|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 15, 2011 15:56:28 GMT 1
From the Oxford Mail:
CLIMATE change experts working in Oxford fear their jobs could be lost after funding was cut by the Government.
The UK Climate Impact Programme, set up in Oxford 13 years ago, currently receives £1m a year from the Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
The programme, part of the university’s Environmental Change Institute, has been told that there will be no more Government support from September.
Good. Let them find jobs in the real world. But I guess WWF, Jeremy Grantham, The Met or GreenPeace will fill the funding gap.
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 29, 2011 12:08:45 GMT 1
Interim Report by YT, how are they doin'? www.climateuk.net/tap on Your area for more details |
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 29, 2011 14:12:26 GMT 1
Elsewhere on this board Marchesarosa has said that she believes that the current climate change is natural and that mankind will adapt to it.
Therefore, I fail to see why she should cheer the closure of an organisation whose aims are to help that adaptation. Surely she should be campaigning for them to continue to receive funding or does she believe mankind will spontaneously, independantly adapt?
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 29, 2011 14:47:36 GMT 1
Total garbage, Louise. Part funded out of DEFRA and the EU, it contained endless local government councillors and servants. It was a spin off from the Regional Assemblies proposed by a previous government. In effect it slid another layer of bureaucracy in between all the others, consequently a drain on resources. SME's will do a better job on their own, in effect, if they can save a few coppers by making changes in their MO's, they will. Eventually, it will lead to improvements in use of resources in general.
I bet You didn't even bother to tap on Your own area in post #2. I did and was pleased with the outcome [Climate East]
StuartG
Hold Your hand up, not in submission, can You see it just past Your nose.
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 29, 2011 14:55:33 GMT 1
What would you hope to see in its place?
Assuming that you think that mankind should or could adapt to climate change (whatever its cause).
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 29, 2011 14:59:13 GMT 1
.
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 29, 2011 15:12:01 GMT 1
Fair enough - you don't think there should be anything in place to help adapt against climate change. If one recognises that climate change is happening (regardless of cause), one ought to recognise that we have two choices - adapt or suffer the consequences. I would have thought that advice on flood protection; which crops are more resistant to extremes of weather; how to avoid personal consequences of more extreme temperatures (heat and cold); how to ensure efficient use of resources such as water and energy; and even GM crops could all be useful and presumably won't happen without some form of support. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 29, 2011 15:22:36 GMT 1
Adaptation can only be a response to events. We can't see the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 29, 2011 15:26:45 GMT 1
I would have thought that advice on flood protection; which crops are more resistant to extremes of weather; how to avoid personal consequences of more extreme temperatures (heat and cold); how to ensure efficient use of resources such as water and energy; and even GM crops could all be useful and presumably won't happen without some form of support. Which of these do you think we shouldn't bother doing because they might not be needed? |
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on May 29, 2011 16:47:55 GMT 1
This is patently untrue. There are many areas where we try to predict the future and take precautions to guard against adverse consequences.
Take earthquakes as an example. There are many cities in the world which have regulations for constructing buildings that can withstand an earthquake because we predict that an earthquake may occur. This costs a lot of extra money and in many cases no earthquake will happen during the lifetime of the building. Do you think that these precautions should not be taken?
If we can predict that there is a significant chance of a damaging event then it would be foolish not to take mitigating action, whether it's to protect against earthquakes, tsunamis, climate change or whatever.
|
|
