# General > Politics >  Climate change strikes

## B0wer

Dear Climate Striking children

YES the Climate is in a mess

YES _some_ of that is mankind's fault

YES we the grown up's started too late

NO we did not steel your future

YOU are steeling your future

By going on STRIKE you miss out on classes, you FAIL to get the GRADES needed to get the JOBS that will finish the work of cleaning up the environment.

We may have been a little late but we have STARTED to repair the damage done. Any cure we start is and will be a LONG TERM project, one that YOU will finish. If all our scientifically minded kids fail to become scientists because they were too busy striking and being famous like dear Greta then when we are gone there will be no scientists to finish the work and then it will be YOUR FAULT.

BTW not every grown up you see is a horrible climate Nazi some of us campaigned against "the bomb" (atomic - you know the one whose tests filled the atmosphere with radiation) , WE campaigned against CFF's, WE started clean beach movements and anti litter campaigns. WE pressed for cleaner desil and petrol. WE are the reason there are filters on exhausts and in factory chimneys. WE are the reason western people don't dye of smog in cities (unlike china) WE are the reason that the ozone hole is shrinking (yes that is a good thing look it up - shrinking isn't always a bad word the ozone isn't meant to have a hole.)  WE are also the generation that invented mass renewable energy. 

So NO we are not stealing your future, WE are working DAM HARD to ensure we give you a future that is salvageable. 

YOU are stealing your own future. Go back to school. Get the grades you need to finish the job of saving the world.

 If you wanted to impress us you would strike during the holidays.

----------


## Goodfellers

Well said.

To add to the above, how about protesting outside the Chinese embassy as the Chinese don't believe in global warming or damage to the ozone layer  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48353341

----------


## aqua

I love Greta and all the striking kids, and I support them wholeheartedly. Go Greta go!

----------


## B0wer

I'm all for kids wanting to improve their environment. What annoys me is all this striking is counterproductive. If they wanted to help the world they could give up their Smartphones and foreign holidays (environmental rape and carbon footprint)

 I don't see any kids with placards along the lines of :
"save the gorillas ditch the smart phone" or "cleaner air = staycation"

----------


## aqua

Striking kids are helping to change hearts and minds.

----------


## Neil Howie

Climate change ...everyone yawns
Climate change.. AND THEY STRIKED ON A SCHOOL DAY?? - NOW YOU'VE GOT OUR ATTENTION!

----------


## orkneycadian

This stuff really is comedy gold;


The climate snowflakes turn up at the Treasury in an old smoky fire engine that doesn't meet the requirements of the London Ultra Low Emissions Zone, and probably don't even have to pay anything as on an enforcement camera, it looks like an emergency vehicle.  Then they belch black diesel smoke all over the place, and attempt to spray dye all over the building.  When it becomes apparent that they cant even join a bit of hose to a fitting properly, the fun really starts, and the fools can't even figure what to do to "save the situation" and turn the pump off.  Or shut the valve.  Instead, they go chasing after the end of the hose like magically they might be able to get it under control.

Pretty much sums up their views on "saving the planet" - Go chasing after the issue that appears to be causing the most damage, without any clue on how to close a valve and stem a flow.

----------


## Goodfellers

Human population growth is going to be the biggest threat to the planet   https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/

But here we have Extinction Rebellion activist 'Janina' wanting to have children. Why? Stop having kids and really save the planet.

----------


## orkneycadian

Some very useful words in there.....

"we not only need smaller footprints, but fewer feet."

"Portland, Oregon, for example, decreased its combined per-capita residential energy and car driving carbon footprint by 5 percent between 2000 and 2005. During this same period, however, its population _grew_ by 8 percent."

No wonder top naturalists such as Sir David Attenborough state_“All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder — and ultimately impossible — to solve with ever more people.”_

----------


## orkneycadian

Janina is probably oblivious to it all.  I bet she has at least 1 recent smartphone, and a data plan to keep it permenantly connected to the internet.  I bet she uses at least 3 social media accounts simultaneously, and has a large screen TV in her bedroom, streaming netflix on demand.  She probably travels long distances to go on marches and demonstrations, where she expects governments to wave some magic wand and make her carbon footprint disappear.  Even though her boots are large and covered in soot.

----------


## Alrock

Something should also be done about Bitcoin...

Bitcoin consumes more energy than Switzerland

----------


## orkneycadian

At a "mere" 0.5% of world energy demand, Bitcoin is bad enough, but completely eclipsed by the 10% of the worlds energy demand presently consumed by the internet and all things IT, predicted to rise to 20% by 2029. 

https://internethealthreport.org/201...ctricity-than/ 

Wonder how many of the "crusties" in London are taking personal action to reduce that?

----------


## orkneycadian

Seems that Gretas Atlantic Crusade is not quite turning out as she hoped.  Now begging for a lift back to Europe......

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ifts-to-madrid

----------


## aqua

Greta has her sail home at last. We’re on her route, let’s invite her for tea. I suggest your place rather than mine, that way you can refute the outrageous accusation that you’re an absentee landlord.

----------


## orkneycadian

Excellent news! Yes, come round to ours for tea. I'll nick down to the pier to pick her up in the smoky old Dexta with the transport box on the back. Then she can have a slap up dinner of Orkney roast beef as she'll be hungry after her sail.

----------


## aqua

Unfortunately, Gretas headed for Madrid on this trip, not Sweden. Shes going to a conference on climate change. Since everyone in Orkney has a boat, could you nip down and give her a ride back north after the conference finishes?

----------


## orkneycadian

I'm not sure the old Gardner in the boat would make it to Spain and back. It burns as much oil as it leaks, so between the oily sheen it leaves behind from the bilgewater, and the blue haze from the exhaust, I don't think young Greta would be impressed. 

Surely she could paddle her way here in some kind of craft that didn't require any trees to be felled, animals to be harmed or nasty chemicals to be brewed up to make fibreglass?

----------


## aqua

That’s a pity. I was looking forward to sampling your Orkney roast beef with Greta. 

A paddling it should be.

----------


## orkneycadian

She'll be fine - Apparantly she's a time traveller;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkfodRxyk7s

If she can do this, then getting from Spain to Caithness / Orkney / Sweden shuold be a doddle for her.

----------


## aqua

Yes, but evidently time travel requires huge amounts of energy, which she’s reluctant to use. It’s back to the paddleboard for now.

----------


## orkneycadian

Maybe she could get a lift in the above mentioned and pictured fire engine?  As it meets the emissions requirements of Extinction Rebellion, then surely it would fit the bill?  And they could use the "Blues and Two's" to re-inforce the level of "Climate Emergency".

