It's getting hot in here!

[DiegoDiego]

We could end extreme poverty, stop climate change, restore every damaged ecosystem, house everyone

If you think all of those are solvable by chucking cash at them you're in for a surprise.

If you think any country would raise that sort of tax revenue and use it mainly for those purposes then you're in for a second surprise.

[GordonS]

59 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said:

If you think all of those are solvable by chucking cash at them you're in for a surprise.
 

If you think extreme poverty, homelessness and food insecurity aren't overwhelmingly caused by a shortage of resources you're kidding yourself on. And not doing it well.

Obviously there are other factors, especially when you get those things down to small numbers. That really should go without saying. But you're telling the difference between the countries with high levels of extreme poverty, homelessness and malnutrition and, say, Luxembourg isn't money? Come the f**k on.

Don't mistake the peripherals for the real cause.

Quote

 

If you think any country would raise that sort of tax revenue and use it mainly for those purposes then you're in for a second surprise.

 

 Did I say I thought it would happen? I thought it was obvious that my point is these things are now a choice. We choose to allow hundreds of millions of people to live in abject misery. We choose to allow climate change. We have the resources to fix them but we choose to allow the obscenely wealthy to gather more and more wealth. We choose not to radically improve the lives of the most impoverished people in the world because humans suck.

[The Moonster]

1 hour ago, DiegoDiego said:

If you think all of those are solvable by chucking cash at them you're in for a surprise.

If you think any country would raise that sort of tax revenue and use it mainly for those purposes then you're in for a second surprise.

Poverty and housing are pretty much solely issues due to a lack of money. 

[DiegoDiego]

Of course money is a huge factor but there are some issues money can't solve. As I alluded to, you can chuck money at a dysfunctional state and the problems won't be solved.

Nobody should have starved to death in twentieth century Ukraine, let alone tens of millions. The west turned money into vast amounts of food aid and sent it to Ethiopia in the eighties and it didn't do much good because of the structural failures. Ethiopia is again at risk of famine and it's because the country is close to collapse, not because the country has been getting richer by about 10% per year for the last decade.

It's a similar story with the environment. As folks will tell you in the Rewilding Scotland thread the landowners here are incredibly rich men. The fix for Scotland's ecology isn't money, it's policy change.

"Tax the billionaires and solve the world's problems" is incredibly shallow thinking.

[Detournement]

2 hours ago, GordonS said:

If you think extreme poverty, homelessness and food insecurity aren't overwhelmingly caused by a shortage of resources you're kidding yourself on. And not doing it well.

Obviously there are other factors, especially when you get those things down to small numbers. That really should go without saying. But you're telling the difference between the countries with high levels of extreme poverty, homelessness and malnutrition and, say, Luxembourg isn't money? Come the f**k on.

Don't mistake the peripherals for the real cause.

 Did I say I thought it would happen? I thought it was obvious that my point is these things are now a choice. We choose to allow hundreds of millions of people to live in abject misery. We choose to allow climate change. We have the resources to fix them but we choose to allow the obscenely wealthy to gather more and more wealth. We choose not to radically improve the lives of the most impoverished people in the world because humans suck.

This is just naive liberal nonsense.

The problems you mention aren't caused by a shortage of resources. In the developed nations there is manufactured scarcity because making health care, housing, food etc expensive and hard to access is profitable for capitalists and reproduces the social conditions which allow a super rich minority to dominate everyone else. 

In the global south unequal trade practices result in a $2.2 trillion annual wealth transfer to rich countries. Millions of unnecessary deaths happen because of this every year.  This happens because of economic policy imposed by the USA, it's vassal states and the organisations which work on it's behalf like the IMF, WTO and the World Bank. 

There is no 'We'. The masses in the west have been entirely atomised by consumerism and media and are completely unable to successfully struggle against capital as happened in the 19th and 20th centuries. The ordinary person in Scotland can't exercise the political agency to improve the NHS, schools or employment rights, the idea that we have agency on global poverty or climate change is absurd.

 

 

[Tight minge]

10 hours ago, GordonS said:

If you think extreme poverty, homelessness and food insecurity aren't overwhelmingly caused by a shortage of resources you're kidding yourself on. And not doing it well.

