When it comes to voting, Climate Change is the single most important issue.

Parliament has declared a Climate Emergency. Of course I appreciate this was probably a political stunt but nevertheless it has not declared a Brexit emergency, NHS emergency etc..

Climate Change IS an emergency. Every report that is coming in seems to suggest the situation is worse then anticipated. It may well be that we have pushed matters so far that we can’t stop things - we’ve gone past the Tipping Points.

It seems pretty much agreed that we have gone too far to prevent some of the effects of Climate Change, therefore we should look not so much at action to prevent it as to actions to reduce it and, more importantly, to try and deal with the likely consequences.

It may be that political bodies of which we are a part will come up with solutions, but I see little evidence of that yet. The UN, or the world generally, isn’t doing much with effect. Neither is the EU. Perhaps there is a possibility the EU could be pushed hard in the right direction but I’m not confident.

An obvious question is ‘what can the UK do on it’s own when bigger or poorer countries do little?‘ Not much, I agree. Yes we are still the sixth largest economy and can lead by example it‘s true, but probably that won‘t help the global situation significantly.

For these reasons we should look after our country’s own interests above all. If other countries don’t wish to go down the route we take we must somehow try to mitigate the political and economic damage that will arise.

The key target date for trying to meet the challenges should be 2030. The Climate Emergency should mean that all government and local authorities should concentrate there efforts on climate issues. All other matters are secondary. This means that Brexit and Scottish Independence and any similar major political change should be put on hold until at least 2030. The reason is not so much that they are not important but that the time and effort involved in achieving these things would weaken work on climate matters. After 2030, if required, they could be looked at again.

We should immediately do a major survey of the UK to see what is needed to deal with the effects of climate change. I wouldn’t know the exact details but obviously it would include coping with rising sea levels, flooding, wild fires etc.. This will likely result in plans for some major constructions - sea walls, new ports etc..

As well as putting on hold Brexit and Scottish Independence until 2030, we should also stop any major infrastructure developments that have no direct bearing on dealing with climate issues, such as HS2 and Heathrow’s third runway, until a full assessment of the situation has been made. This way available finance can be concentrated where it matters.

Deterrence of anything involving internal combustion engines should start immediately (taxes) with an aim to stop all but the most important by 2030. ‘Most important’ would be military, back up energy sources, perhaps agriculture. This of course is not only about global warming but air pollution.

Industries that have high green house gas emissions should be discouraged, or rethought. Some of these industries, like concrete production and steel, will be important for construction of sea barriers etc. so there must be some exceptions of course.

Some of the consequences of global warming will be migration, food supplies, and perhaps wars. This country cannot feed itself now - as far as I know since we began seriously trading we never could. For this reason no more people should be allowed into this country. If people want to leave that is fine, but we must introduce some penalty that deters the rich from taking their wealth with them. Fertility should somehow be reduced.

Strong efforts should be made to increase food production, including encouraging the use of gardens, allotments and public land, stopping any sort of building on fertile land, and looking at ways of making land with low fertility more productive.

Our life styles will change. Everything will be more costly - food, transport etc.. We will have to accept this. Steps should be taken to protect the weaker members of society from all this.

The alternative to accepting that the consequences of Climate Change are going to be damaging and so plan to deal with it in an orderly way as I’ve suggested, is to ignore the science and go blindly forward as we are now until these effects are upon us. That will mean major disruption, and therefore political and economic instability. Do we want that?

I’m going to vote accordingly. To me the party that is nearest to my ideals is the Green Party.

How quickly a bandwagon rolls with the internet.

F*ck giving it away for free, they should be taking it away from the ones who live in bananaland!

Much as I agree with the ideals of the Green Party, I would never want them in power.

You really would find out what loss of freedom is all about.

Having read some studies after the extinction Rebellion thread.

It appears the biggest single future contributor to climate change is the predicted growth of the human race by 3 billion.

No amount of changes we make can counter this rise in population.

We the human race need to tackle this issue as well as tackling other issues.

dougcollins wrote:Much as I agree with the ideals of the Green Party, I would never want them in power.
You really would find out what loss of freedom is all about.

