THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: HERE WE ARE AGAIN ANOTHER EUROPEAN ELECTION.

13 Monday May 2019

Posted by in European Elections., European Union.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: HERE WE ARE AGAIN ANOTHER EUROPEAN ELECTION.

Tags

, ,

 

(Eleven-minute read)

Will the elections be completely irrelevant?

Because of Brexit.Two activists with the EU flag and Union Jack painted on their faces kiss in front of the Brandenburg Gate, Berlin, 19 June, 2016.

No, and certainly not from a British political point of view. They could be a sounding board for a host of other domestic political issues, including the viability of new political parties – and the sustainability of established ones. In short, the elections will provide a mirror for the UK’s increasingly fractured, and fractious political landscape.

“When the UK was in, all it wanted was opt-outs. Now it’s going to be out, and all it wants are opt-ins.”

In Europe, the elections have a number of known unknowns.

“The European elections will be a referendum between the Europe of the elites, of banks, of finance, of immigration and precarious work; and the Europe of people and labor.”

The 2019 election campaign is a debate on Europe’s priorities.

The populist radical right will focus almost exclusively on migration because this is how they can best mobilize their voters.

So far, most populist MEPs have used their seats largely to fund their domestic political activities or as a platform for anti-EU rhetoric. If they were to start using them to block legislation and important measures, member governments would likely seek to bypass parliament by doing deals among themselves.

Their opponents need to counter the politics of fear by building electoral platforms based on liberal principles, pointing out the big challenges surrounding technology and climate change, and showing that migration is just one issue among many.

Who finishes first?

Is not very important as far as gauging public opinion goes.

If the existing power balance changes, a complex constellation of forces could develop with more ad hoc coalitions across traditional party divides. While this might detract from the parliament’s legislative efficiency, a more open decisionmaking process might have a positive effect on public interest in democracy at the EU level.

However, if the populist parties gain enough power to block crucial decisions, all the other parties will have to pull together to keep the EU functioning.

If one looks beyond the left/right dimension, the EUROPEAN PARLEMENT is divided into promoters and sceptics of European integration.

NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS there are two key elements for genuine parliamentary democracy at the EU level missing:

First, it is almost impossible for voters to assess the performance of individual MEPs, and, second, there has been no change in regime, as the center-right/center-left Grand Coalition has long dominated the EP.

Without a list of transnational of candidates, this will remain so.

Given the key role of the commission in shaping what the EU does, electing its president from a list of transnational candidates would give the voter a real say on the union’s future. However, this time, parliament might be more fragmented, making it difficult to assemble a majority for a lead candidate.

Rather than through institutional reform, change in the EP’s functioning may come through a deeper structural transformation of European politics.

Paradoxically, the rise of nationalist parties has created the first real opening for turning the coming EP election campaign into a truly transnational debate about the future of Europe.

Luckily there is a glimmer of hope with the arrival of DiEM25 to break the national parties’ grip on the composition of the parliament.

The dominant dividing line of the new parliament could become a contest between politicians who want to find common EU-level solutions to current challenges and those who favor safeguarding and reaffirming national sovereignty.

The number of disillusioned voters has increased, with many people frustrated about the powerlessness of national governments in a globalized world.

One of the biggest money-printing programs of all time, a geyser of cash that may have prevented the collapse of the eurozone, will officially ended in December

The European Central Bank stop adding to its stock of government and corporate bonds, the so-called quantitative easing program it has used to hold down interest rates and encourage lending.

In recent months, growth has slowed and risks have grown, including a rise in global trade tensions, China v USA.  Tumult in Italy’s politics and the continuing chaos surrounding Britain’s plans to decouple from the European Union.

The DiEM25 whats to reinvest the money the European Central Bank gets when the bonds mature into creating Green energy programs.

This, as I have posted in a previous post, could achieve a transformation in the European Union.

Before you cast your vote just think.

It’s clear that not everybody participated in the benefits of the common currency.

What if the European Central Bank were to issue European Citizens Bonds.

It would afford all citizens of the Union an opportunity to invest in the future of Europe.

It would create thousands of top quality jobs, supply green energy to the whole of Europe.

It would make Europe the leading light in the fight against Climate change.

It would protect the value of Pensions.

It would break the hold of the rich by spreading the benefits evenly throughout Europe.

It would take the wind out off populous movements.

This is what the EU should aim to do too if it really aspires to eventually become a political union.

Vote DiEM25.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S; (DON’T READ THIS UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO COMMENT). WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE 12 YEARS LEFT TO TAKE ACTION BEFORE ITS TO LATE

12 Sunday May 2019

Posted by in Climate Change.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S; (DON’T READ THIS UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO COMMENT). WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE 12 YEARS LEFT TO TAKE ACTION BEFORE ITS TO LATE

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Fifteen-minute read)

YOU WOULD THINK THAT WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF CLIMATE CHANGE WE WOULD BE FAR BEYOND THE VERBAL WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT BY NOW.

Unfortunately or perhaps, fortunately, we are animals and like the dinosaurs, before us, we have no appreciation of what lies in store.

