The Philippines disaster

[Phil Pascoe]

This is a perfect opportunity for the government. All aid should be labour, machinery - water purifiers, JCBs and so on, the Army, doctors, sniffer dogs, medical and food supplies. Do some good for this country, don't just give Carlos Fandango random amounts of cash and tell him to spend it as he sees fit. Get some out of the cesspit that is Afghanistan, maybe.


I've just heard on Newsnight that of the money raised by large charities for Haiti 40% of money was spent on property and cars for aid workers, and 0.6% actually got to be spent "on the ground".

 

[Jacob]

.....
How much are you sending to help Jacob ? You could pretend you were paying 70% tax and send a few months salary if you feel so strongly.......imagine how smug you would feel..........

I don't recall saying anything controversial in this thread which could account for your tasteless and moronic attempt at satire.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I don't think it was intended as a moronic attempt at satire, just an insult.

 

[Jacob]

OK, moronic insult.

 

[adidat]

Drop food from planes yes send money and the rich will get richer

this sounds about right disaster relief agencies actually bid for the disaster! crazy

a very reliable friend spent lots of time in liberia during their main troubles, now i realise this wasn't a natural disaster but due to his connection with the us gov he was taken to a runway and some hangars he said there was about 20 brand new off road vehicles land rovers maybe. They were just rotting in the african sun they had been there for years under guard along with 100's of tons of food and supplies just rotting in the hangars. All this paid for by other governments etc all wasted down to very poor management and the fat cats getting fatter!

and the skinning locals getting skinnier and dieing!

he did also see a gang shoot and rpg at mans house in monrovia! all because apparently he was a witch :shock:

adidat

 

[riclepp]

The yanks have already started to send transport planes out to the Philippines to bring their staff out, guess what they are empty going in...what a waste of an aircraft...could have packed it with food, supplies, equipment etc...God bless the yanks, don't you just love em...tossers....whoever invented the yanks must have been on something.

 

[riclepp]

I think the Chinese are very glad we have exported our pollution to them. It has enabled them to become the worlds pre eminent superpower while our country slowly slides down the pan.........

And while I don't want to be callous, we are obsessed as humans in trying to stop mother natures checks and balances on an massively overpopulated planet like disease and natural disasters - we can't and should not try and stop everyone dying all the time. There are not enough resources on this planet to support us all as it is.

here here

 

[Jacob]

So you are pleased that a lot of people have died?

 

[markturner]

Actually, a lot of people have not died.......they may die or face a horrible time over the next few weeks, but no worse than great tranches of the human race in other countries and in other situations.....this is just the latest big news story....

You cant solve the worlds problems with socialism.......and if something did happen that reduced the worlds population by 40%...then would that be a bad thing? Looking at the big picture? And of course, eveybody hates the Americans...until they want their army and planes to fly the aid in..........

So, how much did you send? Oh no, I forgot, you just want the rich people to pay instead..............

 

[Jonzjob]

Your carbon footprint ha these extracts taken from another forum

What % of CO2 do humans produce?
Respondent’s answers ranged from as high as 100% with most estimating it to be between 75% to 25% and only four said they thought it was between 10% and 2 %.

The Correct Answer: Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. As a decimal it is a miniscule
0.001% of the air. All of mankind produces only one molecule of CO2 in around every 90,000 air molecules! Yes, that’s all.

Is CO2 is a pollutant?

Respondent’s Answers: All thought it was a pollutant, at least to some degree.

The Correct Answer: CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life - just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant.

Calling CO2 a ‘pollutant’ leads many to wrongly think of it as black, grey or white smoke. Because the media deceitfully show white or grey ‘smoke’ coming out of power station cooling towers, most think this is CO2. It is not: it’s just steam (water vapour) condensing in the air. CO2 is invisible: just breathe out and see. Look at it bubbling out of your soft drinks, beer or sparkling wine. No one considers that a pollutant - because it’s not. CO2 in its frozen state is commonly known as dry ice. It is used in camping eskys, in medical treatments and science experiments. No one considers that a pollutant either. CO2 is emitted from all plants. This ‘emission’ is not considered a pollutant even though this alone is 33 times more than man produces! Huge quantities of CO2 are dissolved naturally in the ocean and released from the warm surface. This is not considered a pollutant either.
Have you seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

Respondent’s Answers: Most did not know of any definite proof. Some said they thought the melting of the
Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.

The Correct Answer: There is no proof at all. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (the IPCC)
has never produced any proof.

There is lots more but the fact is your carbon footprint has nothing to do with global warming its a myth put out by goverments to get us to pay more in TAXES

Cedarwood, I have been looking for this sort of info for ages on and off. Any chance of a link please?? Global warming is a part of the natural cycle that has been going on almost since the Earth was formed. As for CO2, all it would need to happen is another Krackatoa as happened in 1883 and we would have winters to remember for a very long time. As for the rising sea? How far did it go out since Sandwich was a port??? Or you could walk across to france???

