Carbon Climate - activist

1246789

Comments

  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Firstly I find it rather creepy that tens of housands of adults are in awe of a 16 year old girl, irrespective of platform as a climate change activist.
    Because she's got the balls to stand up and say what we're all thinking? (no I'm not in awe, I haven't even listened to her speak, but the message is right - climate change is happening and if we want to impact it, we need to do something different NOW)
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Secondly she is being exploited by the adults behind the cause.
    Exploited? Yes, her youth is being used to get attention - you're making it sound like it's a bad thing
    Mr Goo wrote:
    As has already been pointed out but never addressed by any government. Too many people on planet earth. Resources are finite. Humans are by default wired to accumulate stuff some more than others. A recipe for the impending disaster we now find ourselves heading towards. I just don't see any way out of this.
    Population control certainly has been address by government - look at China ... but the method of control provide divisive. Just controlling population isn't going to resolve the pollution issue - it's lifestyle choices that are causing the pollution - and we have got quite comfortable with all the energy guzzling devices/tools/transport methods we using - seems like the only way people will put in an effort these days is if it's part of a keep fit routine ... ok, massive generalisation as there are still plenty who have to put in effort just to stay alive - but sentiment is there - let's drive to the gym, let's fly to a one day sporting event ...
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    this time of year it is very easy to eat locally sourced seasonal fruit/vegetables. the rest of the year I can not see people doing so voluntarily
    LET THEM EAT CABBAGE
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Slowbike wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Secondly she is being exploited by the adults behind the cause.
    Exploited? Yes, her youth is being used to get attention - you're making it sound like it's a bad thing
    What you are doing here is a small but useful example of the the dangerous mentality that is being whipped up with the whole eco thing:

    "this is so important that it justifies us doing ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING!"
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    bompington wrote:
    Slowbike wrote:
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Secondly she is being exploited by the adults behind the cause.
    Exploited? Yes, her youth is being used to get attention - you're making it sound like it's a bad thing
    What you are doing here is a small but useful example of the the dangerous mentality that is being whipped up with the whole eco thing:

    "this is so important that it justifies us doing ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING!"

    If absolutely anything is having a 16yo girl as a spokesman who doesn't fly and uses a boat to cross the atlantic, I'm easy with that ... ;)

    Anyway - she (as far as I'm aware) or her exploiters haven't actually suggested WHAT we do ... just that we have to do something ...
    Won't somebody think of the children
    Because shouldn't we all be thinking of the future?
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Rolf F wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    People claiming overpopulation and its apocalyptic consequences has been going for two millennia (even Romans worried that there wasn’t enough food to feed everyone).

    As incomes rise people have fewer children so this modern iteration of it is also a convenient way to shift the politic blame away from the biggest consumers and emitters onto less developed nations.

    Are you really suggesting that the Romans mistaken presumption that there wasn't enough food to feed everyone 2000 years ago means that our presumption of the same today is equally incorrect? We do a) have a lot more people now (nearly 8 billion against the nearly 110 billion who have ever lived. Population only about 1 billion in 1800. What does that say about potential future population growth?) and b) a lot more knowledge.

    Relying on Westerners to produce fewer children may work once the whole planet has developed but we are a hell of a long way from there right now. What stops a couple of hundred years of 2nd and third world population growth? Another 8 fold increase brings the population up to 80 billion.......

    Try this or this for starters on how simplistic, wrong and in fact actively dangerous the whole Malthusian argument is.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    The arguments seem to be

    There's enough resources to feed the world - can't disagree, there are, but to the detriment of ... ?
    Population control is best served by higher standards of living - absolutely - the choice to have children or not is far better than "you can/cannot have children because of your financial/social status"
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    Slowbike wrote:
    The arguments seem to be

    There's enough resources to feed the world - can't disagree, there are, but to the detriment of ... ?
    Population control is best served by higher standards of living - absolutely - the choice to have children or not is far better than "you can/cannot have children because of your financial/social status"

    problem is that you have a population explosion whilst expectations catch up with improvements in mortality rates.

