similar to a cap-and-trade system, they hope to incentivise innovation, new technologies and improvements in energy efficiencies. Ultimately the aim is to reduce carbon emission – allegedly the mother of all evil when it comes to climate change.
There are already signs that regulations like this will eventually become yet another tool to mask trade protectionism.
Speaking in Shanghai in July, Gary Locke, the American Commerce Secretary suggested that Americans should pay for the carbon content of goods they consume, including imported goods. Effectively he was calling for a carbon import tax on every single country that exports to America.
Import duties, under the guise of “green” taxes, will increase the cost of international trade, ultimately damaging economic growth in developing countries that exports to America, like us. The United States is Malaysia’s second biggest export partner.
Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, said that he will not sign any treaty in Copenhagen that forces a curb of carbon emission in the Third World. We are lucky to have a figure in the developing world like Ramesh. He knows how climate change activism in and by Western countries can damage growth in developing countries. Malaysia needs to learn from his boldness.
Let us not be fooled by the doom-glorifying environmentalists. Many of them are simply following what Western green activists say, ignoring science as well as the importance of growth and development in our own country.
Deepak Lal, a renowned scholar and professor of international development at the University of California, denounces the “hypocrisy and immorality” of the West in twisting the arms of developing countries, especially China and India, to curb carbon emission.
According to Lal, “until technological advances can allow alternative green energy sources to compete with the fossil fuels … a call to put any curbs on carbon emissions is in fact to condemn their billions to continuing poverty.”
It is murderous for Western countries, influenced by Green activists, to force us to support treaties that prevent us from experiencing the same industrialisation that they have experienced, or make the cost of our industrialisation more expensive through green taxes that they like so much.
Do they expect us to live in “green” forests and travel in uncomfortable vehicles while they live in their lavishly decorated houses and travel in gas-guzzling SUVs and private jets?
And as to the Green activists, we should know that their anti-carbon emission campaigns are based on disputed arguments. Their theory that we are facing global warming resulting directly from carbon emission caused by human activities is increasingly discredited by new scientific discoveries.
The works of cosmoclimatologists like Professor Henrik Svensmark, director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute, deserve further investigation if we want to go into the scientific debates on this matter.
We must be careful when dealing with Western, or Western-influenced, green campaigners. By all means listen to what they have to say. But we must take it with a pinch of salt. We should not let them impose their belief in the carbon emission theory on us, let alone make legislations that will prevent us from improving our standard of living.
We certainly should not let their green protectionist agenda prevent us from achieving the prosperity and economic growth that we deserve.
Green campaigners, including in Malaysia, will double their efforts in the run up to the Copenhagen Summit in December. Soon they will be urging Malaysia to support a Copenhagen treaty to curb the level of carbon we emit. When that happens, I hope our government will stand up for what is best for Malaysia.
We must not let our country be cowed by America and Europe. And we must not be influenced by local green activists parroting Western environmentalists without realising the harm they cause to our prosperity.
Wan Saiful Wan Jan is director general of Malaysia Think Tank (www.WauBebas.org)
Comments (30)
Show/Hide comments
...
written by kiwiskeeter, September 08, 2009
written by kiwiskeeter, September 08, 2009
You are wrong. You cant even think. Developing countries remain poor or become poor because of pirate politicians, nothing to do with going green. Remove corruption, and the cost of going green is negligible.
-
- +18
-
-
...
written by Kiwi in Malaysia, September 08, 2009
written by Kiwi in Malaysia, September 08, 2009
Well, thanks to the smog outside my window, I can't see the 'developed' Malaysian skyline.
By all means, chop down your trees. Don't learn from the mistakes of Western countries. Make the same mistakes yourself. But with your huge Asian populations do you really think you'll survive? If less than half a billion Westerners could create this much damage, over 150 years, imagine what 3 billion Asians can do over 50 years.
I agree that Western nations shouldn't punish developing nations with a green tax, but for crying out loud, use the technological know-how you think you have and use it for developing your country instead of using outdated models of economy and repressing half your population with inane political and racist policies and stop wasting your own resources through cronyism, nepotism and corruption to the point where you NEED to buy from others resources you should have enough of already.
Honestly, you lot sound like children being denied your lollies in the playground when you see the older kids have had theirs and their teeth are rotting out.
WHAT IF THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE RIGHT? And if they're wrong, then you develop cleanly and will once again have blue skies and clean water... what have you got now? I see rubbish and pollution everywhere and you call that progress? Have you ever been to a Western city? Seen how clean one is? That's no accident.
Stop blaming others and clean your own backyard - we're trying to do the same in our countries.
By all means, chop down your trees. Don't learn from the mistakes of Western countries. Make the same mistakes yourself. But with your huge Asian populations do you really think you'll survive? If less than half a billion Westerners could create this much damage, over 150 years, imagine what 3 billion Asians can do over 50 years.
I agree that Western nations shouldn't punish developing nations with a green tax, but for crying out loud, use the technological know-how you think you have and use it for developing your country instead of using outdated models of economy and repressing half your population with inane political and racist policies and stop wasting your own resources through cronyism, nepotism and corruption to the point where you NEED to buy from others resources you should have enough of already.
Honestly, you lot sound like children being denied your lollies in the playground when you see the older kids have had theirs and their teeth are rotting out.
WHAT IF THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE RIGHT? And if they're wrong, then you develop cleanly and will once again have blue skies and clean water... what have you got now? I see rubbish and pollution everywhere and you call that progress? Have you ever been to a Western city? Seen how clean one is? That's no accident.
Stop blaming others and clean your own backyard - we're trying to do the same in our countries.
-
- +27
-
-
...
written by climate activist, September 08, 2009
written by climate activist, September 08, 2009
so we shouldn't care that island nations like Maldives and Tuvalu are sinking because of rising sea levels caused by climate change? Or that in 20/30 years time, rising sea levels are going to flood Bangladesh, Vietnam, Eastern China and displaced MILLIONS of refugees which may fled to neighboring countries such as Malaysia and Thailand? That poor countries in Africa and Asia are going to suffer (and some are already suffering) the worst effects of climate change because they do not have the tech and resources to cope with increase floods, droughts, diseases, and decreasing food resources?
I would really like to believe that climate change is FAKE, that our current way of development is SUSTAINABLE, then I wouldn't need to work so hard to convince other people that we are exploiting the Earth's resources (oil, minerals, forests) way too fast and using more than our generation's share, that our obsession with materialistic gain and consumerism are driving us into insanity, that industrialization is not the ONLY way to growth and prosperity and more importantly, HAPPINESS in life.
I'm not saying the Western countries should be able to get away with all the carbon they have emitted over the last two centuries, in fact the USA and Western Europe are the biggest culprits of this global crisis we are currently facing, and they should bear the most brunt. By all means, we should ask for tech transfer and financial support from them, we shouldn't let them get away with what they have done to our planet. But at the same time, we need to realise that climate change is a global crisis in need of global response, and unless all countries come together and work together, I do believe we are doomed.
