« Hacking las vegas (a tiny bit) | Main | life and resumes »

April 23, 2007

Why you you have to be very careful before letting people in their late 60s decide policy for the next 50 years

Sigh

April 23, 2007 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cbf7d53ef00e55021089e8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why you you have to be very careful before letting people in their late 60s decide policy for the next 50 years:

Comments

In little Johnny's defence (and I can't believe I am actually defending him), I think this decision has nothing to do with him being in his 60s, I think he would have said the same thing in his early 20s... he's just a total ****.

Posted by: Cheryl | Apr 23, 2007 4:31:38 PM

John, I think this should be rephrased as "Why you you have to be very careful before letting POLITICANS decide policy for the next 50 years".

We all know that politicians are focussed more on (1) winning the next election and (2) lasting long enough to pick up their pension and gold card - whichever comes first.

What is hard to understand is how, when so many of their policies over the last 10 years have been shown to be flawed, they still fail to make sensible policies for the next 10 years. Already we know that food prices will increase (and/or food imports will increase), water charges will increase and power charges will most likely increase, all because of global warming. Add in the impact of the resulting higher interest rates and you have to wonder about the PM's claim that looking after the economy is his number one priority.

Posted by: Anura | Apr 23, 2007 5:41:45 PM

I see you've already been chastened, but will join in anyway. Stupidity is not age-dependent, unless a life in politics fries the brain over time.

Posted by: Virginia | Apr 24, 2007 12:27:07 AM

When I started my undergraduate studies in 1989 "The Greenhouse Effect" was front of mind. The late 80s had spawned a global trend in awareness about green issues - Citizens willingly "Thought Globally and Acted Locally",there was that farcical love in in Rio in 1990 or 1991.

Did you know that in 1952 4000 Londoners died in 3 days as a result of a "Killer Fog" mixed with the airborne pollutants from cars, industry and log fires http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=873954 this event (barely remembered) changed the way the West thought about air pollution - more that 50 years ago.

I wonder if we could be bothered as a society to take the big steps (actually they are relatively small), long term to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. E.g. turn off the lights, walk to work 1 day a week, install a rain water tank (in QLD there is an $800 rebate, you can get a 3000 L tank installed for free).

The Western World has known about the detrimental effects of emitting pollutants for over half a century - yet either humans natively suffer from a collective state of the CBFs (couldn't be erm bothered) or there is no genuine, tangible incentive for this generation to take the first steps.

Posted by: Andy | Apr 24, 2007 12:47:08 PM

Understand the man. He can understand the economy the figures and charts and accounts. The science, the environment, the long term implications, these are not things of spreadsheets and ledgers, they are well beyond him, he leans on his advisors (god help us if they are like the political advisors I have encountered). Hence JH doesn't get it.

Mind you I have been told JH is just sitting waiting for the party to find a replacement they can win the next election with. He knows this and just doesn't have the heart in it anymore (not that he did in the first place).

People/Nations should be taking the action as if they where going to war. That's the serious nature of this crisis.

I find people get complacent mainly because they feel they can't do anything to help or with the finding of a solution.

Posted by: Gary Barber | Apr 24, 2007 8:07:19 PM

That really is depressing, I agree. I notice too that he is very light on in saying just what he thinks our greatest moral challenge might be. Oh, of course though, that wasn't the point of the exercise now was it? This is yet another example of his style: in 10 years in government there really hasn't been a single instance of genuine leadership. *Maybe* the changes to the gun laws. Maybe. But even that really was just sniffing the breeze and giving the Tele reading, Big Brother watching ignorant masses what they wanted.

The problem here is the ignorance, short-sightedness and selfishness of humans. Of course people don't remember what happened in London in 1952: because no on tells them. It seems to be very hard to make us see a connection between our actions on a day by day basis and events that will take place a long way in the future. This is why you need genuine leadership by those who are in a position to know better.

Posted by: Maxine Sherrin | Apr 25, 2007 2:16:00 PM

Duly chastened one and all - should have put it much better :-/

But thanks all for that, and for the intelligent replies.

We've been working hard on addressign what we can do with our conference - we'll very hopefully be carbon neutral, and make it easy and inexpensive for attendees to offset the carbon they'll expend getting to web directions.

j

Posted by: John Allsopp | Apr 28, 2007 5:47:19 PM