----------


## aqua

Despite Gretas absence, since it was a bright sunny morning and I had nothing better to do at the end of my week in Edinburgh, I went along to Fridays climate strike gathering at Holyrood. The event was run by young activists who are clearly committed to the the cause, which is of course excellent. They have a lot to learn about engaging their audience, but they will learn as they go along. Although I didnt stay until the end, I learned a number of interesting things Ill expand on in a subsequent post.

----------


## aqua

The rally was I think organised by Scottish Youth Climate Strike (SYCS). They are apparently a sensible bunch with a radical but not crazy set of demands. There were also young people who are organising a Vigil for Climate Justice, whose leaflet reveals they’re a coalition of five or six groups in and around Edinburgh. They want Climate Justice Now, whatever that means. They have many slogans with no evident content. Then there were the crazies, the Green Anti-Capitalist Front. They want “System change, not climate change!”, which requires “overthrowing this corrupt and outdated system”. There were a few people standing under a Scottish Green Party banner, and as at every rally that’s ever been organised in this country, there were placards with platitudes from the Socialist Workers. 

Speaker after speaker insisted that we should change the education system and get behind the science, albeit without displaying any evidence that they knew what the science says, never mind understanding it. They were enthusiastic. And angry, and they shouted a lot. A lot of what they said was ok but there was no detailed plan. My overall conclusion was that tomorrow’s Scottish politicians will be pretty much the same as today’s Scottish politicians. Boy, do they need Greta!

----------


## orkneycadian

Completely clueless.....

Firstly, their webpage invites you to indulge in more CO2 production by subscribing to not 1 but 3 social media platforms - Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.  Have these snowflakes any idea how much energy these platforms consume?

And nowhere on their site to they make any mention of the Population Emergency that is infintly more significant than any perceived Climate Emergency, and one of the underlying causes of any perceived Climate Emergency.

I guess they never listened to Sir David Attenborogh when he said - 

_“All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder — and ultimately impossible — to solve with ever more people.”_

----------


## Alrock

> Completely clueless.....
> 
> Firstly, their webpage invites you to indulge in more CO2 production by subscribing to not 1 but 3 social media platforms - Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.  Have these snowflakes any idea how much energy these platforms consume?
> 
> And nowhere on their site to they make any mention of the Population Emergency that is infintly more significant than any perceived Climate Emergency, and one of the underlying causes of any perceived Climate Emergency.
> 
> I guess they never listened to Sir David Attenborogh when he said - 
> 
> _“All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder — and ultimately impossible — to solve with ever more people.”_



Don't panic... The Population Emergency may well be the main cause of the Climate Emergency, but, the Climate Emergency will fix the Population Emergency through a process of Famine, Extreme Weather & finally, just to finish the job off, War over Earths dwindling resources.

----------


## orkneycadian

Yeah, thought as much.  The earths CO2 levels were about 5000 - 7000 ppm about 500 million years ago.  So fretting about 410 ppm is hardly a big deal.  Looks like planet earth will be still here long after we have blown ourselves out.

If only the snowflakes could see that.  They could save themselves all that stress over the planet.  But I guess then they would get stressed out at the impending demise of humankind.

----------


## Fulmar

It would be strange not to worry about it in my view.
I am worried about the future for all the young people and other non human inhabitants posed by man made climate change even though I know that the planet will survive.

----------


## dozy

Many humans just don't get that the planet doesn't need us ,we need it . It's a hard thing to say ,but we're well passed the tipping point for many communities and not just those at sea level .

----------


## Fulmar

I fear you may be  right.

----------


## orkneycadian

> I am worried about the future for all the young people.


Yes, be worried for them.  But its not climate change that they need to look out for.

----------


## orkneycadian



----------


## orkneycadian

Jeezo.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-50659318

_And with just two days notice she had no choice but to fly to meet them._
_She was criticised for that decision as the whole mission was supposed to be carbon-neutral._
_"In an ideal world, yes, I would have sailed there and sailed back," she says._
_"But this is a more symbolic trip. Greta wanted to sail because it's a good way to send a message to the world that there is no real sustainable option to travel.

_And the sub link.....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Atlantic.html


*British yacht skipper, 26, wiped out the carbon emissions saved by Greta Thunberg's sail across the Atlantic by flying out to the US to help her*

----------


## aqua

> The rally was I think organised by Scottish Youth Climate Strike (SYCS). They are apparently a sensible bunch with a radical but not crazy set of demands. There were also young people who are organising a Vigil for Climate Justice, whose leaflet reveals they’re a coalition of five or six groups in and around Edinburgh. They want Climate Justice Now, whatever that means. They have many slogans with no evident content. Then there were the crazies, the Green Anti-Capitalist Front. They want “System change, not climate change!”, which requires “overthrowing this corrupt and outdated system”. There were a few people standing under a Scottish Green Party banner, and as at every rally that’s ever been organised in this country, there were placards with platitudes from the Socialist Workers. 
> 
> Speaker after speaker insisted that we should change the education system and get behind the science, albeit without displaying any evidence that they knew what the science says, never mind understanding it. They were enthusiastic. And angry, and they shouted a lot. A lot of what they said was ok but there was no detailed plan. My overall conclusion was that tomorrow’s Scottish politicians will be pretty much the same as today’s Scottish politicians. Boy, do they need Greta!


I was educated about Climate Justice at a different protest the following week. Climate Justice is all about supporting communities who suffer most from climate change, which seems fair enough. I was given a lecture about it in the street.

----------


## orkneycadian

Astounding that at COP25, there seems to have been no reported mention or debate on the underlying population emergency that is causing the perception of a climate emergency.

And yet again, pictures posted with wall to wall faces as far as the eye can see;

https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/t...as-the-planet/

without them managing to put 2 and 2 together.

Every day, the extra 225,000 people who arrive on this planet "demand" that governments do something about the "climate emergency".  By tomorrow, thats an extra 450,000 people demanding action, by the day after that, 675,000 extra people demanding action.  Can no-one see the problem here?  Each day, the world gains approximately the population of Aberdeen.  All breathing out their 1 kg of CO2 per day, all wanting food, water, heating (or cooling), energy for cooking, healthcare, lighting, transportation, consumer goods, the Internet, an income and a large family.

Never mind, by 2050 we'll have about 11 billion people on the planet, up from the just under 8 billion at the moment.  That extra 3 billion people will surely help persuade our collective governments to do something.  Won't they?

----------


## aqua

Limiting the population is a key factor in limiting climate change. I agree it should be emphasised more than it is.

----------


## orkneycadian

It is the most significant thing that could be done.  But the one that no-one wants to even think about.

----------


## Goodfellers

This is a really interesting video from the BBC.....https://www.facebook.com/BBCOne/vide...0449996973483/

If we could persuade everyone to voluntarily stop having babies, the world would be saved within a generation or two.....that's a 'proper' generation  :Smile:

----------


## orkneycadian

Oh dear, wee Greta will not be pleased.....





