|
Post by musik on Aug 17, 2019 13:31:39 GMT
In fairness too, the problem with plastic pollution and the problems with climate change are linked, but not the same thing. Climate change will take a huge social and infrastructure change, where we move away from a society based on profit and expansion, and move toward one based on wellbeing and sustainability. We must take immediate action, and even net-zero carbon by 2025, which is doable with will, will not stop all adverse effects of climate change. Yes. But will it happen? China and India have just "discovered" profit and expansion.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 16:06:34 GMT
In fairness too, the problem with plastic pollution and the problems with climate change are linked, but not the same thing. Climate change will take a huge social and infrastructure change, where we move away from a society based on profit and expansion, and move toward one based on wellbeing and sustainability. We must take immediate action, and even net-zero carbon by 2025, which is doable with will, will not stop all adverse effects of climate change. All very good points. A quick question, have you travelled around our little island and seen how many new housing developments are being built? Where do you think all the resources, energy, minerals, gas, electric, water etc is coming from to build and then sustain all this development?? The thing with this climate change stuff is they never mention the elephant in the room and that's POPULATION...sorry to put it in capitals. Look at the forecasts of population growth in Africa and other developing nations. It's off the scale. The information is out there. The 2021 census in the UK should be a wake up call and a warning that mass uncontrolled immigration is a path of irretrievable suicide for native Britons and this country's future. Honestly, population isn't the issue. It's one of those things that seems like one but isn't. We have easily enough resources to share among everyone on earth. Easily. and to do it sustainably. We choose not to because some of us want to own a billion times more money than others.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 16:07:50 GMT
In fairness too, the problem with plastic pollution and the problems with climate change are linked, but not the same thing. Climate change will take a huge social and infrastructure change, where we move away from a society based on profit and expansion, and move toward one based on wellbeing and sustainability. We must take immediate action, and even net-zero carbon by 2025, which is doable with will, will not stop all adverse effects of climate change. Yes. But will it happen? China and India have just "discovered" profit and expansion. No. China and India are actually investing a lot into sustainable development as it will be the next big profit maker. The US are the worst per capita of the large countries in terms of emissions. It'll be the west that don't do it tbh. Capitalism is too engrained.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 17, 2019 16:45:13 GMT
Capitalism is too engrained. It has spread. To China for instance!
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 17, 2019 16:47:49 GMT
All very good points. A quick question, have you travelled around our little island and seen how many new housing developments are being built? Where do you think all the resources, energy, minerals, gas, electric, water etc is coming from to build and then sustain all this development?? The thing with this climate change stuff is they never mention the elephant in the room and that's POPULATION...sorry to put it in capitals. Look at the forecasts of population growth in Africa and other developing nations. It's off the scale. The information is out there. The 2021 census in the UK should be a wake up call and a warning that mass uncontrolled immigration is a path of irretrievable suicide for native Britons and this country's future. Honestly, population isn't the issue. It's one of those things that seems like one but isn't. We have easily enough resources to share among everyone on earth. Easily. and to do it sustainably. We choose not to because some of us want to own a billion times more money than others. The easiest way would be if the population diminished, since people aren't as willing to alter their behaviour. Consumption patterns are really difficult to change.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 17, 2019 16:53:47 GMT
A crew of 5 is flying to new york to bring the boat back. Yes. She got on the boat for three reasons: To be able to do the research and take water samples along the way. Not possible in the air you know ... And to get a free trip, one way. And it's more environmental friendly to go by boat than plane. It still to be decided how she will get back though. When manufacturing a boat, of course it will take resources. But it will when manufacturing a plane as well ... And the Malizia II wasn't made just for this expedition. The rest has ALL been just media speculation.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Aug 17, 2019 17:07:02 GMT
entertaining debate.
