Extinction Rebellion

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

We are talking about population impacts per person. See the earlier chart. Yes they are largely far more eco than we are. They buy less stuff. 

What good is the per capita argument to the 'harm' we are doing globally ?
If Indians produce half as much CO2 or plastic waste, what difference does it make if theres 20 times as many of them ?
Plus the only reason they are more 'eco' and but less stuff, is because they  have less disposable income, as that changes, they will buy more 'stuff'

 

7 minutes ago, oowee said:

Yes but they are using less resources. When you switch on your torch thee cadmium comes from the ground in some where like india. Who has caused the pollution? 

Whos to say what resources they are using , they eat, they defecate, they probably watch TV and use torches too.
If they want to dig cadmium or lithium or anything else out the ground to sell to us, or use themselves, thats up to them, stop trying to guilt trip the west for it, India and Pakistan have been their own boss for 70 years now.
You make it sound like we are still in control.

[JohnfromUK]

42 minutes ago, oowee said:

The countries that you talk about are not the problem. We are the problem, its the West that uses the resources, it's the West using the plastics, cutting down the rain forest, putting out the CO2. Countries like India and Bangladesh could have 5 times the number of children that we have here and still be less polluting than the UK. 

Completely misleading - and in fact quite wrong.  The 'problem' is global. 

As a developed country we have high consumption per head, but this has been recognised and measures are being taken to reduce things like carbon emissions, fossil fuel usage etc.  But we are a small country, and though densely populated, our overall population is a fraction of that of India, China, the USA etc.  Our contribution to the global problem is small, but could be smaller.

India, China etc. have a very high population and are much less developed than us.  Whilst their carbon footprint and fossil fuel usage are lower than ours 'per head', it is still very large - and more seriously increasing rapidly with no real sign of that increase slowing much.  China had the highest ever emissions in 2017 - emitted even more in 2018 but China is making attempts to lower this (which is mainly due to HUGE coal usage).  "Between 2017 and 2018, CO2 emissions climbed by 6.3 percent in India (a rate three times higher than last year’s) and by 4.7 percent in China (compared with last year’s rate of increase of 3.5 percent)."

Other countries are also making some progress, but it is slow - and the claimed figures seem to involve much 'carbon capture' by tree planting - which hasn't yet had much effect.

We are a small country, with a dense, but still low in global terms population (less than 1% - whereas China and India have about 18% each), and we are making significant progress on carbon targets: We are part of the problem, but a small - and becoming smaller part.

[oowee]

The problem is global consumption. We in the west consume much higher levels of resources than third world countries. They are generating CO2 on our behalf. If we cut consumption third world pollution would decline. 

[Rewulf]

24 minutes ago, oowee said:

The problem is global consumption. We in the west consume much higher levels of resources than third world countries. They are generating CO2 on our behalf. If we cut consumption third world pollution would decline. 

Have you been drinking at dinner 🤣 ?

How are they generating co2 on our behalf !?

And how on earth does cutting our consumption cut theirs ??

[Gordon R]

Quote

If we cut consumption third world pollution would decline. 

Another quantum leap in assumption.

[oowee]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Have you been drinking at dinner 🤣 ?

How are they generating co2 on our behalf !?

And how on earth does cutting our consumption cut theirs ??

We buy from these countries because they produce goods cheaper than we can. We buy in the knowledge that they are polluting to make our products. We could buy from the west knowing that the standards are higher but we choose to save money buying from them. We choose to export our pollution. Look at the environmental impact of wear once Primark wonders. 

Interesting that the climate change protest that will have no impact has raised the level of conversation on the topic across the country. 

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

We buy from these countries because they produce goods cheaper than we can. We buy in the knowledge that they are polluting to make our products. We could buy from the west knowing that the standards are higher but we choose to save money buying from them. We choose to export our pollution. Look at the environmental impact of wear once Primark wonders. 

Interesting that the climate change protest that will have no impact has raised the level of conversation on the topic across the country. 

Youre making a massive assumption, and swerving away from your first assertion, that we pollute more than them, by saying we make them do it.

So, in the highly unlikely event that we stopped buying their products, you think they would shut their factories down, stop modernising their countries, and go back to a simple life of goat herding, rice farming, and having 10 kids ?

[oowee]

Just now, Rewulf said:

Youre making a massive assumption, and swerving away from your first assertion, that we pollute more than them, by saying we make them do it.

So, in the highly unlikely event that we stopped buying their products, you think they would shut their factories down, stop modernising their countries, and go back to a simple life of goat herding, rice farming, and having 10 kids ?

Why would they do that? 

[Rewulf]

The climate protests are being discussed , not in the context of how important 'protecting' the planet is, but in how much disruption, cost , and pollution they are actually causing.

 

Just now, oowee said:

Why would they do that? 

Exactly !

[oowee]

I thought we were talking about pollution and the use of earth resources, the topic of their protest.

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

The climate protests are being discussed , not in the context of how important 'protecting' the planet is, but in how much disruption, cost , and pollution they are actually causing.

 

Exactly !

So why did you propose it, asking me if they might? 

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, oowee said:

I thought we were talking about pollution and the use of earth resources, the topic of their protest.

So why did you propose it, asking me if they might? 

