Xtinction Rebellion

[RichieRiv]

Hope they kept some of that super glue for their Aris'

[sendô]

An Insulate Britain activist addressing the media outside the Royal Courts of Justice said Emma Smart, one of the nine, had announced her intention to go on hunger strike after being jailed for four months.

Idiot.

[bonzosbeard]

I'm a little disappointed that Covid didn't wipe out 3/5 of the world's population, that's the only way to reverse this agonising slow slide into oblivion. Unless its just a warning from Mother Nature. "See the kind of stuff I can do? Get your ****ing house in order or next time it's for reals".

We could then have a 25,000 capacity ground. But most of the old school would probably be part of the 3/5 and dead so you would be left with popcorn munching daytrippers. Young ones at that.

Careful what you wish for.

[Hummer_I_mean_Hammer]

Sounds quite promising Japanese car manufucatures look at alternitive fuels

[Hummer_I_mean_Hammer]

EV points to every new home in England... lols.

[Collison Theory]

EV points to every new home in England... lols.

Seems like common sense if we're banning the sale of new petrol cars in nine years time?

[RichieRiv]

Seems like common sense if we're banning the sale of new petrol cars in nine years time?

On the basis that there are no u turns either by this government or the next or the next, you'd be right. Although its only a small drop in the ocean in terms of property and also assumes all car will be EV.

[Hummer_I_mean_Hammer]

Seems like common sense if we're banning the sale of new petrol cars in nine years time?

I’ve some concerns, like do you have any idea what this requires in terms of infrastructure? Say even at 7kW per home that will create some loading demands on a network. This will only be out of town developments as new developments within London/other cities will mostly forego any car ports/parking spaces.

And you can't (shouldn't) really use EV chargers in underground or multistorey carparks due to risks from explosions/fire, so where does that leave this plan?

EDIT: seems like not many people appreciate the plan either

[Up the Junction]

Is the unpalatable truth not that climate change is that the core issue, but that the planet is highly overpopulated and thus we somehow need to rid ourselves of a few billion human beings in order to save planet Earth?

Now, I concede it's unlikely to be a major vote winner at the ballot box... unless your name is Hitler, perhaps... but is climate change a feasible, long-term proposition given the rapidly-swelling human population?

[wolf359]

Is the unpalatable truth not that climate change is that the core issue, but that the planet is highly overpopulated and thus we somehow need to rid ourselves of a few billion human beings in order to save planet Earth?

Now, I concede it's unlikely to be a major vote winner at the ballot box... unless your name is Hitler, perhaps... but is climate change a feasible, long-term proposition given the rapidly-swelling human population?

I’m off to find some infinity stones. Thanos was right after all.

[delbert]

Is the unpalatable truth not that climate change is that the core issue, but that the planet is highly overpopulated and thus we somehow need to rid ourselves of a few billion human beings in order to save planet Earth?

Now, I concede it's unlikely to be a major vote winner at the ballot box... unless your name is Hitler, perhaps... but is climate change a feasible, long-term proposition given the rapidly-swelling human population?

To really make a dent in the numbers you'd need more than Hitler, you need a Stalin or a Mao. Those dudes really knew how to thin out populations........

[simon hammer]

Is the unpalatable truth not that climate change is that the core issue, but that the planet is highly overpopulated and thus we somehow need to rid ourselves of a few billion human beings in order to save planet Earth?

Now, I concede it's unlikely to be a major vote winner at the ballot box... unless your name is Hitler, perhaps... but is climate change a feasible, long-term proposition given the rapidly-swelling human population?

What we need is a war or two.

[RichieRiv]

Is the unpalatable truth not that climate change is that the core issue, but that the planet is highly overpopulated and thus we somehow need to rid ourselves of a few billion human beings in order to save planet Earth?

Now, I concede it's unlikely to be a major vote winner at the ballot box... unless your name is Hitler, perhaps... but is climate change a feasible, long-term proposition given the rapidly-swelling human population?

That's the inconvenient truth skipper.

Even when mother nature throws a deadly virus our way, the world implements lock downs and invents vaccines and drugs to combat it.

[-DL-]

Is the unpalatable truth not that climate change is that the core issue, but that the planet is highly overpopulated and thus we somehow need to rid ourselves of a few billion human beings in order to save planet Earth?

Now, I concede it's unlikely to be a major vote winner at the ballot box... unless your name is Hitler, perhaps... but is climate change a feasible, long-term proposition given the rapidly-swelling human population?