One could get highly philosophical about the reasons behind climate change but the beaten reality is that it will be the driving force that will be shaping the world for some time to come.

It is going to take more than verbal diarrhoea to do anything worthwhile and it is going to cost trillions whether we take rapid concreted actions on a global scale or not.

Any action on a global scale cannot be achieved under the current Capitalist Market Systems or present-day politics which is hostage to economics who’s carbon footprints are more multi-dimensional than is usually understood by joe soap.

Our historical climate measuring rod shows tectonic tensions building up warning us of a pending disaster so we all need to open our eyes an see the world, not through the lens of the media which is turning it into a product. Already we see climate change coverage on television asking should we change the plants we grow in our gardens.

It is imperative that we understand what profit for profit sake is doing to the world.

There is no more time to leave it up to Capitalism markets or future technologies to change the way we live our lifestyles.

Any activity that generates lots of methane, nitrous oxide or other non-CO2 greenhouse gases will have a much faster warming effect than its carbon footprint, as traditionally expressed, might suggest. That would include meat and rice farming, landfill sites and fridge production, for example.

If we want to buy ourselves as much time as possible to avoid climate-tipping points, it may not just be how much warming something generates that matters, but when that warmth kicks in.

If indeed we have twelve years left, climate change today is struggling to remain a subject rather than becoming merely an object of world politics – to avert it.

It is too late to educate the great unwashed or to expect different countries of the world to address the problems.

If we want a world worth living on we to have to pay for it and the best way to do that is making a profit for profit the destroyer of the planet pay.

(It is now or never that we need the planet and what is left of our ecosystems to exist.) Every drop of fresh water, every forest tree, every species, every ounce of carbon, every breath of fresh air must be paid for.

Right, what can we do about it as individuals?

A new form of economic thinking is becoming increasingly urgent.

The existing models are clearly ill-equipped to address the intertwined challenges on the horizon.

Of course, as individuals, we can cut our carbon emissions but since the dawn of man, nobody is willing to pay for the future. As countries and governments, we are unable to put aside self-interest.

Rest assured if we remain on the present course with escalating geopolitical tensions there will be no multidisciplinary scientific understanding of climate change.

We don’t have the time for second-guessing, worthless promises, carbon pricing, or market-oriented mechanisms.

Not because of rising seas, melting ice, etc but because once a population is destabilized it has a knock on effect.

Like all problems that require vast amounts of finance to eradicate or alleviate Climate Change, will require trillions of investment in the long term.

The solution long term:

(As I have outlined in my previous post:  World AId Commission of 0.005% on Profit for Profit sake.) is the creation of a war chest which has perpetual funding on permanent bases.

This will ensure that everyone has the means to satisfy their basic needs and preserve what is left of our ecosystems.

In the short term.

If we shifted the focus to a much shorter time period of twelve years – which arguably would make more sense, given that the next decade or so could turn out to be make-or-break in terms of avoiding climate tipping points – then the impact of vapour trails and other short-lived impacts look massively more significant.

If we focus just on the impact over the next five years, then planes currently account for more global warming than all the cars on the world’s roads. ( Declaring Climate emergency while building additional runways is England response)

CO2, released by all fuel-burning vehicles, can remain in the air for centuries, vapour trails and tropospheric ozone produced by planes at altitude – cause much more potent but shorter-lived bursts of warming.

I see that there are claims of 100,00 scheduled airline flights per day in the world, But that does not include military, charter, cargo and private aeroplanes.

Then you would get nearly 305,000 global takeoffs per day. That’s an average of 212 take-offs per minute worldwide.Cross of vapour trails

So let us say that the average number of people per flight is one hundred that is over 10 million people.

On average, a plane produces a little over 53 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per 1.61 km or one mile.

One transatlantic flight can add as much to your carbon footprint as a typical year’s worth of driving.

A flight from London to Cape Town is  9673.77 km producing co2 emissions of 7.5 tons of CO2 equivalent to one household for a year. 

On the other hand, if I’m understanding the numbers correctly, over a five-year time frame the world’s ships cause enough cooling to offset the total warming caused by every car, plane and bus combined.

What I’d like to know next.

Is how much work has been done on analysing how near-term rates of global warming fit with the risk of overstepping climate-tipping points.

Any pointers?

So here’s the deepest challenge of this moment:Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of climate change"

Do we really need to lose it all in order to find it again?

If you want it to stop, you have to cut emissions to zero. But emissions are still rising. Perhaps it can be done, but it certainly cannot be done without funding.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S WHY IS ENGLAND IN SUCH A MESS.

24 Wednesday Apr 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., England., English parliamentary proceedings., European Union., Heredity Monarchy., The Queen.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S WHY IS ENGLAND IN SUCH A MESS.

Tags

, , , ,

 

(Six-minute read)

Here is a country with growing numbers of food banks, people sleeping on its streets, trying to negotiating its way out of a market with over 500 million people while renewing its worthless Trident missiles at a cost of anything between 30 and 200 billion.

A country that voted by a small majority to take what it calls sovereignty back from Brussels while giving the green light to letting China Huawei 5G network get involved in domestic infrastructure.