Absolutely on board with banning the export of our rubbish, cutting food waste, a investing in state of the art recycling facilities, deposits on cans, bottles etc, clean burning technologies etc ....

However, whilst the Indian and Chinese Governments plan to increase their emissions by over double from the levels at the Paris Climate treaty, there seems to be little point in some of the other measures. Who are we to tell them ? We've had our economic development and our wealth, are we to tell them that they can't ?

Clarets4me wrote:Absolutely on board with banning the export of our rubbish, cutting food waste, a investing in state of the art recycling facilities, deposits on cans, bottles etc, clean burning technologies etc ....

However, whilst the Indian and Chinese Governments plan to increase their emissions by over double from the levels at the Paris Climate treaty, there seems to be little point in some of the other measures. Who are we to tell them ? We've had our economic development and our wealth, are we to tell them that they can't ?

That's a good argument, unfortunately when we had our industrial revolution, coal was all that was available. These days it's about being cheap, that's why they're still burning it and that's the difference.

Lowbankclaret wrote:Having read some studies after the extinction Rebellion thread.

It appears the biggest single future contributor to climate change is the predicted growth of the human race by 3 billion.

No amount of changes we make can counter this rise in population.

We the human race need to tackle this issue as well as tackling other issues.

but don't despair, we won't exceed that amount.

don't believe me? watch this presentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lowbankclaret wrote:We the human race need to tackle this issue as well as tackling other issues.

But we aren't.

Clarets4me wrote:However, whilst the Indian and Chinese Governments plan to increase their emissions by over double from the levels at the Paris Climate treaty, there seems to be little point in some of the other measures.

So is that your excuse for doing nothing?

If we the human race doesn't fix it Nature eventually will and I have more confidence in Nature doing it although all posters on here as well as myself and our great great to almost infinity grandchildren will not see it finished.

almost infinity?

yTib wrote:almost infinity?

And beyond.

The number of replies just shows the public’s thoughts on climate change.
An uphill battle.

The party manifestos are out. What are each parties priorities? This is based on order of appearance in their manifestos.

Greens; Climate, Brexit, Democracy, Health, Universal Income
Labour: Climate, Health, Poverty, Brexit, Internationalism
Conservatives: Brexit, Health, Schools, Work, Policing
LibDems: Brexit, Economy, Education, Climate, Health

The Conservative manifesto only offers information about climate change on page 55 hidden in their 'Britain in the World' section. Frankly it's pretty poor, including this statement: 'we believe that free markets, innovation and prosperity can protect the planet.' Isn't it exactly this that has got us where we are now? Anyway I think businesses should be controlled so they serve 'the people' rather then the other way round (you can see in the Boeing 737 MAX scandal what happens when companies aren't controlled properly, not to mention the banking crisis of 2008). Until now I've nearly always voted Conservative but I now dismiss them out of hand.

Both Lib Dems, Labour and Greens have more complete plans which are broadly similar. They all at least recognise its importance but concentrate on things like green energy, insulating homes, transport etc.. As I described in my OP, these, whilst important, are not the most pressing factors. Dealing with the effects that we know will happen in the next few years here in the UK is. Unless I've missed it, there is no discussion of protection of coastal flooding from rising sea levels for example ( 'flood defences' are mentioned but I suspect that's to do with inland flooding from precipitation).

My problem with Labour is that they also have a lot of costly ideological programmes (e.g. nationalising industries) that will use resources needed for the more important climate activities. With the LibDems I don't like the high handed way they just swept aside the decision of the 2016 Brexit referendum when they wish to stop Brexit. In truth I suppose I could say the same for the Greens. I wish to stop Brexit too, but only so we can concentrate on Climate Change activities.

So I'm torn between the Greens and Labour. I trust the Greens more - there whole ethos is environmental - and they are the nearest to how I think we should face the climate challenge but I can't see how they can ever get enough votes to run the country.

Hipper wrote:With the LibDems I don't like the high handed way they just swept aside the decision of the 2016 Brexit referendum when they wish to stop Brexit.

