There could be an award system, for those nations developing environmentally sound technology and their clever scientists, this and they could receive funding grants in accordance with performance on a global level.


Global prize awards.

..

No corporate kick-backs, or donations, just one dollar, per person on earth!

No more, no less.

codswal wrote on Oct 12^th, 2010 at 5:54am:


I was being a little facetious when I said "save the planet"...I should have used italics, to accentuate this trite overused expression because like you, I don't believe in a AGW theory.

Though I do believe we need to start focusing on the 'known-to-be'  harmful toxic environmental pollutants, which truly are a serous threat to both our environment, ecosystem and mankind itself.

Toxic substances such as dioxin and heavy metals, which due to increasing industry, we are observing higher levels of these toxic substances in our natural environment, (thus ecosystem and food supply) than ever before. Some fish species containing levels three times higher than the recommended safe level of consumption, this and are still being sold at our fish mongers, when really, some species should contain health authority warnings.

The spectrum of health related afflictions is quite staggering, some of which biologically harmful,  neurotoxic , tetragenic, carcinogenic, mutinogenic and have been linked to autism, skin disease, birth defects, even chromosomal abnormalities. Some of these toxins are used as preservatives in pharmaceuticals, and found in fresh and imported produce, personal hygiene products,cosmetics . We have only just began to scratch the surface, though since a number of parents began taking legal action against their governments in the US and a number of other developed countries also, (mercury having been linked to autism, this and until 2002, was used as a preservative in regular childhood vaccines here in Australia and all over the world).. we have gone quiet on the subject,....preferring to focus on Climate Change.

When really, it's our environment that's quite toxic and needs to be dealt with, monitored more closely, this and regulated, for as our population increases, so does our agriculture and industry,  threatening both our health and sustainability for generations to come.
I think it's something our government would rather we didn't think too much about, at the risk of this harming our precious exports and industries....



So I would like to see the establishment of a global environmental and population authority, this and see if we can start getting serious about the environmental concerns we face, this and can control.


One dollar, per person, world wide. No more, no less, and every cent accounted for.


i

mellie wrote on Oct 12^th, 2010 at 7:06am:

it wouldnt work mel for the simple reason the poorer countries would have the responsibility of the funds and we know where they would end up.. sorry have no faith in any of these so called world saving conglomerates.. look at the UN I have no faith whatsoever.. but keep dreaming at least it shows you/we care and thats half the problem today the other half is getting it right..

did you watch 4 corners last night.. it was hair raising..to lose the peace is one thing but to get it so wrong is something else again. it goes to show its no good expecting fighting forces to turn into peace keeping forces it doesnt work like that....as someone said last night if you tell the Marines to attack just what do you expect them to do???

Guys, lets not turn this thread into a climate change debate... I genuinely want it to be an inspirational thread to delve into feasible alternatives to our current mode-of-action, which clearly, has not appealed to all.

One thing we cant disagree on is that our environment is becoming increasingly toxic, due to man-caused pollutants/activity/use, this is proven 100% scientific fact...noone can deny this, hence the rising mercury and dioxin levels in aquatic life and our ecosystem. so I think pushing an environmental/pollution tax of some sort might hold-up , more so than a controversial carbon-only-tax.. we could very well go-on disputing for the next 30 years, like we have for the last 15.

Meanwhile, nothings being done..we have hit a brick wall.

....We need to work with what we already have, of which is enough scientific evidence to prove that we humans are indeed having an environmentally destructive effect on our environment, this and in order to achieve sustainability, we need to invest in new technologies and practices to clean up our act.

Lets build on what we have.

This opposed to flogging a dead sea-horse.

Because the AGW thingy just isn't cutting the grade...this or convincing anyone that they need to work towards cleaning up the planet.


The revenue has to be allocated ethically, this is a toll by the people for their environment, so should be used for just that.

No concessions, no donations, or favours, $1 per person, globally, this and managed by a global environmental authority, think of it as Noahs ark...perhaps two of every political animal?  

Eg, two representatives from each country, from both sides of politics.

Ie, Gillard and Abbott would be on the panel. ...or someone from their partys cabinet representing our country. A sustainable populations minister perhaps?

Call them what you like, but two representatives from both sides of politics representing each and every country overseeing the management of funding allocation, distribution.

I think this could work.

And unlike a carbon-tax, wont spell the birth of a new bureaucracy, one that would be very costly to set-up to begin with...this and is already controversial, too controversial.

Ok, say if AGW was real, it's not the point.. the problem is not enough people believe in it.. see it as extortion, some sort of evil tax,  what we need here is something workable, something in which we can all agree is required, feasible, irrespective of what side of politics you come from... and our polluting our environment, and increasing population concerns are both indisputable undeniable concerns.

Neither Gillard or Abbott can deny the need for this toll.

Why I call it a toll, is because it comes with the concept that the proceeds will be put towards maintaining the very thing we all depend on so heavily, something we all use, this and ALL need to maintain,  this being our planet, our habitat... whereas a tax implies a contribution for the support of a government.

This is a toll for the environment, and only for the environment.

Rich or poor, everyone pays the same toll each year.

Bit like a bridge, irrespective of how rich or poor you are, or what country you come from, you pay the toll to use the bridge.

This bridge being our environment, our habitat, something we all use.i

Dnarever wrote on Oct 12^th, 2010 at 9:09am:



Bigotry and blame aside, this is about each individual paying their enviro- toll to cross the bridge,...past disputes , wars, and  who caused what and so forth are irrelevant, that's for governments to dispute between themselves and other countries leaders....

This Environment toll should be a neutral entity unto itself.

So Mellie,

A person is caught dumping one tyre on a pile of tyres that covers 100 hectares, estimated to be 5 million tyres. 12 parties are found to have created the pile, and are prosecuted.

Is our person responsible for one five millionth of the problem, or a twelfth?