In my opinion it wouldn't be needed for loads of people to die in natural catastrophies if the population were to be kept down by cutting down the number of babies bought into the world.

Several generations ago in Africa families had a dozen or so babies because most of them were going to die, plus it was/is BIG macho for the bloke to be able to prove his manhood.

Now, the men are still proving their manhood, BUT the babies are living, growing up and unsupportable. The population is exploding and nature will set a balance whatever mankind tried to do.

As for the poor perishers in the Phillipines, we will be sending a donation to the Croix Rouge.

 

[MARK.B.]

UNDISPUTED FACT - There HAS been a disaster in the Philippines.

PETTY arguments and name calling over who is at fault - God - Mankind - East or West serves little or no purpose at all.

If you want want to help those that have survived ( The Dead are beyond help ) for whatever reason and in whatever way you wish then do so.

If you don't want to help those that have survived for whatever reason then don't.

 

[Mike.C]

UNDISPUTED FACT - There HAS been a disaster in the Philippines.

PETTY arguments and name calling over who is at fault - God - Mankind - East or West serves little or no purpose at all.

If you want want to help those that have survived ( The Dead are beyond help ) for whatever reason and in whatever way you wish then do so.

If you don't want to help those that have survived for whatever reason then don't.

=D>

Cheers

Mike

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Ozzies are worst according to this. Not surprised - it's all those barbies on the beach.

That's a totally misleading graph - there are c.23 million Australians and c. 1,360 million Chinese. Of course their per capita emissions are at different ends of the scale. It doesn't mean the Australians pollute three and a half times more than the Chinese.

 

[Jacob]

....... It doesn't mean the Australians pollute three and a half times more than the Chinese.

Yes it does. They are each averagely responsible for 3 1/2 times the CO2 production of an average individual Chinese. Nothing misleading about that except for those who don't know the meaning of "per capita".

 

[Phil Pascoe]

It is misleading as it implies that Australia causes three and a half times the pollution that China does - many people wouldn't notice the "per capita" (and many wouldn't know what it meant anyway), they just look at the height of the columns. Surely it matters more what a country produces than it does what every man woman and child does?

 

[Jonzjob]

China = 1.351 billion X 5.5

Australia = 22.68 million X 18.6

I wonder who is producing the most merde :? :?

Possibly not the Aussies as a nation me-thinks?? :mrgreen:

 

[markturner]

He He....wait 10 years and see what that graph looks like............they are only just getting out of first gear.....not to mention the indians and the brazilians.

It's only an extremely well developed and wealthy economy with years of industrial and social stability that can afford to put in place the measures required. ( Like us in Europe and the US) And even then, when it comes to paying for them, actually paying high fuel bills & Eco levies etc ( Don't forget labour declared last government that cheap fuel was at odds with stated eco policies...like **** see - make them expensive to discourage useage........) yet look what happens when someone tries to actually raise the money needed? All of a sudden you have milliband screaming about how unjust high fuel prices are, you could not make it up....

Everyone else in the developing world is desperately struggling at any cost to improve their lot - pollution and social responsibility are waaaaaay down the list of things they care about. They just want all those lovely western consumer products and they want them now!!!

It's the hypocrisy and double standards around all this I cant stand........

 

[andersonec]

Does anybody really believe the world will be able to sustain the human population expansion, the population growth is compounding ie 2 children have 4 kids who have 8 kids who have 16 kids and so on, Britain's population 100 years ago was circa 36 million, the 2011 census has the population down as 56.1 million (and that is after two world wars) so, 30 million increase in the UK alone, what goes hand in glove with this is what the scientists are saying is causing global warming? major manufacturing of goods to support this increasing population and most of that is junk, it is a fact that people are no happier now than they were in the fifties even though they now have all the modern technological gadgets designed to 'make life easier'
The economists keep on preaching about growth, the government keeps on preaching about growth, this is supposed to be able to keep up with the ever increasing population, here in Lincolnshire they need to produce 42,800 new houses in the next twenty years but!!!! the fact is, infinite growth is impossible and not sustainable, world population is approaching 7 BILLION and the UN predicts 10 BILLION by the year 2100 (that's bordering on double) where is the food, energy, water, resources etc coming from for all these people? (can you imagine the cars?) this planet certainly cannot produce it.

Andy

 

[Karl]

I thought the latest forecast showed that global population was to stop growing in about 20/30 years time and would start to decline?

 

[JustBen]

I thought the latest forecast showed that global population was to stop growing in about 20/30 years time and would start to decline?

Is that at the point where we hit maximum planet capacity and start killing each other for space/resources?