Yes, true 
We didn’t though.
That was all very odd. It was basically the UK saying that as an independent sovereign Parliament it could enact whatever legislation it liked. Even if it breached an international treaty. That is true.
The EU responded by threatening sanctions solely on the basis that the UK had hypothesised this possibility, not even in response to the UK actually doing it.
All very childish and unnecessary.
Ever taken suitcases from Warrington to Heathrow on a train with a wife who considers you little more than a sherpa?
You can argue that no flights are justified but if you actually want to get somewhere with minimal fuss, I’m taking my shoes and belt off thanks.
Edit: Just saw your answer to Kopstar.
Prob a discussion for another thread but consider the indigenous population of the USA. If (big if) we are alone in the universe then we must preserve ourselves. We can’t do that by just living as hunter gatherers. The dinosaurs are no longer here because they had no way of detecting nor deflecting the meteor. In order to do this, we have no option but to damage the planet. Something the dinosaurs and so many civilisations didn’t do.
It’s maybe a little simplistic but you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
pardon? really? WTF? How about trying to live in harmony with the planet? Surely we’re smart enough to crack that egg? Point being, to achieve this we need to get over this idea of economy first.
Mate, think you’ve taken enough drugs for one day
I think you both missed the point. You can’t live in harmony with the planet and progress to where we are as a species. 7 billion people are not living on this rock with our current technological level without hurting the thing that sustains us. To consider otherwise is frankly to be oblivious to the obvious.
Can we fix it? Yes. Will we, not a fucking chance.
I’m currently more sober than I have been in months……
No shit
Some of us think we owe it to our children to at least try
We can do a whole lot better. We fixed the Ozone issue by taking action. This needs bigger action, action that demands that we seriously look at the way we live in many instances.
For example, why do we need to travel so extensively when our connectivity is now greater than its ever been. Making that change immediately reduces emissions by reducing journeys via car, rail or air.
Honestly your comments sound like United defense. We cant defend so we wont bother and then your surprised when you lose 5-0.
No argument there from me. I’ve mentioned Thanos before. There were words……
Half / quarter the world’s population in all countries by cultural, religious and financial manipulation. Simple to type, tricky to do. From my iPhone made in china, charged daily by something which hurts the planet.
Pontificating about what we can do to save the planet whilst sitting in buildings heated and lit by electricity typing on machines powered by electricity worrying about the source if that electricity is beyond ironic. Ring the planet in solar panels on the equator. Massive project but solves a key problem. But then on that scale, what would the effect on the actual planet be? Fitting millions of wind turbines might actually cause unforeseen wind pattern changes. Hydro is pretty cool if you don’t live at the bottom of the valley. Ultimately we are an infestation that consumes. That’s our nature.
I think the problem is Europeans, not humans.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t, sorry if you got that impression. I’m just seeing the reality of the fact that we don’t and won’t to any serious extent until big shit hits the fan.
As for travel, I’m only here the once and I love Mickey Mouse 
The planet does not care about your trials of travelling from London to Warrington.
You can argue all kinds of things are important, but ultimately you are shouting your points at an indifferent rock. There is no negotiation to had. No plea of time or clemency.
The common trade off of how much governments are prepared to harm the living (ie, those who can vote) in the hope that doing so will improve the lives of the not yet living.
That’s a strawman.
Living without breaching environmental limits does not equate to a subsistence lifestyle.
Enjoyed that, loads of stuff I never knew. Thanks
You can’t get to where we are now without damaging the planet. Pretty sure we did and we did.
Less people in all countries. Only realistic solution. Unless you know a solution to the fact that we consume electricity like locusts on a farm?
Absolute bullshit. Sorry, but this population thing needs knocking on the head. It doesn’t work, it isn’t fair and it’s actually (although I know it’s not your intention) really quite racist.
I’m sure we’ve done this argument here, so I can’t be bothered to write it out again, so here’s a bit of reading
https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2019/03/how-racist-myths-built-population-growth-bogey-man/
The problem isn’t population. It’s consumption. The problem is that some people on this planet have a climate impact ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred times that of other people. This inequality fuels climate change.
Framing the climate emergency as a problem of overpopulation is a way for people with phenomenal impacts on the planet to push the problem and their guilt onto people (usually brown people) who’s fault this absolutely isn’t, and who, perversely, will have to bear the worst impacts.
Consume less. Waste less. Use it less on things that aren’t important. Develop less wasteful technology. Invest in clean tech and renewables.
We have been here before and you would not answer the question: do more people eat more food?
That’s why I specifically said all countries. Then it’s fair. But then what’s unfair about telling people to have less kids?
As for racist, yeah, read it all last time and disagree now as I disagreed then. All countries have the same responsibility. Imagine a pre industrial revolution country that’s never been discovered (hypothetical obviously) just starting to really move forward by burning coal and discovering electricity. Should they be stopped? Should they have the same timescale that we had?
Ultimately less people consume less. Yes the 1st world consume more. Fair enough, 1 child for everybody in the first world, 2 in the second and 3 in the third.
Godwin’s law incoming.
Consume less? Less people.