back to article Only global poverty can save the planet, insists WWF - and the ESA!

Extremist green campaigning group WWF - endorsed by no less a body than the European Space Agency - has stated that economic growth should be abandoned, that citizens of the world's wealthy nations should prepare for poverty and that all the human race's energy should be produced as renewable electricity within 38 years from now …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

    1. davtom

      @bob's hamster

      What's wrong with it is that it doesn't provide any reasonable solutions acceptable to a normal person motivated by materialistic pursuits rather than the desire to grab a club and head for the nearest cave to spend the rest of their life.

      Surely you didn't need me to tell you that.

      1. NomNomNom

        Re: @bob's hamster

        "What's wrong with it is that it doesn't provide any reasonable solutions acceptable to a normal person motivated by materialistic pursuits rather than the desire to grab a club and head for the nearest cave to spend the rest of their life."

        Yes it does. Have you even read the report? Or did you just swallow this article, which of course can't be biased at all.

        Find in the report where it suggests anything remotely like living in a cave.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the journalist.

      I like the way that HE is the reactionary when YOU are advocating that we go back to the stone age.

  1. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    "Extremist green campaigning group WWF"

    I really couldn't be arsed reading beyond that first line. I just know everything after that is going to be utter bollocks.

    1. Miek
      Stop

      Re: "Extremist green campaigning group WWF"

      "Extremist green campaigning group WWF". I only read this far too. Since when has the WWF been a group of Extremists? Are you thinking of Greenpeace? Or possibly the Da Lai Lama ?

      1. itzman

        Re: "Extremist green campaigning group WWF"

        since about two years ago.

        Why not read what they write. And judge for yourself.

      2. JimC

        Since when has the WWF been a group of Extremists?

        Its quite a new development for WWF I think, but I haven't been paying attention. But it happens to a lot of these sorts of organisations. The really keen people tend to be the ones on the end of the bell curve, and they end up running things because they're the ones who put most commitment in.

        Provided you share their world view the logic that "its more important to campaign to stop things going wrong than to act to fix things that have gone wrong" is impeccable. However by and large they still get the money in from people who think they are still shelling out to fix things, and don't share the world view, and that to my mind is somewhat dishonest.

        See also...

        - RSPCA

        - RSPB

        - National trust (less far along)

        - OXFAM

        add others to taste and personal bias....

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Since when has the WWF been a group of Extremists?

          I'll add Save the Children to that list. I once got threatened with the courts by their legal team. I was running a charity event where 50% was to go to STC, and 50% to someone else. They said if their name was being mentioned then all the money had to go to them.

          Yes, thats right, the money people give to STC feeds a team of lawyers. Needless to say none of the money went to them, and none of mine ever will.

          Anonymous because, well, they have lawyers.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Joke

          @Jimc

          Indeed, they used to be a bunch of very good wrestlers!

          Makes you wonder indeed...

    2. Chet Mannly

      Re: "Extremist green campaigning group WWF"

      Isn't it great to have an open mind!

      Oh wait...

      WWF are green campaigners - agreed?

      WWF's report advocates extreme amounts of societal change to achieve their environmental goals - agreed?

  2. Neil Barnes Silver badge
    WTF?

    If these idiots had the courage of their convictions

    They would immediately suicide (in a carbon-neutral way) and leave the rest of us in peace.

    My ancestors spent many millennia moving on from living in caves and I have no desire to return to them - there's a definite shortage of caves in Hertfordshire, and what there are are cold and draughty.

    Man is the animal that changes his environment to suit himself. The greens of any flavour might not like that - though they seem quite happy to use the latest technology and infrastructure to live themselves and to try and shout about their point of view - but the simple fact is that *every* animal, plant, microbe, or whatever, uses as much of its local resources as it can. Always and without exception.

    Assuming that 'equalising' things by reducing the haves to the level of the have-nots makes any kind of sense at all is idiocy of the finest order.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: If these idiots had the courage of their convictions

      You misunderstand righteousness.

      If they can persuade a group of people to reduce their carbon emissions to the point where the total savings exceed the carbon footprint of the evangelist, then he has done net good in the world! Thus, he is driven to further his goals at all costs. It is for your own good, you know.

