When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • She has inspired the young generation who will all most certainly and are adhering to the environmentalists suggestions. At least they are doing something which is more you can say about all these "experts" private jetting into Davos. Charles for instance is private jetting there but an electric car will take him to the conference

    The younger generation, on the whole, tend to be idealists. What they don't understand is how these ideals would affect them in practice.

    The UK government is planning to go carbon neutral by 2050. That is sensible.

    The environmental lobby want the world to be carbon neutral by 2030 at the latest. That would be so disruptive to achieve, the wider public would not accept it.

    Time to leave fairy land and to start coming up with practical solutions to reduce carbon levels throughout the world by 2050. That is the right course of action.

  • More fool the politicians for allowing her this 'power'.

    It's not the politicians. It's the media who then get people on side and once the media and the people start talking and campaigning etc, only then do the politicians step in to try and appease the majority. Naturally politicians will only do something when they see a benefit for themselves so they stir people up along with the media then. Their probably thinking about how much money they can make in tax from folk having to buy into eco friendly vehicles and other goods. Add a few emissions charges into the mix and it's happy days for government.

    None of it is actually going to help the planet and in the long term it's going to make life worse for the majority of people who will for example have to abandon a perfectly working vehicle on the tip to buy an electric one. There will be no resale value only scrap value. And if you refuse then you get hit with emissions tax and high petrol and diesel prices so it's catch 22. People are struggling to survive now and needing food banks, so what happens when they are forced to spend more money on stuff they don't need.

    The next thing will be everyone having to buy solar panels, new boilers, more expensive foods and on it goes. Where are people going to get the money from. The rich will be fine but the majority of the working class won't. Unemployment is on the rise, or rather people are working less hours and not earning enough so having to supplement their income with benefits and visit food banks. But because many are only working 16h a week on min wage it does not count as unemployed. This country is a mess and all the global warming stuff is not helping. Why is the onus being put on people, especially the working class who will suffer more, while corporations / companies get away with everything and profit from others misery.

  • None of it is actually going to help the planet and in the long term it's going to make life worse for the majority of people who will for example have to abandon a perfectly working vehicle on the tip to buy an electric one. There will be no resale value only scrap value. And if you refuse then you get hit with emissions tax and high petrol and diesel prices so it's catch 22. People are struggling to survive now and needing food banks, so what happens when they are forced to spend more money on stuff they don't need.

    Nail on head! Once supporters of Greta understand this, they will turn off the idea, at least if they are the ones paying the bills!

    As for cars, I think the government need to give the car industry notice that from 2025, they will not be able to sell cars that fail to meet the new 'carbon neutral' requirements. That means that from 2025, people will no longer be able to purchase petrol or diesel cars. Most people change their cars after about 10 years anyway, and in the meantime, all cars purchased after 2025 are polluting less, so the real reductions start to hit home as older cars are scrapped. By 2040, the Government could start increasing petrol and diesel prices significantly, nudging people to ditch their polluting cars naturally. There will be so few polluting cars on the road by 2050, we can either safely put up with them or ban them altogether.

    To impose new drastic restrictions on the population by 2030 is simply impractical and nonsensical. Common sense will prevail in the end - it is up to the politicians to debunk the protestations of the extremists.

  • Cars are only a drop in the ocean. And talking about ocean what about all the shipping. Do you realise if you purchased something in Scotland and wanted to have it delivered to say Dorset, it's cheaper to put it on a container ship and have it shipped to Shanghai and then have it shipped back to the South of England than to send it from Scotland by road to the South. How mad is that. Then there's the air industry. And don't forget we are only one small country. Our country is not going to impact the planet. How about the fashion industry. Apparently the second biggest polluter. The cotton industry is not good. We have everything being bought online now. How much goes into all that packaging, plus delivery. We can go on and on and on, but unless the whole planet does the same then we will have no affect whatsoever.

