Today I posted the following two comments in the Labour Party’s National Policy Forum discussion website to elaborate further on Green Socialism:
1.
Achieving sustainability Posted on 01-04-17 by Shantanu Panigrahi Hello Stephen You have raised a very important topic and I fully agree with you on the encouragement of cycling and reducing the use of cars that not only use up fossil fuels which will be increasing scarce in the decades to come but also because motorised vehicles cause severe pollution in our cities that harm our health arising from exhaust fumes.
However, I am a climate change skeptic not because I have any great scientific data proving that carbon dioxide emissions do not generate the greenhouse effect of raising global temperatures but because I am a theist who believes in living as God has arranged life for us. Let Him worry in other words about how to make the lives of humans more comfortable on this planet. If fossil fuels has been provided by Him it is for our use. But we must use it sparingly so as to leave as much as possible for future generations and also to make our atmosphere clean.
Living sustainably also means that for our part, we must practice ahimsa (non violence) towards all living beings, be it plants, animals or humans. We must also live a minimalist existence with austerity for all not just for the poor (Mr Jeremy Corbyn, please note).
That way we work towards a sustainable living in which the economics serves the needs of protecting the environment, and within that framework we look for the best way in which workers deserve and get their dues from a Labour government.
In other words the environment comes first and personal habits need to change to make that the focus. This is what is intended by the phrase Green Socialism. Good, healthy sustainable living not guided by consumerism in order to protect the planet and all its inhabitants.
I am 60 years old so find cycling a bit daunting but I do admire those people like you for whom cycling is not only a way of life but who take the trouble of generating political interest in ways that encourage the habit as a sustainable method of travel.
Shantanu Panigrahi 0 replies | Post a reply
2.
Focus on Climate Change Posted on 01-04-17 by Shantanu Panigrahi Number of votes: 0 | Number of comments: 0 It is not appropriate for NPF to focus its efforts on Climate Change from Global Warming.
It is not appropriate to run a government that is focussed on doing things to prevent climate change from global warming that results apparently from carbon dioxide emissions when fossil fuels are burnt. The focus should be on reducing fossil fuel usage but in order to leave as much of the fossil fuels for future generations and preventing atmospheric pollution from exhaust fumes that harm our health.
This does not mean that global warming is not happening but rather that it is not happening at any alarming level that would make our lives on this planet unviable. If sea levels rise and temperatures go up in hot areas of the world it will generate opportunities for solar energy harnessing in those areas. The rise in temperature globally will also bring in other parts of the world that are too cold now into habitability.
As for evidence that global warming causes excessive erratic climatic conditions like hurricanes and floods, that is not proven by scientists. This means that we should develop technologies to remove the pollutants from the burning of fossil fuels other than carbon dioxide and not worry about global warming.
God created the Earth and has made all these changes over billions of years so that we can live in comfort today and develop human talents in the internet era. Fossil fuels have been crucial in human development, and will remain so as technologies develop further. Our aim should therefore be to use what God has given us wisely to improve our health and prevent wastage of precious resources.
Email acknoweledgement came as follows: New submission posted The Labour Party To shanpanigrahi@yahoo.co.uk 1 April 2017 at 10:12 Dear Shantanu Panigrahi Thank you for your submission. Your comments and ideas will be discussed by the relevant Policy Commission at a future meeting. http://www.policyforum.labour.org.uk/agenda-2020/commissions/environment-energy-and-culture/npf-consultation-2017-environment-energy-and-culture/focus-on-climate-change We look forward to reading more of your submissions and comments on Labour Policy Forum in the future. If you would like any help in taking part, please get in touch by emailing policyforum@labour.org.uk.
Many thanks, Labour Policy Forum Reply Reply to All Forward More
4 April 2017 Update:
I posted the following in reply to a response that disputed my entry:
Hello Christopher
There will always be disputes over what is an alarming level of rising temperature that is supposedly causing climate change that is detrimental to the planet as a whole and human beings survival in it. If sea levels rise alarmingly some coastal regions and islands will sink: that is obvious. But their inhabitants will then have to emigrate to better climes as has happened throughout history. This is why the decision of the German government to welcome refugees is a positive thing to have happened.
I am not sure where you get the idea that it will be the global north that benefits from climate change but if that is true you should bear in mind that most of the land mass of the planet is in the global north where warmth and rainfall is needed for crop production. So it will be a good thing if I take your word for it. The extra food that will be produced can be sent to drier parts of the world where there is famine.
Whilst it is true that higher temperatures will not make solar energy more easily produced the amount of energy needed to cook food for example will lessen thus saving energy on the whole. I am no expert but will not electricity generation also become cheaper at higher temperatures when less energy is is needed to heat water?
Mankind’s progress cannot be held back by considerations of what are poorer parts of the world and what are richer parts of the world. Humans have always migrated to greener pastures. That is just a fact. From northern Canada, Greenland to Siberia there is land waiting to be colonised by humans if the temperatures in those parts were conducive to habitation. If the south does not produce food it should be left for the environment to reclaim that land through natural regeneration.
Extreme erratic climatic conditions are also a fact of the geology of the Earth such as volcanoes and hurricanes: I do not know where you get the evidence that higher global temperatures directly increase the incidence of erratic and extreme weather.
So my concern is why worry about global warming which can only come at the cost of progress to develop human talents and generate technologies to make our lives comfortable?
14 April 2017 Update
Posted on 14-04-17 by Shantanu Panigrahi in reply to Andrew Furlong (show original)
Hello Andrew
What is an alarming level of global warming is disputable and my view is that there are too many scientists scaremongering people into believing that our lives will become intolerable due to high carbondioxide generation from fossil fuel usage. If you ask these scientists how much carbondioxide escapes to outer space from the Earth’s atmosphere they will have no answer for you. As you must be aware considerable amounts of carbondioxide is absorbed by the oceans. Carbondioxide is good for photosynthesis and new food producing plants can be bred to take advantage of this. The subject is therefore poorly conceived and understood by so-called experts specialising in headline concerns of the greenhouse effect from carbon dioxide. The changes in solar radiation from the sun probably has more effect on the temperatures on Earth’s surface. There has been a lot of carbon dioxide released from deforestation and urbanisation with concrete jungles which is what we should be addressing rather than curtailing fossil fuel usage.
So why should we place our trust in such scientists to totally change the basis of our existence on this planet in terms of the progress we can make to improve our lives through use of fossil fuels. I reject what you suggest the next Labour government should do to work towards the decarbonisation of world economy.
0 replies | Post a reply
.
April 1, 2017 Posted by shantanup | Uncategorized | Leave a comment
Comments