So, to those people who think that global overpopulation is the problem, how do you propose to solve this?
Education, public health and women’s rights are I believe the key things show to reduce the birth rate.
Do you think that would be sufficient to halt and reverse the climate crisis? I think you're absolutely right in terms of reducing the rate of population growth. But I think it would be far too little to have a big enough effect on the climate, soon enough.
Not its own. No one measure will be enough.
We need to slow/reverse population growth.
We also need to focus less on economic growth as a consequence of consumption.
We need use less fossil fuels.
We need to use less ‘stuff’ we need to fly less we need to use more public transportation (ideally it should be free) and less private/personal transportation in the form of cars. We need to eat less meet we need to invest heavily in researching efficient, high capacity battery storage on large scales.
All the tiny things we can do as individuals are useful as they build a bit more momentum and general mindset change.
I am just entirely unconvinced that reducing population growth - by whatever means - will make any difference at all in the short period of time we have to reverse climate change.
I think "overpopulation" is something that we can't "fix" in a way that materially benefits the climate. Your suggestions for population reduction are very good, sensible, achievable and realistic. It's just that it would take decades to make any difference to the population of the planet. Decades we don't have.
An interesting example of the reduction in birthrate is China's one-child policy. Introduced in 1979 when the population of the country was 975 million. When it was finally scrapped in 2015, the population had grown to 1.37 billion. Reducing the birth rate resulted in an increase in population of around 30%. It also accelerated population ageing - the proportion of people aged 65 or older quadrupled. The working age population declined.
So, thirty-odd years of a policy designed to reduce birth rate has had unintended consequences, over the course of decades. That's not the right way to fix the climate crisis.
So, to those people who think that global overpopulation is the problem, how do you propose to solve this?
There is no solution to it.
There is educate those who forever are having a pile of off spring and expecting everyone else to pick up the tab.
That’s a very parochial viewpoint that might have merit in the western world but that doesn’t have any meaning when you talk about the poorer parts of the world. In some places they have a lot of children because the infant mortality rate is high and also they need to have children to look after them when they’re old because there is no welfare state or other support. It’s not an easy subject to negotiate.
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Again when did the ability to critically evaluate the source of your information just disappear from the world.
When you lot never accept the other view because your source of information is far superior to others. In your view and ditto.
Ie I have argued against fact checker because it is assumed by gullible people they can't be wrong purely by it's title.
And who said you are n a position to be able to do that apart from self assessment of course.
Exactly Chips. And we've now learned from Elon Musk via the "Twitter Files" and from Zuckerberg's recent confessions, that the supposedly impartial "Fact Checkers" were nothing but partisan left wing hacks intent on discrediting Conservative views.
Thankfully their services have now been dispensed with.
I really don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend. But when you quote and read the likes of the guardian and listen to one trick ponies like JOB it's easy to be taken in.
What's your view on how best to tackle the climate change crisis, chippy? I know you won't be so arrogant as to claim you have all the solutions - because you've told everyone that arrogance is astonishing.
But, as you really don't understand why it's so difficult to comprehend, would you be happy to share what you believe to be the best way to reverse the on-coming Armageddon? What would a chippy solution look like?
Instead of asking other posters to give their view on how best to tackle climate change crisis how about you give us yours
It's better to listen than to preach.
In other words you don't have the answer. But neither do I. The answer to the problem has to be found with all the world's leaders coming together with an open mind to the problem. I very much doubt anyone on a football forum will provide you with the answers so it's pointless asking.
Our leaders spent years bickering about a change, not a cessation, to our trading agreement with our nearest neighbours. I'm not confident they have the wherewithal to pull together with others to resolve an existential crisis, and I call it that because, when climate change causes a loss of habitat, species have been known to go extinct in the past.
So, to those people who think that global overpopulation is the problem, how do you propose to solve this?
Education, public health and women’s rights are I believe the key things show to reduce the birth rate.
Absolutely but that’s not an option in large parts of the world. Certainly it’s a laudable ambition but possible in the timeframes we’re looking at with climate change. ?
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Again when did the ability to critically evaluate the source of your information just disappear from the world.