They have gone and named a machine to deal with ice, snow and cold climates in general after her.  According to her, there is no ice?

And for God's sake, don't tell her that it runs on diesel......

----------


## orkneycadian

It must give Greta a great deal of satisfaction knowing that a road vehicle named after her helps so many other road vehicles back onto the road, and able to drive around at full speed.

----------


## aqua

> It is the most significant thing that could be done.  But the one that no-one wants to even think about.


How would you do it?

----------


## Headwark

There is a brilliant article written about this subject in this weeks. John o Groat Journal,by John Campbell, Scarfskerry.

----------


## orkneycadian

> How would you do it?


Firstly, by education - Equal or greater prominence to be given to the population emergency as to the climate emergency, and underlining how the former is largely responsible for the latter.  OFCOM to ensure that any documentary broadcast in the UK about climate change always points out the underlying reason for it.

Secondly, by renaming any conferences or other gatherings on supposed Climate Change to somethkng like the Population and Climate Conference

Thirdly, any striking schoolkids to give an undertaking that they will not have any more than 1 child.  Having none would help bring the climate emergency under control.

Fourth(ly?).  Any person who has had more than 1 child to be banned from attending any sort of climate change protest, or even complaining about it.  They are the problem.  So thats Emma Thomson and the founders of Extinction Rebellion silenced then.  By their excessive procreation, they are adding to the planets problems.

That should go some way to sorting it.

----------


## Alrock

> How would you do it?



I'd get some scientists together to create a virus that will kill 50% of the population in a totally random manner for fairness.

----------


## aqua

The one child proposal is not sustainable. 

Does anyone have a sustainable suggestion?

----------


## Goodfellers

In previous generations we had world wars to cull the population....time for another one?

Sustainable enough?...I'm sure Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping would go for it.

To reduce world population properly, it needs to be a drastic measure. I can't see the problem with limiting children to one. Sterilize both male and female at the birth of first child...not exactly difficult. Why would anyone object when you want to bring your child into a better world that isn't going to fry them? Even better, have zero children and enjoy YOUR time on this Earth, not worrying about the future.

----------


## Fulmar

Do you have children Goodfellers?

----------


## orkneycadian

> The one child proposal is not sustainable. 
> 
> Does anyone have a sustainable suggestion?


1 child per couple is not sustainable indefinitely.  But its about the only measure that will create a reduction.  2 children per couple will create a very slow decline, with the rate of infant/child/young adult mortality then determining the rate of population reduction.

1 child per couple is sustainable if you change from it once the population is down to a sustainable level.

----------


## orkneycadian

> 


Is anyone aware of 1 single climate change protester, especially a school striker who has renounced any, let alone all of the above?

I suspect that all our school strikers are excitedly looking forward to getting the latest tech on Wednesday, made from plastic and rare earth elements in China, then shipped halfway round the world on a fuel oil burning container ship, or maybe even flown.  And then, I guess they will be at the Boxing day sales, stocking up on more consumer goods, before getting ready for strikes in the new school term, telling us oldies how we are so bad to the planet.   ::

----------


## Goodfellers

> Do you have children Goodfellers?


None of my own, but do have two step sons who I've encouraged not to have children. Working so far

----------


## aqua

Drastic reduction of CO2 emissions would be much quicker than reducing the population by restricting the size of families.

----------


## Goodfellers

Agreed, but no government seems willing to do this on any scale. Reading the reports from the climate change conference, just about every country argued for an exemption as they needed to produce co2 to boost their economy and each country only produced a small % of the global co2. There are 195 countries on this planet, so you can see why they all claim to only produce a small %, but when they all think the same, nothing will change.

If the entire world looked at reducing population somehow, then demand for everything falls off.....it sounds so simple. Big business would use their influence to stop it somehow, as we all know this world runs on money and power, less consumers, less money.

Did anyone see 'The day the Earth stood still' last night?......Quite relevant at the moment. We need Keanu Reeves to save us!

----------


## orkneycadian

> Drastic reduction of CO2 emissions would be much quicker than reducing the population by restricting the size of families.


But don't forget, those extra 225,000 people on earth every day, exhale 1 kg of CO2 each, daily.  So every day, and extra 225 tonnes of CO2 is hitting the atmosphere, caused my nothing more than breathing.  

So say you take 1st January 2019 as your datum, on the 1st of January, an extra 225 tonnes is in the atmosphere, on the 2nd of January, an extra 450 tonnes goes up there.  By the 31st of December, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, solely from respiration of all the new people on the planet is 82,125 tonnes.  Add all that lot up, and the total extra CO2 arising from respiration alone in 2019 is just over 15 million tonnes.

And just for some perspective, the 8 billion people in total on the planet exhale 8 million tonnes of CO2 per day = almost 3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year.

And that's before any of them do anything other than exhaling.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Is anyone aware of 1 single climate change protester, especially a school striker who has renounced any, let alone all of the above?


No?  Me neither.  Not heard of 1 single youngster / school striker who has come forward and said they have renounced consumerism over Christmas.  Maybe they are saving it for a new years resolution?  Trouble is, that's a bit late for all the tech deliveries they have just taken.

Nope, I expect they are all still lying in their pits at 0820 on a Monday morning, burnt out from being up till 0300 last night, burning energy playing with their tech, whilst connected to the Internet.  They can sleep easy today, knowing that their contributions last night are helping push the Internets energy demand up from 10% of world energy consumption now to 20% in 2025.  Awww, the little darlings!

Aside from that, anyone hear the boffins (buffoons) on Radio Scotland this morning about quarter past 7 wittering on about how all the changes pledged at the Paris Climate Summit in 2015 don't seem to be working?  Not once did they mention population, either retrospectively ("We should have addressed population back in 2015") or in the present / future.  Instead, they express dismay that temperatures continue to rise, despite all these summits.  Don't worry boffins, since the Paris summit in 2015, you have an extra 600 million people on the planet who can share your concerns.  Hmmm, hang on a minute.......  I think I can see the problem.....

----------


## Fulmar

From the reading that I have done, it seems that the considered opinion is that global population control is one very important factor but won't solve the climate crisis on it's own or even be the main factor. Also, that global fertility rates are in fact falling and globally the rate has slowed. Also, that it is where the children are born that counts and each child in a developed country is responsible for far more emissions contributing to climate change. Also, that it is people living longer than they did previously (particularly in developed countries) that is a problem- emitting CO2 for much longer than in former times.
Happy New Year one and all.

----------


## orkneycadian

> From the reading that I have done, it seems that the considered opinion is that global population control is one very important factor but won't solve the climate crisis on it's own or even be the main factor.


I would beg to differ.  Herewith the words of Sir David Attenborough;

_“All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder — and ultimately impossible — to solve with ever more people.”_
 – Sir David Attenborough, Population Matters patron

From his words, too many people and you cannot solve the environmental problems.

