‘High likelihood of human civilisation coming to end’ by 2050



It is estimated that for the Government to achieve zero emissions by 2050 it will cost 1-2% of GDP which equates to £20-40 billion per year.

A recent poll indicated that the majority of people would be against raising taxes and/or increasing borrowing to finance the project.

A high majority of around 75% were against any further cuts in services to provide the funding.

It seems we want zero emissions but at zero cost so the democratic implications for any Government are clear.

The truth is our human systems are fucked but the cost in the future if we fail to act will be even higher.

That 0% emissions for UK is just a scam for them to charge us more, aye we may hoy out 0% emissions but that's not going to mean fuck all in the grand scheme of things apart from us getting charged more.

Still gonna have China, India etc dumping out shit loads of emissions.
 
That 0% emissions for UK is just a scam for them to charge us more, aye we may hoy out 0% emissions but that's not going to mean fuck all in the grand scheme of things apart from us getting charged more.

Still gonna have China, India etc dumping out shit loads of emissions.

The realistic turning point will be when the global economy collapses and by then it will be too late.

Edit: The ones who have made a fortune out of the global economy that has fucked the planet should be the ones who pay for its salvation but they wont.

They're more likely to fund a self-sustainable colony on the Moon or Mars and then fuck off to leave the rest of us to suffer the consequences of their greed.

Or adopt a policy of isolationism and construct domed cities on this planet enforced by their military ability.
 
Last edited:
We are at war with planet earth, either we will kill it or it will kill us. The thing is if we weren't trying to kill it, it wouldn't be trying to kill us.
 
This unfortunately. Its still strange behaviour though when ultimately you're talking about the sustainability of life on earth.

Religion is the problem. As long as you have the likes of the USA with huge numbers of people believing that God created the Earth for humans to live on, has a plan, and will one day bring the apocalypse, then convincing these people that we need to act to save the planet will be an uphill struggle.

FFS, some of them won't even take medication or allow doctors to operate on them because "whether they live or die is God's will".

We're fucked.
 
Religion is the problem. As long as you have the likes of the USA with huge numbers of people believing that God created the Earth for humans to live on, has a plan, and will one day bring the apocalypse, then convincing these people that we need to act to save the planet will be an uphill struggle.

FFS, some of them won't even take medication or allow doctors to operate on them because "whether they live or die is God's will".

We're fucked.

You know, I hadn't considered that angle but when you think about it it's very relevant.

Honking patter

Geese?
 
Last edited:
The realistic turning point will be when the global economy collapses and by then it will be too late.

Edit: The ones who have made a fortune out of the global economy that has fucked the planet should be the ones who pay for its salvation but they wont.

They're more likely to fund a self-sustainable colony on the Moon or Mars and then fuck off to leave the rest of us to suffer the consequences of their greed.

Or adopt a policy of isolationism and construct domed cities on this planet enforced by their military ability.
They won’t give a shit mate as it won’t affect them. It’s a very Tory attitude to take. “I’m alright Jack. Pull up the ladder and fuck anybody else.”
 
One of the possible geo-engineering attempts will be to inject more sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere to encourage greater cloud cover and initiate limited global dimming. One of our successes has been the reduction of sulphur dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. The problem is that this well result in the return of acid rain which can have a devastating effect on plant life and trees. This was considered by the National Academy of Science in the USA in 1990. So they certainly knew how serious the danger was 30 years ago.
been going on for years now
 
They won’t give a shit mate as it won’t affect them. It’s a very Tory attitude to take. “I’m alright Jack. Pull up the ladder and fuck anybody else.”

I think what we may see over the coming years while the global economy is still functioning is an increase in the number of smart cities and towns being built for up-market elites. Then if you consider the considerable expense of achieving zero emissions, in this country alone that would be £20-40 billion per year for thirty years that no one seems willing to want to fund, and compare that to the cost of covering these high tech towns with a dome that sucked oxygen out of the atmosphere then it is pretty obvious which route we will go down.

Even with oxygen eventually depleted from the atmosphere with cheap power such as nuclear fusion and solar panels covering such towns there will still be an endless supply of oxygen available in the form of H2O.

People may call that science fiction but science fiction often becomes science fact.
 
Last edited:
I think what we may see over the coming years while the global economy is still functioning is an increase in the number of smart cities and towns being built for up-market elites. Then if you consider the considerable expense of achieving zero emissions, in this country alone that would be £20-40 billion per year for thirty years that no one seems willing to want to fund, and compare that to the cost of covering these high tech towns with a dome that sucked oxygen out of the atmosphere then it is pretty obvious which route we will go down.

Even with oxygen eventually depleted from the atmosphere with cheap power such as nuclear fusion and solar panels covering such towns there will still be an endless supply of oxygen available in the form of H2O.

People may call that science fiction but science fiction often becomes science fact.
There's a 1000 years worth of oxygen in the atmosphere even if every single plant or tree died and there was nothing to photosynthesise.
 
I think what we may see over the coming years while the global economy is still functioning is an increase in the number of smart cities and towns being built for up-market elites. Then if you consider the considerable expense of achieving zero emissions, in this country alone that would be £20-40 billion per year for thirty years that no one seems willing to want to fund, and compare that to the cost of covering these high tech towns with a dome that sucked oxygen out of the atmosphere then it is pretty obvious which route we will go down.

Even with oxygen eventually depleted from the atmosphere with cheap power such as nuclear fusion and solar panels covering such towns there will still be an endless supply of oxygen available in the form of H2O.

People may call that science fiction but science fiction often becomes science fact.

Would it not be easier and cheaper just to accept that chasing the dream of ever expanding econonic growth is what's causing the problem and find a different way to structure society.
 

Back
Top