There is a huge distinction between saving planet earth and saving the human race. That is the main issue with climate change. Arguably, we're contributing to the pace that the climate is changing, but from the year dot, the climate on earth has constantly been changing and it will never stop.

We've been on this planet in geological terms, for less than a blink of an eye - around two million years. We've only had civilisations for around 5000 years, and we've only had industrial civilisation for around 300 years. It's nothing. To put it in to context even further, the dinosaurs roamed the earth for a staggering 164 million years before they were wiped out by a natural event.

We do not have this divine right to this planet, and the planet was doing fine, but for a few catastrophic events like the one that killed off the dinosaurs, long before we appeared, and will also do fine for long after we have gone. Life and biodiversity has thrived in climatic conditions far worse than now, and should we become the architects of our own downfall, the planet will yet again recover to an extent where new life, and new species will thrive, and in geological terms, should the human race die out due to disease, climate change, a catastrophic event - there will be little to no evidence that we'd ever existed in around 100000 years or so.

Planet earth will be just fine. It's the human race that won't be, and when we do die out, we will be no different to all the other predominant species that have existed and gone, and something else will be the rulers of the earth once again - but even without our man-made climate change, geological evidence shows that we won't be around for ever anyway, and there is quite literally nothing we can do to prevent it, and instead of trying to prevent the inevitable, which is futile, we should be doing all we can now to mitigate it, such as moving away from, and not developing on low lying areas, and areas that are forecast to be under water in possibly our grand-childrens and great grand-childrens lifetimes.

[Collison Theory]

Is the unpalatable truth not that climate change is that the core issue, but that the planet is highly overpopulated and thus we somehow need to rid ourselves of a few billion human beings in order to save planet Earth?

Now, I concede it's unlikely to be a major vote winner at the ballot box... unless your name is Hitler, perhaps... but is climate change a feasible, long-term proposition given the rapidly-swelling human population?

It's not really quantity of people, but their lifestyles. 100 million Ethiopians emit 10 million tonnes of CO2 per year, while 4 million Kuwaitis emit 100 million tonnes (source https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emiss ... er-capita/). Which of these countries is "overpopulated"? Most high birthrate countries are in Africa, but they emit relatively little, especially if you factor in historic emissions.

There are lots of policies which are known to reduce birthrate, mainly around giving women real choices in life beyond pumping out babies. These societies also tend to do better materially... so they fly in planes more, drive cars more, eat nice imported steaks and all the other fun carbon emitting stuff.

So I don't have any simple solution here, other than to say there is no capacity for earth. Losing a few billion wouldn't actually do that much if they were the poorest few billion- which history tells us they probably would be.

[666 hammer]

So you agree mass migration to the wealthier nations is not the key?

[RichieRiv]

I've noticed that ever since the weather starter to get cold, ER and IB have decided its too taters for them and decided to stay at home.

What the betting that as soon as we get to spring they will start popping up again?

[666 hammer]

https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2019/12/ ... party-hqs/

Surely adoption is the key? If you beleive the world is going to end. Don't have more than one child. And prepare to be looked after by robots in old age.

[Tenbury]

Is the unpalatable truth not that climate change is that the core issue, but that the planet is highly overpopulated and thus we somehow need to rid ourselves of a few billion human beings in order to save planet Earth?

Now, I concede it's unlikely to be a major vote winner at the ballot box... unless your name is Hitler, perhaps... but is climate change a feasible, long-term proposition given the rapidly-swelling human population?

I'm not sure that stacks up. As living standards improve, the birth rate plummets. Areas that have traditionally (in my lifetime) had rapidly growing population, China, India, etc have followed this pattern, and it's to be expected others will too.
It's also perfectly feasible that the planet could support a considerably larger population, but not if we were tomaintain the current average diet.
Too many vested interests, however, and some sort of faultline deep in the human psyche that confuses wants with needs.

[sendô]

I’ve some concerns, like do you have any idea what this requires in terms of infrastructure? Say even at 7kW per home that will create some loading demands on a network. This will only be out of town developments as new developments within London/other cities will mostly forego any car ports/parking spaces.

I'm chuckling, it was only last night we had a blackout across the entire housing estate because of undervoltage on the incoming supply. Imagine the impact if we loaded it up more with a few hundred EV chargers?

Even better I don't have a front garden, so they'll have to install it in my car port, but no doubt feed it from the supply into my house, back out along the road and round the back past 2 other houses. Even then, I can only park one car in there at a time.