Talking Heads : Nothing but flowers
On Friday morning, as on every working day, I dragged myself to the metro station and sipped my coffee while a metallic voice thanked me for using public transport and for encouraging friends and family to do so, in the face of the "unusual, alarming and dangerous" pollution levels the city was experiencing. I could not help but wonder how much longer the authorities would go on making fools of themselves by using words like unusual to describe a situation they warn us about every second day.
This reminded me of an interesting article I read last week, in which Guardian environment editor John Vidal addressed the issue of contradictory government policies in Britain.
"Supermarkets are not solely to blame for an increase in unhealthy and unsustainable eating practices - the real problem lies in a lack of political leadership and a tangled web of policy, according to an independent government watchdog", he reports in last week's Guardian Weekly. He goes on to point out a series of contradictory statements/guidelines issued by government departments in the UK, echoed in the rest of Europe, that contribute to confusing consumers at large.
Health Ministries tell people to eat more fish while Environment Ministries try to preserve diminishing fish stocks. Local food is strongly promoted by Environment Ministries while Ministries of Foreign Affairs and/or Development encourage people to eat produce from developing countries. Governments allow car lobbies to brainwash citizens into buying 4x4s, then issue please-use-public-transport warnings about alarming pollution levels that are primarily due to fine particles (invisible soot) from cars. We are all encouraged to consume-consume-consume because it's good for the economy, yet our governments are supposed to have read the latest IPCC report setting out the disastrous scenario that awaits the planet if we do not change our ways. German scientists divulge statistics proving that children living close to nuclear power stations are 5 times as likely to develop leukaemia, and in the same fortnight the UK announces its intention to invest in expanding its nuclear fleet against scientific advice.
Are we ever going to understand that our economic growth objectives are incompatible with the feel-good environmental goals our leaders like to green their image with?
We can all do our bit of course, and some of us do. But all too many people still do absolutely nothing. And among these "too many" are some of this world's major polluters. It is evident that what we need, at least in this planet's most developed countries, are clearer, more sensible and more stringent environmental guidelines and laws. For indeed, which excuse will we invoke the day we realise the damage cannot be reversed or mitigated?
Our governments have the information. They also have the technology - German climate expert Professor Latif is holds that installing solar panels across 200 km by 200 km in the Sahara would be enough to supply the entire planet with clean energy, for instance. So what is stopping them from taking action? Something as base as greed, as artificial as money?
Then we are indeed living another Dark Age, aren't we? We will be remembered by future generations as the Evil Ones, those who had the intelligence to foretell catastrophe and the instruments to avert it, but who deliberately - out of pure selfishness - chose to go on with business as usual.
This reminded me of an interesting article I read last week, in which Guardian environment editor John Vidal addressed the issue of contradictory government policies in Britain.
"Supermarkets are not solely to blame for an increase in unhealthy and unsustainable eating practices - the real problem lies in a lack of political leadership and a tangled web of policy, according to an independent government watchdog", he reports in last week's Guardian Weekly. He goes on to point out a series of contradictory statements/guidelines issued by government departments in the UK, echoed in the rest of Europe, that contribute to confusing consumers at large.
Health Ministries tell people to eat more fish while Environment Ministries try to preserve diminishing fish stocks. Local food is strongly promoted by Environment Ministries while Ministries of Foreign Affairs and/or Development encourage people to eat produce from developing countries. Governments allow car lobbies to brainwash citizens into buying 4x4s, then issue please-use-public-transport warnings about alarming pollution levels that are primarily due to fine particles (invisible soot) from cars. We are all encouraged to consume-consume-consume because it's good for the economy, yet our governments are supposed to have read the latest IPCC report setting out the disastrous scenario that awaits the planet if we do not change our ways. German scientists divulge statistics proving that children living close to nuclear power stations are 5 times as likely to develop leukaemia, and in the same fortnight the UK announces its intention to invest in expanding its nuclear fleet against scientific advice.
Are we ever going to understand that our economic growth objectives are incompatible with the feel-good environmental goals our leaders like to green their image with?
We can all do our bit of course, and some of us do. But all too many people still do absolutely nothing. And among these "too many" are some of this world's major polluters. It is evident that what we need, at least in this planet's most developed countries, are clearer, more sensible and more stringent environmental guidelines and laws. For indeed, which excuse will we invoke the day we realise the damage cannot be reversed or mitigated?
Our governments have the information. They also have the technology - German climate expert Professor Latif is holds that installing solar panels across 200 km by 200 km in the Sahara would be enough to supply the entire planet with clean energy, for instance. So what is stopping them from taking action? Something as base as greed, as artificial as money?
Then we are indeed living another Dark Age, aren't we? We will be remembered by future generations as the Evil Ones, those who had the intelligence to foretell catastrophe and the instruments to avert it, but who deliberately - out of pure selfishness - chose to go on with business as usual.
3 comments:
Unfortunately, to a certain degree, conflicting policies are what keep the 'balance'. Economic viability is a necessary evil of our society, as it is built. No economic prosperity = no money for innovation = no discovery = no improvements in our life, including health/environmental aspects of it. The bad thing is that there is a need for a shift in emphasis from economic prosperity to world health and it is happening too slowly. Typical of mankind.
I see your point and agree up to a certain extent. The problem I guess is that we'll eventually reach a point where our knowledge and technology will fail to do the trick. The US position on climate change for instance is in part based on the erroneous idea that science and technology will come to our rescue once we run out of fossil fuels. Yet major climate experts (e.g. the thousands of contributors to the UNCCP reports) are adamant that for all our technology, we have so far failed - miserably, I would add - to green our lifestyles. Our cars on average pollute less than the ones we drove 15 years ago, but as the number of cars bought is on a steady rise and as our transport needs have tripled, the amount of CO2 emitted from cars has drastically increased. Unless our lifestyles and consumption patterns change (and it appears that they will not change unless we are forced to change them!), unless our leaders rethink their definition of "growth", the prospects for the planet remain pretty bleak ...
Yes, no doubt. Too much faith in technology will put us in a precarious position. Our leaders will not rethink anything unless we force them to. Although one could argue that leaders should be responsible and reshape things for the future benefit of mankind we all know that such politicians are in fact utopian constructs and do not exist, heh. It is the people who have to demand different priorities. From my experiences on this planet so far, I know that this is very unlikely to occur in the near future. Education is the only solution, although it is a long term one. Another one is extermination, but well, that´s not a very popular one, haha.
Post a Comment