    To make any real difference to the planet we need about 5 Billion if not more people to be made extinct which is an impossible decision to make so our only hope is that nature does it's job a bit quicker. Maybe driving more folk into poverty is a way of getting numbers down. Starve people to death, make them live in horrible conditions, drive them to drugs and eventually people will die off. Add some extreme leftism into the mix and promote same sex relationships and that cuts down on babies. It can even be promoted in schools. Get them while they are young. Work on both ends of the scale to cut numbers down. So there will be the odd few that have a hormone imbalance and will naturally be gay and those that choose it as a lifestyle choice.

    Who lives and who dies will come down to how much money one has. Then there's wars, start wars to wipe out some more. Have a look at the population charts and look at the sudden increase from around the 1800's onwards. The industrial revolution is what changed this world for the worse. As a species we are too clever for our own good. We can't keep having babies and keep people alive longer. The sums don't add up.

  • Cars are only a drop in the ocean. And talking about ocean what about all the shipping. Do you realise if you purchased something in Scotland and wanted to have it delivered to say Dorset, it's cheaper to put it on a container ship and have it shipped to Shanghai and then have it shipped back to the South of England than to send it from Scotland by road to the South. How mad is that. Then there's the air industry. And don't forget we are only one small country. Our country is not going to impact the planet. How about the fashion industry. Apparently the second biggest polluter. The cotton industry is not good. We have everything being bought online now. How much goes into all that packaging, plus delivery. We can go on and on and on, but unless the whole planet does the same then we will have no affect whatsoever.

    To make any real difference to the planet we need about 5 Billion if not more people to be made extinct which is an impossible decision to make so our only hope is that nature does it's job a bit quicker. Maybe driving more folk into poverty is a way of getting numbers down. Starve people to death, make them live in horrible conditions, drive them to drugs and eventually people will die off. Add some extreme leftism into the mix and promote same sex relationships and that cuts down on babies. It can even be promoted in schools. Get them while they are young. Work on both ends of the scale to cut numbers down. So there will be the odd few that have a hormone imbalance and will naturally be gay and those that choose it as a lifestyle choice.

    Who lives and who dies will come down to how much money one has. Then there's wars, start wars to wipe out some more. Have a look at the population charts and look at the sudden increase from around the 1800's onwards. The industrial revolution is what changed this world for the worse. As a species we are too clever for our own good. We can't keep having babies and keep people alive longer. The sums don't add up.

    Steady on, Nora! That is a very fatalistic approach! ?

    Yes, I was only talking about cars as an obvious example of how ordinary people would be impacted by an earlier 'carbon neutral' date.

    There are solutions to all these issues, but some will be costly. The government will need to motivate industry to change its ways and provide sufficient money to fund the research necessary to resolve some of these problems.

    If the world pulled together on this, things would be easier. Trouble is, if we go it alone, our industries will be less competitive and everyone will be blaming Brexit!

  • I can understand that a woman is atavistically, uncontrollably and physically compelled to give birth.

    But would she end up manically depressed or psychotic if prevented from having more than 2?

    That would more than counteract the extended life of people at the mortality end of the age scale

    There are surely many sticks & carrots to make that procreation rationing happen.

    But it won't happen unless there is a United Nations that actually works, which means policing across the globe.

    But just as long as there places like Nigeria that produce 5 babies per wife - plus an omnipotent, legacy-seeking, polygamous males who can multiply that by God-knows-how-many-wives he has collared at an age of child-bearing puberty (some are carrying their kids to school for Chrissakes) - then ......

    ....... it ain't going to happen

    Indeed, I don't see this world turning itself around. Virtue signalling is just a social game of identity politics. The reality is that this world is deteriorating to extinction in small bearable increments, much like a lobster feels when being boiled alive.

    Besides, Greta and her child disciples are going to sort it out. She reassured our great leaders in Davos. So not to worry.