And this is also a good time for us to reflect and think, are our current urban lifestyle - which is getting more and more like the West btw - shop and throw, shop and throw, sustainable?
I would really like to believe that climate change is FAKE, that our current way of development is SUSTAINABLE, then I wouldn't need to work so hard to convince other people that we are exploiting the Earth's resources (oil, minerals, forests) way too fast and using more than our generation's share, that our obsession with materialistic gain and consumerism are driving us into insanity, that industrialization is not the ONLY way to growth and prosperity and more importantly, HAPPINESS in life.
I'm not saying the Western countries should be able to get away with all the carbon they have emitted over the last two centuries, in fact the USA and Western Europe are the biggest culprits of this global crisis we are currently facing, and they should bear the most brunt. By all means, we should ask for tech transfer and financial support from them, we shouldn't let them get away with what they have done to our planet. But at the same time, we need to realise that climate change is a global crisis in need of global response, and unless all countries come together and work together, I do believe we are doomed.
And this is also a good time for us to reflect and think, are our current urban lifestyle - which is getting more and more like the West btw - shop and throw, shop and throw, sustainable?
-
- +10
-
-
...
written by OrangRojak, September 08, 2009
written by OrangRojak, September 08, 2009
Wow, what a blatant apology for carpet-bagging and the ongoing ethnic cleansing of the peoples of East Malaysia! I don't personally believe in Karma or any gods, so I fear people like Wan Saiful Wan Jan are going to make a very nice living out of condemning the people he claims to be protecting from poverty to an awful death or a dismal future.
Where, in Malaysia, has jungle clearing and burning fossil fuels, helped any indigenous (not johnny come latelies who happen to look as though they could be indigenous) person escape from poverty? This man is "blaming the white man" yet again, for the problems his benefactors have perpetrated on their own people. I feel insulted, not because I am melanin-challenged, but because he appears to expect gullible readers to be convinced by this rubbish.
What does 'think tank' mean, in the Malaysian context? Are they groups of well-funded idiots trying to gloss over their benefactors' decades of failure by putting new gloss on the same old excuses?
You, Wan Saiful Wan Jan, are the parrot, and your squawk is one last spin of a broken record that I hope will soon be consigned to the dustbin.
Where, in Malaysia, has jungle clearing and burning fossil fuels, helped any indigenous (not johnny come latelies who happen to look as though they could be indigenous) person escape from poverty? This man is "blaming the white man" yet again, for the problems his benefactors have perpetrated on their own people. I feel insulted, not because I am melanin-challenged, but because he appears to expect gullible readers to be convinced by this rubbish.
What does 'think tank' mean, in the Malaysian context? Are they groups of well-funded idiots trying to gloss over their benefactors' decades of failure by putting new gloss on the same old excuses?
You, Wan Saiful Wan Jan, are the parrot, and your squawk is one last spin of a broken record that I hope will soon be consigned to the dustbin.
-
- +12
-
-
...
written by Ravin, September 08, 2009
written by Ravin, September 08, 2009
As long as it's going to be us vs you or we against them there is never going be a resolution. So we humans as a species are screwed and doomed to extinction.
FYI most of the smarts from Malaysia have already left Malaysia for "greener pastures".
FYI most of the smarts from Malaysia have already left Malaysia for "greener pastures".
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by Antares, September 08, 2009
written by Antares, September 08, 2009
Mahathir would have said exactly the same thing and probably still does... through his parrots! Wan Saiful says: "We certainly should not let their green protectionist agenda prevent us from achieving the prosperity and economic growth that we deserve." US vs THEM again. There may be substantial reason to question and transcend the Greco-Roman Judaeo-Christian Western Weltanschaaung (which has dominated for 500 years) - and many of its basic assumptions about the nature of reality - but the reality of nature's importance to our very existence cuts across geopolitical and ideological divides. It's time we zoom out from a limited, myopic, anthropocentric perspective and begin to embrace a holistic vision of life wherein all lifeforms - not just the human species - are included in our navigational maps and our misguided notions about "progress and prosperity" - which are undeniably a puerile imitation of the American Dream-Turned-Ecological-Nightmare.
The late great ecoonomist E.F. Schumacher once gave a talk on people-centered economic models in East Germany before the Fall of the Wall. After his inspiring lecture, an East German economic adviser came up to Schumacher and said: "We see the Western capitalist economy as a train hurtling at top speed to the edge of a cliff... and we in the East are determined to overtake that train!"
The late great ecoonomist E.F. Schumacher once gave a talk on people-centered economic models in East Germany before the Fall of the Wall. After his inspiring lecture, an East German economic adviser came up to Schumacher and said: "We see the Western capitalist economy as a train hurtling at top speed to the edge of a cliff... and we in the East are determined to overtake that train!"
-
- +9
-
-
...
written by fish tank, September 08, 2009
written by fish tank, September 08, 2009
worrying conclusion considering coming from a 'think tank'.
There is a point in the west' and certain quarter's insistence on developing countries to cut emissions which is unjust, considering the west has plundered so much of the environment already and benefitting from it. Considering their ecological debt, the just thing would then be for developed nations to cut their emissions more, and not impose the same for developing countries.
But to dismiss the climate change problem itself altogether just because there are some disputed arguments is not only an irresponsible conclusion, but downright ignorant of the philosophy and politics of science. The question is which direction we should be heading towards, and not to act only when a theory if so called 'confirmed'. For if you wait for that, any scientist worth his or her salt would tell you that that will almost never happen for a scientific theory will always be falsifiable.
There is a point in the west' and certain quarter's insistence on developing countries to cut emissions which is unjust, considering the west has plundered so much of the environment already and benefitting from it. Considering their ecological debt, the just thing would then be for developed nations to cut their emissions more, and not impose the same for developing countries.
But to dismiss the climate change problem itself altogether just because there are some disputed arguments is not only an irresponsible conclusion, but downright ignorant of the philosophy and politics of science. The question is which direction we should be heading towards, and not to act only when a theory if so called 'confirmed'. For if you wait for that, any scientist worth his or her salt would tell you that that will almost never happen for a scientific theory will always be falsifiable.
-
- +6
-
-
...
written by Reader, September 08, 2009
written by Reader, September 08, 2009
I think Wan Saiful have a sense here. Going green is good, but green also have it's own cost. Does you use the environmental friendly petrol Kiwi? :p
-
- -5
-
-
...
written by GoGreenlah.com, September 08, 2009
written by GoGreenlah.com, September 08, 2009
"Do they expect us to live in “green” forests and travel in uncomfortable vehicles while they live in their lavishly decorated houses and travel in gas-guzzling SUVs and private jets?"
Please don't be naive... we still can achieve developed country status and drive in comfortable vehicles while preserving our forests.
I'm a Malaysian and also the founder/administrator of www.gogreenlah.com forum which is trying to create more awareness about green technologies in Malaysia. I'm definitely sure that I'm not a parrot for the Western countries by doing so.
Please don't be naive... we still can achieve developed country status and drive in comfortable vehicles while preserving our forests.