When you lot never accept the other view because your source of information is far superior to others. In your view and ditto.
Ie I have argued against fact checker because it is assumed by gullible people they can't be wrong purely by it's title.
And who said you are n a position to be able to do that apart from self assessment of course.
You're using blogs and opinion pieces to argue against peer reviewed scientific journals. But I'm gullible?
Just to save everyone the click, this individual starts blaming the recent California fires on DEI hiring in fire departments and 'homelessness giving rise to arson'
In other words:This provides evidence that is contrary to my beliefs and which makes me feel uncomfortable. Therefore, I suggest a soft censorship of this and similar material from what are undoubtedly far right, oil sponsored climate deniers in order to maintain an unequivocal position on the impending climate Catastrophe by all posters on this thread.
When you say evidence what you actually mean is "opinion, misinformation and outright lies that goes against all evidence".
There isn't a shred of evidence in that piece
Really, here's some:
A new Coal Fired Power being built every week in China.
The problem with this site is that you all refuse to read, or take notice, of any information or opinion that runs contrary to your beliefs, and then try to get that person's views suppressed by denigrating or abusing them.
Rather than engaging in debate or delving deeper in order to try to uncover the truth via source documents, or media from all sides of the political spectrum (in order to try to obtain a more balanced view) you instead get your misguided and misinformed perspective reinforced by your fellow posters, all of whom appear to be on the same side of the political fence.
"Trump was a terrible president, he colluded with Russia, he started an insurrection, he told people to inject bleach, there's no way in hell he'd ever get re elected".
WRONG 🤣 (Because the American people realised that they had been repeatedly lied to, and terribly misled)
Or. "Social media and the MSM isn't deliberately suppressing Conservative voices and views".
Twitter, Facebook & the FBI weren't deliberately preventing people from knowing about that Laptop from hell (Russian Disinformation, yeh right! )
(Oh yes they were, it now turns out)
And you were all very WRONG yet again 🤣
Maybe time to start wising up?
No need to close the thread Stig because I'm bailing anyway. Thanks for the debate fellas, carry on all agreeing with each other.
Pot. Meet kettle.
We do engage with debate but when one side is backed by science and evidence and the other only lies and conspiracy with no credible sources it ends pretty quick. People have been particularly patient with you on this thread explaining and evidencing thing over and over. There is actually plenty of balance and debate on this thread. But when certain overarching principles that are objective facts are questioned it rather breaks down.
When did critical evaluation of the source of the information stop becoming a skill?. Information not backed by science and evidence should rightly be written off.
B.t.w. social media and the MSM weren't "deliberately suppressing conservative view" they were preventing the spread of misinformation (also known as lies). The fact that ot disproportionately affected conservative views isn't about censorship it was maybe a prompt that conservative views should look into themselves and reflect on the truth of them. The fact that it has stopped doing so isn't a good thing.
But no of course the billionaires that own the media and social media are are all personally promoting hard right and far right views is definitely proof they were anti conservative. The cognitive dissonance required here is hilarious.
I love this our side is full of facts from scientists and evidence but your side is fed from disinformation (reminds me of a certain shock jock and his gullible listeners) even though Nobel prizewinning scientists dont agree with them.
Reminds me of a certain thread called brexit. Those experts (and fortunately some of the posters) soon disappeared once it was done.
Arrogance is astonishing.
Again when did the ability to critically evaluate the source of your information just disappear from the world.
When you lot never accept the other view because your source of information is far superior to others. In your view and ditto.
Ie I have argued against fact checker because it is assumed by gullible people they can't be wrong purely by it's title.
And who said you are n a position to be able to do that apart from self assessment of course.
Exactly Chips. And we've now learned from Elon Musk via the "Twitter Files" and from Zuckerberg's recent confessions, that the supposedly impartial "Fact Checkers" were nothing but partisan left wing hacks intent on discrediting Conservative views.
Thankfully their services have now been dispensed with.
Once again "conservative views" being disproportionately affected by fact checkers says much much more about the truth and evidence supporting those views than those doing the checking.
You talk incessantly about vested interests but can't see the vested interest of the tech billionaires who own them in allowing more hard right messaging (whether or not its true) that's supports the ever extending power of their oligarchy.
