"Warwick Michael Dumas" wrote in message
om...
snip

It depends. I think once it starts to be just the rich left in little
havens of relative environmental quality, it'll be the poor who will
have to undergo inconvenience so that those havens for the rich, the
remains of the environment, are kept going. The opposite way round
from today. Then sustainability may actually happen, since obviously
it's the rich that are always in charge. Just the inconvenience for
the poor of sustainability may well be dramatic, vying with
environmental degradation to be the main cause of their misery; in
contrast to it just being a matter of applying common sense, as
sustainability is for the affluent and their leaders today.


And the solution to this is to make the poor poorer by removing their source
of income? Its only the rich that can afford to let wildlife prosper, the
poor person will kill the last panda in order to feed his starving children.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message ...
"Warwick Michael Dumas" wrote in message
om...
snip

It depends. I think once it starts to be just the rich left in little
havens of relative environmental quality, it'll be the poor who will
have to undergo inconvenience so that those havens for the rich, the
remains of the environment, are kept going. The opposite way round
from today. Then sustainability may actually happen, since obviously
it's the rich that are always in charge. Just the inconvenience for
the poor of sustainability may well be dramatic, vying with
environmental degradation to be the main cause of their misery; in
contrast to it just being a matter of applying common sense, as
sustainability is for the affluent and their leaders today.


And the solution to this is to make the poor poorer by removing their source
of income? Its only the rich that can afford to let wildlife prosper, the
poor person will kill the last panda in order to feed his starving children.

Killing pandas doesn't create wealth. It's more a case of butter or
guns. My point was that affluent countries (and in particular the US)
create a disproportionate amount of pollution. It's also true,
however, that affluent countries finance rainforest destruction in
poor countries.


Warwick Dumas

www.members.tripod.com/ecuqe

"If Adolf Hitler were here today, they'd send a limousine anyway."
- the late Joe Strummer

"Warwick Michael Dumas" wrote in message
om...
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...
"Warwick Michael Dumas" wrote in message
om...
snip

It depends. I think once it starts to be just the rich left in little
havens of relative environmental quality, it'll be the poor who will
have to undergo inconvenience so that those havens for the rich, the
remains of the environment, are kept going. The opposite way round
from today. Then sustainability may actually happen, since obviously
it's the rich that are always in charge. Just the inconvenience for
the poor of sustainability may well be dramatic, vying with
environmental degradation to be the main cause of their misery; in
contrast to it just being a matter of applying common sense, as
sustainability is for the affluent and their leaders today.


And the solution to this is to make the poor poorer by removing their
source
of income? Its only the rich that can afford to let wildlife prosper,
the
poor person will kill the last panda in order to feed his starving
children.

Killing pandas doesn't create wealth. It's more a case of butter or
guns. My point was that affluent countries (and in particular the US)
create a disproportionate amount of pollution. It's also true,
however, that affluent countries finance rainforest destruction in
poor countries.



You have it the wrong way round. Pandas are killed where there isnt wealth,
but there is hunger. Just about all indicators of the environment, for
example clean air, clean rivers, etc are better in wealthy countries than
poor ones, mainly because rich people can afford luxuries like this, and
poor ones cant. Of course, we do export some of our dirty industries abroad,
but as those countries get wealthier, they'll be less and less willing to
put up with that. IFw e keep them poor, such as by shutting down tourism,
then they'll ajvfe less choice, and also fewer tourists complaining about
pullotion. For example, who is going to be more influential getting dirty
oil refineries next to beaches in Cuba shut down, the locals, or the wealthy
tourists who tell all their friends about them and who wont go back again?

There is of course also a small amount of western finance of rain forest
destruction, , hugely hyped and lied about, but mostly its local poor people
who have no other way of earning a living, and food raised, such as cattle,
is nearly all for local consumption. Now I know the eco-nuts are the new and
growing imperialists, who like to tell other countries what they shoudl do,
but if we don't trade with them, for example by sending tourists there, why
the hell should they give a damn about the rain forest? Where's the
incentive for them?

Now, you could of course greatly restrict air travel and remove some
pollution, OTOH you'd greatly impoverish many third world countries and send
many non-third world countries back to the third world. And then there wont
be any rich tourists swanning around in those countries who expect things
like nature parks, wildlife refuges etc, so there is no incentive for the
locals to keep them going. Then they'll eat that panda. Best hope for
example in some African countries is tourism where the locals make a decent
living from showing rich westerners the animals as opposed to poaching them
or farming the area, its a better living for them. The alternative is they
will destroy their living space as has been happening. Dont think if the
tourists go, the wildlife and ecology will prosper. The exact opposite in
fact.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)