I'm a Malaysian and also the founder/administrator of www.gogreenlah.com forum which is trying to create more awareness about green technologies in Malaysia. I'm definitely sure that I'm not a parrot for the Western countries by doing so.
-
- +13
-
-
...
written by GoGreenlah.com, September 08, 2009
written by GoGreenlah.com, September 08, 2009
"We must not let our country be cowed by America and Europe."
I thought we are already "cowed" by those idiots in Shah Alam Section 23.
"And we must not be influenced by local green activists parroting Western environmentalists without realising the harm they cause to our prosperity."
Please read the book 75 Green Businesses - You Can Start To Make Money And Make A Difference by Glenn Croston. We can prosper without harming our environment!
I thought we are already "cowed" by those idiots in Shah Alam Section 23.
"And we must not be influenced by local green activists parroting Western environmentalists without realising the harm they cause to our prosperity."
Please read the book 75 Green Businesses - You Can Start To Make Money And Make A Difference by Glenn Croston. We can prosper without harming our environment!
-
- +9
-
-
...
written by Johan Abdullah, September 08, 2009
written by Johan Abdullah, September 08, 2009
Just to share my thoughts on this, and I'm not saying I'm right, but I'll have it on the table just the same.
First, it should be worthwhile considering that the green tax is a burden to the US as much as it is to exporters from the so-called Third World. The tax imposition, like it or not, invariably does get everyone on their toes thinking seriously about environmental sustainability issues. Some might go into denial and imagine that the green tax is but a protectionist ploy, but the truth is that there is a risk for ignoring it.
Yet some may also argue that the developed nations should be the ones who must be forced to pay for the environmental damage of their own making in the first instance but the fact is that they are already paying by working on policies and investing in research and technology for a cleaner world.
In a situation such as this - a global dilemma as it were - someone's got to take the lead, and who better suited than one whom the rest of the world wants to sell their wares to. Since rules don't work by virtue of the fact that there is no such thing as a global sovereign to enforce these rule, trade impositions such as the green tax might just be the right thing to do.
The Indian government's refusal to sign the Copenhagen treaty is, in my opinion, not necessarily a smart thing to do since this just locks out further trade opportunities. And in a recessed world, who needs the aggravation? Ramesh's action smacks of defiance in the face of cooperation, and those who follow him might come to regret such a stance in time.
My suggestion for the Third World and particularly for Malaysia is to signal compliance and get to work on the solutions, instead of whining about the unfairness of it all. As this is a global dilemma, no single nation can work independently on environmental sustainability and hope to remain economically viable in the process, but if solutions can be met out of regional blocs, transnational NGOs and other institutions - and there are plenty of these to go around - there just might be hope for this planet. After all, this is the only planet we have, regardless of who scarred it first or later.
First, it should be worthwhile considering that the green tax is a burden to the US as much as it is to exporters from the so-called Third World. The tax imposition, like it or not, invariably does get everyone on their toes thinking seriously about environmental sustainability issues. Some might go into denial and imagine that the green tax is but a protectionist ploy, but the truth is that there is a risk for ignoring it.
Yet some may also argue that the developed nations should be the ones who must be forced to pay for the environmental damage of their own making in the first instance but the fact is that they are already paying by working on policies and investing in research and technology for a cleaner world.
In a situation such as this - a global dilemma as it were - someone's got to take the lead, and who better suited than one whom the rest of the world wants to sell their wares to. Since rules don't work by virtue of the fact that there is no such thing as a global sovereign to enforce these rule, trade impositions such as the green tax might just be the right thing to do.
The Indian government's refusal to sign the Copenhagen treaty is, in my opinion, not necessarily a smart thing to do since this just locks out further trade opportunities. And in a recessed world, who needs the aggravation? Ramesh's action smacks of defiance in the face of cooperation, and those who follow him might come to regret such a stance in time.
My suggestion for the Third World and particularly for Malaysia is to signal compliance and get to work on the solutions, instead of whining about the unfairness of it all. As this is a global dilemma, no single nation can work independently on environmental sustainability and hope to remain economically viable in the process, but if solutions can be met out of regional blocs, transnational NGOs and other institutions - and there are plenty of these to go around - there just might be hope for this planet. After all, this is the only planet we have, regardless of who scarred it first or later.
-
- +8
-
-
...
written by GoGreenlah.com, September 08, 2009
written by GoGreenlah.com, September 08, 2009
@earthman
"How can a poor man think of global warming and reducing pollution when he cannot even have enough money to feed himself and his family?"
So are you justifying the slash-n-burn practice that choked this region and caused more harms to the regional economies? The farmers(poor people) got hit the most when the haze prevented the insects to do their job in pollinating the plants.
"Countries are not going to sink, and sea levels will not rise to cover whole countries"
Yeah... please tell it to the Pacific Islanders and see if they are willing to believe you.
"How can a poor man think of global warming and reducing pollution when he cannot even have enough money to feed himself and his family?"
So are you justifying the slash-n-burn practice that choked this region and caused more harms to the regional economies? The farmers(poor people) got hit the most when the haze prevented the insects to do their job in pollinating the plants.
"Countries are not going to sink, and sea levels will not rise to cover whole countries"
Yeah... please tell it to the Pacific Islanders and see if they are willing to believe you.
-
- +9
-
-
...
written by Charles F. Moreira, September 08, 2009
written by Charles F. Moreira, September 08, 2009
"A few days ago Christian Aid put a full-page advert in a London newspaper. They asked readers to urge Gordon Brown to call the European Union to cut domestic carbon emission by 40 per cent by 2020, and ensure developing countries have all the resources necessary to reduce emissions, develop cleanly and adapt to climate change."
There is nothing wrong with Christian Aid's call. After all, they called for a reduction of carbon emmissions by 40% in the European Union and for assistance to developing countries to adopt green practices.
At the same time, we in Malaysia need to define and develop our own policies towards sustainable, environmentally and ecologically friendly development and lifestyle without following every suggestion directed at us or imposed upon us by outsiders, though knowing our corrupt, inefficient and untrustworthy Barisan Nasional government, it would be easier for us to achieve that in the virtual world of Second Life, than in realspace.
Whilst issues such as democracy, human rights, being in harmony with the environment and so on are noble in of themselves andto which we should strive for, at the same time we must accept that certain groups will invoke such issues to serve thrir own personal, commercial, economic, political, geostrategic or other interests which are not. Just look what happened when the US-imperialists invaded Iraq to "being them democracy." Instead, it destroyed its economy, its culture, created greater instability and basically ruined the Iraqi people's lives.
The rise of China and India does pose an economic challenge to the economic power and political dominance of the United States on the world stage, so it would serve the interests of some quarters over there to use non-violent approaches to undermine China's and India's rise, whilst at the same time it does not mean that China, India and other developing countries should not learn from the mistakes made by countries which developed earlier so that they do not make such mistakes in their course of development.
For example, during the industrial revolution, factories in Britain thought nothing of dumping their effluents into the rivers and waterways, thus polluting them, such as the River Irwell which flowed past my university in the UK, back in the 1970s could not sustain aquatic life.