      For the righteous man, failing to further his goals either by simple inaction or by the more effective means of offing himself makes the world a worse place in his view, and he doesn't want to be part of the problem. Evangelising ensues.

      You'll note that most of the terms associated with this have a heavy religious leaning. I expect it comes from the same strange attractors in the human psyche that encourage self flagellation in the name of a god, only that's not quite so fashionable these days.

    2. NomNomNom

      Re: If these idiots had the courage of their convictions

      "My ancestors spent many millennia moving on from living in caves and I have no desire to return to them"

      Yes because when people lived in caves they had wind turbines outside and a hydroelectric dam down in the stream....

      1. Fibbles

        Re: NomNomNom

        No they didn't, and neither will you under the WWF's plan unless you can figure out how to build them from sticks.

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: NomNomNom

          Yes because the report advocates making everything out of sticks.

          Find me the part of the report where it says metal, concrete, etc should never be used again.

          1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

            Re: NomNomNom

            The cement industry *on its own* is responsible for 5% of global CO2 emissions. You *can* make steel using an electric furnace, but you'll need rather a lot of windmills out the back to drive it. (It would be a lot easier if you had a nice nuclear reactor out the back instead.)

            But maybe you're right. Maybe the report doesn't say anything about that.

        2. Intractable Potsherd
          Happy

          Re: NomNomNom

          I promise that I will go along with these bizarre notions spouted by WWF, Geenpeace, IPCC et al when all of the people advocating it have gone away and done what they preach for a suitable length of time - say 20 years - and shown that it is possible and desirable (i.e. no-one that starts the project gives up on it). Until this proof of concept has been done by those with most to gain from its success, then I'm just going to carry on with the fruits of civilisation - individual transport, heat on demand, clean water, a mature health-care system, etc - thank you very much.

          1. NomNomNom

            Re: NomNomNom

            "I promise that I will go along with these bizarre strawmen"

            Fixed it for you

  3. dkjd

    Damnit I just insulated the house so according to this article I am poorer as I will use less heating in the winter.

    At the same time we installed a window at the top of the roof that we can open in the summer to let the heat out of the house without using air-con so I will now be poorer all year round.

    When the local "commune" installs regional-heating in 2 years time then I guess I will just have to accept that I am going to be on the bread-line, aa I will kinda feel obliged to use the cheaper (to me) heat source.

    1. Scott 19
      Thumb Down

      Lol

      Another non IT troll come over to The Reg to tell us how to live.

      Hay dkjd whats TCP in TCP/IP stand for?

      And photos of your new installed window in the top of your house or it didn't happen.

  4. Lloyd
    Happy

    Hurrah for Lewis Page

    He's far overtaken BOFH in my weekly laugh stakes, some of the stuff he comes up with has me in stitches, the man's either a master Troll or an utter imbecile.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hurrah for Lewis Page

      Troll or idiot.. difficult.

      I'd go for troll.

      1. Scott 19
        Thumb Down

        Re: Hurrah for Lewis Page

        OK Lyod and A/C name one resource in the world that has run out?

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: Hurrah for Lewis Page

          Dodos

  5. alain williams Silver badge

    There are too many of us

    Like it or not we have problems living on what the planet can supply us with. So we either reduce our population or take less per head of what is sustainable. The arithmetic is quite simple. Unfortunately many people stick their heads in the sand and think that we can have both, it is rather like the Greeks thinking that they can continue to avoid austerity while also not paying taxes and staying in the Euro.

    Spend 5 minutes here:

    http://populationmatters.org/

    1. Francis Fish
      Happy

      Re: There are too many of us

      Nope - according to the original Malthusian nonsense we all died years ago. This is just more of the same. The all assume fixed resources and no human ingenuity. If you look at anything around you, from your shoes to the computer you read this on the amount of resources needed to produce it has dropped radically over the last few years. Compared with the amount of energy Victorians needed to live we're doing really well on a fraction of the resources per person.

      I remember people talking about the appalling starvation in Biafra and other places when I was a kid - subtext being "too many (black) people" - it was racist bollocks. In fact, when the economies pick up in those places a lot of the time the problem was not *enough* people, at least with a decent education. It was nasty politics and wars that killed those poor Africans. The Malthusian agenda of population matters is just a gentler version of allowing the disparities that caused these wars to continue for cynical political reasons.

