Tourism is one of London’s biggest earners. Hello planes, you’re welcome here 
Ad destroy the planet so that there’ll be nothing to see in fifty years’ time.
Classic short-term thinking.
1 Like
No they don’t. Climate change has been caused by 250 years of industrial development in the west. That places a historic burden on us.
It’s like holding a massive feast. You and your mates turn up an hour early and gorge yourselves to the point where the food is running out. Then the others turn up and you say ‘steady on - and the foods running out. We’d better share out what’s left’.
Countries want to develop, but it’s a stretch to say they want to burn coal. They are hell bent on development, not on exactly the same path we followed. Support them to follow a different path, and lead the way ourselves and there is no reason why they would have to follow a fossil fuel model like we did.
Ok. I’m sure the planet’s physical and chemical systems will fully understand we have a tourism industry to keep going and it will happily give us a bye.
Yes but it pays the bills today as those bills are due today. All cool then. Or very warm……
Yes. Some of us eat massively carbon intensive, meat based, highly processed diets that have a huge impact on the planet. And some of us don’t.
And two more fallacies to the population argument before I check out.
-
Population rates are slowing rapidly around the world. Most places have declining fertility and we are very unlikely to ever hit the 10bn mark that was once forecast for 2050.
-
Reducing the population does not address the cause of climate change. A smaller population is likely to mean that fewer people just end up consuming the same as the larger population anyway. Stabilise the global population at 4bn, forget about climate change and in fifty years we’ll be facing exactly the same problem. What then? 2bn?
1 Like
1bn living “our” lives would help. Let’s start there.
I have, 2 of us have 1 child (living) so there’s a halving straight away.
You’re right, today a few billion people living a very basic life in some foreign country make no difference to the planet (comparatively). But they will, in time.
I know, lets knock off the top 1-2%. That keeps @Klopptimist happy because the population has fallen and @Mascot will also be happy as they generate more carbon than anyone else. And with luck that would mean Trump, Boris and few others would be on that list. Win win!!
Seriously, it really needs serious political will to push this through, and I’ve not seen any evidence of it from anywhere. Every day that passes the target gets harder to achieve. As individuals you can do little bits but the big wins need to come from government. That isn’t happening. Lots of promises but it’s just a lot of CO2 in reality.
The average British person emits more carbon in two weeks than a person in any African nation does in an entire year.
As @Mascot has highlighted, birth rates are falling rapidly around the world. Any further population reduction would involve genocide. Some of the comments here are verging on sociopathic
1 Like
I wasn’t referring to you
Clever chap
Posted here as it kind of fits with the current debate
Already mentioned Godwin’s law, can I claim my £5 please?
Comes down ultimately to the fact that billions of people are consuming the planet. Yes we’re worse in the 1st world, can you hand me that wooden coffee stirrer for my disposable coffee cup please? My van’s DAB radio cuts out for a few seconds in tunnels, damn these first world problems. We have to actually DO something rather than talk about concepts and investing in new technology. We have the technology for energy but the sheer use of the planet’s resources can’t continue. For some reason, seeing the bigger picture makes me a sociopath.
You’re honest too 
Every post of yours is full of straw men arguments and stating the obvious. Pointless engaging
Yeah, why not 2bn? Why not one? In the great scheme of things we need a sufficient population to maintain the genetic diversity. Pretty sure anthropologists have the total human populace at a period not that long ago at 20,000 and we survived eating snails if I remember the Monkey Cage correctly.
Can we agree that ultimately everybody on this planet should have the same access to water, food, heat, light, warmth, health, communication etc? Can we equally agree that that must by definition have an environmental cost? QED if we can make everybody’s lives relatively equal from birth (as I’m sure you’ll agere we should) then we absolutely need less people? People living in poverty in country X absolutely do not want to live in poverty and I’d imagine that 90% of the population know how the other half live and quite rightly want the same. Keeping up with the Jonese’s will ultimately kill the planet quicker.
If you’ll point out why they’re straw men, I’ll explain why they’re not.
FIFY
1 Like
With respect your current solutions are:
a) I have none therefore ignore them
b) Kill off anywhere between 1 and 6 billion people.
To me neither is acceptable so, why not start simpler and turn the light off when you leave the room? Then perhaps look at a government that really takes this seriously and is willing to be brave and make bold decisions. We’re at the point where we need to take New Zealand style Covid type decisions i.e. strong and drastic that ultimately means a big shake up of the economy, and the way people live their lives. I’d rather start those changes now myself when they will be less drastic.
Another example of brave political decision. The US could ban any cars with engines over 2.5L. Only reason not too is commercial willy measuring contests and who has the biggest hat.
More:
a) All new houses to have solar panels on the roof.
b) All new developments to have means of disposing of surface water. If they cant then they provide attenuation systems.
c) Government grants for warmer homes and solar panels on roofs. Not current schemes where you lease your roof to a 3rd party.
d) Massive legislation on food packaging. Why do some items need 3 layers of packaging?
and so on. The ideas are easy. It seems that the will is difficult.
2 Likes
You’ve dismissed my comments as calling for a Hunter gatherer lifestyle. That’s not what anyone is calling for, and it’s even necessary. That’s a clear strawman.
1 Like
Sorry, posting between the PC and phone (which is always a bad thing) I amended a post as I saw your comment about . EDIT, sack it can copy paste now:
Living without breaching environmental limits does not equate to a subsistence lifestyle.
I agree but can we as a species (or more importantly will we) do this before mother earth goes Krakatoa on us?