However, it may seem that whatever we may do, industrial development and sustainability are mutually exclusive, whilst whatever means or developments believed to alleviate one problem create other equally bad problems of their own.
Take for example how computers and data communications, especially the Internet were supposed to reduce our need to travel, reduce the use of paper and so on, hence be more environmetally friendly but this has led to an explosion in the numbers of computer, servers and data centres which consume huge amounts of power, generate huge amounts of heat, hence require huge amonts of cooling, hence we now hear computer hardware vendors touting their products as green and data centre operators boasting of their green data centres.
Some say we should not use plastic bags to take away our shopping in but if we used paper bags would that not require more trees to be cut down.
Do we need to buy a new mobile phone every six months or a new PC motherboard every year as our present one "becomes obsolete."
If we are to reduce our use of our car, we need a good and reliable public transport system but do we have that?
Can our houses be intelligently designed to maximise natural ventilation, to absorb minimal heat through the use of the right materials to minimise on our need for air conditioning but are the housing developers building houses like that or are they merely constructing houses at minimal cost, whilst we have to use air conditioning to be more comfortable.
Back in the early 1980s, Malaysia's population stood at around 14 million but then prime minister Dr Mahathir called for us to have a population of 70 million by the year 2020, supposedly to have a big enough local market to sustain our industries but over 25 years later, with a population of 27 million are our lives any better and our economy is still not big enough for our producers who have to go overseas to find big enough markets, and has all this done any good for the environment and reduced carbon emissions?
If instead, policies and initiatives of family planning had been maintained and our populations was say 17 million today, would our lives not be a lot better than it is now?
These are the things we need to address at if we are serious about practicing more socially, environmentally and ecologically sustainable livelihoods, irrespective of whatever outsiders may say but are we or more precisely our government up to it?
There is nothing wrong with Christian Aid's call. After all, they called for a reduction of carbon emmissions by 40% in the European Union and for assistance to developing countries to adopt green practices.
At the same time, we in Malaysia need to define and develop our own policies towards sustainable, environmentally and ecologically friendly development and lifestyle without following every suggestion directed at us or imposed upon us by outsiders, though knowing our corrupt, inefficient and untrustworthy Barisan Nasional government, it would be easier for us to achieve that in the virtual world of Second Life, than in realspace.
Whilst issues such as democracy, human rights, being in harmony with the environment and so on are noble in of themselves andto which we should strive for, at the same time we must accept that certain groups will invoke such issues to serve thrir own personal, commercial, economic, political, geostrategic or other interests which are not. Just look what happened when the US-imperialists invaded Iraq to "being them democracy." Instead, it destroyed its economy, its culture, created greater instability and basically ruined the Iraqi people's lives.
The rise of China and India does pose an economic challenge to the economic power and political dominance of the United States on the world stage, so it would serve the interests of some quarters over there to use non-violent approaches to undermine China's and India's rise, whilst at the same time it does not mean that China, India and other developing countries should not learn from the mistakes made by countries which developed earlier so that they do not make such mistakes in their course of development.
For example, during the industrial revolution, factories in Britain thought nothing of dumping their effluents into the rivers and waterways, thus polluting them, such as the River Irwell which flowed past my university in the UK, back in the 1970s could not sustain aquatic life.
However, it may seem that whatever we may do, industrial development and sustainability are mutually exclusive, whilst whatever means or developments believed to alleviate one problem create other equally bad problems of their own.
Take for example how computers and data communications, especially the Internet were supposed to reduce our need to travel, reduce the use of paper and so on, hence be more environmetally friendly but this has led to an explosion in the numbers of computer, servers and data centres which consume huge amounts of power, generate huge amounts of heat, hence require huge amonts of cooling, hence we now hear computer hardware vendors touting their products as green and data centre operators boasting of their green data centres.
Some say we should not use plastic bags to take away our shopping in but if we used paper bags would that not require more trees to be cut down.
Do we need to buy a new mobile phone every six months or a new PC motherboard every year as our present one "becomes obsolete."
If we are to reduce our use of our car, we need a good and reliable public transport system but do we have that?
Can our houses be intelligently designed to maximise natural ventilation, to absorb minimal heat through the use of the right materials to minimise on our need for air conditioning but are the housing developers building houses like that or are they merely constructing houses at minimal cost, whilst we have to use air conditioning to be more comfortable.
Back in the early 1980s, Malaysia's population stood at around 14 million but then prime minister Dr Mahathir called for us to have a population of 70 million by the year 2020, supposedly to have a big enough local market to sustain our industries but over 25 years later, with a population of 27 million are our lives any better and our economy is still not big enough for our producers who have to go overseas to find big enough markets, and has all this done any good for the environment and reduced carbon emissions?
If instead, policies and initiatives of family planning had been maintained and our populations was say 17 million today, would our lives not be a lot better than it is now?
These are the things we need to address at if we are serious about practicing more socially, environmentally and ecologically sustainable livelihoods, irrespective of whatever outsiders may say but are we or more precisely our government up to it?
-
- +8
-
-
...
written by megabigBLUR, September 08, 2009
written by megabigBLUR, September 08, 2009
Developing countries NEED to care about climate change becuase the projected rise in ocean levels means that a lot of our coastline is going to be swallowed. It's not about parroting the West or political correctness. Even if things like OUR biodiversity heritage mean nothing to you, what about the fishing villages, fish farms, ports, etc. that humans built and need to use for economic development?
-
- +5
-
-
...
written by fish tank, September 09, 2009
written by fish tank, September 09, 2009
earthman, you just have to google 'philosophy of science' or 'politics of science' to know there is such a thing even if you obviously do not understand what it is about. what you mentioned are the basics of science. You learn that in the 1st year of a university science degree.
-
- +1
-
-
...
written by Abraham, September 09, 2009
written by Abraham, September 09, 2009
A lot of stuff written in this article came from articles that came out in magazines like Newsweek, Times and Economists in the last couple of weeks. So much for originality from thinking 'Think Tanks'..
-
- +4
-
-
...
written by earthman, September 09, 2009
written by earthman, September 09, 2009
First of all, thanks to all commentators who gave good arguments. I truly value your points which makes sense.
@Gogreenlah
I cannot justify their actions (slash and burn), but I can certainly understand their behaviours, and we shouldn't blame the individuals. They are not educated to the effects of pollution caused to other people. If all you had is just a matchstick and a hoe, no formal education, no capital and no govt support. In that situation you need to survive and to feed your family, you would have certainly done the same thing without concern for things as trivial as 'global warming'. All you care is survival, using whatever means necessary.
Whether the Pacific Rims island people are willing to believe me is irrelevant, what is relevant is that Co2 Global Warming theory is testable in real world, and the results are consistent, the theory holds up no matter how it is attacked, and these are conveyed to them. If someone can do that convincingly I am happy to propagate the doomsday scenario to these people.