As a remain supporter who would love to see Brexit cancelled somehow I'd like to see the Lib Dems wiped out.

Ignoring the referendum and revoking Article 50 is a ridiculous move, it has to be done differently.

An Ebola pandemic, another world war, population problem solved. Now put another shovel of coal ont fire.

We, the human race, as that most intelligent animal on this world and therefore the custodians of this fragile system have failed, we will become, eventually, extinct, but only after causing the extinction of several other species .

We all say we want change, but we don’t want to give up our wealth, holidays, habits and our easy lifestyle. The ultimate consumer. Capitalism in essence, is our downfall.

We will only try to change when it’s too late.

Hipper wrote:The party manifestos are out. What are each parties priorities? This is based on order of appearance in their manifestos.

Greens; Climate, Brexit, Democracy, Health, Universal Income
Labour: Climate, Health, Poverty, Brexit, Internationalism
Conservatives: Brexit, Health, Schools, Work, Policing
LibDems: Brexit, Economy, Education, Climate, Health

The Conservative manifesto only offers information about climate change on page 55 hidden in their 'Britain in the World' section. Frankly it's pretty poor, including this statement: 'we believe that free markets, innovation and prosperity can protect the planet.' Isn't it exactly this that has got us where we are now? Anyway I think businesses should be controlled so they serve 'the people' rather then the other way round (you can see in the Boeing 737 MAX scandal what happens when companies aren't controlled properly, not to mention the banking crisis of 2008). Until now I've nearly always voted Conservative but I now dismiss them out of hand.

Both Lib Dems, Labour and Greens have more complete plans which are broadly similar. They all at least recognise its importance but concentrate on things like green energy, insulating homes, transport etc.. As I described in my OP, these, whilst important, are not the most pressing factors. Dealing with the effects that we know will happen in the next few years here in the UK is. Unless I've missed it, there is no discussion of protection of coastal flooding from rising sea levels for example ( 'flood defences' are mentioned but I suspect that's to do with inland flooding from precipitation).

My problem with Labour is that they also have a lot of costly ideological programmes (e.g. nationalising industries) that will use resources needed for the more important climate activities. With the LibDems I don't like the high handed way they just swept aside the decision of the 2016 Brexit referendum when they wish to stop Brexit. In truth I suppose I could say the same for the Greens. I wish to stop Brexit too, but only so we can concentrate on Climate Change activities.

So I'm torn between the Greens and Labour. I trust the Greens more - there whole ethos is environmental - and they are the nearest to how I think we should face the climate challenge but I can't see how they can ever get enough votes to run the country.

If you're torn between Labour and the Greens,then assess who is most likely to win in your area,and vote for that candidate,this is the major problem with our antiquated FPTP system,if neither have a hope of being your MP,then try and find out what impact they can have in your locality,for example are they already local councillors,or do they engage in environmental actions,E.G lobbying,protests that type of thing.

Volvoclaret wrote:An Ebola pandemic, another world war, population problem solved. Now put another shovel of coal ont fire.

Measles has recently killed more people in Africa than Ebola.

Right, stop immunisation for measles, save NHS money, job done

mdd2 wrote:If we the human race doesn't fix it Nature eventually will and I have more confidence in Nature doing it although all posters on here as well as myself and our great great to almost infinity grandchildren will not see it finished.

When I lived in Canada I knew environmentalists who saw the planet as a living thing, perhaps in the best traditions of North American animism, but we shouldn’t forget that it’s more than possible for the earth to reach a point at which it’s no longer possible to support life as we know it at all. Venus once had surface water, and now the surface temperature is over 400C.

Volvoclaret wrote:Right, stop immunisation for measles, save NHS money, job done

I think there’s something wrong with you.

i had measles as a young lad and trust me it was no laughing matter.

yTib wrote:i had measles as a young lad and trust me it was no laughing matter.

I had chicken pox as an adult, that was a right fecker

AndrewJB wrote:When I lived in Canada I knew environmentalists who saw the planet as a living thing, perhaps in the best traditions of North American animism, but we shouldn’t forget that it’s more than possible for the earth to reach a point at which it’s no longer possible to support life as we know it at all. Venus once had surface water, and now the surface temperature is over 400C.

