1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

A good use of funds?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by lanokia, Sep 23, 2019.

  1. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter


    So ... why not spend this money on programmes to reduce the UK's CO2 production? Or £1 billion for reforestation programmes in the UK? Or a £1 billion subsidy for electric car purchases?

    We've already made substantial CO2 reductions... we are leading the way, despite what the Extinction Agenda crowd think... this money could push us further and make a real difference to domestic CO2 reduction.
  2. Ivartheboneless

    Ivartheboneless Star commenter

    Why give foreign aid when there are people living in poverty in our own country? (Backlash expected.)
    Catgirl1964 and theselofane like this.
  3. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Report today that 8 million brits live in substandard housing.

    Also... poor quality housing is a big contributor to carbon emissions. Two birds one stone.
    Catgirl1964 likes this.
  4. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    A bird on your arm is worth more than two dead birds, so the adage goes, if memory serves me well.
  5. Mangleworzle

    Mangleworzle Star commenter

    It depends on how effectively it can be spent. Reforestation in other countries can maybe be done more cheaply than here and the trees may grow quicker for instance. If you're doing nothing or next to nothing to start with, then the first steps can often be taken more cheaply and effectively. So £1billion spent as foreign aid may have much more impact than £1billion spent here, especially if it helps to get the ball rolling in places that are currently not doing so much.

    The most effective spend may well be to lobby groups of the US political system.
  6. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    I can see this argument... helping fund the green belt across the sahel might be a good use of the funds, help stop desertification ...

    erm... no.
  7. theselofane

    theselofane Occasional commenter

    I've been wondering this for many years.
  8. Mangleworzle

    Mangleworzle Star commenter

    I meant it tongue in cheek, but then again the US is one of the biggest polluters and politicians there seem to be very amenable to being bought.
  9. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    So far as I can see, the UK has been able to tick CO2 reduction target boxes, by buying energy from abroad, having stuff manufactured on the other side of the world to be shipped here, whilst at the same time encouraging us to buy more and more stuff that we really don't need.

    Just how many gadgets do we need to cook a meal with for example? Our mothers managed without cluttering their kitchens up with dozens of gadgets that rarely get used, didn't they? Next time you're in a supermarket or appliance shop, take a look at all the gadgets available and ask yourself whether the purposes they serve, couldn't be met just as easily with a hob, grill and oven, plus a few pots and pans.

    My mother managed to feed a family of seven with little more than one of these and it saw her out from the day it was bought in the 60s to the day she died in the late 90s.


    Every gadget that's sold adds to the problem. It's supposedly necessary to keep flogging pointless tat to maintain GDP, but GDP ain't going to save the planet.
    chelsea2 likes this.
  10. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    CO2 is global.

    Countries need to develop.

    We should help them develop with sustainable energy, and that will need investment and support.

    It's a good thing for us, for them and for the planet.
  11. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Trees can also be chopped down at any time. CO2 persists for a log time.

    Reforestation is great, but we simply need to reduce the amount of CO2 we are producing.
  12. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Ah thank you for clarifying.

    As an aside... we do seem very aware of their bought nature... but I don't see ours being much better...
  13. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    I think you make some good points. The consumer economy... buying the latest updated version of this phone... that gaming console... this gizmo... it does create a big chunk of the problem.

    I'm not sure how we rein it in.
  14. MrMedia

    MrMedia Star commenter

    A politician chooses where to spend money. You can arbitrarily hold up two opposing expenditures and say - which is more important?

    Amazon's low tax bill or SEND provision in schools?
    Benefits to the rich or overseas aid to the poor?
    Handouts to blonde mates of the PM or state care for the elderly?

    The truth is much more complex. Holding two items is just so DM as to be nonsense.

    Now someone put the corporation tax back up. We've tv licenses to buy for the over 75s.
  15. Mangleworzle

    Mangleworzle Star commenter

    They are better at obfuscating things (using words like obfuscate instead of hide for instance).
  16. nomad

    nomad Star commenter

    We are leading the way. Precisely.

    It is to do with value for money. £1 billion spent on developing countries will have a far greater effect on reducing CO2 emissions and re-forestation than it would if spent on the UK.
    Mangleworzle likes this.

Share This Page