      As an example of this kind of double standard I remember the debate about sanctions against Iraq around the time of the first Gulf War. The right wing just wanted to go to go bomb Saddam and the left wanted to starve the Iraqis - I think the right wing position was more honest.

      Population matters is this kind of softer approach - be more honest to just shoot people, but then the reality would be too hard to stomach.

      Maybe I'm wrong.

      1. NomNomNom

        Re: There are too many of us

        "according to the original Malthusian nonsense we all died years ago. This is just more of the same. The all assume fixed resources and no human ingenuity."

        I think it's getting more serious. Use of fossil fuels is now at far higher levels than it was. In effect there are now two looming problems: emissions (climate) and fossil fuel peak.

        The anti-malthusian argument is nothing more than "it didn't happen before so it can't ever happen!"

        If you had a good reason. Sorry but "human ingenuity" doesn't cut it for me. It has limits. There's no guarantee it will provide solutions *in time*. Over a century of this ingenuity and we don't have fusion nor a decent replacement for fossil fuels.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: There are too many of us

          Peak oil is a crock.

          We are not going to run out of "fossil fuel" energy any time soon.

          It is the result of faulty logic, like malthus and Erlich before ...

          Just because you have no ingenuity, that's your problem.

          1. Local Group
            Happy

            Re: There are too many of us

            "Peak oil is a crock."

            This from a boffin who has had his dip stick in many a well.

          2. NomNomNom

            Re: There are too many of us

            "Peak oil is a crock.

            We are not going to run out of "fossil fuel" energy any time soon."

            Peak oil doesn't mean running out of oil. Your next stop, wikipedia. Go now.

            1. Intractable Potsherd

              Re: There are too many of us

              The sensible technological species would be putting lots of effort into bringing materials and energy in from space. I'm not sure whether the slight glimmerings we are seeing in this direction are proof that we are sensible, or not.

          3. yt75

            Re: There are too many of us

            lol, anglo punks and "logic", as if logic had anything to do with that, besides being the most staightforward thing possible ...

            funny airheads :)

        2. This post has been deleted by its author

        3. Fibbles

          Re: There are too many of us

          "Over a century of this ingenuity and we don't have fusion nor a decent replacement for fossil fuels."

          Where did you read this bollocks? Or did you just make it up? We have plenty of options for replacing fossil fuels (thorium reactors etc.) they're just not economically viable or politically appealing yet. As soon as the oil becomes uneconomic that will change.

          1. NomNomNom

            Re: There are too many of us

            "We have plenty of options for replacing fossil fuels (thorium reactors etc.)"

            thorium reactors in cars and planes? yeah you haven't thought it through have you

            1. Fibbles

              Re: There are too many of us

              "thorium reactors in cars and planes? yeah you haven't thought it through have you"

              If only there were some way to produce artificial hydrocarbons using the abundance of cheap energy a thorium reactor would provide... oh wait

        4. Francis Fish
          Happy

          Re: There are too many of us

          Ah yes, but, ... a great chunk of what we use now wasn't regarded as resources years ago because we couldn't do anything with it. The overuse of oil is becoming worrying, but I do think that economics will sort it out eventually. The danger is some kind of oil is mandatory cabal will get together with the too many people thinking, strangle innovation, make us all eat kelp products and call it progress. This can only lead to poverty and suffering for the large number of people in the world who are still trying to get a decent standard of living for themselves and their kids. They need better technology than we have now.

          Personally don't want to turn my back on these people, whatever Attenborough may say.

    2. Armando 123

      Re: There are too many of us

      There are, indeed, too many humans ... mostly of the eco-commie and politico varieties.

  6. Arctic fox
    Headmaster

    Lewis, you do love tilting at windmills don't you?

    There is not a cat's chance in hell that such measures would get any form of serious political support at all. Not in the "developed world" or, for that matter, in the "underdeveloped world" because they have no plans to continue living in the kind of poverty they are still experiencing. The overwhelming majority of our fellow earthlings have absolutely no intention of living the kind of hair-shirt existence on a permanent basis that the extremist end of the sustainability movement are howling for. My question then is why are you devoting so many column inches to attacking these groups? One might almost get the impression that you have political problems with the basic concept of sustainability - and by that I do not mean the kind of stuff those loony-tunes are calling for.