Obviously there are other factors, especially when you get those things down to small numbers. That really should go without saying. But you're telling the difference between the countries with high levels of extreme poverty, homelessness and malnutrition and, say, Luxembourg isn't money? Come the f**k on.

Don't mistake the peripherals for the real cause.

 Did I say I thought it would happen? I thought it was obvious that my point is these things are now a choice. We choose to allow hundreds of millions of people to live in abject misery. We choose to allow climate change. We have the resources to fix them but we choose to allow the obscenely wealthy to gather more and more wealth. We choose not to radically improve the lives of the most impoverished people in the world because humans suck.

Money would of course solve the issue. Only after education, government policies and corruption have been solved. You can also throw religion into that mix.

Its a vicious circle that is not a simple or quick fix.

@DiegoDiego mentioning Ethiopia is a good example. Much of the famine aid was a feel good factor for the west. A lot of the money didn’t get to where it should and now, with great economic growth in the country most peoples lives haven’t changed.

When I lived in The Philippines, we had a Typhoon that decimated the city of Tacloban. The amount of aid that was sent to Tacloban, was phenomenal in monetary, food and shelter terms and there was much back slapping in the western media about the support.

The reality was somewhat different. The US sent warships that were originally blocked from delivering food and aid. The warships themselves could have solved much of the food shortages immediately.

The food aid that poured in was seized by the local government and was ultimately sold on for profit to other businesses. Stockpiled, out of date food aid was then rationed out, but only to people who voted for the local government. The financial aid just ‘evaporated’.

Most charities are like sieves and at times do little to help.

Money will only solve things once governments/policies change,  education is widespread and corruption curtailed.

There is a huge difference between third world countries and say Luxembourg but it is not predominantly money.

Many poor countries are resource rich. Every poor country has affluent citizens.  

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, Tight John McVeigh is a tit said:

Money would of course solve the issue. Only after education, government policies and corruption have been solved. You can also throw religion into that mix.

Its a vicious circle that is not a simple or quick fix.

@DiegoDiego mentioning Ethiopia is a good example. Much of the famine aid was a feel good factor for the west. A lot of the money didn’t get to where it should and now, with great economic growth in the country most peoples lives haven’t changed.

When I lived in The Philippines, we had a Typhoon that decimated the city of Tacloban. The amount of aid that was sent to Tacloban, was phenomenal in monetary, food and shelter terms and there was much back slapping in the western media about the support.

The reality was somewhat different. The US sent warships that were originally blocked from delivering food and aid. The warships themselves could have solved much of the food shortages immediately.

The food aid that poured in was seized by the local government and was ultimately sold on for profit to other businesses. Stockpiled, out of date food aid was then rationed out, but only to people who voted for the local government. The financial aid just ‘evaporated’.

Most charities are like sieves and at times do little to help.

Money will only solve things once governments/policies change,  education is widespread and corruption curtailed.

There is a huge difference between third world countries and say Luxembourg but it is not predominantly money.

Many poor countries are resource rich. Every poor country has affluent citizens.  

The main cause of poverty in resource-rich countries is exploitation by western companies. Nobody is taking bribes if no-one is offering bribes, and the local pay they offer is pathetic.

I agree, aid isn't remotely the solution to extreme poverty. Aid is the solution to extreme events like wars and natural disasters. That aphorism "Give a man a fish he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he feeds himself for a lifetime" is horseshit. Because the man can't feed himself when the massive trawler turns up and hoovers all the fish. Or when the oil company pollutes the waters. Or when the government helps itself to his fish.

This is where I get all capitalist. Because he needs more than fish. He needs money for that, so he needs to sell fish. He needs a means of processing and preserving the fish and of getting it to market. He needs stuff, and he needs loans or grants to get it. He needs staff, and roads, and suppliers, and financial services, and all the rest of it. He needs protection for his fishing waters, from outside exploitation, from pollution and from rapacious domestic competitors. Ultimately he needs customers.

The developing world needs access to our markets, and it needs investment in trade infrastructure. It needs laws and regulation. It needs fair work conditions on everything that's exported, with verifiable provenance. Rich countries can provide that. But they don't.

