This ^^^What she's saying isn't nonsense. We have a pollution problem, and a fossil fuel dependency that will eventually bite us.
I just don't think her proposed solutions are remotely feasible.
This ^^^What she's saying isn't nonsense. We have a pollution problem, and a fossil fuel dependency that will eventually bite us.
I just don't think her proposed solutions are remotely feasible.
What she's saying isn't nonsense. We have a pollution problem, and a fossil fuel dependency that will eventually bite us.
I just don't think her proposed solutions are remotely feasible.
Here is how her 15 minutes will play out:I wouldn’t call her a poser, I’d call her a young kid being exploited.
She will be a future Swedish prime minister.Here is how her 15 minutes will play out:
They are equals.A 16 year old preaching to a grade 6 drama school teacher. Should work out well. Maybe she should take Grade 6 Science class and learn about the role of Co2 and the creation of all life form on the planet.
This nonsense response is exactly what the issue isWhat she's saying isn't nonsense. We have a pollution problem, and a fossil fuel dependency that will eventually bite us.
I just don't think her proposed solutions are remotely feasible.
You may want to check your windows and doors because you've clearly been breathing too much engine exhaust.This nonsense response is exactly what the issue is
Pollution is not linked to fossil fuel use
And neither are linked to climate change
Like I said any grown adult that is willing to accept a 16 year old parrot is pretty sad imo
But Youtube and social media sites have made celebs of everyone these days
She speaks for a generation.
The solution is there. At least in principle itI'm all for finding a solution to the pollution problem, but no solution is not actually a solution.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/the-overpopulation-mythThe solution is there. At least in principle it
should be more plausible to implement than Greta
Thunberg's call for ditching fossil fuels. Population
control is all it takes to save the world from impending
ecological crisis. Even without global warming world's
population has to be reduced to save the planet from
mass extinction of non-human species. Problem solved
if only three out of ten young couples refrain from
procreation from this point on. But won't have the
will power to pull off population control on a global
scale.
That’s a bit silly, I’d go to India and China and see how that goes over.The solution is there. At least in principle it
should be more plausible to implement than Greta
Thunberg's call for ditching fossil fuels. Population
control is what it takes to save the world from impending
ecological crisis. Even without global warming world's
population has to be reduced to save the planet from
mass extinction of non-human species. Problem solved
if only three out of ten young couples refrain from
procreation from this point on and the rest produce
no more than one offspring. But we won't have the
will power to pull off population control on a global
scale.
Pollution of the planet is not a myth. Anyway natureover population is a myth
I don't get your point. Isn't that with a smaller populationThat’s a bit silly, I’d go to India and China and see how that goes over.
Power geration and transportation is only half the issue, there are also industrial sources and meat sources that will have to be constrained. So unless you are driving your Tesla 3 while eating an impossible burger on your way home to your bamboo hut, YOU ARE GLOBAL WARMING
A billion poor people build few cities, drive few cars and eat little meat. Rich people are massive emitters.I don't get your point. Isn't that with a smaller population
demand for meat and industrial pollution will be reduced?
Well, that just means affluent countries like Canada andWhen aggregated in terms of income, we see in the visualization that the richest half (high and upper-middle income countries) emit 86 percent of global CO2 emissions. The bottom half (low and lower-middle income) only 14%. The very poorest countries (home to 9 percent of the global population) are responsible for just 0.5 percent. This provides a strong indication of the relative sensitivity of global emissions to income versus population. Even several billion additional people in low-income countries — where fertility rates and population growth is already highest — would leave global emissions almost unchanged. 3 or 4 billion low income individuals would only account for a few percent of global CO2. At the other end of the distribution however, adding only one billion high income individuals would increase global emissions by almost one-third.
One could argue Clinton destroyed the planet by letting China in the WTO and helping to create a massive middle class.Well, that just means affluent countries like Canada and
the U.S. need to put a lid on immigration from poorer nations
where CO2 emission per capita are lower. Canada won't
have the political will to do that. We need more
immigrants to grow our economy according to
the Liberal party. Outlawing private jet travelling
would help if only that is possible. That won't
make some of the noted supporters of Greta
like Trudeau, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Leonardo
DiCaprio and Ellen Degeneres happy though.
Sad state of affairs. Clown world continues unabated.