Eh ? You said if we stopped buying , they would stop polluting !
Because they are only polluting to make stuff for us, so its OUR fault !

Im saying they will not stop modernising anyway, and there populations have a taste for modern things.
So if that really is the case, nothing can stop the decline, and 3rd world consumerism will be the biggest issue.

[Vince Green]

8 minutes ago, oowee said:

I thought we were talking about pollution and the use of earth resources, the topic of their protest.

Their protest is about momentum flexing its political muscles and very little to do with climate change in reality. Don't look at the gullable fresh faced kids at the front of the protest. Look at the usual  old suspects at the back with radios and loud hailers winding them up  

Edited April 19, 2019 by Vince Green

[oowee]

5 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Their protest is about momentum flexing its political muscles and very little to do with climate change in reality. Don't look at the gullable fresh faced kids at the front of the protest. Look at the usual suspects at the back with radios and loud hailers   

I saw the same at the last brexit rally. They could not hide as the rally was only 25 people. good though that they have got us all talking about the subject. 

Edited April 19, 2019 by oowee

[Gordon R]

I know of few people who are talking about climate change. All are talking about the idiots causing disruption, causing more pollution, whilst the Police stand by. Most are appalled at the kid glove treatment and luvvies like Emma Thomson jetting in to get down with the kids.

They are pathetic.

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

I saw the same at the last brexit rally. They could not hide as the rally was only 25 people. good though that they have got us all talking about the subject. 

Im sure all the people who are late to work, accosted in the street, or missed flights and had holidays ruined will be thrilled to hear we are talking about it.
Great way to win people over to your cause isnt it ?

Love the way they 'tackle' the climate problem.

You would think if they were that serious about saving us and future generations, they would do a bit of street patrol round Hackney or Brixton of an evening, step in on some of these stabbings and shootings.
Maybe get over to Syria , and help out there a bit?

Entitled , overindulged, hypocrites, the modern day swampy, armed with a virtue signal, and dodgy moral compass.

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I know of few people who are talking about climate change. All are talking about the idiots causing disruption, causing more pollution, whilst the Police stand by. Most are appalled at the kid glove treatment and luvvies like Emma Thomson jetting in to get down with the kids.

I think the vast majority of the country would agree with that.

[GingerCat]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

Their protest is about momentum flexing its political muscles and very little to do with climate change in reality. Don't look at the gullable fresh faced kids at the front of the protest. Look at the usual  old suspects at the back with radios and loud hailers winding them up  

100% correct. Its already been said in this thread we should all live in cities to "concentrate " the population. Presumably  whilst the champagne socialists (like the one who stormed out of the sky office having previously had 17.5k a year education and many many trips skiing). Live in their utopia preaching how they know best and if we don't comply with their "demands" consequences follow. All very Marxist if you ask me. 

[JohnfromUK]

12 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

100% correct. Its already been said in this thread we should all live in cities to "concentrate " the population. Presumably  whilst the champagne socialists (like the one who stormed out of the sky office having previously had 17.5k a year education and many many trips skiing). Live in their utopia preaching how they know best and if we don't comply with their "demands" consequences follow. All very Marxist if you ask me. 

'We' will all be 'concentrated' into cities.  The country homes will be allocated to "party members" and trades union officials, with the bigger stately home type estates used as rest and recreation establishments for the "party elite" and those who have supported "the party".  This (and similar) forums will be monitored by "the thought police" and we will have our lentil and yoghurt rations reduced if we make bad press about "the party".  In time, a new replacement for Concorde can be made to enable the senior party officials to travel around the world with speed and comfort spreading the conservation message to the gret unwashed.

[GingerCat]

Sounds about right. 

[old man]

One thing has recently become very clear to me, that, as is usual it will be the poorest sections of our society that again will carry the greatest burdens in both financial and convenience ways.

Again, leading to an ever greater financial divide and the problems this will inevitably bring?

Where is the common sense?

[ditchman]

2 hours ago, Gordon R said:

I know of few people who are talking about climate change. All are talking about the idiots causing disruption, causing more pollution, whilst the Police stand by. Most are appalled at the kid glove treatment and luvvies like Emma Thomson jetting in to get down with the kids.

They are pathetic.

emma thomson's passion / hobby is collecting and investing her money in diamonds...............i wonder if she is aware of the pollution that is caused by extracting them..........

[Fuddster]

Nice of the protesters to organise the event on a bank holiday-The police will be on double time overtime and earning a few quid.

every cloud and all that...

 

f.

[poontang]

3 hours ago, oowee said:

We buy from these countries because they produce goods cheaper than we can. We buy in the knowledge that they are polluting to make our products. We could buy from the west knowing that the standards are higher but we choose to save money buying from them. We choose to export our pollution.

 

 

Well that's globalism for you.

I thought you and your buddies in Brussels were all up for that? 

[Rewulf]

40 minutes ago, ditchman said:

emma thomson's passion / hobby is collecting and investing her money in diamonds...............i wonder if she is aware of the pollution that is caused by extracting them..........

 

[islandgun]

My wife who sometimes has a gift of putting her finger on it and after watching these protesters on tv said that "its a sunny day and they have nothing better to do"...... fair enough i thought