Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The correct solution is to reverse the population explosion. People have just kept popping bairns out like it's no bother though.Which is fine, but then we need to accept that as a species we are not leaving a future and that for the unlucky generation to be here when it goes wrong it will be quite an horrific end
It's not really bonkers as it's expected. We're naturally built for self preservation of ourselves and our 'tribe' so policies that go against that is fighting nature. Add onto that the last 100 or so years of consumerism conditioning and protecting ourselves is now set as protecting a certain standard of living, not just simply being alive and not at risk of death.
I think human history shows we don't care about the species overall. Just ourselves or our particular tribe. Until we see the whole population as our tribe our attitudes won't change.I agree with all of that but it’s self preservation of us as individuals not of our species
I think human history shows we don't care about the species overall. Just ourselves or our particular tribe. Until we see the whole population as our tribe our attitudes won't change.
Future generations of your own tribe though. When decisions are made to improve the lives of children in Parliament, are they trying to improve the lives of all children or just the children of the UK? One thing some people didn't like about being in the EU is that we were a net contributor. Our money was going to improve other places in the EU and not the UK. Why not spend that money just on us instead?The bit that I think is arguably different is the tribe usually includes children and future generations. We have given up on those despite being family or close to home
Future generations of your own tribe though. When decisions are made to improve the lives of children in Parliament, are they trying to improve the lives of all children or just the children of the UK? One thing some people didn't like about being in the EU is that we were a net contributor. Our money was going to improve other places in the EU and not the UK. Why not spend that money just on us instead?
You'd like to think so, but in a world of information, both true and false, not everyone sees an issue. And if changing things involves a nation being worse off for the sake of the environment, some might be unwilling to make a change in case a rival doesn't make the change and profits off it. Think it's like some of the times America has had misgivings about the Kyoto accords as some other nations could still pollute heavily for industry. Americans at times felt it wasn't fair for them.But surely where climate change is concerned their is no tribe??? We are one overall humankind that are affected. You can make an arguement that some people closer to sea level would be affected first but ultimately no one is immune. So by default we are all one tribe with something of a Global catastrophic nature
There’s loads of other countries have a recycling scheme that earns you money. Just a shame others have chosen to punish people for it instead.I've never denied the damage being done by climate change however when it was used an excuse to raise taxes I stopped caring that much.
Erm… so it’s exactly true! We can’t live the lives we do sustainably.That’s not true, the world can easily sustain 10b humans, if we learn to live in a more environmental way.
The correct solution is to reverse the population explosion. People have just kept popping bairns out like it's no bother though.
It depends what you mean by environmental emergency. Can you be more specific?Is there anybody on here still in denial about the environmental emergency we have created? Just wondering.
You sell your car, someone else buys it and uses it. Good planThe bit about natural cycles and there has been higher levels of CO2 in the past annoy the shit out of me. I was thinking of an analogy the other day - I will gently rest my head on a wall if those with that opinion will run into it as fast as they can. We will both be just touching the wall!
I could do better - and will - but I try to reduce my consumption. I’m eating a lot less meat this year. I’m going to sell my car shortly.
Speak for yourself marraEveryone on this board denies it exists by their actions and consumption. Even resident vegans like me.
Why is this?The bit about natural cycles and there has been higher levels of CO2 in the past annoy the shit out of me.
Stop having kids.
Norway's plastic bottle deposit return scheme sees north of 90% of plastic bottles being recycled. Yet here we seem to have endless government debates and consultations about it, but no action.There’s loads of other countries have a recycling scheme that earns you money. Just a shame others have chosen to punish people for it instead.
In Alberta they have a bottles and can return. While the money is not 5c for them and 25c for over a litre. Most people do it. Even if they don’t, the homeless people round them up.
Also scouts, Cubs, kids sports teams do drives for them. Like cleaning a highway and cashing in for new strips etc.
It’s a really easy but really smart idea
I know that’s just recycling but it shows there are some good ideas out there
That does seem a lot and the main reason is;This says a meat eater needs 17 times more Land than a vegetarian.
What would happen if everyone went vegan? | BBC Good Food
What would happen if every person on Earth adopted a vegan diet – without milk, meat, honey, or any animal-sourced food? It’s a hypothetical question, but environmental writer Paul Allen argues that it's more relevant than everwww.bbcgoodfood.com
We need to stop feeding livestock with grain, it isn't natural for them. They need to be out in fields farting and shitting and helping with biodiversity. Free range beef anyone.This is principally because we use a large proportion of the world’s land for growing crops to feed livestock, rather than humans. (Of the world’s approximately five billion hectares of agricultural land, 68% is used for livestock.)
A more environmental way usually means destroy the environment, build more houses, use more resources, plough more land. We started using more of the earths resources than it can replace a couple of decades ago, we're on a downward slope already but people just seem interested in increasing the world population.That’s not true, the world can easily sustain 10b humans, if we learn to live in a more environmental way.
And destroy the deserts and all the creatures that live there so we can increase the human population. Very environmentally friendly.Build massive sea water salt removal processing plants (solar powered) and pipe water into arid parts of the planet. This will create jobs in poor areas, bring water to people that need it, increase vegetation/farming capacity and reduce sea levels.
That does seem a lot and the main reason is;
We need to stop feeding livestock with grain, it isn't natural for them. They need to be out in fields farting and shitting and helping with biodiversity. Free range beef anyone.
A more environmental way usually means destroy the environment, build more houses, use more resources, plough more land. We started using more of the earths resources than it can replace a couple of decades ago, we're on a downward slope already but people just seem interested in increasing the world population.
We're all part of the worlds biggest pyramid scheme and it's all going to come crashing down soon.
And destroy the deserts and all the creatures that live there so we can increase the human population. Very environmentally friendly.
Not at all,Yes, but that 'environmental way' consists of hundreds of concessions on people's lifestyles, freedoms and opportunities. Putting quantity over quality of life is going to make life pretty miserable for a lot of people.
That's a lame argument. The science in 1895 or even 1974 is nowhere near what it is today. This is straight from the Brexiteers handbook - 'Well experts have been wrong before"
- 1895 - Geologists Think theWorld May Be Frozen Up Again – New York Times, February 1895
- 1902 - “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles Times
- 1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New York Times, October 1912
- 1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago Tribune
- 1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
- 1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New York Times, Sept 18, 1924
- 1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
- 1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World
- 1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
- 1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
- 1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
- 1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
That's clearly not true. A more environmental way, by the definition of the words in that sentence means more sustainable for the environment.A more environmental way usually means destroy the environment, build more houses, use more resources, plough more land. We started using more of the earths resources than it can replace a couple of decades ago, we're on a downward slope already but people just seem interested in increasing the world population.
We're all part of the worlds biggest pyramid scheme and it's all going to come crashing down soon.