I challenge the scientists of the world to come up with a standardized set of testing methods to once and for all eliminate all disputes on global warming theory, but do you see any governments or scientific bodies taking this initiative? No because most research are funded by governments or industries with their own prejudiced interests in mind. that is, the research is biased. Of course you may say anti-global warming supporters are biased, which I agree, but so are green activists.
Again, if basic Scientific methods cannot be followed to the dot, no point in imposing carbon taxes or penalties in the name of Co2 Global Warming theory.
No disrespect to all scientists who are genuinely unbiased, its just that if you all cannot unite, how do you expect non scientists to believe any conclusions?
Let's put it this way: Would you have yourself (an innocent man) convicted of murder and sentenced to death if the forensic evidence used to charge you is contaminated, or the evidence collection method is flawed and compromised, or there is no stringent testing methods, no consistent results even if conducted by other independent scientists? I'd figure not!
Even if indeed you are the murderer, the judge still cannot put you in jail if the Scientific methods and procedures are not followed correctly!!
What say you GoGreen? can you GoScientific first? can you GoUnbiased first?
@Gogreenlah
I cannot justify their actions (slash and burn), but I can certainly understand their behaviours, and we shouldn't blame the individuals. They are not educated to the effects of pollution caused to other people. If all you had is just a matchstick and a hoe, no formal education, no capital and no govt support. In that situation you need to survive and to feed your family, you would have certainly done the same thing without concern for things as trivial as 'global warming'. All you care is survival, using whatever means necessary.
Whether the Pacific Rims island people are willing to believe me is irrelevant, what is relevant is that Co2 Global Warming theory is testable in real world, and the results are consistent, the theory holds up no matter how it is attacked, and these are conveyed to them. If someone can do that convincingly I am happy to propagate the doomsday scenario to these people.
I challenge the scientists of the world to come up with a standardized set of testing methods to once and for all eliminate all disputes on global warming theory, but do you see any governments or scientific bodies taking this initiative? No because most research are funded by governments or industries with their own prejudiced interests in mind. that is, the research is biased. Of course you may say anti-global warming supporters are biased, which I agree, but so are green activists.
Again, if basic Scientific methods cannot be followed to the dot, no point in imposing carbon taxes or penalties in the name of Co2 Global Warming theory.
No disrespect to all scientists who are genuinely unbiased, its just that if you all cannot unite, how do you expect non scientists to believe any conclusions?
Let's put it this way: Would you have yourself (an innocent man) convicted of murder and sentenced to death if the forensic evidence used to charge you is contaminated, or the evidence collection method is flawed and compromised, or there is no stringent testing methods, no consistent results even if conducted by other independent scientists? I'd figure not!
Even if indeed you are the murderer, the judge still cannot put you in jail if the Scientific methods and procedures are not followed correctly!!
What say you GoGreen? can you GoScientific first? can you GoUnbiased first?
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by Wan Kong Yew, September 09, 2009
written by Wan Kong Yew, September 09, 2009
It's worth keeping in mind that Wan Saiful Wan Jan is a libertarian and hence his skepticism towards environmental issues and doubt concerning the practicality of big governments to resolve the issue is grounded in that stance. What is disappointing is that he takes the easy way out to blame the West for this, as opposed to arguing against the plenty of home-grown environmentalists. How much resources we should devote to environmentalism is a genuinely worthy topic for debate. It doesn't need to be marred by bringing the issue of "Western imperialism" into it.
-
- +1
-
-
...
written by LAWL & ORDER, September 09, 2009
written by LAWL & ORDER, September 09, 2009
What I say is that there should be as much concern and control instilled upon Climate Change as there is as much towards the outlawing of homosexuality. Or abortion for that matter.
There are pros and cons in anything we intend to implement on a large scale. We are facing the power of corporations and governments, not some tree-hugging view.
Until we drop the hammer and sharpen the sword against other issues, there can never be an effort to take Climate Change seriously. This falls on deaf ears.
There are pros and cons in anything we intend to implement on a large scale. We are facing the power of corporations and governments, not some tree-hugging view.
Until we drop the hammer and sharpen the sword against other issues, there can never be an effort to take Climate Change seriously. This falls on deaf ears.
-
- +1
-
-
...
written by Seow Wee Loong, September 09, 2009
written by Seow Wee Loong, September 09, 2009
Why not bring in the US v them debate? The anglo-saxon and european nations are only looking after themselves. By imposing all these taxes they hope to make foreign(refer:asian) goods to become less competitive, making their own local goods more attractive.
Remember, the European Union strictly denounces protectionism, only of its own goods (goods produced in the EU). When it comes to foreign goods? To hell with that, tax away.
Besides, these western nations are notorious for stirring up trouble in African nations just to maintain their stranglehold in the continent. The secret services of these nations are always funding and backing different militia/military groups to create unrest, destabilizing the continent.
The person who commented on political science is correct, in this case, environmentalism is just another vehicle for politicians to earn points. Mr.Obama clearly exploited it to the maximum.
And please dont slate the author for being unoriginal and confrontational to the Whites. He is merely stating that to deny developing nations the oppurtunity to grow will result in their economies stagnating, with no job oppurtunities growing, whilst the population booms.
In the end, its simple for you and me middle-class people to take up the banner of environmentalism because it wont hurt us. Things like international trade and an increase in prices wont cripple us, but itll cripple the lower paid workers, in factories etc.
Remember, the European Union strictly denounces protectionism, only of its own goods (goods produced in the EU). When it comes to foreign goods? To hell with that, tax away.
Besides, these western nations are notorious for stirring up trouble in African nations just to maintain their stranglehold in the continent. The secret services of these nations are always funding and backing different militia/military groups to create unrest, destabilizing the continent.
The person who commented on political science is correct, in this case, environmentalism is just another vehicle for politicians to earn points. Mr.Obama clearly exploited it to the maximum.
And please dont slate the author for being unoriginal and confrontational to the Whites. He is merely stating that to deny developing nations the oppurtunity to grow will result in their economies stagnating, with no job oppurtunities growing, whilst the population booms.
In the end, its simple for you and me middle-class people to take up the banner of environmentalism because it wont hurt us. Things like international trade and an increase in prices wont cripple us, but itll cripple the lower paid workers, in factories etc.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by Penumpang Halal, September 09, 2009
written by Penumpang Halal, September 09, 2009
You have your point Saiful; but beyond "What not to do" what do you recommend that we, Malaysians and other development nationals "do"?
Being just in the negative would no positive bring.
Does that ring the bell?
Being just in the negative would no positive bring.
Does that ring the bell?
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by the reason is my children, September 09, 2009
written by the reason is my children, September 09, 2009
In 50 years, I will be 72 with kids, maybe even cucu and I know for sure that I do not want them to be growing up in a world facing water scarcity, food shortages and political instability caused by climate change.
We don't even need science that something is going wrong. When people around the world are no longer able to farm because they ARE losing their land that for generations they have farmed on to sea level rise, salt water intrusion; when worldwide corals are bleaching; that our rainfall patterns have become erratic and unpredictable - what other proof do we need? And when these things are happening around us, how will be able to prosper unaffected?