----------


## aqua

David Attenborough’s claim isn’t in conflict with fulmar’s summary!

----------


## aqua

> From the reading that I have done, it seems that the considered opinion is that global population control is one very important factor but won't solve the climate crisis on it's own or even be the main factor. Also, that global fertility rates are in fact falling and globally the rate has slowed. Also, that it is where the children are born that counts and each child in a developed country is responsible for far more emissions contributing to climate change. Also, that it is people living longer than they did previously (particularly in developed countries) that is a problem- emitting CO2 for much longer than in former times.
> Happy New Year one and all.


Thats pretty much the situation as I understand it. Ive started trying to write a similar summary several times, but I didnt have the patience to reply to the inevitable one-dimensional backlash.

----------


## Fulmar

Much as I revere and love Sir David Attenborough (and I certainly do), well when I consider his carbon footprint over his 90 odd years, then I think that maybe he should also consider his own personal contribution to the problem. He has continued to (presumably) fly to all quarters of the globe to make the programmes, continuing to do so even when he has known of the impact on the climate of such actions. He has 2 children (as do I) and I do not know how many grandchildren or great grandchildren. So what are we saying then? That it's alright for people like him or me to have had kids but not now for other young adults. Same goes for Prince William with whom Sir D is closely involved although I admire the setting up of the prizes to reward those who come up with innovative ways of tackling climate change.

----------


## Goodfellers

Here is a link to an interesting unbiased assesment of the Chinese 'one child' policy https://www.centreforpublicimpact.or...hoC_L8QAvD_BwE

Before anyone says it 'NO' I am not suggesting adopting Chinese policy. The report shows the pros and cons of limiting child birth rates.

The basic idea is sound. Reward couples who only have one child and apply disincentives to having two or more. That could be for future policy makers to decide.

A reduced population would quickly solve any shortage of homes.  Developed countries could encourage immigration from third world countries. I would love to see an 'empty' Africa left to return to nature (maybe several centuries on from now) where the population have voluntarily moved to Europe (that would stop migrants risking their lives in inflatables crossing the Med)

I would like to believe that with the mounting evidence for humans slowly destroying this planet, that people would start to consider how much impact they personally have on Earth. If children could be taught about their individual impact, then they themselves may consider how many children they would want.

If you could persuade the public to have less children along with all the other methods of reducing our carbon footprint, the world might survive. But if people continue as they are I'm afraid this planet is doomed, maybe not for a few hundred years, but doomed none the less. Why would you want children with that prospect? Unless of course, you think, 'everyone else can have less children and I'll change nothing'. This seems to be the policy of governments around the world, 'everyone else has to change their ways, but not us'.

Just something to think about.

We can't change what's been, but we can change what's to come.

----------


## Fulmar

I agree and also think that change has to come and start with each person individually and personal responsibility. I accept that means me (have to say, have been trying to do the right thing in small ways for very many years) and the challenge is how to implement further changes in my life, possibly sacrificially, for the greater good.

----------


## Shabbychic

Another big cause of the problem, is the animals raised for human consumption. The normal wee family farms are small fry, and in many cases are being put out of business, but the growing Industrial farming trend is a big, big contributor to climate change, as well as appalling animal cruelty. This industry needs lots of land for the animals to live on, and even more to grow food for them, which results in all the forest clearing and burning, water pollution and biodiversity loss.  The crop production itself results in excess nitrous oxide being released from the soil into the atmosphere, from the use of fertilisers and manures. The extra transport required for both the food and the animals notches things up even further. Then there is the vast emissions from the animals themselves.


This all adds up to a really big problem in relation to climate change. I don't suggest that everyone should go vegan overnight, but we really need to look at what we eat, and how we view food,

----------


## orkneycadian

> Much as I revere and love Sir David Attenborough (and I certainly do), well when I consider his carbon footprint over his 90 odd years, then I think that maybe he should also consider his own personal contribution to the problem. He has continued to (presumably) fly to all quarters of the globe to make the programmes, continuing to do so even when he has known of the impact on the climate of such actions. He has 2 children (as do I) and I do not know how many grandchildren or great grandchildren. So what are we saying then? That it's alright for people like him or me to have had kids but not now for other young adults. Same goes for Prince William with whom Sir D is closely involved although I admire the setting up of the prizes to reward those who come up with innovative ways of tackling climate change.


Feel free to read some of the statements from other patrons then;

https://populationmatters.org/our-patrons

As far as Mr Attenboroughs children - They were born in the 1960's or earlier (can only find a report that says they were in their 50's in 2017).  So their births predate both the Limits to Growth report of 1972, and the first coalescing of thoughts on climate change in 1988.  He had his children before these issues became apparent.

----------


## orkneycadian

> A reduced population would quickly solve any shortage of homes.


With the daily increase in the worlds population of 225,000, then you need to think of all the homes in Aberdeen being required *each day* just to house all the new the new arrivals.  Thats either an awful lot of concrete, bricks, mortar, mud or whatever.  By having a few folk in the developed world take their paper to the recycling centre, or swapping to LED light bulbs, is never going to counter the effects of building a new Aberdeen every day.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Another big cause of the problem, is the animals raised for human consumption. The normal wee family farms are small fry, and in many cases are being put out of business, but the growing Industrial farming trend is a big, big contributor to climate change, as well as appalling animal cruelty. This industry needs lots of land for the animals to live on, and even more to grow food for them, which results in all the forest clearing and burning, water pollution and biodiversity loss.  The crop production itself results in excess nitrous oxide being released from the soil into the atmosphere, from the use of fertilisers and manures. The extra transport required for both the food and the animals notches things up even further. Then there is the vast emissions from the animals themselves.
> 
> 
> This all adds up to a really big problem in relation to climate change. I don't suggest that everyone should go vegan overnight, but we really need to look at what we eat, and how we view food,


If only that were true.  Global cattle population has remained steady at about 1 billion since 2012;

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...on-since-1990/

In the same period, the number of humans on the planet have increased by over half a billion.

----------


## Shabbychic

> If only that were true.  Global cattle population has remained steady at about 1 billion since 2012;
> 
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/...on-since-1990/
> 
> In the same period, the number of humans on the planet have increased by over half a billion.


Actually it is true. I didn't mention an increase in animals per head, I didn't look into those figures. The issue is about the misuse of land, the increase in industrial farming and it's contribution to atmospheric pollution and climate change.


You raise one question though, if farming animal production has remained steady, why the increasing need for all these new horrendous facilities, especially as they obviously can't be feeding all these extra people? Is it something to do with making more money?


Either way, it is a big issue in climate change. Or is this an area that some people don't want to acknowledge because they like eating meat too much? Folks can't really pick and choose climate issues on whether they fit into their lifestyle choices. They either exist or they don't.