It also beggars belief that on the very same day Donald Trump is threatening to veto a United Nations resolution against the use of rape as a weapon of war, Theresa May is pressing ahead with her plans to honour him with a state visit to the UK.

Mr Donal Dump to visits ( His first visit costs £18 million) this visit will cost the Conservative party a political price with social liberals, ethnic minorities, the young and Remain, voters.

It’s difficult, to put it mildly, to see what the overall benefit of a state visit by Trump is from a British perspective never mind Chinese surveillance.

Readers will have noticed that there is never, these days, the money to properly fund schools and hospitals, and provide the elderly with the care and dignity they deserve.

But, always, billions are available to the military.

HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The two ships have cost more than £14bn to build and equip, double the original budget.

Both might well be floating piece of sovereign territory, but  “gunboat diplomacy” on steroids is not what the world wants.

Then we had the debate in the House of Commons marking the 50th anniversary of the UK’s continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, Trident. The date for replacing Britain’s nuclear fleet keeps being put back … a missile firing from HMS Vigilant.

 

To use the fabrication of a threat from North Korea as a justification for the renewal of Trident is beyond defence.

It’s no wonder that a General Election is needed not just to give the people a voice on whether to remain in the EU or not but to drag an out of a dated system of governance into the twenty-first century.

Members should be elected to represent their constituencies, their country and not a queen or king who ascends by heredity birthrights. 

According to “The Parliamentary Oath” even if the entire country were to vote in a general election for a party whose manifesto pledge was to remove the monarchy, it would be impossible by reason of the present oath, and current acts of parliament, for such elected MPs to take their seats in the House of Commons.

The oath of allegiance has its origins in Magna Carta, signed on 15 June 1215.

If an MP refuses to take the oath or the affirmation to the Queen they will be unable to take part in parliamentary proceedings and will not be paid any salary and allowances until they’ve done so.

By swearing allegiance to the unelected monarch, her heirs and successors. It is an insult to democratic values, to all voters who participate in any General or other election. 

It has to change.

It’s one of the great ironies of a political system that is in dire need of a written constitution. 

In parliamentary terms, a pledge of loyalty to the state is invalid without a pledge of loyalty to the monarch.

The Queen is responsible for appointing the Prime Minister after a general election or a resignation, in a General Election.

The Queen has the power to prorogue (suspend) and to summon (call back) Parliament – prorogation typically happens at the end of a parliamentary session, and the summoning occurs shortly after when The Queen attends the State Opening of Parliament.

It is The Queen’s right and responsibility to grant assent to bills from Parliament, signing them into law.

The Queen is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and all members swear an oath of allegiance to The Queen when they join; they are Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.

I believe in an elected head of state.

There is no point in pledging loyalty to God or the Queen when elected by the people.

As long as being an MP means pledging loyalty to an unelected

head of state, the English parliamentary system will remain

undemocratic.

Requiring politicians to pledge loyalty to the monarch confers greater power to a symbolic ritual than to the democratic right of MPs to act in the name of the electorate.

As long as parliamentary participation is contingent on pledging allegiance to an unelected royal, the English parliamentary system will remain staunchly undemocratic.

So let me ask this.

When verifying the credentials of the newly elected Members of the
European Parliament, MEPs take no oath when they are elected, but Judges and Commissioners do.

With the Brexit negotiations now extended into the European elections, it throws up potentially uncomfortable scenarios for the New English Commissioner taking the oath of allegiance to the Commission which would require him – like all Commissioners – “to neither seek or take” influence from governments, not hereditary monarchs.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S; THIS TIME NEXT YEAR WE WONT BE TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.

22 Monday Apr 2019

Posted by in Climate Change.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S; THIS TIME NEXT YEAR WE WONT BE TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

(Ten-minute read)

WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT WHY WE CAN’T FIX THE PLANET.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the planet earth"

At the moment we are basically being sold three misapprehensions concerning the scale of the threat of climate change.

The deadlines aren’t the problem. It’s our failure to heed them.

Remember, we are being told that carbon pollution needs to be cut in half in just 11 years. And to zero by mid-century.

The speed of change. The matter of sea level rise. The matter of air pollution.

There is little about what it would mean for public health. The lack of fresh water or food.

We’ll just invent our way out of the problem.

In reality, what’s stopping us is political inertia, which means the solution is political action.

The relationship between climate change and economic growth, climate change and conflict are not appreciated or understood or explained.

Only when you and others experience this future threat in the present (rather than something that is still a generation away) will it have enough motivational force to get you to engage in actions that take more effort today.

2% is an abstract concept and simply does not motivate people to act as forcefully as a specific one does.

On the path that we’re on now, climate threats are not taken as seriously because so much of it feels abstract or distant.

WE MIGHT NOT GET THERE AS SOON AS 2030.

BUT THE PATH THAT WE ARE NOW ON WILL DEFINITELY GET US THERE BY 2050.

THERE IS A LOT TO LOOK FORWARD TO BEFORE THEN AND IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO IGNORE IN A HOSTILE WORLD.