The market has flaws and looking after the commons like climate and environment is one of them. Yet, market-based innovations are trying help us internalize these externalities so that the price reflects actual cost and we consume at the socially optimal level.
The contention lies in who gets to decide the allocation, pricing etc of such mechanisms, which I think Wan Saiful (minutely) alluded to. But if Malaysia remains to scream accusations at the West, dispute climate change, continue to see it as obstacle rather than an opportunity and provide no alternative, then we will not get a chance to be part of that discussion.
I think future generations deserve the standard of living that we get to enjoy and that they shouldn't have to pay for the selfishness of the present. Wan Saiful, please show us that you understand that climate change is a complicated collective action problem and that development is not just the economic prosperity that you get to experience.
p.s. China is already embarking on a low-carbon economy strategy
We don't even need science that something is going wrong. When people around the world are no longer able to farm because they ARE losing their land that for generations they have farmed on to sea level rise, salt water intrusion; when worldwide corals are bleaching; that our rainfall patterns have become erratic and unpredictable - what other proof do we need? And when these things are happening around us, how will be able to prosper unaffected?
The market has flaws and looking after the commons like climate and environment is one of them. Yet, market-based innovations are trying help us internalize these externalities so that the price reflects actual cost and we consume at the socially optimal level.
The contention lies in who gets to decide the allocation, pricing etc of such mechanisms, which I think Wan Saiful (minutely) alluded to. But if Malaysia remains to scream accusations at the West, dispute climate change, continue to see it as obstacle rather than an opportunity and provide no alternative, then we will not get a chance to be part of that discussion.
I think future generations deserve the standard of living that we get to enjoy and that they shouldn't have to pay for the selfishness of the present. Wan Saiful, please show us that you understand that climate change is a complicated collective action problem and that development is not just the economic prosperity that you get to experience.
p.s. China is already embarking on a low-carbon economy strategy
-
- +2
-
-
...
written by climate activist, September 09, 2009
written by climate activist, September 09, 2009
@earthman, how do you know I have not stay with the Orang Asli and Orang Asal before? Or I'm not a Orang Asli myself? Prosperity, development, growth? These terms mean nothing to the Penans, to the Dayaks, and most of the Orang Asli and Orang Asal communities in Malaysia. More often than not, their customary land in the forests are taken away from them by the state to be plundered by the rich logging companies, their home ruined, and they are left out there in the cold by the state, abandoned.
Yes, some of the politicians in the West are trying to take advantage of the "green movement" to impose unfair taxes and create more economic inequalities between the developed and developing countries, but is it fair to lump these people together with the environmentalists/green activists who truly want a sustainable world and better future for our children and blame them ALL?
Yeah climate change is not happening, the glaciers are not melting, the arctic did not melt entirely this summer, the polar bears are not endangered, the heat waves are not happening more often, nor are the floods and droughts, the POOR will not be the worst affected in this crisis, we do not have a food crisis, island nations are not sinking, the leaders of Maldives and Tuvalu shouldn't be looking for new lands for their people so soon, desertification is not happening in China, we're not seeing any signs of climate change yet, this is not an issue of survival, let's continue to wait for 100% of the scientists in the world to confirm that climate change is happening, our children deserved to inherit whatever is left of the world then, so let's do nothing before that and live on.
Yes, some of the politicians in the West are trying to take advantage of the "green movement" to impose unfair taxes and create more economic inequalities between the developed and developing countries, but is it fair to lump these people together with the environmentalists/green activists who truly want a sustainable world and better future for our children and blame them ALL?
Yeah climate change is not happening, the glaciers are not melting, the arctic did not melt entirely this summer, the polar bears are not endangered, the heat waves are not happening more often, nor are the floods and droughts, the POOR will not be the worst affected in this crisis, we do not have a food crisis, island nations are not sinking, the leaders of Maldives and Tuvalu shouldn't be looking for new lands for their people so soon, desertification is not happening in China, we're not seeing any signs of climate change yet, this is not an issue of survival, let's continue to wait for 100% of the scientists in the world to confirm that climate change is happening, our children deserved to inherit whatever is left of the world then, so let's do nothing before that and live on.
-
- +2
-
-
...
written by Ron, September 09, 2009
written by Ron, September 09, 2009
You might be right to voice your skepticism, but your views are grossly overstated.
Let me first state that I am an environmental advocate. Yet my line of work is management and accounting.
It is true that putting caps or any restrictions for that matter will hurt economic activity of any country to some extent . I am fully aware that any method to reduce your footprint will have an associated cost. Yet people mostly glaze over what is REALLY effort, what is REALLY cost and what is REALLY returns. You have unfortunately fallen into that trap too.
You argued that green trade looks good superficially but creates hurdles for Malaysia. You fail to elaborate on such hurdles, yet I can tell you this. Yes, it is going to require change. Let me also tell you this. As one who has formerly been involved in reviewing companies on their non-financial performance, Malaysian companies are blessed. They have a relatively stable base of economic trade and most are not embroiled in major environmental issues. Those that have issues will have to face costs to change but unlike foreign companies our industries are still not entrenched so deep that they can't change. Not even Petronas.
You argue that carbon trading masks protectionism. As a Malaysian, I see protectionism already happening but let me argue this out more logically. Japanese companies have already been investing in Malaysia to run small scale Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects under the Kyoto protocol. What happens when we develop a cap? Can we not implement small scale CDM in our own rural areas? Who is that helping(the very people who need development in case you need the answer). Also, the answer is that we already have allocations for rural development. We just need to expand on that to include CDM. And I can give you 10 ways to do that too if you wish.
Next, you argued Mr. Ramesh's stance yet gave not his reasoning nor yours for it. Admittedly, India has its own(sometimes greater) set of hurdles. Poverty eradication & education certainly come first. I can also give you examples of projects that not only help the environment in India but also improve the community's economic standing. Yet I will stick to Malaysia because your conclusion stated that you wish the best for Malaysia. We in Malaysia do not face massive levels of hardcore poverty, droughts, economic imbalance, overpopulation. How can you argue that India's condition are same as ours because we are both labeled as developing nations(thats called parroting a western view if we are to hold your argument). What we as Malaysia need is to set own targets, our own methods and our own style of managing the problem.
As for Deepak Lal's argument that the west is arm twisting the east to change. Your starting note contradicts this very statement. What Christian aid lobbied was to "...call the European Union to cut domestic carbon emission by 40 per cent by 2020, and ensure developing countries have all the resources necessary to reduce emissions, develop cleanly and adapt to climate change." Thats right folks. They cut THEIR OWN emissions and HELP developing nations cut theirs too.
Your argument about the excesses of western countries is not only vague but glossed over. Firstly, the hope is that we do not repeat their mistakes in environmental neglect when they were developing. Not to stop development. Secondly, preventing climate change is going to benefit Malaysians as much as it benefits everyone else. Why argue that we be punished too just to get back at them?