----------


## Alrock

If we are going to fail in cutting the human population then maybe the next best thing is to stop obsessing over saving wild animals & start culling them. They also produce greenhouse gasses & consume CO2 absorbing plants (I wonder how many antelope would be needed to be culled to offset 1 human?).

----------


## orkneycadian

> Actually it is true. I didn't mention an increase in animals per head, I didn't look into those figures. The issue is about the misuse of land, the increase in industrial farming and it's contribution to atmospheric pollution and climate change.
> 
> 
> You raise one question though, if farming animal production has remained steady, why the increasing need for all these new horrendous facilities, especially as they obviously can't be feeding all these extra people? Is it something to do with making more money?
> 
> 
> Either way, it is a big issue in climate change. Or is this an area that some people don't want to acknowledge because they like eating meat too much? Folks can't really pick and choose climate issues on whether they fit into their lifestyle choices. They either exist or they don't.


That's true, you didn't mention an increase in cattle.  So if the increased population aren't eating beef, then what are they eating?  Looks like non meat products may be partly involved;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...ion_statistics

Taking the last 7 years production (2010 to 2017) in the above link to try and have parity with the cattle statistics, world wheat production has risen from 640 to 770 million tonnes.  An increase of 20%.  In the same period, the worlds population increased by 8.5% (source = https://www.worldometers.info/world-...ation-by-year/)  So, the population has risen by 8.5%, and the wheat production has risen by 20%.  Wheres the rest of the wheat gone you ask?  According to Shabbychic, to more industrial methods of meat production.  You can't make a cow eat more grass to get it to market quicker, but you can bring it on faster by feeding it cereals.  So, stands to reason, the extra wheat has gone to make the static population of cattle ready for the plate faster.  Doesn't it?

Alas no.  The worlds beef production has been about as static as the head of cattle population over 7 years.



(source = https://beef2live.com/story-world-be...-year-0-106778)

With 59.25 million tonnes of beef produced in 2010 and 61.5 million tonnes produced in 2017, a rise of just 3.8%

So all this "the world is being ravaged to farm food for the carnivores" is mostly nonsense.  Its all the wheat being grown for the vegetarians, vegans and additional population that's claiming all the land!

----------


## Fulmar

_As far as Mr Attenboroughs children - They were born in the 1960's or earlier (can only find a report that says they were in their 50's in 2017). So their births predate both the Limits to Growth report of 1972, and the first coalescing of thoughts on climate change in 1988. He had his children before these issues became apparent.

_​You have missed my point but never mind.

----------


## Goodfellers

This is where there has to be a much larger masterplan.

We all (well mostly all) want cheap nutritious food. We currently get it.

Switch to less intensive production....cost goes up. Poorer members of society will then struggle.

This is where less population would be beneficial. Less people, less food consumed, less resources (land) used up.

I know it's not a popular suggestion (I've made it before) All governments should announce that in 20 years time(?) ALL benifits relating to childbirth will cease. This may help people consider whether to have children or not. We need to come up with ways to discourage childbirth (along with any other ideas to reduce emissions that harm the planet).

----------


## orkneycadian

Great plan Goodfellers.  But to turn this thread right back to the beginning, and keeping it on topic to keep Shabbychic happy.....

Your plan means that people need to make significant changes.  Not token gestures.  The original poster posted about striking schoolkids.  But yet, we have not been able to find any evidence of any striking school child that has undertaken any of the measures I posted in a picture further up the thread.  In fact, I suspect that our striking schoolkids are still wallowing in all the new tech they got at Christmas.

So they are not willing to change.  They are willing to make some noise, and take some days of school.  But when it comes down to the nitty gritty, they are just as bad as everyone else.  All talk, and no action.

Then there are those on here that abhor any kind of population control.  Those that think that be recycling tin cans or elastic bands or whatever that that's their bit done.  And that somehow, that will magically counter act the effects of all the new people on the plant.

Nope Goodfellers, you were right a few posts ago.  But its not the planet that will die off due to all our people.  It will be ourselves.  If there are any of us left in a few hundred years, they will look back to the Limits to Growth chart in another thread and wonder how on earth (pun intended), that we saw the issue coming back in 1972, but did absolutely diddly squat about it.  Instead, we just let all the graphs play out, as so accurately predicted almost 50 years ago.

----------


## Shabbychic

> That's true, you didn't mention an increase in cattle.  So if the increased population aren't eating beef, then what are they eating?  Looks like non meat products may be partly involved;
> 
> With 59.25 million tonnes of beef produced in 2010 and 61.5 million tonnes produced in 2017, a rise of just 3.8%
> 
> So all this "the world is being ravaged to farm food for the carnivores" is mostly nonsense.  Its all the wheat being grown for the vegetarians, vegans and additional population that's claiming all the land!



Oh dear, google's getting laldy today eh? No matter how much you google away to try to prove me wrong, as usual, factory farming is a large contributor to climate change, whether you like it or not.. If you want to prove vegans are actually to blame, then discuss that. I totally agree with you that all foodstuff grown is partly involved, but I don't believe your average vegan is pumping out anything up to 120 kg of methane each year though, no matter how many beans they eat. Did you know that the largest percentage of soy grown is fed to animals?


It was just pointed out to me that you have mentioned me personally in 2 comments in a row.....Aw Shucks......Mwah.


Anyway, I thinks it's time for me to go and stuff my face wie some wheat.

----------


## orkneycadian

OK, but the point you raised was all the land clearing and such for additional production;

_"even more to grow food for them, which results in all the forest clearing and burning, water pollution and biodiversity loss"

_The stats show that head of cattle population is largely stable, and beef production is only marginally up.  But wheat production is up by 20%.  So no-one would appear to be clearing forests for beef production, either directly (letting cattle graze on the land) or indirectly (growing cereal on the land to feed to cattle).  Well, no more than a few percent anyway.  So the *increase* in land clearing seems to be more closely tied to the *increase*in  wheat production, and in parallel, we have an *increase* in world population.

I would welcome your counter argument and explanation as to how not increasing the number of head of cattle, and not increasing beef production by more than 4% over 7 years is the cause of all this forest clearing and burning.  I would also welcome your suggestions as to where all that extra 20% of wheat is grown?

----------


## Goodfellers

My hope is that in a few hundred years, someone looks back on these boards and thinks 'wow' at least two people understood the importance of reducing the population, shame no one acted on it as I'm one of the last humans left. 

Happy New Year.