    1. squizzar
      Boffin

      Re: Lewis, you do love tilting at windmills don't you?

      I'd hazard a guess that it's because:

      1 - People listen to them

      2 - They're not helping

      Like celebrities their ill thought out plans and questionable numbers get given far too much credence and influence. If they were offering a reasonable and practical solution then I'd agree with you, but the whole point of the article is that the very solution they are proposing is prevented by their own requirements. Highlighting the preposterous nature of their proposals means that they might actually get ignored as they should, and maybe make them come up with something useful and factual.

      Stupid stuff like this influences public opinion (see Greenpeace vs. Nuclear Power), causes faulty policies to be implemented (see feed in tariffs, excessive constraint payments, the whole wind can power everything idea), and does nothing to humanity.

  7. jake Silver badge

    Whatever.

    I've personally subsistence-level farmed my 53-ish acres in Mendocino County, for over three years. Just to prove to myself that I could do it.

    I seriously doubt the author has any concept of what is involved in working the land.

    1. Arctic fox
      Thumb Up

      @jake Absolute, the expression "grinding hard labour" does not even begin to cover it.

      My father when he was younger used to cultivate a moderately large vegetable garden. He enjoyed doing it and it kept him fit. However, despite his hard work it only provided about 20% of what we as a family needed in the course of a year. As he said himself, "bugger doing this on the large scale"!

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: @jake Absolute, the expression "grinding hard labour" does not even begin to cover it.

        Actually, Arctic Fox, it wasn't all that difficult. Barter for pig parts & the like helped ... and fishing tended to keep the stress levels down. Humans lived like this for hundreds of thousands of years. Might not be the easiest way to make a living, but it was simple & honest.

        Twenty years on, the wife & I still keep the gardens operational. And we have fresh eggs, homemade bacon, miscellaneous fermented beverages, bread, cheese, etc ...

      2. PyLETS
        Boffin

        Re: @jake Absolute, the expression "grinding hard labour" does not even begin to cover it.

        There's massive differences between:

        a. what one person can grow on a quarter acre large back garden digging the soil by spadework,

        b. what someone with a horse ploughing five acres can grow,

        c. someone with a medium sized rotavator cultivating 10 acres,

        d. and what someone with a biodiesel driven small and simple tractor cultivating 30 acres can grow.

        My weekly organic box come from mostly local smallholdings and farms doing c. or d. System c. isn't such a bad match for wind or solar charged battery power, or flexible mains leads on such a small cultivated area. System d. probably needs biodiesel to be fully sustainable - the area is too great for battery recharge or trailing mains cables to be practical. Biodiesel is easy to make in small quantities from old chip oil and methanol, but there's only so much used chip oil.

        If you use system a. the energy output is less than the energy input (i.e. food calories less than what the man doing the digging needs to eat). With system b, the horses traditionally used to eat 25% of the land area cultivated for grazing. With option d. once you're out of chip oil, 10% of the land acreage is needed for growing the biofuel.

        Sure, I didn't mention option e. where the minimum arable farm size is about 5000 acres and you need a highly developed technology infrastructure to service the machinery and produce the pesticides and fertilisers and breed the seeds. Option e. is the only system which requires massive external fossil energy inputs. The point is, we don't need to depend on it.

        You produce about twice as much vegetable food energy per acre that way as option d. But it's tasteless, vitamin and mineral deficient crap food tasting of chemicals, so you'll probably end up throwing nearly all of it through hormone and antibiotic pumped factory pigs and cows to make crap burgers. If crap factory burgers are considered fit for human consumption, the meat cycle will then cost you about 80% of this vegetable food energy. Using option d. and making better use of resulting farm biodiversity and wastes to produce less meat and eggs but at top quality, and some manure digested methane to drive small farm machinery or grain dryers will result in everyone eating better and being healthier, because the corporate capital and technology-driven food produced by option e. is such crap that people overeat and get seriously obese on that diet.

        The idea that options a. and e. are the only alternative ways food can be produced is so ignorant it's breathtaking.