It's a crying shame that the people of venus didnt switch of the central heating a little earlier, and taken holidays closer to home

If you want a balanced view on Climate change Review the following web site

https://www.thegwpf.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UTC

What caused the "Ice Age" ? I'm confident it wasn't humans.

Nice to know voting Green or indeed for any other party here in the UK will make Australia stop digging coal out of the ground for exporting to China and the Chinese to stop building coal fired power stations. Currently 70% of their energy is from coal.

yTib wrote:i had measles as a young lad and trust me it was no laughing matter.

I am glad I had Mumps as a kid, as having that as an adult definitely is no laughing matter....

I agree. Far too many human beings consuming far too much.

Compulsory female sterilisation after her second child would be an excellent starting point.

Lowbankclaret wrote:It appears the biggest single future contributor to climate change is the predicted growth of the human race by 3 billion.

3 Billion more people and 5% less land due to sea level rises. This lower land is frequently used for growing crops to feed us. 500 million displaced people will move to other areas.

This issue is too important to be left to politicians and political parties.

Personally, I think we can start at home. Choose fuel efficient cars, and drive less, make our homes heat efficient, don't but products in plastics etc.

This country should get it self organised before we start lecturing other countries.

LoveCurryPies wrote:3 Billion more people and 5% less land due to sea level rises. This lower land is frequently used for growing crops to feed us. 500 million displaced people will move to other areas.

This issue is too important to be left to politicians and political parties.

Personally, I think we can start at home. Choose fuel efficient cars, and drive less, make our homes heat efficient, don't but products in plastics etc.

This country should get it self organised before we start lecturing other countries.

...and don't have more than two children...

Lowbankclaret wrote:Having read some studies after the extinction Rebellion thread.

It appears the biggest single future contributor to climate change is the predicted growth of the human race by 3 billion.

No amount of changes we make can counter this rise in population.

We the human race need to tackle this issue as well as tackling other issues.

This is it. Absolutely. The world population is nearing what is known as the 'tipping point'. That is the point at which the speed of population growth will outstrip our ability to house and feed people to the point where mass starvation will be the norm not the exception. Medical science means that people are living longer. Infant mortality rates have fallen massively as a result as well. Diseases are becoming extinct. These were all controllers of population growth by natural selection. War is now limited to fairly local skirmishes. Imagine what the world population would be like now without all the deaths of the 2 world wars (not just those who died but all the children and grandchildren and great grandchildren they DIDN'T have). We are talking tens of millions (maybe even hundreds of millions) of people who would be added to the population had these wars not occurred.

No-one wants disease or war and no-one likes to see infants die, but these natural limiters of population growth are themselves dying and as a result we could see a situation that could become out of our control in the next 50 years apparently. Nobody argues that the environment is important, of course it is, but the population of this planet is the number one major concern. Many even argue that if we had not let population growth get so out of control we may well not have the same environmental problems, because as the population grows the environment has to take the strain.

What is the answer? Who knows? Maybe *Logan's Run isn't as far fetched as many thought back in the 70s.

*Hopefully it won't come to that.

Hipper wrote:But we aren't.



So is that your excuse for doing nothing?

She didn't say that. We are all aware of the needs particularly with plastic pollution. But those places she mentions and there are others in the same region are maybe you Greta and the XR should be protesting about it. Go there get in Xi Jinpings face.

houseboy wrote:This is it. Absolutely. The world population is nearing what is known as the 'tipping point'. That is the point at which the speed of population growth will outstrip our ability to house and feed people to the point where mass starvation will be the norm not the exception. Medical science means that people are living longer. Infant mortality rates have fallen massively as a result as well. Diseases are becoming extinct. These were all controllers of population growth by natural selection. War is now limited to fairly local skirmishes. Imagine what the world population would be like now without all the deaths of the 2 world wars (not just those who died but all the children and grandchildren and great grandchildren they DIDN'T have). We are talking tens of millions (maybe even hundreds of millions) of people who would be added to the population had these wars not occurred.