----------


## Shabbychic

> OK, but the point you raised was all the land clearing and such for additional production;
> 
> _"even more to grow food for them, which results in all the forest clearing and burning, water pollution and biodiversity loss"
> 
> _The stats show that head of cattle population is largely stable, and beef production is only marginally up.  But wheat production is up by 20%.  So no-one would appear to be clearing forests for beef production, either directly (letting cattle graze on the land) or indirectly (growing cereal on the land to feed to cattle).  Well, no more than a few percent anyway.  So the *increase* in land clearing seems to be more closely tied to the *increase*in  wheat production, and in parallel, we have an *increase* in world population.
> 
> I would welcome your counter argument and explanation as to how not increasing the number of head of cattle, and not increasing beef production by more than 4% over 7 years is the cause of all this forest clearing and burning.  I would also welcome your suggestions as to where all that extra 20% of wheat is grown?


I'll be the first to admit I am no expert on the intricacies of factory farming, deforestation and land clearances in general, so I really don't have all the answers. I'm only going on the things I have read from various sources. We must be careful with where this information comes from though. If we look at a site promoting the meat industry for example, things will be twisted in their favour. The same is true for the tobacco industry, vegetarian sites, and alcohol promotion, to name but a few. They often pay for research to be done, where the results always favour their views. We really must look beyond that, which can be difficult at times, and always keep in mind the words of the well know saying, "There are 3 kinds of lies....lies, damn lies and statistics."


With regards to the animals raised in these facilities, they are not all cattle though, are they? They also consist of pigs, sheep, goats, and all types of poultry and fish, and probably more, which all need fed. I don't know what the figures are for these animals but as I stated earlier, if there is no increase in their populations, why the need for these industrial farming methods? I think there is nothing nicer than seeing the local farms with the animals, mothers and babies, free to roam in large green fields. I don't like what happens to them afterwards, but at least they have some sort of life, instead of being crammed into large concrete buildings from the day they are born, with no room to move, and never even seeing daylight. (sorry, I'm off on a tangent here)


With regards to all the land clearances, it appears to be mainly to create extra spaces for crop growing. Now I know veganism is on the rise, (although it is mainly vegetarianism really, but it is trendy to call it veganism) but I really don't believe all this is being done for extra veggie burgers.


So, no, I don't have all the answers, i just know it is all adding to a vast carbon footprint and must be taken into the equation when defining global warming.

----------


## Shabbychic

> My hope is that in a few hundred years, someone looks back on these boards and thinks 'wow' at least two people understood the importance of reducing the population, shame no one acted on it as I'm one of the last humans left. 
> 
> Happy New Year.


Happy New Year to you too.


I think a lot of people on here, and elsewhere, agree with you that the world population is out of control. There is no disputing that, but I don't think we, on here, can actually change this. We can come up with solutions till we are blue in the face, but in the end it is world governments who must act in resolving this problem.


Personally, I believe that free education, free family planning and assistance in obtaining some form of income, will be a great step forward. I really believe in human rights and hate anything that is compulsorily forced on people. When I say education, I don't just mean sex education, but education in general, including what is happening to the planet and the consequences of our actions. (which would help in future employment prospects, and in improving their lives) Many people throughout the world who are poor, and live in squalid conditions, are not as stupid as some believe, they just don't have access to proper information, and sadly must just concentrate on surviving another day.


I think another reason, as others have already mentioned, that the population size is so large, is due to people living longer. So restricting new births could end up with an increased, aging population and less new blood to carry on. Don't know what the answer is there.


Some religious people should also consider this problem as well, like Jacob Reece-Mogg for example. I think at the last count he is up to *6* children now. In the words of Oor Wullie, "Jings, crivens and help ma boab"

----------


## Fulmar

*My hope is that in a few hundred years, someone looks back on these boards and thinks 'wow' at least two people understood the importance of reducing the population, shame no one acted on it as I'm one of the last humans left
*Hate to say it, but a tad arrogant! Also, we don't actually know what will happen in the future as none of us has a crystal ball nor do we, on here, have the solutions to this incredibly complex issue. Reducing population is one of them but it's by no means the only one. It could also be argued that maybe the unproductive oldies should do the decent thing and volunteer to take a happy pill. Or maybe governments should withdraw all support and healthcare from the old rather than the young. You going to sign up for that- no, thought not! And yes, I am joking. Climate change is already wiping thousands of the poorest people out through starvation and the weakest (the children) are dying first. Personally I find that hateful, wrong and unacceptable and will continue to do all I can to prevent it through charitable giving.

----------


## Goodfellers

Terrible situation down in Australia..........

Does this sound familiar?
But opposition Labor leader Anthony Albanese said the government was not doing enough."Here's the contradiction in the government's position - they say, 'Oh, well, we're just 1.3% of [global] emissions, therefore we don't have a responsibility to act, it won't really make a difference'," he said."But the truth is that, if everyone says that, of course, no-one will act."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-50973232

----------


## orkneycadian

> Climate change is already wiping thousands of the poorest people out through starvation and the weakest (the children) are dying first.


Yup, all as predicted back in 1972 in Limits to Growth. From the 1972 prediction, the death rate will have started to rise. Lets have a closer look at that.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_rate

So according to the UN, the world death (mortality) rate is expected to bottom out and start going up again. Just like the Limits to Growth prediction. But I think the UN perhaps underestimate the rate of rise.  From the same Wikipedia page;

_"Crude death rate – the total number of deaths per year per 1,000 people. As of 2017 the crude death rate for the whole world is 8.33 per 1,000 (up from 7.8 per 1,000 in 2016) according to the current CIA World Factbook."_

So the death rate is already higher in 2017 than was predicted by the UN for the 2020-2025 period. In fact, the 2017 death rate is (very marginally) higher than the UN predicted 2025-2030 rate. So it will be interesting to see how that pans out over the next few years. 

So what else did Limits to Growth say about 2020, and how accurate has it been?

Well,
Services per capita. Will have peaked and on the way downwards again. How often do the bins now get collected in Caithness? How are your hospital services going over there? Would you say that there has been a cutback in public services?

Birth rate. Will have been declining globally to date. Yup, think that's correct

Population. Rising quickly. Yup

food per capita. Will be rapidly declining. Not sure that is totally accurate, though some would cite the proliferation of foodbanks as evidence to the contrary. May be skewed by all the land clearing for wheat production keeping up with demand, though Shabbychic doesn't like it.

Resources - Dwindling fast - Check.

Industrial Output per capita - Right, I have screwed my mind looking for data on this. With so many ways for it to be presented, its hard to interpret. But I think in general, aside from a few downward blips, "GDP per Capita percentage change" on a worldwide basis is running at about +2%. So that bucks the Limits to Growth trend, though Limits to Growth only predicted the peak, and subsequent fall to be around about 2010.

Death rate. Will have been falling till a year or 2 ago, but now on the turn and going up again. - Yup

Pollution - Increasing exponentially. Yup, and the whole basis of this thread.