    Other than that you need to get buyin from USA, China and India
  • shirley_basso
    shirley_basso Posts: 6,195
    But if we start putting pressure on the right people (public and private sector) through our spending / voting / behaviours then we will start to see an increase in spending in developing alternative methods / technologies to reduce resource consumption / wastage for when the explosion does come.

    And Greta doesn't profess to know the answers, she's merely a banner to start a conversation. And when does her being used cross over into her being exploited?
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    problem is that you have a population explosion whilst expectations catch up with improvements in mortality rates.
    https://overpopulationisamyth.com/episode-5-7-billion-people-will-everyone-please-relax/
    Clearly not an impartial source but they are quoting the UN stats.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    And Greta doesn't profess to know the answers
    Then how come she (and her supporters) are telling us with such shrill certainty what it is we need to be doing?
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    But if we start putting pressure on the right people (public and private sector) through our spending / voting / behaviours then we will start to see an increase in spending in developing alternative methods / technologies to reduce resource consumption / wastage for when the explosion does come.

    No - I think we should continue to run polluting cars, power stations and everything without check and shout at India and China for being the biggest polluters and they should do something about it ...

    or should we ... just should we ... lead by example ...
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    And Greta doesn't profess to know the answers, she's merely a banner to start a conversation. And when does her being used cross over into her being exploited?
    Is she being used to her detriment or is she getting a lesson in politics, public speaking and media that just isn't available to those not wishing to put their head above the parapet ...
    I'd say it's a fine line and I do hope her parents are keeping a close eye on her mental wellbeing - especially with all the nasty comments aimed at her wishing her harm (yes, really ... )
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    bompington wrote:
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    And Greta doesn't profess to know the answers
    Then how come she (and her supporters) are telling us with such shrill certainty what it is we need to be doing?
    Need to be doing or How to do it ??
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    bompington wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    People claiming overpopulation and its apocalyptic consequences has been going for two millennia (even Romans worried that there wasn’t enough food to feed everyone).

    As incomes rise people have fewer children so this modern iteration of it is also a convenient way to shift the politic blame away from the biggest consumers and emitters onto less developed nations.

    Are you really suggesting that the Romans mistaken presumption that there wasn't enough food to feed everyone 2000 years ago means that our presumption of the same today is equally incorrect? We do a) have a lot more people now (nearly 8 billion against the nearly 110 billion who have ever lived. Population only about 1 billion in 1800. What does that say about potential future population growth?) and b) a lot more knowledge.

    Relying on Westerners to produce fewer children may work once the whole planet has developed but we are a hell of a long way from there right now. What stops a couple of hundred years of 2nd and third world population growth? Another 8 fold increase brings the population up to 80 billion.......

    Try this or this for starters on how simplistic, wrong and in fact actively dangerous the whole Malthusian argument is.

    Those links don't confirm or debunk anything - they are just opinions like any other; you need to work a lot harder than writing a magazine article to debunk things. But I do think it is ludicrously optimistic to assume that we can just rely on technologying our way out of this. Don't forget that nobody (in general terms) gives a stuff about the future - hence nobody caring about biodiversity or global warming (in general terms). People will only react to the disaster that has already happened which will be too late. The saving grace with this is things like immunisation. Hopefully, at some point, 90 percent of the population will be wiped out by a disease that we've already largely cured but forgotten about and therefore decided not to immunise against! Problem then solved. For a while.
    Or we'll just nuke ourselves.
    Hopefully the former - we aren't very important as animals on this earth so the ideal outcome is that we render ourselves extinct whilst causing the other species minimum hassle in the process. The earth would be duly grateful to be shot of us.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,688
    Rolf F wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    People claiming overpopulation and its apocalyptic consequences has been going for two millennia (even Romans worried that there wasn’t enough food to feed everyone).

    As incomes rise people have fewer children so this modern iteration of it is also a convenient way to shift the politic blame away from the biggest consumers and emitters onto less developed nations.

    Are you really suggesting that the Romans mistaken presumption that there wasn't enough food to feed everyone 2000 years ago means that our presumption of the same today is equally incorrect? We do a) have a lot more people now (nearly 8 billion against the nearly 110 billion who have ever lived. Population only about 1 billion in 1800. What does that say about potential future population growth?) and b) a lot more knowledge.

