Eco-imperialism?

Speakers: Professor Daniele Archibugi; Ross Clark; Professor Andrew Holden; Kirk Leech
Chair: Dr Philip Cunliffe

Increasingly, political and social issues are viewed through the prism of their environmental impact -- and none more so than global development. We are warned that if countries like China and India were to achieve the standard of living enjoyed in the West, this would hasten environmental catastrophe. Rising carbon emissions, natural resource depletion and bio-diversity loss in the developing world are thus cast as global problems demanding global solutions. Environmental concerns have joined terrorism and nuclear proliferation as key preoccupations in international affairs since the end of the Cold War. Free from the political constraints of the 'old world order', UN officials, Western politicians and NGOs frequently argue that the 'international community' has a responsibility to intervene in the affairs of 'rogue' sovereign states.

Should industrial pollution and the destruction of natural habitats be seen as 'crimes against nature' (ecocide), justifying ecological interventions similar to humanitarian ones? Is the use of force to prevent serious and immediate environmental harm something we should now seriously consider? Or would this amount to 'eco-imperialism', transgressing international legal and political norms and state sovereignty?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• battle
• ideas
• institute
• politics
• debate
• 2008
• ecology
• imperialism
• environmentalism

[aloisgault]

Individual countries have certain "Building codes" that effectively block both western and developing countries from developing and building more efficient and less less carbon intensive housing. Often a P.E. rated "Green" engineer is required to sign off on the possible innovation making costs prohibitive. There are also global treaties that inhibit this sort of thing- carbon trading being one of them, quantities of carbon being politically determined.........

[aloisgault]

One question? The buffalo and elephants that were massively hunted in the last century produced how much greenhouse gas compared to cars? The cow methane studies (Methane being 20 time more "Warm" than CO2?) might provide some sort of baseline reference?

I have also seen various studies talking about the "Carbon Impact" of power generation technologies that are "Greener" and used to inhibit funding for their development?  Nice catch-22's I see all over, a lever for imperialism?

[runarolsen]

Try Eco-Facism instead! Emperors new clothes!

Greenhouse gases are a mere 0.4392 percent of total atmospheric gases.

CO2 is only 0.039 percent of total atmospheric gases.

CO2 is less than 4 percent of total greenhouse gases.

Water vapor is 95 percent of total greenhouse gases.

CO2 levels currently at 390 parts per million (ppm) lowest in 600 million years.

Levels were as high as 9000 ppm over last 600 million years. Average levels for the last 300 million years is approximately 1200 ppm.

[runarolsen]

In every record, temperature increases before CO2. In other words, CO2 is not causing temperature increases, contradicting the basic assumption of the entire anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

CO2 is essential to life on the planet. Reduce the levels and plants suffer. Plants are most efficient at approximately 1000-1200 ppm as research and use of those levels in greenhouses attest. Plants are malnourished at 390 ppm.

Fewer plants means less oxygen; no plants means no oxygen and no life.

[radiospu1]

Anyway, Al Gore is an idiot. There were only 27 errors in his Inconvenient Truth movie(?).

[radiospu1]

quote>…past climate changes were natural in origin (), whereas most of the warming of the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.<

This means CO2 from human activities overrode the effects of the sun, the oceans, and the atmosphere, which is scientific nonsense.