    Possible snag: weren't we expecting a Second Coming to perform miracles? So far she's just frowning and wagging her finger at us and saying it's okay to feel panicky.

    I might have felt more strongly about the future of my children, and their children, and so on, except that young people have become so obnoxious, self-oppressed, self-absorbed, self-gratifying and just plain selfish, that I don't think they have much to contribute to this planet after I've gone.

    It's been fun while it lasted.

  • I'm not quite sure what the significance is. Are you suggesting that President Trump wasn't being outrageous enough to make the front cover?

    He won't be very happy with himself, being beaten by a girl.

    Do you believe you have to be outrageous to make the cover of Time?

    In which case Trump would be there every week

  • 1 H'mm. China tried that. Didn't go well.

    2 Try applying that in a democracy....8|

    1 It was ill-conceived (if you will forgive the excruciating pun). They were wimpish about enforcing it. So the Chinese public secretly aborted or killed first born girls so they could have another go. And then the government relented and said when the firsts born is a girl the parent can have another go. This completely f-ck-d up the sex profile of the new population. Mrs Ghandi was thrown out of office for forced compulsory sterilisation. Yet there ARE ways of doings things right. Boris and Cummings would have the smarts

    2 You could throw in the democracy spanner for just about anything the public doesn't like. The fact is that the public have to either comply with a government ruling or go on yet another protest march or smash windows ....... and see where it gets them. That too is democracy. Your particular heeding of democracy leads to anarchy & arrest or to wait for the next General Election

  • She has inspired the young generation who will all most certainly and are adhering to the environmentalists suggestions. At least they are doing something which is more you can say about all these "experts" private jetting into Davos. Charles for instance is private jetting there but an electric car will take him to the conference

    The problem is deep and very complicated. Forget the wind turbines, the electric cars. and recycling your plastic bottles, the problem stems from our population. We already know that each of the farm animals that exist throw out methane, but conveniently enough we ignore the fact humans fart as well. Even if we stopped eating meat, the farmland given to vegetables will destroy endless square miles of forestry. China are building a coal powered power station every week, and Donald Trump denies there is a problem. Meanwhile our government wants to build even more houses in order we can carry on producing even more human beings.

    Of course, restricting child birth doesn't work, because we are determined to keep old people alive, and thus the imbalance of our population continues. The tree requires pruning from the top, and not the bottom, but our ethics stop us addressing the issue. I don't have the answers to the questions, and am grateful I will be dead before everything gets out of hand, but can tell you that there will be no solutions until the leaders of the worlds largest nations face up to the problem. Don't hold your breath though !

    The intelligent are being oppressed so the stupid don't get offended

  • 1 Do you mean the ever expanding numbers or the decisions they make? Yes, sure, a bit of both. But where should the emphasis be in looking for a solution to he danger of a world that is becoming increasingly less agreeable to inhabit and one day could become uninhabitable?

    2 What problem is Trump denying? I've heard him say he has a concern about the environment and I've also heard him say the discussions about climate change are unduly pessimistic/panicky/doomsday-ish and that to me seems reasonable

    3 Your right to feel there's a contradiction. But we either kill the homeless (or prevent them getting born) or we house them. I've in favour of the latter. But doing neither just litters the pavements

    4 You're wrong - restricting child birth does work - or can be made to work - and having people live longer does not outweight or cancel out birth rationing.

    5 re tree requires pruning from top vs not the bottom,I'm sure it's a clever parallel but I'd love it explained!

    6 Yes, ethics stop us addressing the issue but ethics can be changed ..... if one raises them for discussion.

    7 You say you don't have the answers to the questions - you quite possibly do but,like most people, don't want to stick your neck out

    8 re grateful dead: you and me both!

    9 most so-called leaders follow the crowd. You are part of the crowd. Provide leadership!

  • Some points I agree with, and some I don't.