    Relying on Westerners to produce fewer children may work once the whole planet has developed but we are a hell of a long way from there right now. What stops a couple of hundred years of 2nd and third world population growth? Another 8 fold increase brings the population up to 80 billion.......

    Try this or this for starters on how simplistic, wrong and in fact actively dangerous the whole Malthusian argument is.

    Those links don't confirm or debunk anything - they are just opinions like any other; you need to work a lot harder than writing a magazine article to debunk things. But I do think it is ludicrously optimistic to assume that we can just rely on technologying our way out of this. Don't forget that nobody (in general terms) gives a stuff about the future - hence nobody caring about biodiversity or global warming (in general terms). People will only react to the disaster that has already happened which will be too late. The saving grace with this is things like immunisation. Hopefully, at some point, 90 percent of the population will be wiped out by a disease that we've already largely cured but forgotten about and therefore decided not to immunise against! Problem then solved. For a while.
    Or we'll just nuke ourselves.
    Hopefully the former - we aren't very important as animals on this earth so the ideal outcome is that we render ourselves extinct whilst causing the other species minimum hassle in the process. The earth would be duly grateful to be shot of us.

    Animals, much less planets are not grateful.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Rolf F wrote:
    Those links don't confirm or debunk anything - they are just opinions like any other; you need to work a lot harder than writing a magazine article to debunk things
    No, they're not just opinions: they contain a mix of
    - facts
    - explanations and projections based on those facts
    - and opinions based on those.

    You need to work a lot harder than just saying "well that's your opinion" to dismiss out of hand the things you read.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,734
    Rolf F wrote:
    . Hopefully, at some point, 90 percent of the population will be wiped out by a disease that we've already largely cured but forgotten about and therefore decided not to immunise against!

    Err, what?
    _
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Rolf F wrote:
    Or we'll just nuke ourselves.
    Hopefully the former - we aren't very important as animals on this earth so the ideal outcome is that we render ourselves extinct whilst causing the other species minimum hassle in the process. The earth would be duly grateful to be shot of us.
    I suppose that at least the anti-humanist movement have some sort of logic in their arguments, but the idea that things would somehow be "better" without mankind is a proposition that opens up a whole can of philosophical worms.

    Better for whom?

    What does "better" actually mean in the absence of anyone to judge it? If a tree is saved in a forest and there's nobody on the planet to hear it, did it really happen?

    Are there any other species that should be eradicated in search of ecological purity?

    What on earth does "we aren't very important" mean in this context, and who gets to judge?

    What duty do we owe to other species to keep them free from hassle?

    Why on earth do apparently sensible people, often ones who are quick to knock religion and superstition, subscribe to the fantasy that the earth is some sort of sentient being?

    I am genuinely concerned at the misanthropy (literally, as in hatred of mankind, which is the only possible interpretation of your post) and nihilism that's going around in the name of environmentalism at the moment.
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    bompington wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    Or we'll just nuke ourselves.
    Hopefully the former - we aren't very important as animals on this earth so the ideal outcome is that we render ourselves extinct whilst causing the other species minimum hassle in the process. The earth would be duly grateful to be shot of us.
    I suppose that at least the anti-humanist movement have some sort of logic in their arguments, but the idea that things would somehow be "better" without mankind is a proposition that opens up a whole can of philosophical worms.

    Better for whom?

    What does "better" actually mean in the absence of anyone to judge it? If a tree is saved in a forest and there's nobody on the planet to hear it, did it really happen?

    Are there any other species that should be eradicated in search of ecological purity?

    What on earth does "we aren't very important" mean in this context, and who gets to judge?

    What duty do we owe to other species to keep them free from hassle?

    Why on earth do apparently sensible people, often ones who are quick to knock religion and superstition, subscribe to the fantasy that the earth is some sort of sentient being?

    I am genuinely concerned at the misanthropy (literally, as in hatred of mankind, which is the only possible interpretation of your post) and nihilism that's going around in the name of environmentalism at the moment.