So, to those people who think that global overpopulation is the problem, how do you propose to solve this?
Education, public health and women’s rights are I believe the key things show to reduce the birth rate.
Do you think that would be sufficient to halt and reverse the climate crisis? I think you're absolutely right in terms of reducing the rate of population growth. But I think it would be far too little to have a big enough effect on the climate, soon enough.
Not its own. No one measure will be enough.
We need to slow/reverse population growth.
We also need to focus less on economic growth as a consequence of consumption.
We need use less fossil fuels.
We need to use less ‘stuff’ we need to fly less we need to use more public transportation (ideally it should be free) and less private/personal transportation in the form of cars. We need to eat less meet we need to invest heavily in researching efficient, high capacity battery storage on large scales.
All the tiny things we can do as individuals are useful as they build a bit more momentum and general mindset change.
I am just entirely unconvinced that reducing population growth - by whatever means - will make any difference at all in the short period of time we have to reverse climate change.
I think "overpopulation" is something that we can't "fix" in a way that materially benefits the climate. Your suggestions for population reduction are very good, sensible, achievable and realistic. It's just that it would take decades to make any difference to the population of the planet. Decades we don't have.
An interesting example of the reduction in birthrate is China's one-child policy. Introduced in 1979 when the population of the country was 975 million. When it was finally scrapped in 2015, the population had grown to 1.37 billion. Reducing the birth rate resulted in an increase in population of around 30%. It also accelerated population ageing - the proportion of people aged 65 or older quadrupled. The working age population declined.
So, thirty-odd years of a policy designed to reduce birth rate has had unintended consequences, over the course of decades. That's not the right way to fix the climate crisis.
A near-universal one-child limit was imposed in 1980 and written into the country's constitution in 1982.
Numerous exceptions were established over time, and by 1984, only about
35.4% of the population was subject to the original restriction of the
policy.
There are some unintended consequences of reducing the birth rate - the obvious one being the end of humanity in the extreme. But more realistically, the current UK birth rate is 1.44 children for each woman - if that is maintained, and assuming no net immigration, the population of the UK would halve in less than 100 years, and that remaining half would be an ever ageing population. Society would cease to function as we know it today with not nearly enough labour to generate the wealth required for infrastructure, not least the health service.
Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
They lean to the side that is in power, or likely to gain power. Siding with the party in opposition doesn't do a lot for their businesses. Your point seems to predicate some form of moral compass - sadly non-existent.
So, to those people who think that global overpopulation is the problem, how do you propose to solve this?
Education, public health and women’s rights are I believe the key things show to reduce the birth rate.
Do you think that would be sufficient to halt and reverse the climate crisis? I think you're absolutely right in terms of reducing the rate of population growth. But I think it would be far too little to have a big enough effect on the climate, soon enough.
Not its own. No one measure will be enough.
We need to slow/reverse population growth.
We also need to focus less on economic growth as a consequence of consumption.
We need use less fossil fuels.
We need to use less ‘stuff’ we need to fly less we need to use more public transportation (ideally it should be free) and less private/personal transportation in the form of cars. We need to eat less meet we need to invest heavily in researching efficient, high capacity battery storage on large scales.
All the tiny things we can do as individuals are useful as they build a bit more momentum and general mindset change.
I am just entirely unconvinced that reducing population growth - by whatever means - will make any difference at all in the short period of time we have to reverse climate change.
I think "overpopulation" is something that we can't "fix" in a way that materially benefits the climate. Your suggestions for population reduction are very good, sensible, achievable and realistic. It's just that it would take decades to make any difference to the population of the planet. Decades we don't have.
An interesting example of the reduction in birthrate is China's one-child policy. Introduced in 1979 when the population of the country was 975 million. When it was finally scrapped in 2015, the population had grown to 1.37 billion. Reducing the birth rate resulted in an increase in population of around 30%. It also accelerated population ageing - the proportion of people aged 65 or older quadrupled. The working age population declined.
So, thirty-odd years of a policy designed to reduce birth rate has had unintended consequences, over the course of decades. That's not the right way to fix the climate crisis.
