GULF STATES TURN OFF THE TAP

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
No it isn't. :wallbash:
The issue is with too much carbon fuel being burnt.
If the planet had a sustainable human population level, then everyone could enjoy fulfilled and unencumbered lives without us contuining to inflict this extinction event on our planet.

So the issue isn't with burning carbon, instead the issue is that there are too many people burning it?

If so, then the world's population is predicted to decline by 2050 - and the problem of too many people burning carbon will resolve itself over time?
 
So the issue isn't with burning carbon, instead the issue is that there are too many people burning it?

If so, then the world's population is predicted to decline by 2050 - and the problem of too many people burning carbon will resolve itself over time?
Don't you think the issue is somewhat more immanent than that mate.?
Whilst some predictions suggest that population may stop increasing by 2050, even if that is correct the planet has already lost 70% of it's wildlife over the last 50 years (i.e since we rose above the human population level that it has been calculated that the planet can ecologically sustain).
So, setting aside that the prediction is based on assumptions & may not be fulfilled, by that time it is estimated there will be around 10 billion humans all desperately squabbling over the remaining available dwindling natural resources on a decimated planet.
In what sense is that preferable to a happy healthy population of "only" 2-3 billion with adequate resources for fulfilled lives free from conflict on a bio-diverse on an ecologically balanced planet.?

Please.??
 
  • Like
Reactions: m80
Don't you think the issue is somewhat more immanent than that mate.?
Whilst some predictions suggest that population may stop increasing by 2050, even if that is correct the planet has already lost 70% of it's wildlife over the last 50 years (i.e since we rose above the human population level that it has been calculated that the planet can ecologically sustain).
So, setting aside that the prediction is based on assumptions & may not be fulfilled, by that time it is estimated there will be around 10 billion humans all desperately squabbling over the remaining available dwindling natural resources on a decimated planet.
In what sense is that preferable to a happy healthy population of "only" 2-3 billion with adequate resources for fulfilled lives free from conflict on a bio-diverse on an ecologically balanced planet.?

Please.??

What are you suggesting then? That we should start another Great War.....? Or introduce a 'one child' policy, like they used to have in China?
 
Don't you think the issue is somewhat more immanent than that mate.?
Whilst some predictions suggest that population may stop increasing by 2050, even if that is correct the planet has already lost 70% of it's wildlife over the last 50 years (i.e since we rose above the human population level that it has been calculated that the planet can ecologically sustain).
So, setting aside that the prediction is based on assumptions & may not be fulfilled, by that time it is estimated there will be around 10 billion humans all desperately squabbling over the remaining available dwindling natural resources on a decimated planet.
In what sense is that preferable to a happy healthy population of "only" 2-3 billion with adequate resources for fulfilled lives free from conflict on a bio-diverse on an ecologically balanced planet.?

Please.??
How do we get back down to a global population of 2-3 billion?

In the meantime it makes sense to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.
 
What are you suggesting then? That we should start another Great War.....? Or introduce a 'one child' policy, like they used to have in China?
How do we get back down to a global population of 2-3 billion?

In the meantime it makes sense to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.

I personally do not have any "magic answers", and even if I did have some constructive suggestion it would be as irrelevant as I am . The response to this inevitable impending catastrophe must be even greater than governmental, it must be global. Governments are populous (especially democratic ones), and as such will not act in the long term interests of our species if it conflicts with the short term preferences of it's peoples.
All the short term inconveniences ( that would be inevitable by reducing the global population) would be met with considerable resistance.

It all seems a little like the current attitude towards obesity.: If you know a friend who's health is endangered because they are morbidly obeses you should not tell them that they need to stop eating as much and loose weight, as that would be considered "fat shaming" ..
 
I personally do not have any "magic answers", and even if I did have some constructive suggestion it would be as irrelevant as I am . The response to this inevitable impending catastrophe must be even greater than governmental, it must be global. Governments are populous (especially democratic ones), and as such will not act in the long term interests of our species if it conflicts with the short term preferences of it's peoples.
All the short term inconveniences ( that would be inevitable by reducing the global population) would be met with considerable resistance.