    As individuals we are all important (to someone else), but as societies I suggest we're are less vital.. we have ripped up most of the world, abused resources, terminated other species, manipulated them to our own benefit - often not mutually and continue to have a significant impact on changing this world.

    For now, we have no alternative place to live, to continue the human species, we are totally and utterly reliant on this planet for our survival. We are in the same boat as every other species found (and yet to be found) on earth.

    The Climate is changing - it's been measured to be changing - getting warmer in this cycle, this is nothing new and the climate has forever been changing, but (as far as we can tell) not at this rate. Many people believe that it is our activities that are accelerating this change and in the foreseeable future there will be major changes to contend with that we are not yet ready for. Therefore we need to do 2 things - 1) buy us more time to achieve 2) sort out what we need to do to continue to survive.

    1) is relatively straight forward problem - our emissions of pollution can be either stopped or mitigated - the solution is far more complex of course as no one society is going to be the first to turn off the lights and live in caves ...

    2) is far more complex - land masses are changing, as can the use they can be put to. We still have no alternative place to live and we have more people trying to live. We largely recognize the benefits of other species that made the world the way it was and contribute indirectly to our way of living - called the circle of life - we could break that (or continue to) but it will have an impact and we need to mitigate that impact in some way.

    Of course, the simplest solution would be to have a massive spaceship, fueled by space and able to synthesize food/water whilst we nomadically wander about space finding other planets/moons to pillage ...
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,640
    I find it interesting how no one is interested in a discussion on solutions. It is either impossible or reduced to something should be done now. I find that something fascinating.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,688
    I thought we were discussing population reduction and whether this was a solution or not.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Slowbike wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    Or we'll just nuke ourselves.
    Hopefully the former - we aren't very important as animals on this earth so the ideal outcome is that we render ourselves extinct whilst causing the other species minimum hassle in the process. The earth would be duly grateful to be shot of us.
    tldr: "you can't say thta the world would be better without humans because only humans give meaning to 'better'"
    ... pretty standard stuff about global warming...the simplest solution would be...
    Fairly good mansplaining there, but I wasn't denying global warming, nor the need to do something - I wasn;t even talking about it.

    But here are at least a few candidates for "the simplest solution", perhaps a bit more feasible than all of us setting sail for the stars, but that tend to get ignored by the people who can't quite decide whether their favourite solution is to send us all back to the stone age or wipe us all out:
    1. Geo-engineering - possibly the only way to actually prevent major climate change.
    2. Serious international efforts to mitigate the effects of global warming - vastly bigger flood defences, irigation, even moving large populations - might be more successful, less disruptive, and a lot cheaper than trying to prevent it.
    3. Continuing to to encourage technological advance is a better bet - for human flourishing and the environment - than the current mood of "it's growth, technology and prosperity that have caused this Blasphemy against Mother Earth, so we need our levels of prosperity and technology to revert to the wisdom of the Noble Savages that we all were before the Evil Capitalist Smog Braons took over"
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,640
    rjsterry wrote:
    I thought we were discussing population reduction and whether this was a solution or not.

    If it is a solution long term, it is hardly one that is going to help soon, so I had sort of dismissed that as an "it is impossible" argument.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,734
    TheBigBean wrote:
    I find it interesting how no one is interested in a discussion on solutions. It is either impossible or reduced to something should be done now. I find that something fascinating.

    In my mind is it not a case of creating the right regulatory and tax/subsidy framework that, in theory, irons out the undervalued negative and positive externalities and then getting society to buy into that.

    If, for example, there was a bigger premium placed on coal, gas and oil burning, it would be more cost effective (albeit still more expensive than before), to look for more renewable or at least carbon efficient energy. If the public have bought into that, then great.

    There could be some international carrot & stick structures in place to help persuade places like Brazil or Russia to take deforestation seriously.