I agree with Brendan ‘O Neil here, the climate change movement is starting to resemble a cult.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Aug 17, 2019 17:15:06 GMT
Honestly, population isn't the issue. It's one of those things that seems like one but isn't. We have easily enough resources to share among everyone on earth. Easily. and to do it sustainably. We choose not to because some of us want to own a billion times more money than others. The easiest way would be if the population diminished, since people aren't as willing to alter their behaviour. Consumption patterns are really difficult to change. Where’s Thanos when you need him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 17:23:39 GMT
Honestly, population isn't the issue. It's one of those things that seems like one but isn't. We have easily enough resources to share among everyone on earth. Easily. and to do it sustainably. We choose not to because some of us want to own a billion times more money than others. The easiest way would be if the population diminished, since people aren't as willing to alter their behaviour. Consumption patterns are really difficult to change. They are, but diminishing the population leads to huge issues. It's like being in a burning building, being able to save half the people on your way down but deciding to run past them and save yourself. The people affected by this will inevitably be the poor. The rich will survive, hence why they aren't really taking the action they should.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 17, 2019 18:19:53 GMT
The easiest way would be if the population diminished, since people aren't as willing to alter their behaviour. Consumption patterns are really difficult to change. They are, but diminishing the population leads to huge issues. It's like being in a burning building, being able to save half the people on your way down but deciding to run past them and save yourself. The people affected by this will inevitably be the poor. The rich will survive, hence why they aren't really taking the action they should. Lilfraise, just for clarification: I don't mean violently diminish the population. I mean, in time, naturally. People with resources can always get to safer places yes, if there will be any safe places left.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 19:10:42 GMT
They are, but diminishing the population leads to huge issues. It's like being in a burning building, being able to save half the people on your way down but deciding to run past them and save yourself. The people affected by this will inevitably be the poor. The rich will survive, hence why they aren't really taking the action they should. Lilfraise, just for clarification: I don't mean violently diminish the population. I mean, in time, naturally. People with resources can always get to safer places yes, if there will be any safe places left. Naturally how? Is just leaving people to die of starvation different to actively killing them? We don't need to diminish the population at all, we just need to spread resources out. And not evenly really, the richest 100 people on earth could end hunger, homelessness and thirst and still have billions left over. It's disgusting
|
|
|
Post by foster on Aug 17, 2019 19:18:29 GMT
Lilfraise, just for clarification: I don't mean violently diminish the population. I mean, in time, naturally. People with resources can always get to safer places yes, if there will be any safe places left. Naturally how? Is just leaving people to die of starvation different to actively killing them? We don't need to diminish the population at all, we just need to spread resources out. And not evenly really, the richest 100 people on earth could end hunger, homelessness and thirst and still have billions left over. It's disgusting I kind of agree mate. When you look at how much money the top 2% have they could comfortably feed and support the poorest.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 19:29:37 GMT
Naturally how? Is just leaving people to die of starvation different to actively killing them? We don't need to diminish the population at all, we just need to spread resources out. And not evenly really, the richest 100 people on earth could end hunger, homelessness and thirst and still have billions left over. It's disgusting I kind of agree mate. When you look at how much money the top 2% have they could comfortably feed and support the poorest. Yep, and the problem is that they're the ones that control how much they share. The fact our planet has both billionaires and people who can't afford food is a failure of the system we've created for ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Aug 17, 2019 19:42:42 GMT
