Iatse local 798

This conversation is closed.

Rationing of natural resources on a global scale to fight global warming.

During the Second World War, you couldn't just walk into a shop and buy as much sugar or butter or meat as you wanted, nor could you fill up your car with gasoline whenever you liked. All these things were rationed, which meant you were only allowed to buy a small amount (even if you could afford more). The government introduced rationing because certain things were in short supply during the war, and rationing was the only way to make sure everyone got their fair share. (American Historical Society)
We have a crisis of global proportions but there doesn't seem to have the same fervor that the war brought on for people to willingly and also reluctanly to an equitable sharing of basic goods. Is this an economic nightmare? How can a scheme like this be implemented? I am middle class, I eat really well. So many are like me, and we all eat very well. As a group, are we the class to appeal to to share our "good food" with whoever needs it? Rationing will end eventually when certain goals are met.

  • May 30 2013: Let me the first TEDster to comment on the topic. Since I am in the Public Health field, I would touch on public health aspects of rationing in relation to Global Warming. First of all, the belief of global warming is not universally accepted, nevertheless, it doesn't matter because we do need to control the use of earth resources and improve the health of all residents for the long term survival of humans on earth anyway.
    1. Let's talk about rationing of resources and destruction of the environment. The rationing of food is ,of course, the most important one. And connected with it is the limiting the intake of sugar, fat, salt and high calorie food. But the nations that have more than adequate foods should make exchange with nations which needed the "relief" for agreeing to cut down the forestry in their land. Also some reasonable policy of population reduction/control of the numbers of newborns. And every nation should also organize community based exercise regimen, coupled with diet, to reduce obesity. As a matter of fact we in the U. S. need more of such program here than any other places on earth.
    2. We also need international agreement and cooperation in energy management that reduces the emission of CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases. The most obvious one is the replacement of coal burning electric generation by other renewable ones. However, even the cooperation of the new technology in nuclear plants is still preferable than burning coal, because there are really very small risk of nuclear disasters under the new technology already in use, and even less problems in the new nuclear waste storage/disposal methodology.
    However, all these suggestions can be realized only under the condition of a full cooperation of all the nations on earth. Otherwise, it could never achieve any substantial improvement in both the environmental damage and/or the destruction or life-maintaining resources on earth.
  • May 30 2013: bart A great deal could be done without the cooperation of all the nations. Take CO2 production, for example. The reason for all the carbon burning is the clear correlation between cheap energy (has been coal and oil for a hundred years at least) and the "Standard of Living". For the last 40 years, it has been pretty clear that a safe, clean, energy source, potentially cheaper than coal, has been invented, and demonstrated, but not used. For various dubious, complicated reasons. (I mean the Thorium Liquid Fueled Reactor (LFTR), a secret Cold War aircraft engine project)
    Note that many feelgood, "renewable" emergy sources will not do the job, but rather lead to bankruptcy , or at least life on the level of the Amish . Which is not bad, but not popular. enough. If coal is "too expensive, "then it won't be burnt.
  • thumb
    May 30 2013: .
    I agree.

    Moreover, we need people know invalid (harmful) happiness,
    which wastes about 90% of our planet resources.

  • thumb
    May 30 2013: let me guess that you want to set up those rations somewhere near your current consumption level.
    • May 30 2013: Actually no, I'm origininally from the Philippines and have seen a lot of poverty. Although I live well now compared to that standard, I still live minimally with it comes to consumption. I enjoy the bounty that my middle class life gives me but I'm mindful of what I really need. If rationing is instituted again in the US, I'm sure I will not hesitate to do my part and I don't think that my actions and thoughts are unique. I'm sure there are many people out there like me.
      Thanks for your comment.
      • thumb
        May 30 2013: your answer is evasive. let's be very specific. the world average is 12000 usd per year. are you willing to reduce your consumption to that level?
        • May 30 2013: It's not evasive at all, just showing you perspective and sure sign me up. I can feed myself on $36/ week.
      • thumb
        May 30 2013: if you don't have any more ambition than eating, okay for me
  • May 30 2013: Wars have been fought over far less.