    I understand the govt is putting resource into examining how to change the energy system in our home heating to move away from gas to, say, hydrogen, but it requires so much investment a big change on how people do things that someone needs to lead the debate and say "something needs to change, here are the options, which do people want." so the UK pop. can get used to the idea, but no politician is incentivised to do that.
    _
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    bompington wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    Or we'll just nuke ourselves.
    Hopefully the former - we aren't very important as animals on this earth so the ideal outcome is that we render ourselves extinct whilst causing the other species minimum hassle in the process. The earth would be duly grateful to be shot of us.
    I suppose that at least the anti-humanist movement have some sort of logic in their arguments, but the idea that things would somehow be "better" without mankind is a proposition that opens up a whole can of philosophical worms.

    Better for whom?

    What does "better" actually mean in the absence of anyone to judge it? If a tree is saved in a forest and there's nobody on the planet to hear it, did it really happen?

    Are there any other species that should be eradicated in search of ecological purity?

    What on earth does "we aren't very important" mean in this context, and who gets to judge?

    What duty do we owe to other species to keep them free from hassle?

    Why on earth do apparently sensible people, often ones who are quick to knock religion and superstition, subscribe to the fantasy that the earth is some sort of sentient being?

    I am genuinely concerned at the misanthropy (literally, as in hatred of mankind, which is the only possible interpretation of your post) and nihilism that's going around in the name of environmentalism at the moment.

    Not a hatred of mankind and certainly not the only possible interpretation of my post. Just the rational observation that as creatures at the top of the food chain we benefit nobody but ourselves. We are making a right mess of the planet and we may well wipe ourselves and much of our fellow creatures out in the process. We won't be missed.

    Rationally, once you get past the selfish angle, it is clearly best for the planet if we either manage to wipe ourselves out or at least most of ourselves out so the earth can revert to something a lot nicer. Why should I care more about the life of a human in 1000 years time than a butterfly in 1000 years?

    We are destroyers. Don't get me wrong; I love the architecture we have created and the music etc etc but when you look at our attitude to climate change and failing biodiversity then that is where is only one conclusion.

    I don't regard the Earth as a sentient being - I regard it as a beautiful thing that we are ruining because wetwipes are soooo convenient etc. As a species we are trailer trash.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,640
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    I find it interesting how no one is interested in a discussion on solutions. It is either impossible or reduced to something should be done now. I find that something fascinating.

    In my mind is it not a case of creating the right regulatory and tax/subsidy framework that, in theory, irons out the undervalued negative and positive externalities and then getting society to buy into that.

    If, for example, there was a bigger premium placed on coal, gas and oil burning, it would be more cost effective (albeit still more expensive than before), to look for more renewable or at least carbon efficient energy. If the public have bought into that, then great.

    There could be some international carrot & stick structures in place to help persuade places like Brazil or Russia to take deforestation seriously.

    I understand the govt is putting resource into examining how to change the energy system in our home heating to move away from gas to, say, hydrogen, but it requires so much investment a big change on how people do things that someone needs to lead the debate and say "something needs to change, here are the options, which do people want." so the UK pop. can get used to the idea, but no politician is incentivised to do that.

    Hydrogen is very interesting. Cover Australia in solar panels and electrolysers, and export liquid hydrogen around the world. This is something Australia's former top scientist was advising and something Shell is looking at as a replacement for LNG. There are still some efficiency glitches that need to be ironed out (hydrogen liquifies at a much lower temperature than natural gas), but it is almost possible.

    As to how government incentives it, the Committee on Climate Change is agnostic between the freemarket approach you describe and more direct intervention. It all requires approval whilst in the EU though.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,688
    Rolf F wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Rolf F wrote:
    Or we'll just nuke ourselves.
    Hopefully the former - we aren't very important as animals on this earth so the ideal outcome is that we render ourselves extinct whilst causing the other species minimum hassle in the process. The earth would be duly grateful to be shot of us.
    I suppose that at least the anti-humanist movement have some sort of logic in their arguments, but the idea that things would somehow be "better" without mankind is a proposition that opens up a whole can of philosophical worms.

    Better for whom?

    What does "better" actually mean in the absence of anyone to judge it? If a tree is saved in a forest and there's nobody on the planet to hear it, did it really happen?

    Are there any other species that should be eradicated in search of ecological purity?

    What on earth does "we aren't very important" mean in this context, and who gets to judge?

    What duty do we owe to other species to keep them free from hassle?