It is now becoming quite obvious that we’re not going to get below 2 degrees, and we’re on track for something like 4 by the end of the century. I don’t think that any climate scientists would argue with any of that.

We’re marching into a completely unprecedented environment. And we simply don’t know what it will look like or how it will impact us.

It’s not a matter of whether climate change is here or not, or whether we’ve crossed a threshold or not. Every upward tick of temperature will make things worse, and so we can avoid suffering by reducing it as much as possible.

Collective human action will determine the climate of the future.

Acting on climate change represents a trade-off between short-term and long-term benefits. It will transform the way that we relate to one another, our politics, etc.

WHAT IS NEEDED IS meaningful global action than was generated in Paris in 2015 and 2016.

The corporate world must now be made by law and economic incentives to align with climate action whether it like it or not.

Why?

Because Capitalist productivity the most powerful source of economic and social advancement is now with Artificial Intelligence becoming financialised.

( Financialization is profit margin growth without labour productivity growth.)

Of course, this will not happen as it will turn Climate change into profit for profit sake. We are beginning to see this already with the treatment Television is giving to the subject.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the planet earth"

Therefore as I have advocated in previous posts Profit for profit sake can be made to contribute to resolving and paying the cost of reducing world emissions.

A world aid commission of 0.005% on all profit-seeking algorithms, on all high-frequency stock trading, on all sovereignty wealth fund accusations, on all foreign exchange transactions over $50.000, on all lotto winnings worldwide, on all sports winnings.

This will create a perpetual world aid fund that can be granted with no strings attached, other than total transparency to support all projects to reduce our carbon footprint worldwide.

It can be achieved with the click of a button.

All human comments and suggestions much appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the problem would be solved. carbon tax

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK: As a culture and a polity, when it comes to climate change, have we arrived at a point where we are now expected – even trained – to abandon hope and submit to the inevitable?

20 Saturday Apr 2019

Posted by in Climate Change.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK: As a culture and a polity, when it comes to climate change, have we arrived at a point where we are now expected – even trained – to abandon hope and submit to the inevitable?

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

TWO PER CENT MEANS NOTHING TO THE VAST MAJORITY HUMANITY NOW LIVING.

When it comes to carbon emissions, the resulting overheating of the atmosphere and our oceans it means nought other than training citizens to accept the prospect of inexorable loss, unstoppable chaos, certain doom.

It would also seem to be the case when governments are still spending billions on emergency-level funding and infrastructure to meet what they view as a crisis of national security.

But in the case of climate change, there’s no equivalent sense of immediacy, no sense of priority commensurate with the dangers it poses to our future ability to feed ourselves, defend our largely coastal settlements, insure our homes, maintain national security and keep our children safe from harm.

The four great capacities of humanity to solve a crisis Рingenuity, discipline, courage and sacrifice Рthese seem to be reserved for more important enterprises. The future, by all accounts, can wait.R̩sultat de recherche d'images pour "picture of climate change protest"

To most of our current governments, climate change is but a dry-lightning storm in a district unknown.

It’s a licence for nihilism, a ticket to hell in a handbasket.

And the cohort responsible for this mixture of denial and fatalism is far removed from the daily experience of the ordinary citizen, especially the youngest and poorest of us. They have become a threat to our shared future and we must hold them to account, immediately and without reservation.

We must replace the Donald Trumps of the world.  We can no longer wait patiently for our leaders to catch up. We cannot allow ourselves to be trained to accept hopelessness.

It is time to remove those who refuse to act in our common interest, time to elect people with courage, ingenuity and discipline.

Because there’s something bigger at stake here than culture wars and the mediocrity of so-called common-sense. It’s the soil under our feet, the water we drink, the air we breathe.

In less than a few years from now, unfocused rage may become the signal human disposition of our time.

Because the futures of the young are being traded away before their eyes. They see what many of their elders and betters refuse to acknowledge. That they’re being robbed.

Here’s the thing.

But the future is already with us.

It’s now glaring obvious what need to do and what we should not be doing.

However, it’s also glaringly obvious after the Paris climate change agreement that the world as a whole will not engage as one soon or in the near future.

That means calling bullshit on what’s been happening in our name for the past 15 years.

Profit-seeking algorithms and technology have no ethical connection to the health of the globe and current Ideology, prestige, assets and territory are now tacitly understood to be worth more than all life, human or otherwise.

We can have another world climate conference to address the crisis but without trillions of investment to get our house in order – and fast- as any tipping point will cause runaway climate change.   

We will then be witnessing the destruction of all that exists on the Planet that no nuclear bomb could achieve.

This should not stop us from taking action. Planting a tree, stop buying air-freighted foods, products containing palm oil, converting to green renewable energy, eat less meat, stop having babies. The list is endless.

But none of our actions or others will change the chemistry of climate change sufficiently fast enough.

No matter what action is now taken it must apply to one and all.

The first step has to be how or who is going to finance the changes required and how this can be fairly distributed between the rich and poor nations.    

So once again I submit my World aid commission of 0.005% to be applied to all profit for profit sake that can be applied with the click of a button. 

