Global warming fact or fiction? Has it effected when you use your stove?

[Haironyourchest]

The demographic of Europe are generally aging, negative replacement rates. So the population is naturally shrinking. If people were serious about wanting lower population levels, then they would be 100% supportive of zero immigration policy.

[Big J]

2 minutes ago, Haironyourchest said:

The demographic of Europe are generally aging, negative replacement rates. So the population is naturally shrinking. If people were serious about wanting lower population levels, then they would be 100% supportive of zero immigration policy.

Yes, global population increase is an issue. Should that have any bearing on European immigration policy? No. They are separate issues and should not be conflated.

[wrsni]

Firstly, it should be 'affected', apologies if someone has already noted it.

 

Secondly, any meaningful thought process on environmental sustainability at global level rapidly takes you to two primary issues, population control and redistribution of wealth. Unfortunately both are firmly off limits as regards any meaningful course of action, so we are pretty much screwed.

 

The end!

[john p]

Climate change is with us for sure pictures of thin starving polar bears don’t lie never saw pictures like that in my 20,s but our governments refuse to install legislation to even try and do anything about it UN agenda 21 ,geo engineering the use of depleted uranium shells ,what the FUCK are people thinking,the planet will survive but not so sure about society as we know it ,Poverty starvation and homelessness all exist in Britain today the government seems unwilling or unable to do anything about it so therefore we demand the abolition of the dogmatic archaic institutions that try and govern over us Their law has not created order our Anarchy will not create chaos.
Thats something I wrote when weighting for an Anarchist news paper many yrs ago seems more relevant now than when I first wrote it ,hope some of you appreciate it 
   Cheers Mark

Was it ‘green anarchist’? Used to see matey with the beard selling it at the green gathering, back in the day!

[Haironyourchest]

3 hours ago, wrsni said:

Firstly, it should be 'affected', apologies if someone has already noted it.

 

Secondly, any meaningful thought process on environmental sustainability at global level rapidly takes you to two primary issues, population control and redistribution of wealth. Unfortunately both are firmly off limits as regards any meaningful course of action, so we are pretty much screwed.

 

The end!

Surely if wealth is redistributed, then more people will be able to have middle class lifestyles, like, a large house, two cars, holidays abroad, money to buy beef etc. That would mean more emissions wouldn't it? Isn't it better for the climate for most people to have no money - and therefore generate low emissions per person? I mean, the super rich do generate more than their fair share, but really, does a single billion pound yacht produce the same CO2 as as ten thousand Corsas or Fiestas? I don't think so. Same reasoning applies to stopping immigration (I should have specified, from developing countries). Better for the climate that they stay in their countries and be poor, and produce less emissions, than come here and live the way we do, and produce way more. It's logical.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Haironyourchest

[wrsni]

I'm not suggesting that wealth should be redistributed as we live now. But our current global wealth is invariably generated by effectively 'raping' the planet, if that is to change, as it must if we are truly serious about preserving it's long term viability, then our present 'pecking order' would also have to change as there simply would not be the degree of wealth generated to maintain things as they are at present. So either those in the higher echelons with wealth to spare (which would probably include most in the developed world) would have to accept having less, in some cases much, much, less, or those presently getting by on subsistence would have to starve.

 

Talk of 'global warming' and 'carbon emissions' is at best tinkering around the edges as it does nothing to address the twin issues of pollution and depletion of finite resources, it possibly may even be a complete irrelevance.

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2019 by wrsni

[Haironyourchest]

42 minutes ago, wrsni said:

I'm not suggesting that wealth should be redistributed as we live now. But our current global wealth is invariably generated by effectively 'raping' the planet, if that is to change, as it must if we are truly serious about preserving it's long term viability, then our present 'pecking order' would also have to change as there simply would not be the degree of wealth generated to maintain things as they are at present. So either those in the higher echelons with wealth to spare (which would probably include most in the developed world) would have to accept having less, in some cases much, much, less, or those presently getting by on subsistence would have to starve.

 

Talk of 'global warming' and 'carbon emissions' is at best tinkering around the edges as it does nothing to address the twin issues of pollution and depletion of finite resources, it possibly may even be a complete irrelevance.

 

 

 

I thought AGW was THE numero uno problem of our time though? That's what they're telling us.

    In terms of pollution, the west is doing much better than the east or developing countries. We have stopped poisoning our rivers, burning our rubbish etc. Plastic in landfills are not harmful to the planet, it's inert underground and doesn't go anywhere or do anything. Our expensive modern cars are actually less polluting than the scooters they all zoom around on in the rest of the world, in terms of particulates and local air quality. In terms of CO2 obviously our cars produce more of that, since they burn more fuel per mile.

    So, if we in the west do accept having much, much less of everything, won't there be more resources for the developing world to consume? And won't they just go ahead and consume them? If we stop using oil, then the price of oil will plummet, and the third world will finally be able to consume it in the same quantities that we do now.

    

[wrsni]

8 hours ago, Haironyourchest said:

 So, if we in the west do accept having much, much less of everything,

    

But we won't, which is where the debate ends anyway.

 

That's why we're screwed.

[Haironyourchest]

31 minutes ago, wrsni said:

But we won't, which is where the debate ends anyway.

 

That's why we're screwed.

Well yes, so we are...?...Unless the whole thing turns out to be a hoax, engineered to separate us from our freedom and prosperity. Which looks more likely, day by day, from where I'm standing. The strategy is to scare people with the threat of their children's deaths, basically, to make them vote for and tolerate economically self destructive policy. But it doesn't work. Global cooling diddent happen in the seventies. Then Global Warming didn't happen in the 80's through early 00's. Then Climate Change didn't happen, in any impactful way, in the 10's. So now it's Climate Change+Species Loss+Pollution+Weather Crisis.

 

But, in their efforts to generate hysteria, they beclown themselves and undermine their own stratagy by inviting ridicule. Greta Thunberg, I mean, honestly, how can you not laugh? Extinction Rebellion antics, etc. Not to mention sleazy movie stars spouting off as they jet around the globe.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Haironyourchest

[Khriss]

Personally, you do what you can ( I re-engineer n reuse a lot of things ) in the scheme of things, humans ain't massively important to this planet. Total extinction of a species is nothing new. K