Wow! Selective fact warning. 400 million babies were not born because of that policy.
Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
In the words of the great man "You took the words right out of my mouth"
Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
They lean to the side that is in power, or likely to gain power. Siding with the party in opposition doesn't do a lot for their businesses. Your point seems to predicate some form of moral compass - sadly non-existent.
Didn't see too many of them on Trumps side from 2016-2020 !
Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
So, to those people who think that global overpopulation is the problem, how do you propose to solve this?
Education, public health and women’s rights are I believe the key things show to reduce the birth rate.
Do you think that would be sufficient to halt and reverse the climate crisis? I think you're absolutely right in terms of reducing the rate of population growth. But I think it would be far too little to have a big enough effect on the climate, soon enough.
Not its own. No one measure will be enough.
We need to slow/reverse population growth.
We also need to focus less on economic growth as a consequence of consumption.
We need use less fossil fuels.
We need to use less ‘stuff’ we need to fly less we need to use more public transportation (ideally it should be free) and less private/personal transportation in the form of cars. We need to eat less meet we need to invest heavily in researching efficient, high capacity battery storage on large scales.
All the tiny things we can do as individuals are useful as they build a bit more momentum and general mindset change.
I am just entirely unconvinced that reducing population growth - by whatever means - will make any difference at all in the short period of time we have to reverse climate change.
I think "overpopulation" is something that we can't "fix" in a way that materially benefits the climate. Your suggestions for population reduction are very good, sensible, achievable and realistic. It's just that it would take decades to make any difference to the population of the planet. Decades we don't have.
An interesting example of the reduction in birthrate is China's one-child policy. Introduced in 1979 when the population of the country was 975 million. When it was finally scrapped in 2015, the population had grown to 1.37 billion. Reducing the birth rate resulted in an increase in population of around 30%. It also accelerated population ageing - the proportion of people aged 65 or older quadrupled. The working age population declined.
So, thirty-odd years of a policy designed to reduce birth rate has had unintended consequences, over the course of decades. That's not the right way to fix the climate crisis.
Wow! Selective fact warning. 400 million babies were not born because of that policy.
So one less USA on the planet.
The country's population grew by 395 million. So, one more USA on the planet.
Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
You are joking of course🤣
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:
Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
You are joking of course🤣
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:
Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
You are joking of course🤣
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:
Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
You are joking of course🤣
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:
Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
You are joking of course🤣
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:
I think that’s really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate, which I’ve been happily watching from the sidelines as I see both points of view.
What are "both points of view"?
One is, obviously, that climate change is the result of human actions, it's an emergency and requires significant plans, actions, regulations and determination to ameliorate and reverse, very, very soon.
This isn't meant as a criticism of anyone, but if we want the thread to stay open, we should beware letting it become a catch all political one, no matter the temptation with other avenues for debating politics having been closed off.
To steer us back, is it the view of some that we shouldn't be spending time and money proactively trying to mitigate the effects of climate change? And is it fair to call those who hold that view 'deniers' given that no one posting here believes the climate isn't changing?
As I understand it, their denial is in believing we can stop it, regardless of the causes. We can try, and I believe it's incumbent on us to, but success isn't guaranteed. Those who doubt our ability to actually reverse what we started, and the rest of us, aren't seeing the evidence that we can do more than reduce our emissions. But that's because it takes time for the effects of our actions to filter through, very long periods of time, and what is being done isn't enough and not being done fast enough.
Our climate change scientists theoretical outcomes, based on what they've learned to date, ought to be used to drive policy decisions, but that isn't happening in a timely manner due to vested interests protecting their profit margins, and public resistance to impositions on their freedoms.
Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
You are joking of course🤣
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:
I think that’s really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate, which I’ve been happily watching from the sidelines as I see both points of view.
What are "both points of view"?
One is, obviously, that climate change is the result of human actions, it's an emergency and requires significant plans, actions, regulations and determination to ameliorate and reverse, very, very soon.
What's the other one?
I think pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that climate change is real. I also think everyone agrees it's man made.
The differing opinions is about how we should tackle it.