It would create a perpetual funded resource to pay for the things we value now and in the future. ( See previous posts)

Admittedly the context is not rosy. Trump, Brexit, tax-dodging corporations, attacks on refugees, populism, intolerance, extremism, billions of people in poverty or ‘just about managing’, droughts, wildfires, floods, etc.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "picture of the world in the future"

There is no way we can deliver environmental sustainability by only campaigning on green issues.

All human comments and suggestions appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the

bin.https://images.app.goo.gl/nWHcrs31yntqGpNB6

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

   

    

  

 

 

 

 

this narrative is profoundly dangerous, not only for individuals, but for the entire community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. THE SOONER WE ALL COME TO REALIZE THAT THERE IS NO NEGOATING WITH THE PHYSIC OF CLIMATE CHANGE THE BETTER.

18 Thursday Apr 2019

Posted by in Climate Change.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. THE SOONER WE ALL COME TO REALIZE THAT THERE IS NO NEGOATING WITH THE PHYSIC OF CLIMATE CHANGE THE BETTER.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

(Four-minute read)

Most of us sit in front of our TV sets and watch the devastation of Fire’s, Hurricanes, Floods, Droughts, Heatwaves, Bleaching coral reefs, Ice Melting, Nature destruction, and forget about it in the morning.

THE SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE IS IN FACT JUST A CLICK OF A BUTTON AWAY.

Climate Change Environment Green Carbon

You would think that by now we should all be waking up to climate change and instead of blaming everything, realise that the hard fact is that the chemistry of climate change cannot be changed no matter what action we or the world does.

What we have done and now do in life echos in climate changer. On a human scale, inequality and climate change are going to mess together so the blame games will achieve nothing.

Climate activists will achieve nothing except resentment.

The Paris Climate promises are achieving little or nothing.

As they turn climate change into profit, technological fixes or geoengineering will not stop it.

Unfortunately: IT TAKES YEARS FOR TREES TO GROW AND OVERALL HUMAN HISTORY WE ARE INCAPABLE OF ACTING AS ONE.

It’s becoming plain that not only are we affecting the other living things with which we share the planet, we’re also altering the physical systems of the planet itself.

In every respect, the world we inhabit will henceforth be the world we have made.

We can’t keep using the atmosphere as a free waste dump for carbon and expect to have a safe climate no matter what. Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped.

When we insert ourselves so deeply into the workings of a planet, we are unlikely to be able to predict all of the consequences of our actions.

If you take seriously the amount of harm that unchecked global warming will cause, if you recognize that these harms will fall disproportionately on the global poor, if you acknowledge that these populations are not only the least equipped economically to cope with climate change but are also the least implicated in the rise of greenhouse gases in the first place, and if you concede the undeniable reality that conventional strategies for reducing the harms of climate change are not being implemented quickly enough, then there seems to be a strong moral case for doing something dramatic.

THE INEVITABLE REALITY IS AS NO ONE IS WILLING TO PAY AND THERE CAN BE NO SOLUTION WITHOUT TRILLIONS.

However, rest assured;

BY THE TIME WE HAVE MILLIONS OF CLIMATE REFUGEES LIFE AS WE KNOW IT WILL BE DISRUPTED BEYOND REPAIR.

It is already shaking up social, health and geopolitical balances in many parts of the world. The scarcity of resources like food and energy gives rise to new conflicts.

CLIMATE CHANGE CANNOT BE HALTED BY PUTTING SOLAR PANELS ON ONE HOUSE AT A TIME OR PLANTING A TREE, OR DRIVING ELECTRICAL CARS, OR EATING LESS MEAT, OR REDUCING OUR OVERCONSUMPTION/POPULATION OR BY US AS INDIVIDUALS- ONLY SLOWED.

SO HERE IS A SOLUTION TO CONSIDER. BEFORE WE ARE  GENETICALLY ENGINEER INTO PRODUCTS.

WHY NOT MAKE PROFIT FOR PROFIT SAKE GENERATE A SELF PERPETUATING FUND OF TRILLIONS TO REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS WORLDWIDE.

THIS CAN BE ACHIEVED WITH THE CLICK OF A BUTTON BY APPLYING A 0.005% WORLD AID COMMISSION ON ALL HIGHT FREQUENCY TRADING, ON ALL SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS ACCUSATIONS, ON ALL FOREIGN EXCHANGE TRANSACTIONS OVER $50,000, ON ALL WORLD LOTTOS AND GAMBLING WINS, ON ALL PROFITSEEKING ALGORITHMS, ON ALL PRODUCTS CONTAINING PALM OIL.

WITH THIS FINANCIAL CLOUT WE COULD TRANSFER WORLD ENERGY TO GREEN ENEGERY, CREATE MILLIONS OF JOBS WORLDWIDE REDUCING INEQUALITY, BOOST OUR ECONOMIES AND REVERS THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE DAMAGE.Climate Change Weather Environment Green

I believe that humans have the ability as a species to change this planet for the better I just hope we can achieve that before it is too late.

All human comments and suggestions appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: HOW DOES TIME FIT INTO THE BROADER PICTURE OF THE UNIVERSE.

