Climate Change

[Mogwyth]

This is what TB had to say at the World Economic Forum:

"If Britain shut down our emissions entirely, ie we closed down the country - not the legacy I want - the growth in China's emissions would make up the difference in just two years."

So all this penalising gas guzzlers in the UK is achieving what. On those figures, China's growth in emissions in 61 days will be as much our entire private car output, in a year. If Gas guzzlers are 10% of all cars then take them of the road and China will make it up in 6 days, in fact only 3 as the cars will be replaced by more economical ones.

A climatologist said in an article this week that Britain could achieve a greater reduction in greenhouse emissions if we helped India and China build efficient power stations, rather than trying to reduce Britains emmisions.

 

[baz]

The biggest long term effect would be derived from a serious population control program. But there are no votes in that.

 

[Roger Whittle]

The biggest long term effect would be derived from a serious population control program. But there are no votes in that.

Seconded, supported, carried. Nothing else makes any sense.


Roger.

 

[Mogwyth]

The biggest long term effect would be derived from a serious population control program. But there are no votes in that.

Seconded, supported, carried. Nothing else makes any sense.


Roger.

Don't disagree guys but which country has the only serious population control program (AFAIK) in the world and which country has the fastest & highest growth in greenhouse emissions???????????????????

 

[Snagger]

The biggest long term effect would be derived from a serious population control program. But there are no votes in that.

And there's less tax in it too...

 

[theoldtrout]

The biggest long term effect would be derived from a serious population control program. But there are no votes in that.

I've been saying this for years: more people = more houses, more land developed, more energy required, not to mention food and water. Heard on the news today that some Spanish woman aged 67 has given birth to twins using IVF. This type of vain and selfish act doesn't help the planet. One couple two sprogs maximum, any more is irresponsible.

Angela

 

[Roger Whittle]

I've been saying this for years: more people = more houses, more land developed, more energy required, not to mention food and water. Heard on the news today that some Spanish woman aged 67 has given birth to twins using IVF. This type of vain and selfish act doesn't help the planet. One couple two sprogs maximum, any more is irresponsible.

Angela

All too true Angela, but it will have to be but one child for the entire planet, for the next two hundred years - perhaps more. Then, probably no more than two for the rest of creation.

If anybody has any idealogical, cultural or religious reason for objecting to this, they must be asked exactly when, in the next hundred years, they think there will be too many people? Furthermore, we should demand to know what their justification is, for condemning probably 75% of those heaving masses to short, wretched, pain and hunger filled lives?

Perhaps we should start with the Pope, because once that nut is cracked - so to speak - the South American countries will come quietly and the Indians, Chinese and Africans might follow by example.

Otherwise, we might as well kiss our a*ses goodbye.

Roger.

 

[conkers]

I think mans only natural predator will start decreasing the population before governments start a prgramme of birth control and it may already be seen as a viable option by certain high offices.
Doom sayer mode off.

 

[Roger Whittle]

I think mans only natural predator will start decreasing the population before governments start a prgramme of birth control and it may already be seen as a viable option by certain high offices.
Doom sayer mode off.

And mans only natural predator being? Man, presumably?

Roger.