Lastly, the argument that climate change theories are increasingly being discredited is gross misstatement. It is true that climate change does involve non-human factors. But for every report that so called discredits climate change, there are many more supporting it. If you want to be skeptical, why take a stance and say that only climate change advocates are wrong?
Now this is what I think when it comes to Malaysia:
Firstly, Malaysia has it easy. No natural calamities, no excessive poverty, no overpopulation. Second, our economic base is relatively stable. Third our political structure(despite even the current events) are also relatively stable. Fourth, our natural resources are bountiful and Malaysia already has the resources to be a reduced carbon emitter.
What does that mean?
That it is easier for us to implement changes now than to have to correct our damage 50 years down the road. Yes, economically there is a need to change and some development have to be curtailed. The biggest hurdle however is to change the Malaysian mindset. And you aren't helping.
Let me first state that I am an environmental advocate. Yet my line of work is management and accounting.
It is true that putting caps or any restrictions for that matter will hurt economic activity of any country to some extent . I am fully aware that any method to reduce your footprint will have an associated cost. Yet people mostly glaze over what is REALLY effort, what is REALLY cost and what is REALLY returns. You have unfortunately fallen into that trap too.
You argued that green trade looks good superficially but creates hurdles for Malaysia. You fail to elaborate on such hurdles, yet I can tell you this. Yes, it is going to require change. Let me also tell you this. As one who has formerly been involved in reviewing companies on their non-financial performance, Malaysian companies are blessed. They have a relatively stable base of economic trade and most are not embroiled in major environmental issues. Those that have issues will have to face costs to change but unlike foreign companies our industries are still not entrenched so deep that they can't change. Not even Petronas.
You argue that carbon trading masks protectionism. As a Malaysian, I see protectionism already happening but let me argue this out more logically. Japanese companies have already been investing in Malaysia to run small scale Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects under the Kyoto protocol. What happens when we develop a cap? Can we not implement small scale CDM in our own rural areas? Who is that helping(the very people who need development in case you need the answer). Also, the answer is that we already have allocations for rural development. We just need to expand on that to include CDM. And I can give you 10 ways to do that too if you wish.
Next, you argued Mr. Ramesh's stance yet gave not his reasoning nor yours for it. Admittedly, India has its own(sometimes greater) set of hurdles. Poverty eradication & education certainly come first. I can also give you examples of projects that not only help the environment in India but also improve the community's economic standing. Yet I will stick to Malaysia because your conclusion stated that you wish the best for Malaysia. We in Malaysia do not face massive levels of hardcore poverty, droughts, economic imbalance, overpopulation. How can you argue that India's condition are same as ours because we are both labeled as developing nations(thats called parroting a western view if we are to hold your argument). What we as Malaysia need is to set own targets, our own methods and our own style of managing the problem.
As for Deepak Lal's argument that the west is arm twisting the east to change. Your starting note contradicts this very statement. What Christian aid lobbied was to "...call the European Union to cut domestic carbon emission by 40 per cent by 2020, and ensure developing countries have all the resources necessary to reduce emissions, develop cleanly and adapt to climate change." Thats right folks. They cut THEIR OWN emissions and HELP developing nations cut theirs too.
Your argument about the excesses of western countries is not only vague but glossed over. Firstly, the hope is that we do not repeat their mistakes in environmental neglect when they were developing. Not to stop development. Secondly, preventing climate change is going to benefit Malaysians as much as it benefits everyone else. Why argue that we be punished too just to get back at them?
Lastly, the argument that climate change theories are increasingly being discredited is gross misstatement. It is true that climate change does involve non-human factors. But for every report that so called discredits climate change, there are many more supporting it. If you want to be skeptical, why take a stance and say that only climate change advocates are wrong?
Now this is what I think when it comes to Malaysia:
Firstly, Malaysia has it easy. No natural calamities, no excessive poverty, no overpopulation. Second, our economic base is relatively stable. Third our political structure(despite even the current events) are also relatively stable. Fourth, our natural resources are bountiful and Malaysia already has the resources to be a reduced carbon emitter.
What does that mean?
That it is easier for us to implement changes now than to have to correct our damage 50 years down the road. Yes, economically there is a need to change and some development have to be curtailed. The biggest hurdle however is to change the Malaysian mindset. And you aren't helping.
-
- +5
-
-
...
written by GoGreenlah.com, September 09, 2009
written by GoGreenlah.com, September 09, 2009
@earthman
Foremost, I’m a businessman supplying material to the local palm oil industries. I’m not a scientist or I have the credentials to judge any scientists work and dare not speak on their behalf. However, one does not need scientists’ research or biased opinions to know if the ‘trivial’ thing such as global warming is happening. Take a trip to the Cameron Highlands and ask the locals there, they will tell you that the place not as cool as it was 20 years ago.
Being labeled as a “green activist”, am I propagating global warming as the absolute doomsday scenario? No, I’m not that naïve, I’m just maintaining GoGreenlah.com forum to propagate the green technologies to make this world or at least Malaysia a better place. GoGreenLah.com is for people who are willing to be educated about green technologies, not the recalcitrant.
Hopefully along the way, with these newly educated masses, global warming ‘theory’ as you put it, maybe prevented all together and declared as myth by some scientists. Honestly, I prefer that the ‘theory’ ended up that way than letting the next generations suffer from the effects of global warming caused by the current generation.
Understanding the behaviours of the slash and burn practitioners because they are poor and uneducated maybe true in the beginning, but it has been a re-occurring event years after years. For that, I failed to understand at all! Perhaps you can enlighten me with new arguments to justify their behaviours?
@earthman @Kiwi in Malaysia @climate activist, @fish tank @Green Environmental Terrorist @Reader
Imagine a scenario, where we put earthman, Kiwi in Malaysia, GoGreenLah.com, climate activist, fish tank and Green Environmental Terrorist together in a room where the air is recycle by a tiny air recycler. Somehow, Green Environmental Terrorist and Reader keep farting and slowly poisoning the air in the room. Kiwi in Malaysia started to have breathing difficulty because he is the nearest to Green Environmental Terrorist and calling out for help. Due to ignorance, refusal to believe that the air is slowly being poisoned or plain laziness, the rest of the group failed to help Kiwi in Malaysia and eventually Kiwi in Malaysia succumbed. By then, it is too late for the rest in the room.
I have taken the liberty to include your comments in GoGreenLah.com forum under Green Politics, please feel free to participate if you wish to.
In a nut shell, global warming is real and we are not in an imaginary scenario. We are living in the real world sharing the same air and rising temperature!
Foremost, I’m a businessman supplying material to the local palm oil industries. I’m not a scientist or I have the credentials to judge any scientists work and dare not speak on their behalf. However, one does not need scientists’ research or biased opinions to know if the ‘trivial’ thing such as global warming is happening. Take a trip to the Cameron Highlands and ask the locals there, they will tell you that the place not as cool as it was 20 years ago.