The difference between Luxembourg and The Philippines is primarily money - especially the historic injustices of colonialism. You think we would be any less corrupt in their economic circumstances? It just can't be fixed with money alone.

Anyway, back to the point of the thread. Climate change is primarily something that the developed world and rich people are doing to the poorest. Only 7% of emissions are produced by the least wealthy half of the population; 14% is produced by the richest 1% - just 75 million people. Africa produces 2-3% of global emissions and is responsible for 1% of historic emissions. That's less than Japan, with a tenth of the population. It is entirely about inequality. We are sowing the wind and The Philippines shall reap the whirlwind.

[GordonS]

9 hours ago, DiegoDiego said:

Of course money is a huge factor but there are some issues money can't solve. As I alluded to, you can chuck money at a dysfunctional state and the problems won't be solved.

Nobody should have starved to death in twentieth century Ukraine, let alone tens of millions. The west turned money into vast amounts of food aid and sent it to Ethiopia in the eighties and it didn't do much good because of the structural failures. Ethiopia is again at risk of famine and it's because the country is close to collapse, not because the country has been getting richer by about 10% per year for the last decade.

It's a similar story with the environment. As folks will tell you in the Rewilding Scotland thread the landowners here are incredibly rich men. The fix for Scotland's ecology isn't money, it's policy change.

"Tax the billionaires and solve the world's problems" is incredibly shallow thinking.

Obviously it's a simplification FFS. I really don't understand how you're not getting the context.

Ethiopia's been getting richer by 10% a year, eh? Woop-de-doo, because 10% of f**k all is such a huge amount of cash.

What's shallow is believing that we're rich and they're poor for any other reason than that we exploit them. Corruption is caused by economic hardship. It's a rational response by those in power when there's not enough to go round. You think we'd be any different in the same circumstances? Aye, we're a superior race...

BTW, one of the causes of food insecurity in Ethiopia is that China has bought up vast swathes of farmland in East Africa to feed itself. When the next harvest failure comes the Chinese are going to do to Ethiopia what Britain did to Ireland and Bengal. Everyone exploits those weaker then themselves.

As for rewilding, Povlsen has shown that money can give you what you want there too. Unfortunately he's just another colonialist, no better than the other lairds.  The people on the rewilding thread may want wolves and lynx but it would be nice if anyone would bother talking to the people who live there, because they're getting exploited too. If you want to restore the Highlands and Islands, give money to the local communities and watch them go.

 

[Theroadlesstravelled]

Michty me.

Bigger than all the fires in the rest of the world.

A total of 13.4 million hectares (33.1 million acres) of forest has burned down in Russia between January 2021 and August 2, according to Greenpeace Russia.

[Tight minge]

7 hours ago, GordonS said:

The main cause of poverty in resource-rich countries is exploitation by western companies. Nobody is taking bribes if no-one is offering bribes, and the local pay they offer is pathetic.

I agree, aid isn't remotely the solution to extreme poverty. Aid is the solution to extreme events like wars and natural disasters. That aphorism "Give a man a fish he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he feeds himself for a lifetime" is horseshit. Because the man can't feed himself when the massive trawler turns up and hoovers all the fish. Or when the oil company pollutes the waters. Or when the government helps itself to his fish.

This is where I get all capitalist. Because he needs more than fish. He needs money for that, so he needs to sell fish. He needs a means of processing and preserving the fish and of getting it to market. He needs stuff, and he needs loans or grants to get it. He needs staff, and roads, and suppliers, and financial services, and all the rest of it. He needs protection for his fishing waters, from outside exploitation, from pollution and from rapacious domestic competitors. Ultimately he needs customers.

The developing world needs access to our markets, and it needs investment in trade infrastructure. It needs laws and regulation. It needs fair work conditions on everything that's exported, with verifiable provenance. Rich countries can provide that. But they don't.

The difference between Luxembourg and The Philippines is primarily money - especially the historic injustices of colonialism. You think we would be any less corrupt in their economic circumstances? It just can't be fixed with money alone.

