Greta Thunberg

[Ban-jani]

This world needs a deadly disease to ravage through about a quarter of the human race. Once that happens every Govt in the world should put a cap on the amount of children you have. In fact, a bit like when you work with children, you have to pass a DBS check to be able to have them and if you don’t, you are castrated/spayed/neutered.

I think it’ll do the planet and the human race a lot of good.

I much prefer incentivised castration as a policy.

Give people a choice at least but offer them benefits to doing it.

- If you get castrated before having any kids here’s X amount.

- If you do before having 2 kids, here’s slightly less.

- If you do before having three, here’s slightly less still.

People will do it to be financially better off, money talks.

The trouble is, birth rates in the richer countries aren’t that bad, it’s the developing world where we have a huge problem.

 

[SWP's back]

1. Is the planet warming? Absolutely! Albeit at a slower rate the last 30 years compared to the prior 100.

Citation needed as I think you made that up.

This is from NASA:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page2.php
Doesn’t look like it’s slowing down in the last 30 years.

2. Is the warming due too humans. Yes. .Partly due Co2 amongst other things so.

The historical correlation between Co2 emissions and a warming of the planet is very flimsy.

Yes, other greenhouse gasses such as methane.

Citation again needed for your assertion that the correlation between greenhouse gasses and global warming being ‘flimsy’.

3. Is this going to become a crisis. We don't know. It May or may not. But what we do know is that models are awful at predicting future. and the Earth's .

Do we know that by speeding our car on the wrong side of a bend we’ll crash? Not for sure. Should we do something about reducing that risk? Probably.

Should we wait until it’s too late and several billion people die? Probably not.

Like join treaties that puport to do things, that even the Scientist believe most of these things won't help.

Which ‘scientist’ are you referring to?

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

Which ‘scientist’ are you referring to?

 

[urban genie]

This world needs a deadly disease to ravage through about a quarter of the human race. Once that happens every Govt in the world should put a cap on the amount of children you have. In fact, a bit like when you work with children, you have to pass a DBS check to be able to have them and if you don’t, you are castrated/spayed/neutered.

I think it’ll do the planet and the human race a lot of good.

We are over due a mulitinational war we normally have one withing the first 20 years of a new century.

But then mostly it was europeans fighting each other, maybe after brexit we can start one, keep up tradition like

 

[SWP's back]

We are over due a mulitinational war we normally have one withing the firet 20 years of a new century.

But then mostly it was europeans fighting each other, maybe after brexit we can start one, keep us tradition like

Bagzi invading France.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Bagzi invading France.

Too late mate, they've been looking at this thread and just surrendered.

 

[aguero93:20]

Lord! I hope you got the above line from some left-wing blog. Leftist

SWP left wing, fucking lol. I've heard it all now.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I much prefer incentivised castration as a policy.

Give people a choice at least but offer them benefits to doing it.

- If you get castrated before having any kids here’s X amount.

- If you do before having 2 kids, here’s slightly less.

- If you do before having three, here’s slightly less still.

People will do it to be financially better off, money talks.

The trouble is, birth rates in the richer countries aren’t that bad, it’s the developing world where we have a huge problem.

But poor people in the developing world contribute far less to climate change than anyone in developed countries. If a couple have a kid in the UK, they will be born into a country with an average CO2 output per capita of 6.5 tonnes per year. If a couple in Niger have their average of 7 children, each of those will have a CO2 output of 0.1 tonnes per year (based on the figures on Wikipedia). It's not the number of people that's the main driver of increasing emissions, it's the emerging middle classes in developing countries. 400 million Chinese people becoming middle class has had a far bigger impact than 400 million people being born in extreme poverty, at least in terms of CO2 emissions (obviously there are other issues with overpopulation). China has similar per capita CO2 emissions as a middling European country, and it has tripled since the mid-90s despite a falling population.

Incidentally, this is why it's a difficult discussion to have, because you can't really turn to people in poverty and tell them that they aren't allowed the nice lifestyles that we enjoy. And ironically, as has been proven again and again, the best way to reduce the birth rate is to improve the standard of living. But this is the very thing that will actually increase the carbon footprint of these countries.

 

[inchy14]

But poor people in the developing world contribute far less to climate change than anyone in developed countries. If a couple have a kid in the UK, they will be born into a country with an average CO2 output per capita of 6.5 tonnes per year. If a couple in Niger have their average of 7 children, each of those will have a CO2 output of 0.1 tonnes per year (based on the figures on Wikipedia). It's not the number of people that's the main driver of increasing emissions, it's the emerging middle classes in developing countries. 400 million Chinese people becoming middle class has had a far bigger impact than 400 million people being born in extreme poverty, at least in terms of CO2 emissions (obviously there are other issues with overpopulation). China has similar per capita CO2 emissions as a middling European country, and it has tripled since the mid-90s despite a falling population.

Incidentally, this is why it's a difficult discussion to have, because you can't really turn to people in poverty and tell them that they aren't allowed the nice lifestyles that we enjoy. And ironically, as has been proven again and again, the best way to reduce the birth rate is to improve the standard of living. But this is the very thing that will actually increase the carbon footprint of these countries.

Well said mate, something I tried pointing out the other day, not as eloquently mind, and was criticised for.

 

[Ban-jani]

But poor people in the developing world contribute far less to climate change than anyone in developed countries. If a couple have a kid in the UK, they will be born into a country with an average CO2 output per capita of 6.5 tonnes per year. If a couple in Niger have their average of 7 children, each of those will have a CO2 output of 0.1 tonnes per year (based on the figures on Wikipedia). It's not the number of people that's the main driver of increasing emissions, it's the emerging middle classes in developing countries. 400 million Chinese people becoming middle class has had a far bigger impact than 400 million people being born in extreme poverty, at least in terms of CO2 emissions (obviously there are other issues with overpopulation). China has similar per capita CO2 emissions as a middling European country, and it has tripled since the mid-90s despite a falling population.

Incidentally, this is why it's a difficult discussion to have, because you can't really turn to people in poverty and tell them that they aren't allowed the nice lifestyles that we enjoy. And ironically, as has been proven again and again, the best way to reduce the birth rate is to improve the standard of living. But this is the very thing that will actually increase the carbon footprint of these countries.

Yeah very good points there.

It really is in the richer nations to do something and by the world time before tech can sort it out.