Being labeled as a “green activist”, am I propagating global warming as the absolute doomsday scenario? No, I’m not that naïve, I’m just maintaining GoGreenlah.com forum to propagate the green technologies to make this world or at least Malaysia a better place. GoGreenLah.com is for people who are willing to be educated about green technologies, not the recalcitrant.
Hopefully along the way, with these newly educated masses, global warming ‘theory’ as you put it, maybe prevented all together and declared as myth by some scientists. Honestly, I prefer that the ‘theory’ ended up that way than letting the next generations suffer from the effects of global warming caused by the current generation.
Understanding the behaviours of the slash and burn practitioners because they are poor and uneducated maybe true in the beginning, but it has been a re-occurring event years after years. For that, I failed to understand at all! Perhaps you can enlighten me with new arguments to justify their behaviours?
@earthman @Kiwi in Malaysia @climate activist, @fish tank @Green Environmental Terrorist @Reader
Imagine a scenario, where we put earthman, Kiwi in Malaysia, GoGreenLah.com, climate activist, fish tank and Green Environmental Terrorist together in a room where the air is recycle by a tiny air recycler. Somehow, Green Environmental Terrorist and Reader keep farting and slowly poisoning the air in the room. Kiwi in Malaysia started to have breathing difficulty because he is the nearest to Green Environmental Terrorist and calling out for help. Due to ignorance, refusal to believe that the air is slowly being poisoned or plain laziness, the rest of the group failed to help Kiwi in Malaysia and eventually Kiwi in Malaysia succumbed. By then, it is too late for the rest in the room.
I have taken the liberty to include your comments in GoGreenLah.com forum under Green Politics, please feel free to participate if you wish to.
In a nut shell, global warming is real and we are not in an imaginary scenario. We are living in the real world sharing the same air and rising temperature!
-
- +4
-
-
...
written by vinnan, September 09, 2009
written by vinnan, September 09, 2009
Tell those Western morons to palnt their own trees. Much of the grassland we see in Euro[pe today used to be forest before their timber robbers raped the trees.
-
- -3
-
-
...
written by tcchip, September 10, 2009
written by tcchip, September 10, 2009
Nobody is advocating a total ban of cars or burning of fossil fuels, or living in trees. It's simply not feasible. The idea of environmentalism is sustainability and choosing to make small lifestyle changes that anybody can do so we won't have to make more drastic lifestyle changes as a result of climate change. Simple things like sorting your trash, safe disposal of electronic waste and the use of shopping bags or at least recyclable paper bags over plastic, without completely taking them out of the market.
All countries deserve a right to develop themselves and ensure its citizens do not starve or fall into illness, and certainly countries like India and China have a right to feel angry because most of those Western nations are outsourcing their carbon-heavy industries there and then blaming said countries for causing these environmental issues, just like how we blame Indonesia for the haze caused by slash and burn farmers, when said farms are owned by Malaysian companies who flagrantly disregard environmental laws.
'Green' activists are demanding climate justice for all nations around the world, for every country to hold itself accountable for its environmental damage vs nation development, not for Third World nations to stay poor while the West remain rich and comfortable. It's simply about a willingness to make a change within ourselves so that we can sustain our future. Environmentalism isn't about radicalism or anarchy, but simply asking people to think for the long term instead of looking towards immediate gratification that came from decades of consumerism, then take this up all the way to the government level by balancing development with the plunder of natural resources. Nobody said it was anything simple or easy to achieve, but look at the little questions like 'do we REALLY need that plastic bag to carry that can of Coke that you're going to drink right now?' or 'do we REALLY need to cut down rainforests in Sarawak and disrupt the lifestyle of its indigenous people that resulted in the Penan people being subjected to harassment and abuse to make room for palm oil plantations when we have plenty of undeveloped land in Peninsular Malaysia?' Ask yourself that, and then decide if what we're doing is right.
All countries deserve a right to develop themselves and ensure its citizens do not starve or fall into illness, and certainly countries like India and China have a right to feel angry because most of those Western nations are outsourcing their carbon-heavy industries there and then blaming said countries for causing these environmental issues, just like how we blame Indonesia for the haze caused by slash and burn farmers, when said farms are owned by Malaysian companies who flagrantly disregard environmental laws.
'Green' activists are demanding climate justice for all nations around the world, for every country to hold itself accountable for its environmental damage vs nation development, not for Third World nations to stay poor while the West remain rich and comfortable. It's simply about a willingness to make a change within ourselves so that we can sustain our future. Environmentalism isn't about radicalism or anarchy, but simply asking people to think for the long term instead of looking towards immediate gratification that came from decades of consumerism, then take this up all the way to the government level by balancing development with the plunder of natural resources. Nobody said it was anything simple or easy to achieve, but look at the little questions like 'do we REALLY need that plastic bag to carry that can of Coke that you're going to drink right now?' or 'do we REALLY need to cut down rainforests in Sarawak and disrupt the lifestyle of its indigenous people that resulted in the Penan people being subjected to harassment and abuse to make room for palm oil plantations when we have plenty of undeveloped land in Peninsular Malaysia?' Ask yourself that, and then decide if what we're doing is right.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by notgovtfunded, September 14, 2009
written by notgovtfunded, September 14, 2009
@seow wee leong
speaking of the middle-class, it is easy for middle class people like you and me to debate about science and politics when marginalised groups like the indegenous peoples are suffering from acts of irresponsible development. some of which others have highlighted here.
so called think tank here is not 'merely' stating that to deny developing nations ....etc..
He is in fact making a sweeping statement against all environmantalist as western parrots and biasing towards inaction and calling the whole climate movement a sham because of some disputed arguments.
He clearly has no clue as to the current negotiations of climate change, and that there are activists, western or not, who are against the stand taken by the west.
It is therefore irresponsible (and simple-minded) for such a conclusion, and to use such an irresponsible statement to further his views. His views on the developed countries agenda are valid, unfortunately he couldn't present it in an intelligent manner by way of simplistic and irresponsible statements.
speaking of the middle-class, it is easy for middle class people like you and me to debate about science and politics when marginalised groups like the indegenous peoples are suffering from acts of irresponsible development. some of which others have highlighted here.
so called think tank here is not 'merely' stating that to deny developing nations ....etc..
He is in fact making a sweeping statement against all environmantalist as western parrots and biasing towards inaction and calling the whole climate movement a sham because of some disputed arguments.
He clearly has no clue as to the current negotiations of climate change, and that there are activists, western or not, who are against the stand taken by the west.
It is therefore irresponsible (and simple-minded) for such a conclusion, and to use such an irresponsible statement to further his views. His views on the developed countries agenda are valid, unfortunately he couldn't present it in an intelligent manner by way of simplistic and irresponsible statements.
-
- +1
-
-
Write comment
Show/Hide comment form
I'm not saying "going green" is bad. Wanton deforestation for the sake of profit is never good, but before we launch into an all-out for the green movement, stop and think further. Paraphrasing the writer, scientific debates on this matter really does warrant a detailed investigation.
Don't jump on the green bandwagon, or any bandwagon for that matter, just because everyone is doing it, "it's cool" or the media (Western or local) propagates the idea.