Non Extinction Rebellion

klaus_afcb said:
The richest 10% of the global population contribute 50% of emissions. This rises to 70% for the richest 20%. Over consumption is the problem, not population.
Click to expand...

Rubbish .. google any population graph for the last couple of hundred years .
 
wallmth said:
Is there anything you don’t blame on capitalism ?

No humans haven’t existed in harmony that’s a myth .We we’re just getting our numbers up , wherever we go since prehistoric times animals go extinct .
Click to expand...

Yes but we were talking about the environmental crisis which is demonstrably a result of focus on wealth creation above all else.

We can live and have lived sustainably with nature in pockets around the world whether you realise it or not. Our tribal and scientific knowledge provides us with the information necessary to live in this way, and not eliminate other species. We just choose not to.
 
Red Sky said:
Yes but we were talking about the environmental crisis which is demonstrably a result of focus on wealth creation above all else.

We can live and have lived sustainably with nature in pockets around the world whether you realise it or not. Our tribal and scientific knowledge provides us with the information necessary to live in this way, and not eliminate other species. We just choose not to.
Click to expand...

Oh please !!! I can only imagine we’re preaching from the same hymn book because you surely can’t be suggesting that billions upon billions of humans can go back to living in isolated pockets with our tribal knowledge FFS .

Thousands and thousands of species went extinct whilst your adorable tribes were spreading out around the world . Long before money was invented let a lone Capitalism .
 
wallmth said:
Oh please !!! I can only imagine we’re preaching from the same hymn book because you surely can’t be suggesting that billions upon billions of humans can go back to living in isolated pockets with our tribal knowledge FFS .
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying we can use the knowledge we have to protect what we have left, reduce the population over time, help each other out and live more sustainably.
 
Red Sky said:
No, I'm saying we can use the knowledge we have to protect what we have left, reduce the population over time, help each other out and live more sustainably.
Click to expand...

Well we voted to end free movement so that covers reducing the population. Correcto ?
 
Red Sky said:
No, I'm saying we can use the knowledge we have to protect what we have left, reduce the population over time, help each other out and live more sustainably.
Click to expand...

Ok , well good luck with telling the Africans they have to stop having as many kids as they can manage to knock out . Explaining to the Chinese that although we had our industrial revolution your not allowed to have yours ,and then explaining to us at home that for the sake of goodwill and to be in parity with the majority of the planets population you have to give up ... well practically all your material possessions ..as I said good luck .
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
Its somewhat telling that those on here who disagree with the protesters and some even the idea that we can stop climate change also fall on the same side of the argument on the brexit thread. Curious.
Click to expand...

Didn't we have this argument before? Isn't the answer reduced consumption and more localised production of essential goods?

This will slash GDP and eliminate growth, which is apparently something the government should be stepping in to stop in order to protect people from their own votes isn't it?

I'm losing track here - so brexit is bad because it will affect GDP and growth but climate protection that will achieve the same thing is good?

From where I'm stood the EU might pay lip service to environmental concerns but they don't appear to care anywhere near enough to deliberately move away from a capitalist model and deliberately reduce consumption. Same as any other government.
 
Absolute children

You know why the Bikers thing got no press, because professional protestors, self styled anarchists who are strangely happy to take the dole don;t want to turn up to anything that looks slightly right wing

As for comments being made about army prosecutions. Not long before I joined (long before good friday) one of ours was jailed for doing his job. He followed the massively restrictive yellow card (rules of engagement in ulster), and woth all the knowledge anybody had at the time he likely saved dozens of lives. Yet was sent to jail and then the Army tried to not let him rejoin, luckily the regiment had other things to say and an ex CO was a high flying general at the time of his release

Civilians are not well placed to pass judgement over soldiers. Soldiers are not exempt from the law, however if you want someone to wipe your ar5e for you, don't start complaining when they've got sh1t under their fingernails
 
cockbeard said:
Civilians are not well placed to pass judgement over soldiers. Soldiers are not exempt from the law, however if you want someone to wipe your ar5e for you, don't start complaining when they've got sh1t under their fingernails
Click to expand...

Your arsewiping technique sounds like it could do with some work. ;)
 
It certainly does, much like Lee's stopping a car bomb from crashing into a police station technique. But luckily I didn't spend two years in jail and much longer with it hanging over my head
 
wallmth said:
Rubbish .. google any population graph for the last couple of hundred years .
Click to expand...

True, global population has increased dramatically over the last 100 years. However, the majority of those people contribute little or nothing to climate change. South Sudan has the highest population growth rate in Africa, yet has per person carbon emissions of 0.3 tonnes per year. By contrast, the the average person in the UK emits 8.5 tonnes per year (2010 figures)
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Didn't we have this argument before? Isn't the answer reduced consumption and more localised production of essential goods?

This will slash GDP and eliminate growth, which is apparently something the government should be stepping in to stop in order to protect people from their own votes isn't it?

I'm losing track here - so brexit is bad because it will affect GDP and growth but climate protection that will achieve the same thing is good?

From where I'm stood the EU might pay lip service to environmental concerns but they don't appear to care anywhere near enough to deliberately move away from a capitalist model and deliberately reduce consumption. Same as any other government.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between falling GDP due to recession, and a planned reduction in the material throughput of the economy through degrowth. There's a lot of research being done on this if you're interested.

Your final paragraph I completely agree with.
 
klaus_afcb said:
There's a difference between falling GDP due to recession, and a planned reduction in the material throughput of the economy through degrowth. There's a lot of research being done on this if you're interested.

Your final paragraph I completely agree with.
Click to expand...

Tbf I'm not really arguing against strict climate change laws rather the idea that a government needs to step in and protect voters from themselves because GDP may be adversely affected by their decisions.

Lots of people, including druss and Stan, have argued that the government should override the public vote on brexit because "people were lied to and there would be a fall in GDP if their vote was implemented".

Imagine the same logic being used as a reason not to implement climate change provisions if the public voted for them on the basis that "they don't know what's good for them and their vote would cause GDP to fall" - clearly nonsense.

It's this logic I have a problem with.
 
klaus_afcb said:
True, global population has increased dramatically over the last 100 years. However, the majority of those people contribute little or nothing to climate change. South Sudan has the highest population growth rate in Africa, yet has per person carbon emissions of 0.3 tonnes per year. By contrast, the the average person in the UK emits 8.5 tonnes per year (2010 figures)
Click to expand...

And the majority of Sudanese live in abject poverty have just got over a civil war and at the first opportunity will get on a boat or plane and high tail it to the first Western country that will have them ,where they will become. good little consumers like the rest of us ...unless your suggesting we begin acting more like the Sudanese it’s still over population any way you dice it .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;