Anyway, back to the point of the thread. Climate change is primarily something that the developed world and rich people are doing to the poorest. Only 7% of emissions are produced by the least wealthy half of the population; 14% is produced by the richest 1% - just 75 million people. Africa produces 2-3% of global emissions and is responsible for 1% of historic emissions. That's less than Japan, with a tenth of the population. It is entirely about inequality. We are sowing the wind and The Philippines shall reap the whirlwind.

On poverty, I would generally disagree. We can point the finger to colonialism as well, but it is also only part of the cause which did create some of the financial impact. However, it is systems like Barangy, Kampomg elders, Religious leaders and caste systems that drive the corruption, education and keep people in poverty. All of these systems in one shape or another predate any colonialism.

These all need fixed first, before the money or its just trying to grab water with your hands.

Having lived right next door to Tondo, which is arguablly one of the worst slums in the world where Pagpag is not only the stable diet, is an industry in itself, I am confident in saying a lot more than money is needed.

I also experience extreme poverty from where my other half is from and no matter the amount of money I hand over, nothing gets better.

Having been in rural schools where teachers just don’t turn up (but still get their salary) as no fucker cares about the kids or the area is heartbreaking.

At this point they need support, help and education (teach the man to fish as you say). Back to correcting governments, educating people an stamping put corruption. 

It really is fucked up. 

Anyway, on climate change. Agree fully.

Either poverty or climate change cannot really be looking after yourself. Things will only improve when everyone improves.

The western world have to get their house in order regarding climate change, but they also have to bring the undeveloped world along for the ride or there will just be a transfer of the problem in part. For example, moving  over to electric vehicles itself won’t wholly solve the problem in developed countries as all the polluting cars will end up, in worse condition in developing countries.

Thumbs up though to being at least conscious and passionate about both topics!

 

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by Tight minge

[Tight minge]

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

Obviously it's a simplification FFS. I really don't understand how you're not getting the context.

Ethiopia's been getting richer by 10% a year, eh? Woop-de-doo, because 10% of f**k all is such a huge amount of cash.

What's shallow is believing that we're rich and they're poor for any other reason than that we exploit them. Corruption is caused by economic hardship. It's a rational response by those in power when there's not enough to go round. You think we'd be any different in the same circumstances? Aye, we're a superior race...

BTW, one of the causes of food insecurity in Ethiopia is that China has bought up vast swathes of farmland in East Africa to feed itself. When the next harvest failure comes the Chinese are going to do to Ethiopia what Britain did to Ireland and Bengal. Everyone exploits those weaker then themselves.

As for rewilding, Povlsen has shown that money can give you what you want there too. Unfortunately he's just another colonialist, no better than the other lairds.  The people on the rewilding thread may want wolves and lynx but it would be nice if anyone would bother talking to the people who live there, because they're getting exploited too. If you want to restore the Highlands and Islands, give money to the local communities and watch them go.

 

Sorry, agree with your sentiments but….

Your line about Ethiopias economic growth is a bit ‘shallow’. Any growth that creates jobs and revenue at this time shouldn’t be flippantly dismissed. Many people in poverty would do anything for a chance to work. I do get that your passionate here, I don’t think anyone is arguing that poverty is not an issue. More disagreeing on details.

Chinas belt and road policy is abhorrent (is it that much different in end game to the Marshall plan though (very simplistic I know))? However, was it not proven that this grab of farmland was nothing like first reported? (I genuinely don’t know but read it was incorrect). 

The west 100% exploits the poorer nations, but not unaided. There are many rich politicians and businessmen in these countries getting rich by fucking over their own people. 

There just isn’t a simple solution here. 

[DiegoDiego]

Fun fact: China has less arable land per capita than Saudi Arabia.

[Detournement]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/14/turkey-flooding-deaths-erdogan-tours-disaster-zone-kastamonu

39 people confirmed dead, hundreds missing and massive damage due to extreme floods in Turkey. 

Simultaneously having to deal with this and wildfires is horrific for them.

[DiegoDiego]

I hitchhiked to Kastamonu three years ago. Could have been me.