    1) Not sure where the homeless come into the conversation, but building homes that will be paid for by the tax payer, then also the rent paid for by the tax payer, is a questionable and very expensive answer. Many of them will just spend their rent money on drugs. Don't get me wrong, I know the homeless are a problem, but the answer to the problem is extremely complex.

    2) Look, I am actually a fan of Trump, but his call on climate change is a tad worrying.

    3) Sorry, restricting child birth is a short term answer to a long term problem. China raised their restriction from one child to two, because their population is rising, and their work force decreasing. It may well be a consideration at some point, but in the western world not at present. Of course, third world countries are something different.

    4) Trees being pruned from the top, and not the bottom is quite straight forward. We need less old people. I have started a thread on other sites suggesting euthanasia at a given age, but of course, I know it will never happen. 90% of the NHS costs are spent on the over 70s, so euthanizing them would improve the NHS over night. The savings the government would make on the NHS and indefinite pension payments would allow people to retire earlier. The chances of people dying long drawn out painful deaths would vastly reduce, and people could plan their money to the last day. Apart from the practical implications, the worlds population could be reduced. From a logical point of view the idea is flawless, but unfortunately people are emotive creatures, so it's not going to happen.

    Well, you asked me stick my neck out, so I have.

    The intelligent are being oppressed so the stupid don't get offended

  • 1) It was you that mentioned building homes and I assumed you were rightly suggesting that has the opposite effect of rationing procreation. So all I was pointing out was that if instead the government stops building homes, that would go some way towards addressing the problem. I readily concede it is an especially tough minded way of dealing with the homeless but I believe it must be considered regardless of the complications you mention. There are always complications. Britain is a world leader in identifying complications or downsides to delay or kill a necessary decision. That's what inspired that tv series "Yes Minister".

    2) You a fan of Trump? Me too! His position on climate change is imagined or distorted by media. If he gave a speech that was more measured it would still be misrepresented by media editing. I accept you are a "tad worried" but he's not Attila the Hun

    3) You say "restricting child birth is a short term answer to a long term problem". Arguably it's no different to learning how to eat in a way where you don't become fat, ill and dead. You suggest the required measures can't be implemented in the western world at present but perhaps could be in the third world. I find that a weird reverse of where the action is most needed. Besides, I'm sure you realise the Third World population explosion is spreading North, so I'm not one can geographically compartmentalise the problem.

    4) Re your tree pruning, I simply didn't understand your gardening parallel; I didn't realise your point was so simple, which is, yeah, sure, we need fewer people across the whole age range. But the statistical reality is that the sought-after reduction is greater from rationing procreation than from withholding help for elderly people who are still coping ok. It is also less morally questionable if one can refrain from pulling life support purely for demographic or economic reasons. In any case, your NHS cost-effectiveness argument is just ugly extension of the life vs death bean-counting that already exists with N.I.C.E, which already factors in cost-benefit effectiveness and age. As for your observation that people's immediate emotional preferences are likely to to take precedence over the practical reality of a dying from overcrowding, what do you propose writing on the tombstone of this dead planet? That Earth died as a result of its human inhabitants' emotional preference?! If that's your idea of "sticking your neck out", God help us! But then again, that is certainly not meant to be an admonishment; I'm sure you're in the majority, whereas I am suspected of being the son of Dr Mengele!

    Edited 2 times, last by casablanca (January 23, 2020 at 11:14 PM).

  • that Earth died as a result of its human inhabitants emotional preference?! If that's your idea of sticking your neck out, God help us! Don't worry, I'm sure you're in the majority!

    bet I'm not :(

    The intelligent are being oppressed so the stupid don't get offended

  • sorry I was in the middle of fine tuning my reply

    Bet you're not what? Sticking your neck out? Or NOT sticking your out? Or not sticking it out enough?

    Either way, thanks for the conversation.

    My solution to the worlds problems is euthanizing people of about 70. I think that's sticking my neck out.

    The intelligent are being oppressed so the stupid don't get offended

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!