Free speech isn’t being suppressed in the west. What’s being allowed is that platforms like TikTok and X are now being explicitly allowed to spread misinformation and lies. It’s an agenda that shouldn’t be encouraged but is favoured by the right and conspiracy nuts. Spend a few minutes on X and you see that at least 50% of the contributions are either about aliens, chem trails or how wonderful Trump or Nigel Farage are and that Kier Starmer is evil. I have no idea where this level of toxicity, lies and misinformation is leading us but it’s certainly not free speech.
Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
You are joking of course🤣
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:
I think that’s really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate, which I’ve been happily watching from the sidelines as I see both points of view.
It's very relevant on a thread about climate change, when it points to a long post which is about many topics except climate change.
You normally love talking about how disinformation is misleading people. But I guess that's only Ok with you, so long as it relates to COVID and nothing else?
And fine for you to all winge about how Billionaires are destroying the planet and have suddenly taken a sharp right turn, but you don't like it when I generously give my time to explain to you the reasons why that's so.
Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
You are joking of course🤣
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:
Yes, but the tech billionaire ‘Oligarchs’ (a Biden term) were firmly in the Biden camp before Trump won the election. OK, Musk ‘converted’ earlier but you get my drift. Weren’t they doing the same thing then from a left perspective? On which side they truly lean, who knows!
Oligarchs isn't a Biden term. It has a technical definition and has been around for a very long time.
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
You are joking of course🤣
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:
I think that’s really unnecessary and adds nothing to the debate, which I’ve been happily watching from the sidelines as I see both points of view.
Of course it adds nothing to the debate, it's not intended to, but it makes the poster express their self perceived moral and intellectual superiority.
This isn't meant as a criticism of anyone, but if we want the thread to stay open, we should beware letting it become a catch all political one, no matter the temptation with other avenues for debating politics having been closed off.
To steer us back, is it the view of some that we shouldn't be spending time and money proactively trying to mitigate the effects of climate change? And is it fair to call those who hold that view 'deniers' given that no one posting here believes the climate isn't changing?
As I understand it, their denial is in believing we can stop it, regardless of the causes. We can try, and I believe it's incumbent on us to, but success isn't guaranteed. Those who doubt our ability to actually reverse what we started, and the rest of us, aren't seeing the evidence that we can do more than reduce our emissions. But that's because it takes time for the effects of our actions to filter through, very long periods of time, and what is being done isn't enough and not being done fast enough.
Our climate change scientists theoretical outcomes, based on what they've learned to date, ought to be used to drive policy decisions, but that isn't happening in a timely manner due to vested interests protecting their profit margins, and public resistance to impositions on their freedoms.
I found the point that Bill Maher made during his monologue that 14 years of attempting to reduce emissions by driving Toyota Prius's around, was wiped out by just one wildfire.
Similar would probably be true, to an even greater extent, by a volcanic eruption.
The point being that nature is far more powerful than anything mankind can do.
Sadly I think it will be resolved, but it will probably be resolved by an asteroid, rather than anything we can do.
To answer your question, no we shouldn't be labelling such people who think it's beyond the control of mankind "deniers" but unfortunately that's what one side of Politics loves to do.
A bit like how anyone who wants to stop the boats or limit immigration, gets labelled "Racist" by the same protagonists.
From my perspective, making our air cleaner, and our oceans cleaner, is a great thing that we should all be striving for, regardless of whether we think we are having any impact on slowing global warming or not.
Comments
I think "overpopulation" is something that we can't "fix" in a way that materially benefits the climate. Your suggestions for population reduction are very good, sensible, achievable and realistic. It's just that it would take decades to make any difference to the population of the planet. Decades we don't have.
An interesting example of the reduction in birthrate is China's one-child policy. Introduced in 1979 when the population of the country was 975 million. When it was finally scrapped in 2015, the population had grown to 1.37 billion. Reducing the birth rate resulted in an increase in population of around 30%. It also accelerated population ageing - the proportion of people aged 65 or older quadrupled. The working age population declined.
So, thirty-odd years of a policy designed to reduce birth rate has had unintended consequences, over the course of decades. That's not the right way to fix the climate crisis.
You talk incessantly about vested interests but can't see the vested interest of the tech billionaires who own them in allowing more hard right messaging (whether or not its true) that's supports the ever extending power of their oligarchy.