[Lurkst]

On 13/08/2021 at 01:48, Theroadlesstravelled said:

Michty me.

Bigger than all the fires in the rest of the world.

A total of 13.4 million hectares (33.1 million acres) of forest has burned down in Russia between January 2021 and August 2, according to Greenpeace Russia.

To put that into perspective it's an area equivalent to all of Scotland and the north of England combined!

[Abdul_Latif]

Out of curiosity, has anyone on here retrofit an air source heat pump in their house?

I’m tentatively considering it as our boiler is about 10 years old and likely not got many years left in it, but I’m struggling to get my head round the set up.

Can I used my existing radiators, do I need a back up source of fuel for cold temperatures, how much space does the internal part of the installation take up etc etc?

[Left Back]

15 minutes ago, Abdul_Latif said:

Out of curiosity, has anyone on here retrofit an air source heat pump in their house?

I’m tentatively considering it as our boiler is about 10 years old and likely not got many years left in it, but I’m struggling to get my head round the set up.

Can I used my existing radiators, do I need a back up source of fuel for cold temperatures, how much space does the internal part of the installation take up etc etc?

It’s something I’ve been looking at for a while but not taken the plunge yet.  Primary reason is that like all other renewable technologies the people selling them are shysters who’s main aim seems to be to move government subsidies from the chancellors pocket to theirs and bypassing the consumer.

Had half a dozen or so quotes that are all over the place.  Some said I need to replace all the radiators, some said I didn’t need to change any radiators.  Some said I need to take out the towel rails in the bathrooms and put in normal radiators.  Even the size of pump varied between quotes from 12kWh to 16kWh.  Changing the radiators isn’t really a big deal for me as most of our house is UFH so swapping the type 11 radiators in the bedrooms for type 22’s of the same dimension practically doubles the heat output for very little cost.  Putting radiators in the bathrooms is a non-starter though.

I can’t fathom why with a defined set of criteria and MCS rules/calculations (size of house, insulation, size of windows, size of existing radiators, UFH, SCOP etc). they can all come up with wildly different setups.

With a properly specced solution that has radiator sizes that can supply enough heat with 45 degree water to compensate for the heat loss you don’t  need a backup source of heat assuming you aren’t trying to heat a cathedral.  ASHP’s can operate down at 20-25 below in theory. You do need an immersion so you can cycle the water once a month to 60 degrees to prevent legionella.  All the quotes I had included a replacement water tank with this all included.

Good luck.

[Stellaboz]

Did my bit yesterday by both farting and burping inside the Mont Blanc glacier.

[Abdul_Latif]

4 hours ago, Left Back said:

It’s something I’ve been looking at for a while but not taken the plunge yet.  Primary reason is that like all other renewable technologies the people selling them are shysters who’s main aim seems to be to move government subsidies from the chancellors pocket to theirs and bypassing the consumer.

Had half a dozen or so quotes that are all over the place.  Some said I need to replace all the radiators, some said I didn’t need to change any radiators.  Some said I need to take out the towel rails in the bathrooms and put in normal radiators.  Even the size of pump varied between quotes from 12kWh to 16kWh.  Changing the radiators isn’t really a big deal for me as most of our house is UFH so swapping the type 11 radiators in the bedrooms for type 22’s of the same dimension practically doubles the heat output for very little cost.  Putting radiators in the bathrooms is a non-starter though.

I can’t fathom why with a defined set of criteria and MCS rules/calculations (size of house, insulation, size of windows, size of existing radiators, UFH, SCOP etc). they can all come up with wildly different setups.

With a properly specced solution that has radiator sizes that can supply enough heat with 45 degree water to compensate for the heat loss you don’t  need a backup source of heat assuming you aren’t trying to heat a cathedral.  ASHP’s can operate down at 20-25 below in theory. You do need an immersion so you can cycle the water once a month to 60 degrees to prevent legionella.  All the quotes I had included a replacement water tank with this all included.

Good luck.

Cheers for all the info there. Are there any recommendable installers you’ve got quotes from so far and any you’d advise to avoid?

[Lurkst]

Raining in Greenland...

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/rained-first-time-summit-greenlands-ice-sheet-rcna1723