15 Monday Apr 2019

Posted by in #whatif.com, Physics., Reality., Space Exploration., Space., Super massive black hole, The Atom., THE ORIGINS OF THE UNIVERSE., Time., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: HOW DOES TIME FIT INTO THE BROADER PICTURE OF THE UNIVERSE.

Tags

, , , ,

 

( A Two minutes Unscientific though.)

In the sciences generally, time is usually defined by its measurement: it is simply what a clock reads. However, since the advent of relativity most physicists agree that time had a beginning and that it is measured from, and indeed came into being with, The Big Bang some 13.8 billion years ago.

Physics is the only science that explicitly studies time, but even physicists agree that time is one of the most difficult properties of our universe to understand.The image of a black hole captured by the Event Horizon Telescope.

We don’t really understand exactly how the universe was born in the Big Bang.

In a past post, I advocated that there was no such thing as the big bang because space-time itself is a product of the special early stage of the universe.

IN THAT POST MY UNSCIENTIFIC LOGIC ARGUED THAT ATOMS HAD TO BE IN EXISTENCE BEFORE THE BIG BANG FOR IT TO HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. THERE CANNOT BE AN EXPLOSION WITHOUT SOMETHING TO HEAT.

Now we have the first picture of a Blackhole that gives the first direct glimpse of a black hole’s accretion disc, a fuzzy doughnut-shaped ring of gas and dust that steadily “feeds” the monster within.

The illuminated dark shadow within marks the edge of the event horizon, the point of no return, beyond which no light or matter can travel fast enough to escape the inexorable gravitational pull.

The event horizon beyond which all reality as we know it is distorted beyond recognition and physical laws collapse, which cannot be seen by definition.

As far as we know black holes are stars that run out of energy and collapse in on to themselves. Depending on their mass and proximity to other black holes they eventually form a super black hole at the centre of their galaxies.

As a result, all matter within that universe orbits around the super black hole and depending on how near or fast the orbit eventually in time will be eating.

As time can’t move with respect to time. Is time an emergent property or a fundamental property?

The singularities within the black holes do not bend space. It’s not a property of time itself. So is it logical to say that time itself emanates from the black hole?

They create time its self, gravity and stars. Stars form inside dense concentrations of interstellar gas and dust called molecular clouds.

Depending on different notions of the ultimate fate of the universe time is an illusion because space-time is finite in extent, but doesn’t have any boundary or edge.

Things ~can get out of a black hole, both to the outside, and possibly, to another universe.

The images now making the rounds are of a supermassive black hole, with the mass of 6.5 million suns, lying at the centre of the galaxy Messier 87. luckily is 53 million lights years away our one is 26 thousand light-years away in a milky way.

All galaxies within the known universe have a super black hole KNOWN AS A SINGULARITY at their centre around the universe that it exists in will eventually collapse.

So perhaps the start of the known universe was two super black holes colliding.

Should we be worried?  We have no time to stand and stare.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: HOW LONG BEFORE BRITAIN REAPPLIES FOR EU MEMBERSHIP.

11 Thursday Apr 2019

Posted by in Backstop., Brexit Language., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: HOW LONG BEFORE BRITAIN REAPPLIES FOR EU MEMBERSHIP.

Tags

, ,

 

(Six-minute read)

You could say that this whole Brexit thing was caused by strong external influences that fell on a political fertile soil in the UK but had no real substance in GB.

Furthermore, it would be correct to say that the EU was devised for, to avoid in future the imperialist ambitions of the nation-states.

It is true that the UK has the right to leave the EU but it is also true that the EU has the right to insist on what terms.

It’s this conundrum that is constantly denied by the majority of the political class in the UK but that is the reality.

Now we are looking at a fragile British democracy which is stuck in the past with a monocracy and a ruling class struggling with “damage limitation” but the damage is already done no matter what happens in October.

So let’s look at the extension period till October.

What is it?

It is basically membership in all but name.

In Brexit terms, this means that the UK can revoke Article 50 unilaterally before its agreement enters into force or if it does not enter in force, until October 2019.

What problem is that for the EU27?

Frankly speaking, none other than the absurdity of 73 UK MEPs contesting the European elections without revoking Article 50.

Will the six months extension achieve anything other than a UK General election that could produce a hard line socialist government with serious problems both economically and politically with rejoining?

Yes.

The collapse to the Union.

A revocation decision would run counter to the outcome of the UK referendum. By approving the withdrawal agreement, the UK becomes a rule-taker with no voice. By rejecting the withdrawal agreement, it faces serious and radical economic disruption.

Either way, the ultimate decision must be made through the British political system that does not represent the people as a whole, because of the first past the post.

The pressure is now taken off from the EU and is now entirely on the UK.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "how will britain use the new six month extension"

IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS THAT:

If we genuinely look at what are the real problems with Brexit.

If Northern Ireland signed up to single market rules on goods the UK would likely seek a deal for the region which also included services because the bulk of the UK’s economy lies in the services sector rather than in goods.

The British would be shooting themselves in the foot because it plays to the advantage of the EU27 who have a net positive balance towards the UK in goods.

