So Trump has pulled out of the Paris climate change accord, is that a wise move given the sums of money involved in being part of it, or is it a stupid move made by Trump because he doesn't want to back down on his manifesto?
So Trump has pulled out of the Paris climate change accord, is that a wise move given the sums of money involved in being part of it, or is it a stupid move made by Trump because he doesn't want to back down on his manifesto?
I read recently that the sums of money amount to up to $100 billion a year in aid!! That's what the richest governments give to support the poorer countries, on the outside that looks like vast sums of money, and lets not beat about the bush, it is. However, the richest countries have pilfered the fossil fuels from the poorer countries and made even greater profits than the $100 billion a year. in addition, it will be the poorer countries that are the most likely to be affected by the climate change.
Do you think it is even possible to limit the increase in world temperature by 2 degrees? I know humans are damaging the planet, but there is a great deal of the earths surface that is not populated by humans, and certainly areas where humans exist but do not cause the damage. Is it not possible that the rising temperatures we see in the world are just part of the worlds evolutionary change and nothing to do with humans?
Therefore is this money not better spent going directly into supporting the poorer communities in the world, instead of going to renewable energies?
Surely the best way to reduce our carbon footprint in the world is to reduce or control our population.
Originally Posted by over the hill
What the...!! population control! how do you plan to go about reducing the population?
I would limit how many children can be born to a family all around the world, I would limit this to 1 child per household in every country.
I know this sounds harsh, but what is the alternative? This planet can not sustain a continued human population growth, it is not about being nice to everyone, it is about survival.
I know what you are saying, but if we can find a way to reduce our reliance on natural resources then we would not need to control the population.
Why is the idea such a bad one? China made the decision, they had to.
And another thing, Whilst I do not like to see people suffering around the world, I think this idea of the wealthy countries lifting the poorer countries out of poverty is in itself concerning. I am not disputing we should help to provide for the fundamental basic of food, water and shelter, hygiene and healthcare needs. I do however have concerns that the utopian idea of all countries being equal. This would lead to the catastrophic end to the planet and the human race and probably all the creatures that live on the planet too. while humans live on the planet there has to be areas of no wealth, no means to grow and thrive.
Over the hill, I had to read this a couple of times to believe what I was reading. how can anyone think it is okay to have people starving in this world, with no shelter, food or water. Your comments stink of 'we are alright jack', these are your views because you are sitting in luxury while people are dying due to lack of basic human requirements.
There is a great emphasis on wind power, electric cars and many other renewable energies which will reduce our carbon footprint, hopefully prevent climate change worsening and therefore result in the human population flourishing.
I'm shocked at your viewpoint towards rich and poor countries.
The sad fact is that we are only now trying to figure a way not to rely too heavily on natural resources, the reason for this is because we are quickly using all accessible sources.
The other thing you have to remember is how much energy goes into making the wind turbines and the batteries for the electric cars, these two products alone have a limited lifespan, then what? How much damage is done to the environment in both making and disposing of these items? As the population grows there will be greater demand for land for houses and energy in whatever form.
In an ideal world humans would stop their need for consumerism and start to be happy with their lot, make do and mend. But that will never happen now, the government actively encouraging spending, they don't want us to save. We don't have the mindset for anything else. So the only way to reduce the damage done by humans is to reduce humans.
Obviously I'm not suggesting that we have a great cull, but prevention of mass population will be an option in the future, it has to be.
So, I agree with over the hill, humans can't and won't change on mass electively, it needs to be forced upon us.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