No-one wants disease or war and no-one likes to see infants die, but these natural limiters of population growth are themselves dying and as a result we could see a situation that could become out of our control in the next 50 years apparently. Nobody argues that the environment is important, of course it is, but the population of this planet is the number one major concern. Many even argue that if we had not let population growth get so out of control we may well not have the same environmental problems, because as the population grows the environment has to take the strain.

What is the answer? Who knows? Maybe *Logan's Run isn't as far fetched as many thought back in the 70s.

*Hopefully it won't come to that.

Soylent Green.... remember the shock everyone got at the end of that one .....

Mala591 wrote:...and don't have more than two children...

Does that mean people who don’t want children will be forced to have two? How would you enforce this?

How about a cull of old people, say above seventy, you know when they become a burden on the NHS and take more than they contribute?

How about the terminally ill, why not pop them off at a convenient point so they don’t burden society.

Where should we stop?

I agree that the population has to be brought under control, I know ironic from someone who has ten, but I think a bit of balance is necessary. I know more than ten couples who have no children, and many who only have one.

Perhaps we should ban air travel?

Manufacture closer to this country rather than import from the Far East?

Bosscat wrote:Soylent Green.... remember the shock everyone got at the end of that one .....

Oh yes Boss. Enforced cannibalism. Perish the thought.

Watched a tv. programme last night and was numbed by the philosophy of one nouveau rich Chinese guy. He stated that he believed in the '' state ideal of exploit the earth and strive for colonisation of another planet''. Fx me.

Mala591 wrote:...and don't have more than two children...

Strangely it is caused by living much longer and not having larger families.

Shakespeare died at 52 years of age. We consider that young but at the time 40-50 was common and he was considered to have lived a full life.

The advances in science and medicines means 80, 90 and beyond are becoming commonplace.

There might come a time when euthanasia is considered a responsible thing to do.

I should add Shakespeare died on his 52nd birthday. He had a reputation for excessive drinking and celebrating so I suspect he probably died from a blocked artery and brought on enthusiastic celebrations.

While it's true that advances in science and medicine are keeping some people alive for a little longer, its impact is actually overstated and a myth has taken hold in mainstream discourse that humans are expected to live longer today than they were decades or centuries ago, but in actual fact this myth is based on average life expectancy which in decades and centuries past was massively depressed due to the rates of infant mortality. It's more accurate to say modern medicine is keeping more infants alive, rather than the elderly. Shakespeare died young, even for his era. Sure, the average age of death was lower in his time, but once a person had matured out of infancy his or her expected lifespan wasn't notably shorter than we expect today. It's a myth that's useful to propagate for obvious reasons, and an overall increase in overall population might give the illusion of an expanding base of retirees but the assumption is not backed by scientific data, certainly not to the degree most people (forgivingly, I might add) believe it to be.

Where do you get that information from, Spiral? It's interesting but it doesn't sound right to me, especially when you look at the average lifespan of the kings and queens of England, which are what we have definite information for. Up until quite recently I would say even after surviving the infant stage getting to 75 or 80 was the exception. But that's only based on occasional perusal of gravestones.

Spiral wrote:While it's true that advances in science and medicine are keeping some people alive for a little longer, its impact is actually overstated and a myth has taken hold in mainstream discourse that humans are expected to live longer today than they were decades or centuries ago, but in actual fact this myth is based on average life expectancy which in decades and centuries past was massively depressed due to the rates of infant mortality. It's more accurate to say modern medicine is keeping more infants alive, rather than the elderly. Shakespeare died young, even for his era. Sure, the average age of death was lower in his time, but once a person had matured out of infancy his or her expected lifespan wasn't notably shorter than we expect today. It's a myth that's useful to propagate for obvious reasons, and an overall increase in overall population might give the illusion of an expanding base of retirees but the assumption is not backed by scientific data, certainly not to the degree most people (forgivingly, I might add) believe it to be.

Wrong bud - sorry. You need to look not at average life spans (which people don't normally) you look at the age of death. Even when I was young men lived to around 70 on average - the latest figure is now 78, and that is only in the last 40 years or so. Sure infant mortality has dropped massively but people ARE living longer - a LOT longer. In the middle ages a man at 40 was considered an old man, now a man at 60 is not even considered old.

