qprdot.org Forum Index qprdot.org
Message Board for QPR Fans - All Welcome!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 Chat Room   Gallery
The hypocrisy of governments
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    qprdot.org Forum Index -> RAOIS
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
DAVEf
dot.org vip
dot.org vip


Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 24633

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:01 pm    Post subject: The hypocrisy of governments Reply with quote

The Australian government is being sued by Phillip Morris over proposed changes to cigarette packaging:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15815311

Quote: "Australia's Minister for Health and Ageing Nicola Roxon said while the tobacco industry was "fighting to protect its profits, we are fighting to protect lives.

The single easiest way to "protect lives" would be to ban the sale and use of tobacco products. But no government will because they are protecting the profits they make from taxing the sale and use of tobacco products.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Esox Lucius
dot.org legend
dot.org legend


Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 13389
Location: Banbury, Oxon.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:14 pm    Post subject: Re: The hypocrisy of governments Reply with quote

DAVEf wrote:
The Australian government is being sued by Phillip Morris over proposed changes to cigarette packaging:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15815311

Quote: "Australia's Minister for Health and Ageing Nicola Roxon said while the tobacco industry was "fighting to protect its profits, we are fighting to protect lives.

The single easiest way to "protect lives" would be to ban the sale and use of tobacco products. But no government will because they are protecting the profits they make from taxing the sale and use of tobacco products.


Surely they will have taken into account that the drive to enforce this law will naturally bring down sales AND revenue but I am hoping that it is planning for less to be spent on cancer care and other related illnesses like emphysema?
_________________
It's not the despair that will kill you, it's the hope.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DAVEf
dot.org vip
dot.org vip


Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 24633

PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:44 pm    Post subject: Re: The hypocrisy of governments Reply with quote

Esox Lucius wrote:
DAVEf wrote:
The Australian government is being sued by Phillip Morris over proposed changes to cigarette packaging:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15815311

Quote: "Australia's Minister for Health and Ageing Nicola Roxon said while the tobacco industry was "fighting to protect its profits, we are fighting to protect lives.

The single easiest way to "protect lives" would be to ban the sale and use of tobacco products. But no government will because they are protecting the profits they make from taxing the sale and use of tobacco products.


Surely they will have taken into account that the drive to enforce this law will naturally bring down sales AND revenue but I am hoping that it is planning for less to be spent on cancer care and other related illnesses like emphysema?



Despite various bans etc and a drop in usage and sales, our government, through the clever use of tax rises has managed to keep income from Tobacco at the same level for 20 years. Clever eh.

If they could be sensible with legalising and taxing other killer drugs they could save money on anti-drug border controls and, by releasing Police from all the anti-drug stuff they have to do, maybe even, despite the cutbacks, see more Police doing some of the other Police work that currently goes undone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
WA Hoop
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger


Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 4756
Location: Perth, Western Australia

PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Smoking related treatment is thought to cost the NHS GBP 2 billion per annum. With a tobacco tax revenue of around GBP 11 billion per annum, the exchequer would seem to make quite a tidy profit.

Not forgetting the savings to be had on pensions, benefits etc. when smokers die prematurely.
_________________
Life is short, drink the good wine first.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dm
dot.org player kit 2007
dot.org player kit 2007


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 9136
Location: Just over the border...

PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know I'm highjacking but, I thought it might be of interest to note that the same tactics that were used by the tobacco industry to obscure the connection between tobacco and lung cancer are being used by the oil industry to obscure the connection between carbon emissions and global warming.

Not a lot of people know that.

Or even care.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RLHOOP
Level 5 dot.orger
Level 5 dot.orger


Joined: 04 Feb 2007
Posts: 6907
Location: Philadelphia

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2011 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I say legalise everything and those stupid enough to use excessively both pay the price through tax and also their health. If weed alone was legalised it would bring the cash into the government and out of Brixton bedsits.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
BiscuitRanger
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger


Joined: 01 Aug 2009
Posts: 3457
Location: Unit 6

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dm wrote:
I know I'm highjacking but, I thought it might be of interest to note that the same tactics that were used by the tobacco industry to obscure the connection between tobacco and lung cancer are being used by the oil industry to obscure the connection between carbon emissions and global warming.

Not a lot of people know that.

