Jump to content

Greta Thunberg & Extinction Rebellion


Rev

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Ah OK - then you've  slightly misunderstood. I agree - that's the point. Infinite economic growth cannot sustain 11bn people if we don't change the current way of doing things

I was trying to make the point that governments AND people both need to make changes, and XR is the start of that realisation (regardless of whether people agree with their methods)

I mean the extra people largely aren't going to be in particularly economically developed countries, Europe for instance will quickly see a population decline as will Japan. Those countries actually do need managed economic growth to deal with the extra people living there.  XR isn't the start of that realisation though.  Everything I've heard from them is not about implementing sufficient technological changes to adapt to this issue but rather a combo of scaremongering and simply saying we need to stop using planes and cars and stop having kids for instance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 592
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 hours ago, Highgate said:

I'm sure that's highly likely, I definitely have plenty of things that can't be considered environmentally friendly. It's difficult for consumers in all honesty. I guess it's the crude oil derivatives that are burned that are of the greatest concern regarding global warming, although the others no doubt require GHG release throughout their product life-cycle.

 

Ahh product life-cycles, get this...we have to have a PPC (Pollution Prevention Control) permit (and audited by the local authority against it) due to our high flash solvent usage. Each year we have to work out how much solvent we buy, how much we process and how much we sold within finished products. The disparity between bought and sold is what we "lose" to the atmosphere, in theory....Has to be less than 3% lost as a condition of the permit. The ridiculous thing is as soon as we supply it to the end user...the whole lot goes into the atmosphere....the whole premise of a solvent based product is the solvent flashes off and leaves behind the "active" substance(s). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the broccoli guy, he’s definitely a WUM, I refuse to believe there are people out there like him. His whole interview with GMB had to be parody. On the topic of cannibalism previously, wouldn’t he be committing a vegetable kind of cannibalism every time he eats a piece of broccoli if he identifies as a broccoli?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Sexydadbod said:

As for the broccoli guy, he’s definitely a WUM, I refuse to believe there are people out there like him. His whole interview with GMB had to be parody. On the topic of cannibalism previously, wouldn’t he be committing a vegetable kind of cannibalism every time he eats a piece of broccoli if he identifies as a broccoli?

Not even sure why GMB would even give him airtime.

Surely they must have checked his credentials first and asked why exactly he wanted to appear on the show?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, maxjam said:

 

(Electric) trains yesterday, buses today.  I thought public transport was the way forwards...

It does sound a bit counterintuitive. Could cause disruption in ways that don't affect mass transport, which presumably they support?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, McRamFan said:

Start with the fashion industry, that would be a good step in the right direction.  10% of the global carbon food print comes from here, be it synthetic crops that destroy waterways or the 'fashion shows' that happen somewhere in the world.

Oi them fashion shows are my bread and butter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

Oi them fashion shows are my bread and butter.

That is fine, as long as the industry does something to off set the damage it does.  I travel a lot, especially this time of year, my company has introduced a lot of carbon off setting initiatives, which covers everything from work vans, company cars, flights, work canteens and even which hotels we can stay with.  We also have/are altered manufacturing to be greener, which has raised costs a little, however has improved end product, and customers have openly welcomed it.

Unfortunately, probably due to manufacturers greed, the fashion industry has turned itself into a disposable industry.  Wear once, throw it away or it is so poorly manufactured that it dissolves in the wash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
35 minutes ago, Squid said:

there were an odd bunch up in chesterfield this morning at 10 past 8 where the big roundabout is that connects a61 and a617 today looked like rate muppets wa doin some sort of ritual dance lol

 

https://www.peakfm.co.uk/news/local/extinction-rebellion-to-demonstrate-at-busy-chesterfield-roundabout/

You have to take your hat off, them using their hard earned annual leave to do this and the demonstrations in London.

I am of course assuming they are all in employment and debunking the myth that protesters only protest to avoid working. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Squid said:

there were an odd bunch up in chesterfield this morning at 10 past 8 where the big roundabout is that connects a61 and a617 today looked like rate muppets wa doin some sort of ritual dance lol

 

https://www.peakfm.co.uk/news/local/extinction-rebellion-to-demonstrate-at-busy-chesterfield-roundabout/

You're welcome to them.. Tossers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever about the protesters and whether they are effectively helping or damaging their own objectives, outdoor air pollution alone (as distinct from climate change) kills 4,200,000 people around the world each year according to the World Health Organization. 

It's an enormous problem that gets very little coverage in proportion to it's dreadful death toll.  Imagine the media coverage and the response from governments if ISIS were killing 4,200,000 people each year. 

Because it's effects are gradual and almost invisible everybody feels comfortable ignoring it.  Millions have died as a result.  More than 90% of the world has little choice but to live in areas where the air quality is below the scientifically accepted safety standards but yet it never seems to be a major issue at general election time anywhere. Why is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...