    Why on earth do apparently sensible people, often ones who are quick to knock religion and superstition, subscribe to the fantasy that the earth is some sort of sentient being?

    I am genuinely concerned at the misanthropy (literally, as in hatred of mankind, which is the only possible interpretation of your post) and nihilism that's going around in the name of environmentalism at the moment.

    Not a hatred of mankind and certainly not the only possible interpretation of my post. Just the rational observation that as creatures at the top of the food chain we benefit nobody but ourselves. We are making a right mess of the planet and we may well wipe ourselves and much of our fellow creatures out in the process. We won't be missed.

    Rationally, once you get past the selfish angle, it is clearly best for the planet if we either manage to wipe ourselves out or at least most of ourselves out so the earth can revert to something a lot nicer. Why should I care more about the life of a human in 1000 years time than a butterfly in 1000 years?

    We are destroyers. Don't get me wrong; I love the architecture we have created and the music etc etc but when you look at our attitude to climate change and failing biodiversity then that is where is only one conclusion.

    I don't regard the Earth as a sentient being - I regard it as a beautiful thing that we are ruining because wetwipes are soooo convenient etc. As a species we are trailer trash.

    I'm genuinely not sure whether you believe this tosh. We may not care enough about our environment but no other species cares at all. They simply follow the instincts with which evolution has furnished them.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,688
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    I find it interesting how no one is interested in a discussion on solutions. It is either impossible or reduced to something should be done now. I find that something fascinating.

    In my mind is it not a case of creating the right regulatory and tax/subsidy framework that, in theory, irons out the undervalued negative and positive externalities and then getting society to buy into that.

    If, for example, there was a bigger premium placed on coal, gas and oil burning, it would be more cost effective (albeit still more expensive than before), to look for more renewable or at least carbon efficient energy. If the public have bought into that, then great.

    There could be some international carrot & stick structures in place to help persuade places like Brazil or Russia to take deforestation seriously.

    I understand the govt is putting resource into examining how to change the energy system in our home heating to move away from gas to, say, hydrogen, but it requires so much investment a big change on how people do things that someone needs to lead the debate and say "something needs to change, here are the options, which do people want." so the UK pop. can get used to the idea, but no politician is incentivised to do that.

    Hydrogen is very interesting. Cover Australia in solar panels and electrolysers, and export liquid hydrogen around the world. This is something Australia's former top scientist was advising and something Shell is looking at as a replacement for LNG. There are still some efficiency glitches that need to be ironed out (hydrogen liquifies at a much lower temperature than natural gas), but it is almost possible.

    As to how government incentives it, the Committee on Climate Change is agnostic between the freemarket approach you describe and more direct intervention. It all requires approval whilst in the EU though.

    On a domestic level it's relatively straightforward to replace a gas central heating boiler with an electric one. The main disincentive for Joe Public is that at the moment gas is cheaper than electricity. Obviously that doesn't deal with large scale heating.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,538
    bompington wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    problem is that you have a population explosion whilst expectations catch up with improvements in mortality rates.
    https://overpopulationisamyth.com/episode-5-7-billion-people-will-everyone-please-relax/
    Clearly not an impartial source but they are quoting the UN stats.
    Given the url, very clearly not impartial.

    Fact is that the space on this planet and its resources are finite. So clearly there are limits to the number of people that can be sustained. Although before we get there, issues such as food and water shortages, conflict, etc will cause issues - such as those just starting to be seen in the migrations across the Med. When it comes to population, we need to think quality not quantity.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,538
    bompington wrote:
    Shirley Basso wrote:
    And Greta doesn't profess to know the answers
    Then how come she (and her supporters) are telling us with such shrill certainty what it is we need to be doing?
    Probably sounds a bit familiar.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pinno
    pinno Posts: 51,360
    Rolf F wrote:
    As a species we have become parasitical.

    FTFY

    Parasites that are highly evolved, don't kill their host.

    Has anyone read this thread:

    viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13107199

    and are you going to do something? If not, why not?

    "All it takes for evil to prevail is for a good man to do nothing".
    seanoconn - gruagach craic!

Categories