The UK has about 66 million people, NZ has about 5 million. So even if NZ people damage twice as much per capita, UK still damages more than 6 times as much.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Extinction Rebellion transport disruption from 17/04/2019
- Thread starter reddragon
- Start date
- Status
The UK has about 66 million people, NZ has about 5 million. So even if NZ people damage twice as much per capita, UK still damages more than 6 times as much.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
There has been a lot to research on world population growth forecasts. A quick google will provide a wealth of info. The % growth rate has been slowing for 50 years now. Some forecasts suggest that the world population will top out at around 11 billion in 2100, others forecasts the peak to be lower and sooner. There are a increasing number of countries in the developed world with falling population, some due to emigration but also due to the birth rate being lower than the death rate. This includes most of Eastern Europe, Russia and Japan.
Even if it doesn't increase at all from today, that's still unacceptable. There needs to be negative growth immediately if we are serious about climate change.
NoMorePacers
Established Member
Would forced firing squads for the undesirables be your preferred solution?
No need. Stopping having children would be sufficient. It is easier to have fewer children anyway. Other environmental activities require significant sacrifice, such as giving up the car or not flying.
BananaRepublic
Member
- Joined
- 9 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 777
The message behind the protests is not simply about giving up the car, or not flying.
It calls for a fundamental change in the way society and we as individuals carry out our daily lives.
It also calls for a fundamental change to the economic system and structures of society.
Listen carefully for the political messages being slipped in amongst the environmental messages.
It calls for a fundamental change in the way society and we as individuals carry out our daily lives.
It also calls for a fundamental change to the economic system and structures of society.
Listen carefully for the political messages being slipped in amongst the environmental messages.
BananaRepublic
Member
- Joined
- 9 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 777
Plans to disrupt Heathrow Airport tomorrow(Good Friday).
NoMorePacers
Established Member
And how would you plan on implementing that?
I'm practicing what I preach. It is up to everyone else to do the same.
eastdyke
Established Member
Doesn't sound like a vote winner. So some other form of goverment would be needed in the UK.
Easier to implement in China.
FWIW i am expecting to have 'less' children, don't drive or fly. Do I get a star?
Perhaps smart phones should be on the 'no no' list too?
telstarbox
Established Member
Smartphones aren't without environmental impact but they (and more generally web/email use) save a huge amount of paper from being produced, printed and driven around the country by Royal Mail...
edwin_m
Veteran Member
But if you partly depopulated the UK, the remaining people would each have a larger environmental footprint. So you'd gain some but not in proportion.
eastdyke
Established Member
Yeah right ......
From:
https://www.pgpaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Final-The-Global-Paper-Industry-Today-2018.pdf
And those same smart phones that are used to order all the stuff from around the planet that are delivered by a multiplicity of vans just to save ourselves a walk to the fast dis-appearing local shops.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
What sources do you have to quote to back up that part of your posting above that I have emboldened. Are you sure climatic change in eons past was never affected by severe volcanic activity nor the axis of the earth being affected by exterior solar system matters?
eastdyke
Established Member
Anyway I'm off to The Brunswick for a pint. My carbon footprint will not be zero, unless the 156 has been replaced with a magic carpet, but I can take solace from the fact that the train would still run without me aboard.
That's the sort of posturing that makes it difficult for me to take some environmentalists seriously. If someone doesn't want children that's fine, but please don't make some altruistic saving the planet through sacrifice statement.
If the choice is between killing the planet or some joyless, soulless future I'll have the former I think. It isn't of course. The hysteria of Extinction Rebellion will be converting nobody, it's a wonderful example of preaching to the converted.
What possible alternative reason do you have for recent changes? Yes things like that can make a sudden change, but there is no other plausible explanation for more recent changes than human activity.
That isn’t a police officer. It is a private security guard employed by Canary Wharf for their estate.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Or you could just do the sensible thing and combine lifestyle changes with technological improvements aimed at ensuring that everyone can have a good standard of living without harming the environment too much. To a large extent that's already happening (renewable energy, better insulated homes, recycling, shifting towards public transport, increasingly strict environmental regulations, etc. etc.) It's obviously not yet happening as quickly as we would like, but there doesn't seem to be any reason in principle why technology can't eventually reach the point of allowing - say, 11 billion people - to live comfortably while preserving the climate and the natural environment.
But there is a limited time until climate change becomes irreversible. Technology might not advance fast enough. Putting faith in technology is the easy option and just allows people to carry on as usual without a second thought. There is simply no need for children, and not having children is the easiest single thing that an individual can do, and it doesn't affect their lifestyle or standard of living. With a reduced population, it might even become viable to pollute more than today. Whereas if you have children that will outweigh any positive lifestyle changes that you might make.
Shall we stop having children right now, or wait, say, 9 months?
It is up to you. But if you have children having read this thread previously, you can't deny in the future that you didn't have knowledge of the effect on the environment.
There is no need to resume having children at any point in the future. An increasing proportion of the population are already choosing to stop reproducing regardless of any thoughts about the environment. And in western countries, the overwhelming trend is to delay childbirth until 30 or even 40. Meaning that they consider it acceptable to live a third or more of their life childfree.
OK, I call you out as Baroness Bomburst of Vulgaria, and claim a reward of £5.
Whereas you are so indoctrinated that you accept the culture of child rearing without question. In 2019, we now have the knowledge and technology to live without the unwanted side effects of sex.
NoMorePacers
Established Member
Would you suggest that we should stop having children entirely, or not as much?
Would you also put in place a mandatory sterilisation program for people to stop having children?
My three kids are a pretty good side effect.
- Status