IF THIS WAS TO HAPPEN:

Should the EU limit membership of the single market in Northern Ireland to those areas that are relevant to the Good Friday agreement.

If — and it’s a big if — the UK wants to keep the Good Friday Agreement, the only satisfactory option is full [EU] membership.

“That is the only logical conclusion.”

If the British government is serious about saying it will not contemplate internal legislative divergence within the UK, the entire UK has to stay in the single market.

The logical consequence then is to say, if the UK is bound to keep at least part of the United Kingdom in the single market because of the Good Friday agreement, the choice is: Either it renounces the Good Friday Agreement and then it can indeed leave the single market and customs union. Or it keeps the UK inside the European Union because democratically, that’s the only serious option.

But it would be stupid for the British government to be happy with a single market just for goods. It would insist on having a single market for services — and then you are in the full single market.

It is not a negative for the European Union to accept an extension status for the United Kingdom because that status must come with obligations.

Nothing basically changes, except that the Brits are not sitting at the table.

However, just imagine that a new British government — because it does not feel bound by whatever the previous government did — says: ‘OK, we believe the decision to leave that way was the wrong decision and we want to reconsider. This is the reason that the EU is offering a long extension a period in which Britain could “digest what it really means to be a member of the European Union and what it really means not to be a member.

However, it’s entirely possible the UK will be back where it started at the end of extra time.

In the long run, the influence of GB in Europe and the greater world is being significantly weakened by Brexit. While it is true that many countries may well want to trade with Britain on leaving contrary to the views of the Brexiteers it will not be their term, not English terms.

So we are left with the very fitness of the English political system in a modern world driven by technology.

Both the EU and the UK are the immovable fact of geography.

How long before the UK is a ‘new member?

Less time than trade talks.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’ S: WHICH GLOBAL ISSUE SHOULD WE BE WORKING ON TO HAVE THE GREATEST IMPACT?

09 Tuesday Apr 2019

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Climate Change., Education, Environment, Evolution, Fresh Water., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Inequality., Life., Our Common Values., Poverty, Reality., Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’ S: WHICH GLOBAL ISSUE SHOULD WE BE WORKING ON TO HAVE THE GREATEST IMPACT?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

(Ten-minute read)

By not be able to coordinate any universal action we now pose the greatest threat to our own survival.

Future civilisation might well create a world without need or want, and make mindblowing intellectual and artistic achievements but in this new age, what should be our biggest priority as a civilisation be?

We could build a far more just and virtuous society but if we let civilisation end, then none of this can ever happen.

An overwhelming amount of political attention goes on concrete issues that help the present generation in the short-term since that’s what gets votes but at the cost of future generations that have no way to stand up for their interests, whether economically or politically.

You might be surprised if you ask the above question using AI.

Climate change comes some way down the list.

Natural risks are still quite small in absolute terms.

The risks from nuclear weapons are greater than all the natural risks put together. So, it seems like the chance of a massive climate disaster created by CO2 is perhaps similar to the chance of a nuclear war.

Since these risks are caused by humanity, they can be prevented by humanity, but what stops us is the difficulty of coordinate action.Image associée

Take Artificial Intelligence.

(There is a 50% chance we will develop high-level machine intelligence in 45 years, and 75% by the end of the century.)

It is difficult to predict what something smarter than us would do.  A sufficiently powerful system might be difficult to control, and so be hard to reverse once implemented.

What’s less appreciated is that new technologies will present further catastrophic risks.

Like genetically engineer a virus that’s as contagious as the Spanish Flu, but also deadlier, and which could spread for years undetected. That would be a weapon with the destructive power of nuclear weapons, but far harder to prevent from being used.

So, let’s ask the question again.

What should be our biggest priority as a civilisation be?

(The flippant answer is we first have continued to exist so that we’ll have the chance to solve all our other problems.)

Improving technology? Helping the poor? Changing the political system? Free Education? Geo-engineering?- to mention a few.

Most of the best ways to tackle these risks are not easily taken by for-profit entities because the beneficiaries live in the future and can’t pay you.

For instance, a better-educated population would probably elect more enlightened leaders (cough). Improve the decision-making ability of people and institutions, this would help to make society, in general, more resilient, and solve many other problems.

However, in order for education to achieve anything, it would have to be on a very large scale to have any noticeable effect.

Improving technology holds the possibility of enormous gains, but also enormous risks.

Avoid accidents from AI systems are the most neglected of all risks.

More to the point, no matter what you think has happened in the past, if we look forward, improving technology, political organisation and freedom gives our descendants the potential to solve our current problems, and have vastly better lives.

Then, among the catastrophic risks, climate change gets the most attention, while issues like pandemics and AI are the most neglected.

An issue can be big but comparatively well-known and crowded, like climate change, or it can be small but neglected, like land use zoning reform.

In most countries, there is no government agency that naturally has mitigation of these risks in its remit.

So, even if we only focus on the impact on the present generation, these

catastrophic risks are one of the most serious issues facing humanity.

Probably part of the reason most people aren’t immediately ready to jump into action is that there appear to be so many problems and no simple solution presents itself for any of them.