        1. Fibbles

          Re: @jake Absolute, the expression "grinding hard labour" does not even begin to cover it.

          With the world's population as it is we should be using our arable land in the most efficient way possible. You say yourself option E is more efficient than option D. So why aren't you advocating it? Your argument seems to come down to taste (the bit about more vitamins and minerals is nonsense*,) something which has no bearing on the nutritional value of food.

          To me this is the same bizarre middle class snobbery that motivated Jamie Oliver's most recent campaign. I was quite happy to see him get some of the fat filled burgers and sausages taken off school dinner menus as children shouldn't be eating these things every day. What makes less sense is his campaign against 'pink slime'. Essentially this is just mechanically recovered meat treated with ammonia gas to kill off any bacteria.

          Meat is expensive to produce in terms of energy so we should be stripping as much of it as we can from every carcass. Yet Jamie Oliver and his middle class following want it banned in the US (as it already is in the EU), not because it poses any health risks, but because "it's a bit disgusting".

          *http://www.caseperformance.com/19/nutrient-content-of-organic-vs-conventionally-grown-foods

          1. PyLETS
            Boffin

            Re: @jake Absolute, the expression "grinding hard labour" does not even begin to cover it.

            "With the world's population as it is we should be using our arable land in the most efficient way possible. You say yourself option E is more efficient than option D. So why aren't you advocating it?"

            Because we don't need it and can't sustain it.

            The world population is probably less than 10% of what it would have to become for us to need to use system E to feed everyone using a vegetarian diet, and it will almost certainly max out at less than 25% of that. Much of Africa is still subsistence farming, with outputs per hectare close to what was being produced in Europe 200 years ago: no use of field boundaries, no electricity, they've only just started using basic machinery, with barely no water management and no use of groundwater. But enough Africans are getting basic schooling and have mobile phones now and there's just no reason for many of them to stay where they are, given efforts being made in literacy and education.

            It might transform your thinking for you to spend 6 minutes learning from the experience of William Kamkwamba from Malawi

            So I expect agricultural output of Africa (measured as vegetable calories) to more than quadruple when the population doubles there over the next 30 years as they industrialise. Population growth everywhere else is close to topping out, as people are getting educated and rich enough in Asia, Eastern Europe and South and Central America now to have smaller families as in North America and Europe. I expect Africa to follow suit 20 - 30 years behind Asia and South America, where few now go hungry compared to 30 years ago.

            If you don't believe me visit Brazil sometime and compare what you experience with reports from 30 years ago. One of my best mates has just come back from visiting a training project there where his son is working.

            1. Fibbles

              Re: @jake Absolute, the expression "grinding hard labour" does not even begin to cover it.

              Those are nice anecdotes and all but your point relies upon this:

              "The world population is probably less than 10% of what it would have to become for us to need to use system E to feed everyone using a vegetarian diet"

              It's complete fantasy to suggest we're all going to move to vegetarian diets, even with price increases there will always be a market for meat. Since cattle are inevitably going to be using up some of our arable land we have to use the remainder as efficiently as possible.

              Organic farming usually does no more than subsidise farmers for using less efficient farming methods. The only upside of this is a warm fuzzy feeling for the middle class as they go down to their local farmers market and supposedly do there bit towards saving the planet.

          2. Lord of Cheese
            Thumb Up

            Re:Fibbles - Pink Slime

            Interesting point there re: pink slime, whats the difference between pink slime / "lips n arseholes" ground up in cheap sausages and nose to tail eating, as advocated by the right-on middle class foodies like HFW??

            Surely both respect the animal by using it as much as possible?? Yet one instigates gasps of horror and scenes of revulsion by said foodies and the other is lapped up!

    2. Lord of Cheese
      Facepalm

      Re: Whatever.

      Cracking, well done you, took you 53 acres eh?

      Feel free to find a handy spare cheap 53 acres going in Surrey for me so I can try the same experiment.....

      1. jake Silver badge

        @Lord of Cheese (was: Re: Whatever.)

        Presumably, if you are the Lord of Cheese, you already have room for a dairy cow? Or a sheep? Or a goat? Or a camel? Or a ...

        Grow up. Look around. Learn how to be a human being.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like