Or even care.


dm, I see that you have an interest in matters of global warming. I've always felt that the impact of CO2 levels in the atmosphere was secondary to significant global warming. The way I see it is that if there were no humans on the planet the earth would still be going through a warming period and atmospheric CO2 would rise as massive quantities are released from the sea. Undoubtedly this CO2 further contributes to global warming (greenhouse effect)

For me, the biggest effects on global warming are the sun activity, our relative position to it (Milankovitch cycles), and the amount of the main greenhouse gas (Water vapour) in the atmosphere (mostly as clouds). The argument is made, spuriously in my opinion, that man has caused this global warming, and perversely, man can fix it by trading carbon credits and reducing emissions. I am not denying that man-made atmospheric CO2 does contribute, to an extent, to global warming but don't think there is thing we can do about it.

What we should be doing is modeling the climate to determine what the planet will look like after significant change and working out how we can avoid wide-scale starvation, drought, civil wars, and all the other potential scenarios of a new ice age.

Just my view, but COP, IPCC, and all the other bodies are focusing on the wrong thing and it amounts to little more than pissing in the wind.
_________________
English is my second language - I don't have a first
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Esox Lucius
dot.org legend
dot.org legend


Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 13389
Location: Banbury, Oxon.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BiscuitRanger wrote:
dm wrote:
I know I'm highjacking but, I thought it might be of interest to note that the same tactics that were used by the tobacco industry to obscure the connection between tobacco and lung cancer are being used by the oil industry to obscure the connection between carbon emissions and global warming.

Not a lot of people know that.

Or even care.


dm, I see that you have an interest in matters of global warming. I've always felt that the impact of CO2 levels in the atmosphere was secondary to significant global warming. The way I see it is that if there were no humans on the planet the earth would still be going through a warming period and atmospheric CO2 would rise as massive quantities are released from the sea. Undoubtedly this CO2 further contributes to global warming (greenhouse effect)

For me, the biggest effects on global warming are the sun activity, our relative position to it (Milankovitch cycles), and the amount of the main greenhouse gas (Water vapour) in the atmosphere (mostly as clouds). The argument is made, spuriously in my opinion, that man has caused this global warming, and perversely, man can fix it by trading carbon credits and reducing emissions. I am not denying that man-made atmospheric CO2 does contribute, to an extent, to global warming but don't think there is thing we can do about it.

What we should be doing is modeling the climate to determine what the planet will look like after significant change and working out how we can avoid wide-scale starvation, drought, civil wars, and all the other potential scenarios of a new ice age.

Just my view, but COP, IPCC, and all the other bodies are focusing on the wrong thing and it amounts to little more than pissing in the wind.


This ^^^ I have long been of the mind that the Earth is transitioning towards another Ice Age and what mankind has contributed or done will have have no real effect on that happening; one may as well believe in the fountain of youth as an alternative to the normal 3 score years and 10
_________________
It's not the despair that will kill you, it's the hope.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dm
dot.org player kit 2007
dot.org player kit 2007


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 9136
Location: Just over the border...

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The overwhelming majority of scientists working in climate related disciplines agree that human activity since the industrial revolution has significantly increased the concentration of atmospheric C02 which is leading to global warming.

By an overwhelming majority of scientists I mean over 95%. This includes the most respected scientific bodies including the Royal Society and the American Geophysical Union plus a very large number of national and academic bodies working in related fields. So it is not COP or the IPPC driving an agenda. It's science itself making a statement.

BR - the issues of solar and water vapour effects have been well researched and found not to be causing the increase in temperatures the world is experiencing. The research is documented if you haven't read it.

EL - there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the earth is moving into another ice age. The evidence shows that the world is warming. Even those who oppose anthropic climate change now accept this.

It is strange to me almost all people accept scientific evidence as something that is real and true for most things except this issue of human induced climate change. It's strange because the consequences of being wrong on this are catastrophic.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BiscuitRanger
Level 3 dot.orger
Level 3 dot.orger


Joined: 01 Aug 2009
Posts: 3457
Location: Unit 6

PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dm wrote:
The overwhelming majority of scientists working in climate related disciplines agree that human activity since the industrial revolution has significantly increased the concentration of atmospheric C02 which is leading to global warming.
By an overwhelming majority of scientists I mean over 95%. This includes the most respected scientific bodies including the Royal Society and the American Geophysical Union plus a very large number of national and academic bodies working in related fields. So it is not COP or the IPPC driving an agenda. It's science itself making a statement.