So, on the whole, Limits to Growth is fairly accurate. Not bad for a computer simulation carried out nearly 50 years ago. So accurate has it been, that in the wiki page for Limits to Growth, it says;

_In 2008, Graham Turner of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) found that the observed historical data from 1970 to 2000 closely match the simulated results of the "standard run" limits of growth model for almost all the outputs reported. "The comparison is well within uncertainty bounds of nearly all the data in terms of both magnitude and the trends over time." Turner also examined a number of reports, particularly by economists, which over the years have purported to discredit the limits-to-growth model. Turner says these reports are flawed, and reflect misunderstandings about the model. Turner reprised and expanded these observations in a 2014 opinion piece in collaboration with The Guardian.

_
So on the whole, we are behaving exactly as the sheeple that Limits to Growth predicted. And to come back to Fulmars point, the predicted increase in pollution is causing the predicted increased death rate, which at this point, is unfortunately affecting mostly the poorest people. The predicted reduction is services per capita is already happening, and that is making more people poorer, and I expect that's what will kick off the predicted peak and subsequent fall in Industrial Production per Capita - Just a few years later than the prediction suggests.

----------


## Goodfellers

Encouraging front page of the Times today

----------


## pig whisperer

Maybe someone should have a word with the pope, if he changed his mind on birth control it might help,

----------


## orkneycadian

> food per capita. Will be rapidly declining. Not sure that is totally accurate, though some would cite the proliferation of foodbanks as evidence to the contrary. May be skewed by all the land clearing for wheat production keeping up with demand, though Shabbychic doesn't like it.


Maybe I was a bit previous in assuming that the food per capita was not declining;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-...rink-of-famine

*Climate change has brought parts of Zambia to the brink of famine*

----------


## orkneycadian

Mighty, the LTG report is proving highly accurate, with another premonition in the process of coming true.  Industrial Output Per Capita about to peak and turn downwards, just as predicted.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50985407

*Saturday jobs dying as teen employment halves, Resolution Foundation says*Looks like the little darlings are way too busy using energy on their tech devices to actually go out and do something useful.

----------


## orkneycadian

Here are some interetsing stats for ya....



Sorry, the full table is too big to get a screenshot off and still be readable - So it is here - https://www.worldometers.info/co2-em...sions-by-year/

So this is the emissions on fossil CO2, i.e. whats been burnt.  In 1971 3.75 billion of us emitted 15.7 billion tonnes of CO2 from fossil sources.  4.15 tonnes per year per person.  In 2016, 7.5 billion of us emitted 35.75 billion tonnes of Co2 from fossil sources.  4.79 tonnes per person.

In 45 years, we are emitting 15 percent more CO2 per person.  So much for trying to reduce it.  But that is totally eclipsed by the doubling in people emitting that CO2. 

Arithmetically, what's got the biggest effect? - The 15% rise per person or the 100% rise in persons?

Little wonder Sir David Attenborough says we are fighting a losing battle.

----------


## Goodfellers

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/201...5EXRg0uD.email

----------


## orkneycadian

That'll keep her reading for a minute or ten.....

The Prof of Philosophy writes a lot of wise words.  I suppose that's what you do when you are a Professor....

But I guess most of them will be wasted on her, and she'll simply change her Twit profile to say she is an " unemployable-skipping- school-on-Friday obstreperous child"

----------


## orkneycadian

Loving all the hypocrisy in the below news report about the climate snowflakes blockading the Shell offices in Aberdeen;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...tland-51132110

Where do you start? Bright orange suits to keep out the cold. Made with man made fibres, made from oil. 

Camping chairs. Man made material forming the seat and back,  made from oil.  Plastic coated steel frames. Plastic made from oil. 

The blue plastic carrier bag. Made from oil. 

The snowflakes are doing a wonderful job of advertising products made from oil. 

You couldn't make it up

----------


## Goodfellers

I bet that boat is amde of fibreglass too.

I contacted XR scotland on Monday as MFR said XR were lobbying Holyrood to get all future duelling of the A9 stopped. I asked them to have a word and see why the Scottish government are happy to promote a pure driving holiday (NC500) yet claim to be an environmentally friendly government. No problem with tourism, but get people to come here and visit properly, not just see how fast they can get round the route. XR's response...not interested, contact my msp!

----------


## Fulmar

Yes, I have thought this too. If we are serious about climate change then surely things lie the NC500, mainly, it seems, driven by people in camper vans, needs to become a thing of the past.

----------


## orkneycadian

The Aberdeen branch of the Snowflake Rebellion just keep giving more and more.  I see on the link I posted above, a video has been added.  Right, lets see.....

00:01 - To keep our climate activists going, we seem to have, on top of the oil drum a stove top kettle (the kind you put on a gas stove, probably a portable camping one) and milk in a plastic bottle.  Shame on the person who brought the plastic / metal insulated mug.  Another activist in the background wearing a man made fabric orange jacket whilst sitting on a camping seat of man made fabric.  All produced from oil (except the gas to boil the kettle.....)

00:10 - Thats a gey plasticky looking flower in her hair.

00:19 - And to go with the coffee, they have brought some plastic wrapped digestive biscuits.  Baked in Middlesex, wrapped in plastic and probably road hauled using diesel to Aberdeen.  And that orange vest definitely looks like its made of man made fabric.

00:20 - Man made fabrics galore....  And definitely a lot of fibreglass in that boat.

00:26 - A plastic bag as a "sleeping bag" - Seriously?

00:30 - Deary me - More nylon and plastic camping chairs, a white plastic carrier bag beside the camping chair, plastic welly boots, a cushion / mattress made of polyisocyanurate foam (Kingspan to you and me.....) and a number of nylon backpacks

00:33 - An activist walks into shot wearing a man made fabric high viz jacket, carrying a plastic carrier bag

To finish - Do all that red costumes look like they are made of cotton?

They really don't have a clue do they?

----------


## orkneycadian

And the next cracker.....

You would expect that the Climate Snowflakes, when protesting outside Shell's offices would be using very sustainable transport - Perhaps an electric vehicle.  But they had to get that boat and its trailer there.  The number plate on the boat trailer is HY68 AZB;




 A quick check of the numerous online look up sites shows this to be a Ford Ranger 4 x 4 turbodiesel.  They were obviously keen to get that well out of the way before the cameras arrived.  Now, where do they think the diesel for their guzzly 4 x 4 comes from?

----------


## Goodfellers

I think XR have been called out before over things like this and the answer is "It's for the greater good, so is acceptable".   Basically the same argument every government around the world is making as to why they have to keep polluting.

I hope it doesn't turn out one day that the two founders, Roger and Gail, are making money from all the donations, bit like Arthur Scargill did from the donations to striking miners.

----------


## orkneycadian

And this picture summarises it well too;

Big plasticised canvas banner up the side of the boat, blue nylon climbing rope holding the boat down, plastic tarp across the knees of the activist who also has a plastic container in the cupholder in the arm of his plastic chair.  Maybe they need to tell the truth about their heavy reliance on plastics and diesel?