It all seems a little like the current attitude towards obesity.: If you know a friend who's health is endangered because they are morbidly obeses you should not tell them that they need to stop eating as much and loose weight, as that would be considered "fat shaming" ..
Climate alarmism is of no value to the environmental 'debate'. Not that there is a debate currently. Instead we have the doom laden proclaimations of computer models. Garbage in and garbage out. Example the Dr Mann 'hockey stick' graph beloved of the IPCC. Source data - withheld.

The reality is net zero policies will mean the banning of fossil fuel derived nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides which will result in half the worlds population not having enough food to eat. The consequences of which are difficult to comprehend but i am sure are of no concern to those pushing the 'green' agenda.
 
In the meantime it makes sense to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.

Of course and we a doing that as are other countries. The graph suggests that we are making good progress but it will never be enough for the climate zealots until the country is ruined so I'm not inclined to listen to them. Even if we did and the UK got to zero it would make bugger all difference (2nd graph).

United Kingdom: CO2 Country Profile

Co2.JPGworld co2.JPG
 
Last edited:
Net zero is absolute ball cocks.
We export our pollution.
We create waste to operate any pretend net zero equipment.
My planting a tree to offset my buying a new wardrobe 'aint going to hack it.

Any predictions of reducing global populations isn't real world, but it suits many that want to believe the prediction.
How could it ever be reliable w/o controls?

Any reducing population initiative needs to be global, needs to be to a 'predicted' sustainable level.
Tell China,
tell India,
tell any other population overloaded nation.
Even if they have the ability to manage such I don't see them listening.

Same applies to the nations that are pumping out waste on an ever increasing scale.
So China have stated they are going to reduce to some artificial level by some far off fictitious date. Meanwhile in our pretend attempts to reduce we ask them to produce masses of merchandise on the cheap, much of that being equipment that some one has said will save us all from our own destruction, plus cabling, plus gasses, plus steel, plus batteries, plus transportation of all said cr*p.
At some point in future it all becomes waste, aside from that which is recycled, using massive amounts of energy, and disposable labour.

Meanwhile because the naive believe this sh*t we shall cause increasing levels of inequality ranging from those getting rich to those that already can't afford life. The answer to that one must be increased socialism to support them, and here we don't like that.

Already there is competition for resources, this shall become increasingly hostile when such as the Chinese got there first.
So we have pretend reasons to take on adversaries. We and they, and their suppliers, create pollution creating, testing, demonstrating superior weapons. Then they use them, that can't be good for the planet, locally or globally.

Believe it or not I do see the future in a positive light.
As and when we destroy our selves, being as the planet wasn't really created just for humans it will be a better place w/o us. The planet will take a few minutes to recycle itself naturally and new species of life shall abound. Until the next superior species gets a hold again.

Now on this loverly Sunday morning what is all that noise pollution I can hear, bl**dy church bells.
 
...The response to this inevitable impending catastrophe must be even greater than governmental, it must be global. Governments are populous (especially democratic ones), and as such will not act in the long term interests of our species if it conflicts with the short term preferences of it's peoples..

I couldn't agree more. I am a Globalist. But sadly it has fallen out of fashion and Globalisation has become a swear word in recent years.
 
Trump even said in a recent speech that his goal should he get re-elected to get rid of the remaining Globalists in the administration....
 
Now there’s a thought.

Good luck with that... given that the policy of consecutive Governments in recent years has been to financially incentive unmarried women to have as many babies as possible from 'unknown' fathers, starting at an early age.
 
It turns out we are not having enough babies, and have not been for many years. A common problem in developed countries.

Immigration, anyone?
 
Do we need more people??

If there's going to be another Word War, than yes.... someone has to do the fighting, and we're not quite there yet with robo-soldiers.
 
What are you suggesting then? That we should start another Great War.....? Or introduce a 'one child' policy, like they used to have in China?
Obviously the last thing we should inflict on the planet is another global conflict.
We did plenty of ecological damage with our previous militeria.
If we were stupid enough to allow a WW3, it wouldn't just be the human population that would be effected, we would also render Earth uninhabitable to pretty much any life too, wouldn't we.?
As for the Chinese one child policy, they are probably the only government that is able (let alone willing) to take a global perspective. However even with that unique standpoint, they have chosen to abandon the strategy in preference for ecenomical convenience.
What chance do we have to address the problem if no governments are even acknowledging it, let alone discussing any potential strategies.??
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom