Thelonious Monk wrote: » We all need to consume less, or we're f*cked. You don't have to be a genius to figure that out.
Shefwedfan wrote: » To be honest for over 30 years now we have been told to reduce CO2 and failed miserably The people have no will to do it bar a few. Most just want to bury head in sand and blame China or someone else. I can’t see anything changing, just look at feedback on article to ban combustion engine car sales in 10 years and people going nuts.....not a clue.....stupidity is the biggest issues with the human race, that and greed
Fr_Dougal wrote: » You’re right, and there’s only one way to do it. Less people=Less consumption. It’s a scientific fact.https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig1_313704365
X111111111111 wrote: » Electric cars are more damaging to the environment.
KWAG2019 wrote: » The huge corporations, their shareholders are the enemies of everyone’s future. Read the article. And lobbyists should be severely restricted to publicly recorded access to legislators.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Ugh. Ok but even if we halved world population we're still consuming at a rate where the planet would be f*cked in no time anyway.
Fr_Dougal wrote: » Do you have a link or a source to support that? Looks made up and without substance.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Ah yes. And you're right. But try proposing raising tax on the huge corporations and see what reaction you get. They used to campaign on Trickle down economics but they don't do that any longer but the policies of trickle down economics has never been stronger. Nobody buys the notion that we should manipulate the economy do wealthy people have more wealth. But that's what we're getting whether we say we want it or not. Shur, pentioners own most of the residential property nowadays. Total reversal of the recent social contract. I'm not proposing a revolution but I wouldn't be opposed to lbs either.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » I studied economics for a while. Economic growth is equal to population growth plus growth in per capita GDP. If we were to reduce the population, we would need to reduce our standard of living too as economic growth and increase of GDP is based on population growth. For all you saying the problem is population and we need to reduce it - are you ok with reducing population and having a lower standard of living? I doubt it. Sharing resources and consuming less is the only answer, imo.
SEPT 23 1989 wrote: » They want the price of our transport our clothes the means to heat our homes increased drastically lowering our standard of living again Rations? Go fcuk yourselves We paid enough price in blood through the generations to have the standard of living we have today The Working Class need to organise very quickly
Fr_Dougal wrote: » You must have only studied it for a short while, because you’re wrong. If each worker increases productivity you can have an increase in GDP without an increase in population, in fact you can have an increase in GDP and a decline in population at the same time.
KWAG2019 wrote: » These entities are a threat to our continued existence.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Ugh. Ok but even if we halved world population we're still consuming at a rate where the planet would be f*cked in no time anyway. There's no getting away from the fact that our way of life is not sustainable. So - we all need to consume less, stop buying so much crap, and take care of the planet better.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » I'm working class and i think the way we live nowadays is pretty disgusting. We all need to man up and realise we cant live this snowflake consumer cushioned lifestyle and appreciate food and clothing and everything we consume a little more.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » Do you see any population controls being brought in in Europe in your lifetime?
Jimmy Garlic wrote: » ... doom laden article by John Gibbons.