----------


## orkneycadian

If I could be bothered at this time of night, this picture needs a "Why the [devil] are we doing this?" caption.  Or perhaps, "Can anyone remember where we parked the Ford Ranger?"

----------


## Fulmar

It's a good bit of street theatre but essentially pointless except no doubt it makes them feel good. I am far more interested in those who are quietly doing things to make a difference and would have more respect for them if they, say, for example joined a beach clean to pick up rubbish and plastic. As Sir David says, not only are we heating the oceans but polluting them putting even more strain on animals and ecosystems and this is something (picking up rubbish in the environment) that everyone can do.

----------


## orkneycadian

> I think XR have been called out before over things like this and the answer is "It's for the greater good, so is acceptable".


Ah, so like having F list "celebrities" jet over,  First Class,  from the far side of the USA to join in a protest about the plebs flying cattle class to Ibiza?

----------


## Goodfellers

> Ah, so like having F list "celebrities" jet over,  First Class,  from the far side of the USA to join in a protest about the plebs flying cattle class to Ibiza?


Sounds about right. Only 'normal' people have to change their ways, the rich can carry on developing space tourism, but we have to stay at home!

----------


## orkneycadian

> Or perhaps, "Can anyone remember where we parked the Ford Ranger?"


Apparantly, they found it.....  https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/new...test-aberdeen/

MORE FUEL YOU *Extinction Rebellion activists branded ‘hypocrites’ for turning up to climate protest in gas-guzzling motors*

----------


## orkneycadian

I see wee Greta still tweeting furiously.  How is she managing to do that, whilst ensuring that she is not contributing to the 10% of the world energy demand consumed by the internet?

----------


## Goodfellers

Did anyone watch Horizon this week with Chris Packham talking about world population. Really interesting.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000dl6q

In India, during the 70's there was a huge enforced sterilization programme, even being caught on public transport without a ticket resulted in sterilization. Had a big impact on the birth rate for a while, but the government abandoned the programme. 

The main point from the programme seemed to be to give girls across the globe access to education and they don't want babies, they want a career.

As for Greta and her speeches, does anyone actually know what she envisages for the world, great speeches, but what does she propose we actually do? Other than revert to cave dwelling.

----------


## orkneycadian

Greta would make a good SNP politician.  Everything that is wrong is someone elses fault.  And her generation will not be reverting to cave dwelling - Not when there is all that plastic, internet connected tech to be played with.

----------


## Fulmar

I do wish I did not find Greta so annoying but I'm afraid I do and I would have liked to say to all those passionate young people yesterday, for goodness sake, go and do something useful like planting a tree or picking up plastic bottles rather than massively increasing your own carbon footprint by travelling to and attending yesterday's 'jolly' in Bristol.
And to Greta herself, in case she hasn't noticed, actually the UK is not burning but a lot of it is under many feet of flood water

----------


## orkneycadian

She really doesn't have a clue. She seems to be a population emergency denier, and is unable to make the connection between the population emergency, and her perceived climate emergency. 

She stands on the podium, waving a smartphone around, apparently oblivious to the fact that internet useage will account for 20% of the world energy demands by 2025, rising from the 10% it was in the last decade. 

Meanwhile, she rants on about "the children" again oblivious to the detrimental effect they are having. World population is rising by 225,000 per day. In simple terms, 225,000 more children are born every day than old folk who are dying off. Those having all those children are in the 16 - 32 age range (mostly) which is the generation Greta now find herself in.

So Greta, you and your smartphone addicted, kid producing peers are the problem.  She never seems to mention that.

----------


## orkneycadian

Oh, you couldn't make it up..... 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-51696203

Greta and her mates trash the greenery of the planet.....

----------


## orkneycadian

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/storie...t-s-big-secret

Not sure what's secret about it? Its been common knowledge over the last decade or so that the internet uses 10% of the world's energy demand, and is rapidly heading towards 20%.

Some interesting comparisons in this clips. Watching a box set being as polluting as driving from Birmingham to Manchester.  The streaming of Despacito using as much energy as a chunk of Africa does in a year. 

Does Greta know this when she posts on her multiple social media platforms?

----------


## aqua

I dont understand why youre so critical of Greta T. Her actions have helped bring the fight against climate change to the foreground. Governments are more likely to act when the public demand action.

----------


## orkneycadian

My criticisms of Greta are founded in her hypocrisy. She has this mistaken belief that all the wrongs of the world are caused by people older than her and her generation, and that if she stamps her feet, these oldies will act. She appears to be in complete denial of the population emergency, and seems unable to make the connection between population growth and CO2 emissions. She seems to be completely ignorant of the connection between her social media use and the increase in world energy demand associated with the internet. 

She would gain an awful lot more respect if she became a patron of Population Matters and renounced her use of social media in order to save energy.

----------


## aqua

I think you’re being very unfair. Greta can’t be expected to solve all the world’s problems at once, and on her own!

----------


## orkneycadian

No, but like so many others, she is barking up the wrong tree. Remember the Extinction Rebellion goons in Aberdeen, protesting about oil whilst dripping in plastic, and driving a Ford Ranger 4x4 turbodiesel?

----------


## aqua

No, she’s addressing a different tree. Reducing the world’s population drastically would indeed cut greenhouse gas emissions and indeed help solve other pollution problems, but it’s a very difficult thing to do! It’s easier to cut emissions by burning less fossil fuel and using less energy to heat our buildings.

----------


## orkneycadian

If the emmisions per capita are cut by half, and the population doubles, you are no further forward. 

And don't forget the immortal words of  Sir David Attenborough.

----------


## aqua

Keeping the world’s population constant would I suppose be a good target to start with. That should be doable. I was being too ambitious!

----------


## Goodfellers

Just looking back at some older posts (I'm bored) and saw this from 21/12/19




> I'd get some scientists together to create a virus that will kill 50% of the population in a totally random manner for fairness.



Alrock...It's time to come clean. What did you do?

----------


## orkneycadian

Greta must be pretty peeved now that her school strike thunder has been stolen.  By the time all these international school closures finish, kids will be so desperate to get back to school to alleviate their boredom, they will not be up for any more of Gretas "strikes"

----------


## Alrock

> Just looking back at some older posts (I'm bored) and saw this from 21/12/19
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alrock……...It's time to come clean. What did you do?


Not enough this time, well short of the 50% mark, I'll have to try again.

----------


## Goodfellers

Not strictly politics, but has anyone else read this about story about 'Climate Doomers'?  Now I know who is buying all the bigger properties up here!


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-51857722

----------


## orkneycadian

Deary me.  Yet more population emergency deniers.  If they want to know whats going to be the finish of us, and why folk are moving north, then that's where they should look.

----------