BR - the issues of solar and water vapour effects have been well researched and found not to be causing the increase in temperatures the world is experiencing. The research is documented if you haven't read it.

EL - there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the earth is moving into another ice age. The evidence shows that the world is warming. Even those who oppose anthropic climate change now accept this.

It is strange to me almost all people accept scientific evidence as something that is real and true for most things except this issue of human induced climate change. It's strange because the consequences of being wrong on this are catastrophic.



Thanks dm.

Just to clarify my position/understanding, yes global temperatures are increasing, and yes CO2 as a result of mans activity is increasing, and yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does contribute to global warming. I don't think many people, when faced with the scientific evidence, would think otherwise.

What I am suggesting that whilst man-made CO2 has an effect on global warming, it's not a game changer. I don't think it is having a catalytic effect, merely adding to that being released by the oceans as their temperature rises. It seems very difficult to prove one way or the other.

I have read scientific reports/papers that do indeed suggest that solar activity is impacting on global temperatures. I guess it depends on what you read. I have also read about periods of global warming occuring "immediately" before an ice age. Various theories have been postulated. More atmospheric moisture (clouds) obscuring the sun thus reducing solar heating of the planet's surface, catastrophic fires that reduce the rain forest (carbon sink) to a fraction of it's average size, but perhaps the more compelling was the change in ocean currents (yeah, I know, The Day After Tomorrow and all that Hollywood nonsense) resulting in a shift in the gulf stream.

I struggle to accept that global climate modeling can be anything other than best-guess. I spoke to a meterologist on a plane back from Atlanta some 20 years ago who was getting exicited about the new program to improve the coverage of weather stations across the US, and mobile ones in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. He felt that it would provide invaluable data which would modify their modeling to the extent that he could see accurate 10 day forecasts. In my experience we are still a long way short of this.

The Earth's climate is incredibly complex. I wonder what the uncertainty of these climate models are? Naturally, this uncertainty would increase as you project further forward into the future. I shall look into it some more.

As I think of man's latest efforts to impact the environment (positively, by controlling CO2 emissions) I am reminded of King Canute. The focus and all the effort will have the same outcome, unless you subscribe to the butterfly effect or tipping point theories.

BTW I am a Ph.D. scientist and whilst this does not qualify me to have an authoritative view on the subject, it has taught me scientific method and robustness and helps me to challenge conventional wisdom (which despite current popular thinking, is correct most of the time! - (Oh, proper irony at last))

My views are no more valid than the next man's but based on my present understanding I think focussing on CO2 is misplaced effort.
_________________
English is my second language - I don't have a first
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dm
dot.org player kit 2007
dot.org player kit 2007


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 9136
Location: Just over the border...

PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's an interesting take on the issue, Biscuit - if I might call you by your first name Wink

My understanding of the temperature rise in the oceans is that it's a result of climate change and not driving it. That's the conclusion of studies into climate change's effect on the seas, for example one by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration last year.

My understanding of solar activity is that the sun's activity has been roughly level since the 60s and actually cooler than usual since 2003. Over this period the global temperatures have risen so that seems to rule out the sun as the culprit.

I know little of past ice ages coming after a period of warming, though I suspect there'd be an argument that would say the difference is today we have man made C02 in the atmosphere and so a different scenario to ones in past.

I don't quite get your thoughts on climate modeling. Your example seemed to be about weather forecasting rather than trends in the climate. Surely two different things?

I understand the King Canute comparison and certainly the response of the West looks like that - pathetic. However, if the science is correct the future scenarios for the world are truly horrendous and particularly for the two thirds world and therefore a serious, concerted and urgent action by those who are most responsible for C02 emissions is needed.

My interest in this issue is because I work for an international development NGO. I've seen in Kenya first had the results of the drought made far worse by climate change. That will be just a forteste of what's to come if the world doesn't get it's act together and quickly.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WA Hoop
Level 4 dot.orger
Level 4 dot.orger


Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 4756
Location: Perth, Western Australia

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dm wrote:
That's an interesting take on the issue, Biscuit - if I might call you by your first name Wink

My understanding of the temperature rise in the oceans is that it's a result of climate change and not driving it. That's the conclusion of studies into climate change's effect on the seas, for example one by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration last year.

My understanding of solar activity is that the sun's activity has been roughly level since the 60s and actually cooler than usual since 2003. Over this period the global temperatures have risen so that seems to rule out the sun as the culprit.