In fairness too, the problem with plastic pollution and the problems with climate change are linked, but not the same thing. Climate change will take a huge social and infrastructure change, where we move away from a society based on profit and expansion, and move toward one based on wellbeing and sustainability. We must take immediate action, and even net-zero carbon by 2025, which is doable with will, will not stop all adverse effects of climate change. Yes. But will it happen? China and India have just "discovered" profit and expansion. Making our stuff. Impossible to produce this amount of throwaway crap like iPhones without burning fuel. I don't know how you can keep blaming China for this when it's greedy Western companies who won't pay a proper wage so outsource everything and Westerners who buy the shit. Meanwhile the Chinese population choke to death as a result. Lying in a London street and complaining about the UK's contribution is laughable hypocrisy when they all use this stuff. Sending the problem to the other side of the world is simply nimbyism and does nothing for an effect on the planet. If they want this carefully marketed, electronic, planned obsolete garbage then someone has to make it.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Aug 17, 2019 20:28:31 GMT
Yes. But will it happen? China and India have just "discovered" profit and expansion. Making our stuff. Impossible to produce this amount of throwaway crap like iPhones without burning fuel. I don't know how you can keep blaming China for this when it's greedy Western companies who won't pay a proper wage so outsource everything and Westerners who buy the shit. Meanwhile the Chinese population choke to death as a result. Lying in a London street and complaining about the UK's contribution is laughable hypocrisy when they all use this stuff. Sending the problem to the other side of the world is simply nimbyism and does nothing for an effect on the planet. If they want this carefully marketed, electronic, planned obsolete garbage then someone has to make it. I’ve spent 2 days sifting through the kids “Toys”, to get rid of stuff they don’t play with any more. I’ve filtered it out to recyclable stuff, stuff that can go to school fairs, charity shops. I hate filling land sites, like I hate the plastic $#!t coming in the The first place. Do your best to stop it allXx
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 17, 2019 20:54:29 GMT
Yes. But will it happen? China and India have just "discovered" profit and expansion. Making our stuff. Impossible to produce this amount of throwaway crap like iPhones without burning fuel. I don't know how you can keep blaming China for this when it's greedy Western companies who won't pay a proper wage so outsource everything and Westerners who buy the shit. Meanwhile the Chinese population choke to death as a result. Lying in a London street and complaining about the UK's contribution is laughable hypocrisy when they all use this stuff. Sending the problem to the other side of the world is simply nimbyism and does nothing for an effect on the planet. If they want this carefully marketed, electronic, planned obsolete garbage then someone has to make it. Who is blaming anyone in particular? I'm blaming every country with a policy of overproduction and overconsumption. Or should I say, without a responsible production. BNP growth rate (2017) Japan 1.7% USA 2.3% China 6.9% India 6.6% It's no secret some countries are expanding now. But I hope, as Lilfraise wrote, they'll invest in sustainable development.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Aug 17, 2019 21:08:03 GMT
Making our stuff. Impossible to produce this amount of throwaway crap like iPhones without burning fuel. I don't know how you can keep blaming China for this when it's greedy Western companies who won't pay a proper wage so outsource everything and Westerners who buy the shit. Meanwhile the Chinese population choke to death as a result. Lying in a London street and complaining about the UK's contribution is laughable hypocrisy when they all use this stuff. Sending the problem to the other side of the world is simply nimbyism and does nothing for an effect on the planet. If they want this carefully marketed, electronic, planned obsolete garbage then someone has to make it. Who is blaming anyone in particular? I'm blaming every country with a policy of overproduction and overconsumption. Or should I say, without a responsible production. BNP growth rate (2017) Japan 1.7% USA 2.3% China 6.9% India 6.6% It's no secret some countries are expanding now. But I hope, as Lilfraise wrote, they'll invest in sustainable development. Not a nice thought but at some point they'll surely be a global epidemic, war or natural disaster that'll wipe out a sizable proportion of the worlds population.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 17, 2019 21:21:15 GMT
Naturally how? Is just leaving people to die of starvation different to actively killing them? We don't need to diminish the population at all, we just need to spread resources out. And not evenly really, the richest 100 people on earth could end hunger, homelessness and thirst and still have billions left over. It's disgusting ? No, by not getting that many kids of course. And it really is a hugely biased wealth distribution. Agree.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 17, 2019 21:29:02 GMT
Not a nice thought but at some point they'll surely be a global epidemic, war or natural disaster that'll wipe out a sizable proportion of the worlds population. Hopefully, you're completely wrong. 🙄
|
|
|
Post by foster on Aug 17, 2019 21:47:53 GMT
Not a nice thought but at some point they'll surely be a global epidemic, war or natural disaster that'll wipe out a sizable proportion of the worlds population. Hopefully, you're completely wrong. 🙄 It's not an opinion so there is no right or wrong. Insert weird rolling eye smiley.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Aug 17, 2019 21:58:55 GMT