Erasmus wrote:Where do you get that information from, Spiral? It's interesting but it doesn't sound right to me, especially when you look at the average lifespan of the kings and queens of England, which are what we have definite information for. Up until quite recently I would say even after surviving the infant stage getting to 75 or 80 was the exception. But that's only based on occasional perusal of gravestones.

I wouldn’t judge by the age of Kings and Queens. They have always had plenty of quality foods and access to the finest doctors.

I think Penicillin played a huge part in longer life expectancy.

I watched an interesting documentary (on Netflix) re Bill Gates Foundation the other day. Not long ago, 3 million people a year died of polio. Last year just 17 people. The Foundation is now trying to do the same for diarrhea.

....................." The Foundation is now trying to do the same for diarrhea".

But time is running out!!

LoveCurryPies wrote:I wouldn’t judge by the age of Kings and Queens. They have always had plenty of quality foods and access to the finest doctors.

I think Penicillin played a huge part in longer life expectancy.

I watched an interesting documentary (on Netflix) re Bill Gates Foundation the other day. Not long ago, 3 million people a year died of polio. Last year just 17 people. The Foundation is now trying to do the same for diarrhea.

Will they change the name to the Flood Gates Foundation?

Had a debate at work and a friend sent me this.
I think the population is between 7 and 8 billion, this gent argues it cannot go above 11 billion, but that’s still an extra 3billion plus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoH ... ture=share" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Contraception !

Thank me later

Heathclaret wrote:Does that mean people who don’t want children will be forced to have two? How would you enforce this?

How about a cull of old people, say above seventy, you know when they become a burden on the NHS and take more than they contribute?

How about the terminally ill, why not pop them off at a convenient point so they don’t burden society.

Where should we stop?

I agree that the population has to be brought under control, I know ironic from someone who has ten, but I think a bit of balance is necessary. I know more than ten couples who have no children, and many who only have one.

Perhaps we should ban air travel?

Manufacture closer to this country rather than import from the Far East?

I have no idea if this true, but I know i read it somewhere at time. When 9/11 happened lots of aircraft where grounded. I read that temperature rose due to the reduced pollution in the air.

Banning air travel might have a bad effect it was true.

https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empt ... xperiment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good luck with getting a couple of selfish generations to change the habits of a lifetime hipper.

Erasmus wrote:Where do you get that information from, Spiral? It's interesting but it doesn't sound right to me, especially when you look at the average lifespan of the kings and queens of England, which are what we have definite information for. Up until quite recently I would say even after surviving the infant stage getting to 75 or 80 was the exception. But that's only based on occasional perusal of gravestones.

houseboy wrote:Wrong bud - sorry. You need to look not at average life spans (which people don't normally) you look at the age of death. Even when I was young men lived to around 70 on average - the latest figure is now 78, and that is only in the last 40 years or so. Sure infant mortality has dropped massively but people ARE living longer - a LOT longer. In the middle ages a man at 40 was considered an old man, now a man at 60 is not even considered old.

https://www.livescience.com/10569-human ... years.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not sure using the average lifespan of monarchs is a reliable guide for the average expectancy at birth lifespan of people living in Britain at any time in the last thousand years or so, notably due to all the executions and assassinations and whatnot happening to them for the longest time. They didn't live ordinary lives like everyone else. A sufficiently nourished peasant living at the time (and many weren't sufficiently nourished, to be fair, much like poorer folks in Britain today), had a diet which was surprisingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, healthier than a typical modern western diet. We eat too much crap that people didn't have centuries ago, and rates of heart disease (still the biggest UK killer if I'm not mistaken) were lower. A medieval monarch or nobleman ate a lot of fatty meat and food preserved in salt and cooked in sugar and honey. It's a curious contrast, though, between high status individuals and peasants, and one that goes back thousands of years to the ancient Egyptians. There's some evidence of a clinical awareness of heart disease going back to the times of the Pharos of Egypt.