One approach is to address each risk directly. Or rather than try to reduce each risk individually, we can try to make civilisation generally better at managing them – if we could all coordinate — if every nation agreed to contribute its fair share to reducing climate change, then all nations would benefit by avoiding its worst effects.

Unfortunately, such an approach in our capitalist consuming world is pie in the sky.

The truth is we only do so out of self-interest.

As we are witnessing with the Paris Climate Agreement made on 12 December 2015 when it comes down to the nitty gritty no one wants to pay either in the short term or long term.

It would be great if we could make the government have more concern for future generations.

To enable a universal action it has to be unseen and paid for by all without knowing. 

You only have to look at the reaction of the yellow jackets movement spontaneous calls to protest against the increase of the internal consumption tax on energy products. A rebellion of the provincial under-classes that typifies the 21st century (web-populism, fake news and a visceral, exaggerated hatred of both media and political elites).

Like the 5Star Movement in Italy, they started as an internet rebellion against representative democracy.

We all live in an apocalyptic bubble of social media- SO IF WE ARE TO GENUINELY TACKLE ANY OF THE WORLD PROBLEMS IT REQUIRES A PERPETUAL FUND THAT GENERATES ITS FUNDS FROM PROFIT FOR PROFIT SAKE NOT INCREASED TAXES.

(SEE PREVIOUS POSTS)

Such a fund would turn the United Nations from a begging organisation into a world organisation with clout.

AI CALCULATES 19% chance of extinction before 2100.

It’s possible to grow the capacity of a community faster than you can grow your individual wealth or career capital. WE NEED TO USE OUR BUYING POWER TO EFFECTS CHANGE.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "images of global issues"

Why?

Because we will need to change our way of thinking and the extent of how we consume resources.

To achieve food and water security. To stop HABITAT AND BIODIVERSITY LOSS AND OCEAN DESTRUCTION – TO CREATE A MORE MODERN AND EFFECTIVE UN. 

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WILL A LONG EXTENSION GRANTED TO ENGLAND BE GOOD FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION.

06 Saturday Apr 2019

Posted by in Articular 50., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WILL A LONG EXTENSION GRANTED TO ENGLAND BE GOOD FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION.

Tags

,

 

(Two-minute read)

 

A LONG EXTENSION MIGHT SAVE THE IGNOMINY OF ENGLAND LEAVING THE EUROPEAN UNION WITHOUT A DEAL, FORSTALL IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE BRITISH AND IRISH ECONOMY AND ALLOW ENGLAND TO HOLD EITHER A NEW REFERENDUM OR GENERAL ELECTION BUT IT WILL NOT CHANGE THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION OF IN OR OUT.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "all images english extension"

To take no-deal off the table, it is not enough to vote against no deal — you have to agree to a deal.

BECAUSE A NO DEAL IS NOW A LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF THE ENGLISH NEGOTIATIONS IT MEANS TO ONLY WAY TO ACHIEVE A DEAL IS TO REVOKE ARTICLE 50, AND AS THE EU DOES NOT WANT TO BE THE FALL GUY IT MEANS THAT ENGLAND IS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.

The United Kingdom committed to the success of European integration would undoubtedly strengthen the EU.

Unfortunately, the majority of British citizens don’t see other Europeans (if they consider themselves Europeans at all) as fellow citizens but as deeply foreign—in some senses more foreign than non-Europeans from former British colonies in India or Africa.

As a result, even though 60% of total UK trade is covered by EU membership and the preferential access it grants to 53 markets outside the EU they see the European project—indeed Europe itself—as alien.

England is already showing contempt for the European project by issuing new passports removing the European Union’ on the front cover, by introducing a Settlement registration for European citizens.

Overall, it is also evident that none of the alternative relations with the EU presents itself as more advantageous compared to EU membership.

If it leaves and rejoins under the Maastricht treaty it would have to formally commit to joining the euro and abandoning the pound as part of new membership terms.

Totally unthinkable with the current political climate.

So we must now ask that question. What are the parameters re an extension request other than taking part in the European elections?

Continuing UK membership of the European Union (EU) creates rights and obligations: for the UK as a state, for individual citizens, and for businesses and other organisations.

British political discourse is very rarely about what is to be done together as Europeans; it is far more about what can be extracted from Europeans.

EU legislation is seen as having been imposed on the U.K. And when it benefits U.K. citizens, they claim it’s a British initiative.

The orthodoxy of the EU apart from the customs union and the single market is being able to move around the EU is an inherent part of being a member.

If England is granted a long extension and contest the European Union elections there are crosscutting rights and obligations, such as the UK’s right to a say in the making of EU laws, and its obligation to comply with them once agreed.

EU member states are able to veto new states joining.

There are other areas where a British veto could be used to block European Union initiatives – foreign affairs, taxation, justice, and any constitutional changes, or blocking majority voting in the Council of Ministers.

EU member states are able to veto new states joining.

There are other areas where a British veto could be used to block European Union initiatives – foreign affairs, taxation, justice, and any constitutional changes, or blocking majority voting in the Council of Ministers.

The power to grant one is at the EU’s discretion.

 

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