I know little of past ice ages coming after a period of warming, though I suspect there'd be an argument that would say the difference is today we have man made C02 in the atmosphere and so a different scenario to ones in past.

I don't quite get your thoughts on climate modeling. Your example seemed to be about weather forecasting rather than trends in the climate. Surely two different things?

I understand the King Canute comparison and certainly the response of the West looks like that - pathetic. However, if the science is correct the future scenarios for the world are truly horrendous and particularly for the two thirds world and therefore a serious, concerted and urgent action by those who are most responsible for C02 emissions is needed.

My interest in this issue is because I work for an international development NGO. I've seen in Kenya first had the results of the drought made far worse by climate change. That will be just a forteste of what's to come if the world doesn't get it's act together and quickly.


China & U.S. are in a league of their own.

Russia, India, Japan, Germany, Canada and the UK are a long way behind but collectively deliver the same impact as the U.S.

Irrespective of individual positions on climate change, the whole concept of growth (and with it capitalism) will need to be roundly rejected before any genuine progress can be made. Suffice to say, I won't be holding my breath.

Meanwhile, Australia's rather embarrassing (and rather Welsh) PM goes it alone, inflicting the blunt instrument that is a carbon tax, on the World's 15th highest CO2 emitter! Rolling Eyes
_________________
Life is short, drink the good wine first.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Esox Lucius
dot.org legend
dot.org legend


Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 13389
Location: Banbury, Oxon.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

WA Hoop wrote:

China & U.S. are in a league of their own.

Russia, India, Japan, Germany, Canada and the UK are a long way behind but collectively deliver the same impact as the U.S.

Irrespective of individual positions on climate change, the whole concept of growth (and with it capitalism) will need to be roundly rejected before any genuine progress can be made. Suffice to say, I won't be holding my breath.

Meanwhile, Australia's rather embarrassing (and rather Welsh) PM goes it alone, inflicting the blunt instrument that is a carbon tax, on the World's 15th highest CO2 emitter! Rolling Eyes


And that right there is where I feel all this concern about Global Warming is centred; a means of introducing another stealth tax to fund the economy. Regarding Ice Ages, there is only an Ice Age and an Interglacial Period, no "Hot Age" so no matter what we are told or asked to do it will have no long term bearing on any climatic change. Don't forget that the term Global Warming was invented by an economist.
IMO a problem far greater than climate change is the worlds population growth, it is unsustainable and is reducing mankinds resources far more drastically than the use of fossil fuels.
_________________
It's not the despair that will kill you, it's the hope.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dm
dot.org player kit 2007
dot.org player kit 2007


Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 9136
Location: Just over the border...

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

WA Hoop - I agree capitalism, growth and I'd add, consumerism, are at the root of the problem. As ever, its the rich and powerful nations, businesses and individuals who hold the key to the problem.

ES - I think I understand your point regarding no "Hot Age". The big difference between today and the past is that humans have been releasing huge quantities of C02 into the atmosphere so that concentrations are at its highest for at least 650,000 years, and as you know, atmospheric C02 is like a blanket warming the globe. This has never happened before. I agree population is a huge concern, but it's not as urgent as global warming. If the world does not make the necessary changes quickly, it will be too late because of 'feedbacks' like methane being released from areas of melting permafrost and warming seas.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Esox Lucius
dot.org legend
dot.org legend


Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 13389
Location: Banbury, Oxon.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dm wrote:
EL - I think I understand your point regarding no "Hot Age". The big difference between today and the past is that humans have been releasing huge quantities of C02 into the atmosphere so that concentrations are at its highest for at least 650,000 years, and as you know, atmospheric C02 is like a blanket warming the globe. This has never happened before. I agree population is a huge concern, but it's not as urgent as global warming. If the world does not make the necessary changes quickly, it will be too late because of 'feedbacks' like methane being released from areas of melting permafrost and warming seas.


A slightly spurious fact as we(mankind) have only been capable of releasing CO2 for approximately 150 years so any release will be an increase over the last 650.000 years. A lot of this discharge is fuelled by a need to supply an ever increasing population and therefore IMO the need is to control population growth before we can plan and strategise for emission control. I still believe it is a political ruse to increase stealth taxation.
_________________
It's not the despair that will kill you, it's the hope.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    qprdot.org Forum Index -> RAOIS All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group