Hopefully, you're completely wrong. 🙄 It's not an opinion so there is no right or wrong. Insert weird rolling eye smiley. *** I have to blame my ... Engli... no, my ... OUR way here, in Sweden, to use the phrase "Förhoppningsvis har du helt fel" (which translated is = "Hopefully, you're completely wrong"). When we say that we don't include an opinion. We simply mean, hopefully it won't turn out that way. (A bit difficult to explain)*** so Hopefully, it won't turn out that way. 😵
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 17, 2019 22:09:10 GMT
entertaining debate. I agree with Brendan ‘O Neil here, the climate change movement is starting to resemble a cult. Seriously? Fiona Ferguson completely owns Brendan O'Neill here, who is one of the most despicable political commentators out there at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 22:50:40 GMT
entertaining debate. I agree with Brendan ‘O Neil here, the climate change movement is starting to resemble a cult. This thread has been a microcosm of that debate! Good find. Would urge all especially some on this thread to give it a listen.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Aug 17, 2019 23:10:32 GMT
A crew of 5 is flying to new york to bring the boat back. Yes. She got on the boat for three reasons: To be able to do the research and take water samples along the way. Not possible in the air you know ... And to get a free trip, one way. And it's more environmental friendly to go by boat than plane. It still to be decided how she will get back though. When manufacturing a boat, of course it will take resources. But it will when manufacturing a plane as well ... And the Malizia II wasn't made just for this expedition. The rest has ALL been just media speculation. It is not more environmentally friendly for 5 people to have to fly so 1 person can take a boat is my point even if she returns by boat its still +3 journies.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Aug 18, 2019 6:02:37 GMT
entertaining debate. I agree with Brendan ‘O Neil here, the climate change movement is starting to resemble a cult. This thread has been a microcosm of that debate! Good find. Would urge all especially some on this thread to give it a listen. Listened to it. Think he's right about her just being a figurehead. That's pretty obvious isn't it? But if she and her parents are fine with it then no problem for me. I think he's wrong on just about every other point he makes about greens though. I don't particularly care if its Greta or anyone else at the forefront of this. I only care that something gets done. She's just a means to an end. The lady is right in that Greta is a lightning bolt. The people who support the green movement have been there long before Greta. They just haven't been taken seriously or given a voice. As for the development of clean technology, clean energy, etc. That's progressive, not regressive.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 18, 2019 6:54:53 GMT
It isn't necessarily just about the human species. Each human has more of an impact on the planet than any other member of other species. There are so many of us that the impact has ruined or threatens the habitats and environments of many other species of plants and animals. A simple " positive" development such as road building/ new housing often has a negative impact for other animals/ planet-sharers We may be the "cleverest" animal but don't give a lot of thought to the full consequences of our actions. Less people would have less impact. As would more consideration for other species. Just an observation, probably just stating the obvious and wishful thinking
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 18, 2019 7:36:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 18, 2019 7:40:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Aug 18, 2019 7:46:22 GMT
It isn't necessarily just about the human species. Each human has more of an impact on the planet than any other member of other species. There are so many of us that the impact has ruined or threatens the habitats and environments of many other species of plants and animals. A simple " positive" development such as road building/ new housing has often as a negative impact for other animals. We may be the "cleverest" animal but don't give a lot of thought to the full consequences of our actions. Less people would have less impact. As would more consideration for other species. Just an observation, probably just stating the obvious and wishful thinking Human beings represent 0.1% of life on this planet John, but we have destroyed 83% of the rest. We didn't get to the top of the food chain by being nice.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Aug 18, 2019 7:51:43 GMT
And until people change their religious belief systems and start using contraception the population will continue to expand and millions will starve to death.
There is enough food in the world to feed everyone but that will just lead to more and more population growth and consequently more famine.
Sort out the belief system first.
That's the primary issue not lack of food.
|
|