easypazz wrote: » I just find it strange that you are slagging this place off as being a ****hole, you seem to have lived here all your life, you know there is a much better country that you can live in where nobody will dictate to you what you can and can't do but you don't plan going for another 10 years or so. Seems strange that's all.
Micky 32 wrote: » But it’s not really any of your business per se and you shouldn’t be so fixated on my decisions.
easypazz wrote: » Its a lot more that just carbon tax on motor fuel. By 2025 all new cars are supposed to be electric, I expect this to slip but it will happen at a later date Electricity for your home costs more because renewable supplies cost more. Government policy is dictating to you on many levels what you can and can't do in relation to carbon taxes. But you won't be dictated to because you are leaving this ****hole in 10 years time.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » I whizz by it every day on my bike. Im all for congestion charges and keeping cars out of the city.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Yes, its far more carbon efficient to live in communities rather than one off car depenedant housing
easypazz wrote: » Its funny though, you live in a ****hole when you can be somewhere so much better.
Micky 32 wrote: » So what are you doing to help the climate, so what sacrifices are you doing at the moment?
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » The one off house I live in is is 200 years old. Should I knock it before or after I apply to live in some random council estate in Dublin? Wouldn't qualify for one in any case, not that I would want to live there.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Yes unless you're a farmer it should be knocked down and the land rewilded. Im not eligible for social housing either i bought mine amongst the proles.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » You must be popular with your neighbours when you use a derogatory term like prole to describe them, although i'm guessing you don't have the 'cajones' to use that word off line.Gives me a warm feeling knowing I will never have to endure living in a box surrounded by other boxes inhabited by people such as yourself and also my children will not meet an educator of your 'standard'.
easypazz wrote: » We need a mass cull.
quokula wrote: » From that article: The increasing population of Uganda is not an excuse to keep burning fossil fuels in Ireland. While population growth is a problem, it's tends to balance out as countries develop and as contraception and sex education become more prevalent. Indeed the trend is downwards in some fully developed countries like Germany and Japan as people aren't having enough kids to maintain existing numbers - this is something that has been happening naturally without much need for intervention (in fact the opposite is needed as immigration needs to be encouraged to service the ageing population) If everyone was consuming 50% less (and Ugandans currently have a carbon footprint of less than 1% of Irish people), then the population of the planet could double without impacting the environment any more than it currently is. So while population is not a non-issue, it's not the area where most drastic action is needed right now.
easypazz wrote: » Very little tbh. Prawns in the restaurant flown in from south America? Check Diesel vehicles? Check Big steak once or twice a week? Check Big coal fire tonight? Check Fly 10 hours to far away places? Check I believe that our behaviour is doing enormous damage but I doubt the ability is there on a global scale to solve it. The population increases by 200000 people a day, so even if each individual cuts back on their carbon output a bit the population growth will absorb the saving and total carbon output won't start to decline. We need a mass cull.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » How come people in one off houses dont believe in climate change but city folk do? There seems to be a rural urban divide on the matter of environment and consumption.
Poor air and water quality, insufficient water availability, waste-disposal problems, and high energy consumption are exacerbated by the increasing population density and demands of urban environments.
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » Where would you accommodate the displaced rural dwellers after you release the wolves and bears, what's the plan? Can you summerise how this mass forced relocation of people should be undertaken? Should they be forced to leave by a combination of punitive taxation and coersion? Or should they just be rounded up and their property confiscated for destruction so rewilding can commence?
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Obviously, the rural dwellers would be food for the wolves and bears. But, rewilding aside, the most urgent task facing mankind is for mankind to acknowledge the fact that man-made climate change presents an imminent existential threat. The next task is for mankind to decide how to stop that existential threat from becoming a reality. If mankind doesn't do that, it's just a question of time before mankind doesn't exist.
[Deleted User] wrote: » resource wars, take out africa first, hope that technology and the time bought by this action buys us enough time for greta the posh white swedish girl to manage her irrational panic attacks if shes still unhappy, i reckon south america next. id be wary enough of the chinese and the indians, tbh.
SaintLeibowitz wrote: » I think she'll be alright. I doubt she gives a tuppence about your ad hominems.
easypazz wrote: » I don't quite think its quite that bad. If there is mass human depopulation due to climate change then pollution will decrease and the planet will recover.
Deleted User wrote: » resource wars, take out africa first, hope that technology and the time bought by this action buys us enough time for greta the posh white swedish girl to manage her irrational panic attacks if shes still unhappy, i reckon south america next. id be wary enough of the chinese and the indians, tbh.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Yeah, let's nuke everyone else and we'll be fine. What could possibly go wrong?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
