Global Warming, Sustainability, African Poverty: All the Fault of the People Who Care

There are three great problems in the world, three problems we're going to have to face up to: Climate Change, the depletion of natural resources, and the Third World. And all have been caused by those who are calling an end to each of these problems.
Now, let me get this clear: environmentalist aren't going around burning stuff for fun, energy savers aren't driving hummers, and Bob Geldof isn't hacking into the National Bank of the Central African Republic and diverting the funds therein into his private Swiss Account. The problem is the solutions to their causes have negetive consequences on the other concerns.

Let us take the serious problem in Africa first; huge swathes of sub-Saharan Africa are infected with HIV and AIDS, the entire continent is riddled with corruption, and the majority of the population are eaking out a living farming on small plots of barren land. Now the solution to this is simple: encourage inward investment into these countries to allow the building of factories which can then export goods to the west; reduce or even remove tarriffs on foodstuffs so that the food produced in Africa can be exported (and at for a proce that is both competitive and profitable); intensify the mining of the abudant mineral resources that these nations have at their disposal. However, of course, the environmentalist wouldn't like this a bit. Factories produce all sorts of greenhouse gasses, farming of livestock produces methane, shipping goods across the world produces CO2, arable farming leads to deforestation, etc. The sustainability buffs won't like it because factories require all sorts of raw materials, mining removes raw materials that need to be saved for future generations, shipping stuff around the planet uses precious oil. Deadlock.

Now, let's look at global warming. The vast majority of greenhouse gasses come from power stations, factories, transport and agriculture. Well, that's easily fixed. Convert coal and oil power stations to nuclear, kill all the cows and go vegetarian, hydrogen fuel celled cars, and introduce strong emission control on factories. Of course, the sustaina-billies won't like this: we may not have enough uranium and plutonium to go nuclear in pretty much everything, pastoral farming is more sustainable then arable (due to maintenance of soil fertility), and we don't have enough caves to keep shoving nuclear waste down for the rest of mankind's history. Bono won't like it because Africa can't afford all these nuclear power plants and emissions regulation and hyrdogen cars. Impasse.

Finally sustainability; simply solved. We don't have much oil or uranium, but we have plenty of fucking wood and coal. Bundles of the stuff. Burn that instead. Have steam power cars, wood burning factories. Use horses instead of cars. Then we could ban international trade, too, as that means we could do without big ships and aeroplanes trundling all over the planet. Brilliant, eh? Well...no. The climate change-ites would despair, after all, we'd be hacking down trees all over the place, and burning ridiculously polluting fuels like coal can't be good. And horses fart and shit and stuff(methane being a worse greenhouse gas then CO2). Midge Ure would have a fit, as the inability to export produce and import pharmaceuticals would pretty much murder Africa - there'd be no point building coal fired smelting plants if they have no market for whatever the fuck it is you smelt. Zugzwang.

Now, you're all probably wondering, what was the point of this article? I mean you're probably saying, "Gonville, these guys are clearly cretins, but what's your solution?". Please don't articulate that sentiment. That also means you're a cretin. Utter this instead: "Gonville, everything you've said so far is true, and I know what your going to suggest and agree completely. I especially like the fact you've used three words from three different languages meaning deadlock, all originiating from three different languages", in which case you are not a cretin and are very observant, and have a good grasp of etymology. Of course if you are a particularly attractive young lady I hope you're saying "Oh God, Gonville, yes! My body is yours to do with as you please", preferably in a sultry Russian accent. Incidentally I'm single, and my telephone number is Canterbury 758303*

Anyway, what was I waffling about? Ah yes, a solution. It's simple: massive world war. Not a poncy northern hemisphere only affair. No, one that is truly global. And more than a bit...nuclear. Nuke Africa. Nuke China. Nuke America. Nuke Continental Europe (not Britain, please). Destroy the world population. Fewer people means we need less resources, give of less greenhouse gasses, and as poor people are more likely to die in wars then rich one's, destroy poverty world wide. For you as a hopefully normal person, and not a cretinous world leader with his finger on the button, I'd advise taking up smoking. Do you want to live in a world without oil, that's ten feet underwater, and wear most of the population are starving? Nope. Lung cancer is the way forward...





*I hope that isn't someone's real number

Weapons Contol in the United Kingdom is the Epitome of Stupidity

The British Government, in it's wisdom, has now decided to ban samurai swords, apparently because they can be used in crime. No shit Sherlock. Except, it actually doesn't ban samurai swords. Oh no. It's only banned fake samurai swords - the one's that are about as fearsome as an otter, and have the cutting power of a butter knife. Not the sharp fuckers. Don't want to offend martial artists and collectors (which is fair enough; would you piss off a ninja?) Even their logic is flawed: yes, they can be used in crime. But they rarely are. A samurai sword is a huge bloody thing- even a fake one. You can't conceal it under a hoody, for a start. And it's hard to run around Romford stealing hubcaps, mugging the old ladies, and raping the young ones with one stuffed down your trousers. In fact, all the mass bladed weapons I've heard of in Britain have used a machete - a far more concealable weapon, easier to use and, indeed, cheaper to buy. But the thing is, it is already illegal to wander around the streets with one anyway. It's called "going about equipped". So the police can already arrest some hoody with a Samurai sword already. All this bans is the sale and purchase (not ownership) of the damned thing. And it won't make a bloody difference. If the fine young men of Croydon want to turn their town into a twin of Berlin in 1945, they still will. They'll just be harder to find, as instead of carrying a samurai sword they'll be carrying something smaller and easier to conceal. Or if they feel a need to conceal the fact they have small penises and require violence or rohypnol to get laid, they'll start carrying sabres. For which they'll need a horse. Dear God, this ban's going to end up with chav cavalry. Chavalry.