They lean to the side that is in power, or likely to gain power. Siding with the party in opposition doesn't do a lot for their businesses. Your point seems to predicate some form of moral compass - sadly non-existent.
Yes - and my point is that they don't do politics, they do £, $ and any other currency that can make them money.
400 million babies were not born because of that policy.
Yes they look to wield their influence whoever is in power but they have always tended to the right and through their owned media looked to support that. This is because that is the side that most supports/enables their agenda. Allows exploitation of workers and consumers, continues down the path of ever further deregulation and tax cuts for big business.
Yes its never been as openly honest and explicit about it as the current cohort are but that's a factor of just how obscene their wealth and power has got giving them the confidence to drop what little pretence existed in the past and a factor of Trump becoming president and openly allowing it.
Also pushed on by the global geo political landscape and the increasing knowledge on both sides of the political spectrum that the current system iis no longer working - meaning they wanted to get their influence out there to ensure whatever new system we morph into living under benefits them (at the cost of everyone else).
Musk and his mother were both staunch Liberals before he discovered that free speech was being suppressed, bought Twitter, then discovered what had been going on there and released "The Twitter Files"
Zuckerberg was always Left Wing, donated around $350 million to help Biden win the 2020 election and also deliberately prevented people knowing about the Laptop from hell and what Hunter and his Dad (10% for the The Big Guy) had been up to with our foreign adversaries.
Bazos likewise had always been on the political left.
What changed was that, unlike most on here, the Billionaire's woke up to that fact that the Mainstream media had been lying, deceiving and indoctrinating the minds of millions of people in an attempt to destroy Trump and take him down.
They tried to bankrupt him, they tried to imprison him, they tried to silence him by banning his Twitter account, they tried to get him removed from the ballot, two sick individuals even tried to assasinate him.
But he was too strong and too determined and he eventually prevailed.
Intelligent people, like the Billionaires could see what was happening and came to admire him and to support democracy and free speech.
TBH, they are so rich, it wouldn't matter what side of politics they supported.
Here's one billionaire explaining the moment that he switched to Trump, and the reason why:
One is, obviously, that climate change is the result of human actions, it's an emergency and requires significant plans, actions, regulations and determination to ameliorate and reverse, very, very soon.
What's the other one?
To steer us back, is it the view of some that we shouldn't be spending time and money proactively trying to mitigate the effects of climate change? And is it fair to call those who hold that view 'deniers' given that no one posting here believes the climate isn't changing?
As I understand it, their denial is in believing we can stop it, regardless of the causes. We can try, and I believe it's incumbent on us to, but success isn't guaranteed. Those who doubt our ability to actually reverse what we started, and the rest of us, aren't seeing the evidence that we can do more than reduce our emissions. But that's because it takes time for the effects of our actions to filter through, very long periods of time, and what is being done isn't enough and not being done fast enough.
Our climate change scientists theoretical outcomes, based on what they've learned to date, ought to be used to drive policy decisions, but that isn't happening in a timely manner due to vested interests protecting their profit margins, and public resistance to impositions on their freedoms.
I also think everyone agrees it's man made.
The differing opinions is about how we should tackle it.
But I guess that's only Ok with you, so long as it relates to COVID and nothing else?
And fine for you to all winge about how Billionaires are destroying the planet and have suddenly taken a sharp right turn, but you don't like it when I generously give my time to explain to you the reasons why that's so.
Or rather, he thinks he is.
Similar would probably be true, to an even greater extent, by a volcanic eruption.
The point being that nature is far more powerful than anything mankind can do.
Sadly I think it will be resolved, but it will probably be resolved by an asteroid, rather than anything we can do.
To answer your question, no we shouldn't be labelling such people who think it's beyond the control of mankind "deniers" but unfortunately that's what one side of Politics loves to do.
A bit like how anyone who wants to stop the boats or limit immigration, gets labelled "Racist" by the same protagonists.
From my perspective, making our air cleaner, and our oceans cleaner, is a great thing that we should all be striving for, regardless of whether we think we are having any impact on slowing global warming or not.