Anyway, I digress (I'm now having strange thoughts of charvartillery, and the Thin Burberry Line). The fact is, anything can be used in a crime. A screwdriver, a guitar, a motorcar, a printer, an aeroplane, arsenic, an accountant, an inflatable giraffe...the list is endless. Yet they pick on the samurai swords. Oh, and fake guns. Their illegal to buy now, too, due to something called the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. This is truly a pointless piece of legislation. It's claimed that people can use them to threaten people. Well, you can use a cleverly concealed banana for that. So can a deactivated weapon (which are, thankfully, still legal). They say that blank firing guns can be converted to fire bullets and used to kill someone. Well, perhaps, but that would inolve modding them (already illegal), importing (already illegal) aand replacing the barrel (already illegal), strenthening most of the inner parts (already illegal), importing (already illegal) and buying the ammunition (already illegal), carrying it for use in a crime (already illegal), firing it (already illegal), and killing someone (already illegal). I doubt the fact that any criminal will suddenly decide to give up on his quest as he will now be committing one more crime . And anyway, he can just buy a real gun illegally off some Eastern European Mafioso and save himself the time, money and hassel.

But it probably gives the cretins in power the feeling they are doing something, and gives cretin's who aren't in power warm, fuzzy feelings. Well, I hope that someone beats the living shit out of them with a cricket bat and then throws them off a cliff. Except they'll just ban cricket bats, the act of throwing, and cliffs.

The Smoking Ban: Thought Up By Brainless Cocks

In July of this year (2007), Britain introduced a smoking ban in all public places. Generally speaking, I thought this wouldn't be too bad - even as a smoker (who wants to live for ever: cretins, that's who). I prefer smoking outside, on the whole, and was slightly concerned about pubs, but all in all, I didn't care. Until it kicked in. And then I discovered that whoever wrote the legislation was clearly stupider than the average West Highland Terrier. And, as the year has gone on, the thoroughly stupid narrow mindedness of the tossers who put in all it's provisions has become more and more clear.

First off, I discovered they banned smoking in terminus stations. Now, as hopefully all of you are aware, these, in the United Kingdom, are usually tall, imposing structures with covered platforms built during the Victorian era. The last bit is important: they were built during the Victorian era, when trains were powered by coal, for God sake: these builders were designed by brainy people in frock coats and top hats to both keep rain off the passengers, and to prevent the smoke (a byproduct of using steam to power the locomotive, as I'm sure you're aware) from giving everyone on the station consumption. Simply put, a building that was safe for people to stand in with tens of steam locomotive's puffing away merrily is apparently a dangerous place for one man to set fire to a small bit of plant encased in paper.

Secondly, I discovered that they had abolished smoking area's in airports. Genius. Get people to queue up for an hour in a queue to check in, then make them queue for another half hour so they can put their treasured belongings in a plastic tray, remove half their clothing, and get felt up by an effeminate security guard (unless you are female, in which case you will be felt up by a "reformed" lesbian sex offender), then make them wait for another hour until their gate is called, drinking overpriced tea and fingering clothes that they still can't afford despite the fact they are duty free, then force them into a tin box with less personal room than afforded a French veal calf, where they are forced to sit for another half hour until it can suddenly launch itself down a runway into the sky, where it supported by a combination of air and rather flimsy looking wings, for another God knows how many hours, after which you'll have to go through immigration, wait for your bag (which probably won't arrive, as you left from a British airport and all the bloody handlers are probably on strike for some trivial reason), and probably get felt up again by foreign Custom's Officers who are absolutely certain that you have a Kalashnikov in your your suitcase and your 16 year old daughter has several pounds of cocaine hidden in her bra. All this you have to endure without a cigarette. I swear, if someone decides to highjack an aeroplane and crashes it into the Palace of Westminster it won't be terrorists, it will be nicotine-withdrawal based air rage.

Thirdly: why is someone more likely to die of me smoking on an open railway station platform then on the street?

And probably the biggest bit of stupidity also comes from the railways in the form of London Bridge Station. Not only is this stupid because of points one and three, but it deserve as special mention, as you are not allowed to smoke outside the front of the station as it has a a canapy above it, which covers a large taxi rank and a huge 'bus station. Think about that for a second. Apparently it's okay for diesel fuelled vehicles to spew out their exhaust fumes, but not for someone to have a cigarette. Who cares if diesel fumes are way, way more harmful the cigarettes (causing far more deaths from lung cancer than passive smoking, giving people asthma, and more besides) and that those 'busses and taxis are pumping out more of these harmful pollutants than 100's chain smokers in the same place could do in a month? The Government doesn't. So I smoked there anyway. In full sight of three police constables, four police community support officers, and dozens of railway and 'bus company staff, none of whom bothered me. It's nice to know that the people who enforce the law aren't cretins, unlike those cretins who make the law.