Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

The vagina is the worlds biggest polluter.

«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭funk-you


    What a load of twat.

    -Funk


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,246 ✭✭✭✭Riamfada


    Im the only man in an office of 6 people. Should I open that?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    Grimes wrote: »
    Im the only man in an office of 6 people. Should I open that?

    Yes, stop being a pussy


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,178 ✭✭✭thirtythirty


    I knew there was something fishy about them...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom



    Its disturbing that Al Gore covered this up for so long, but ive always thought that there was something fishy about "an inconvenient truth".

    What's the difference between a vagina and Al Gore?
    One is a female sex organ, the other is a cunt.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,467 ✭✭✭Wazdakka


    Save the Planet..

    Abortions for all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    f.uck them, f.uck them all ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39 kicom


    We now have a good reason to ban Catholicism. And because science backs us up, we're fully justified in exterminating them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    What are they going to do? Impose a fanny fart tax?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,228 ✭✭✭bluto63


    Really, did they need to do a study to figure this out?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭Bazzy


    Thats a load of flaps


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    kicom wrote: »
    We now have a good reason to ban Catholicism. And because science backs us up, we're fully justified in exterminating them.

    Unfunny and factually wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,599 ✭✭✭patmac


    As a DINKY I shall use this answer when nosy feckers ask us why we don't have any children.
    I saw a comedian on Charlie Bookers Newswipe (BBC3) making the same observation apparently a woman increases her Carbon Footprint 40 times for every child she spawns.
    I'm off to trade in my Prius in for a 1983 5 litre diesel Jag safe in the knowledge that I am saving the planet by being sprog free.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,456 ✭✭✭✭ibarelycare


    Ah. I thought this was going to be about queafing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,594 ✭✭✭bonerm


    Wazdakka wrote: »
    Save the Planet..

    Abortions for all.

    Abortions for some, miniature durex flags for others.


  • Moderators Posts: 52,294 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    We need a Gee-8 summit to try and find a solution to this problem.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,594 ✭✭✭bonerm


    koth wrote: »
    We need a Gee-8 summit to try and find a solution to this problem.

    Pity George W. Bush isn't around anymore, he wouldn't stand for all this fannying about.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    WindSock wrote: »
    What are they going to do? Impose a fanny fart tax?

    You obviously didnt read the article.

    Here it is for everyone else:
    Reproducing less would have the greatest impact on battling climate change and contraception is the cheapest form of “green” technology, a study by the London School of Economics (LSE) says.

    The basic premise of Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost is that fewer people populating the planet will mean less pollution that leads to global warming.

    In a Sept. 10 press release, LSE says contraception is nearly five times cheaper than traditional green technologies put to use to halt climate change. Given that 40 percent of pregnancies in the world are unplanned, according to the United Nations, family planning would serve as a substantial solution to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, it says.

    The report, commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust, concludes that family planning should be considered one of the primary methods of reducing harmful emissions.

    The link between population and climate issues is a platform Optimum Population Trust has been pushing for some time. The Trust believes attention to family planning needs would save carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to six times what the United States emits annually. Roger Martin, chair of Optimum Population Trust, said the findings vindicated the organization’s stance that population growth must be included in the climate change debate.

    “It’s always been obvious that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions — the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down, as we want, while the population keeps shooting up. The taboo on mentioning this fact has made the whole climate change debate so far somewhat unreal. Stabilising population levels has always been essential ecologically, and this study shows it’s economically sensible too.

    “The population issue must now be added into the negotiations for the Copenhagen climate change summit in December. This part of the solution is so easy, and so cheap, and would bring so many other social and economic benefits, from health and education to the empowerment of women. It would also ease all the other environmental problems we face — the rapid shrinkage of soil, fresh water, forests, fisheries, wildlife and oil reserves and the looming food crisis,” Martin said.

    Makes alot of sense to me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    syklops wrote: »
    You obviously didnt read the article.

    I read enough of it to see it's nothing new.

    The world is over populated. Shocker! :eek:

    Of course the 1 child policy is working out well in China, when this generation dies out, the population will be back down to the millions. 75% will be men, so less pollutin fanny over there. But of course they will have invaded the western world by then and you know what the Chinese are like, rabbits. That's right. Hairy Japanese bastards.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    So less people means there will be less people polluting?! That guy's a genius.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 826 ✭✭✭Jason McCabe


    If there are less people on the planet does that mean there are less people's feet on the planet?


  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    It is the real inconvenient truth. Pious looking bitch moms looking at me funny for burning houses down and polluting their environment. And they want to save the environment now?
    For what?
    For their kids?
    Hypocrites.
    Anyone who wants to claim green credentials should form a child murdering militia or GTFO to some craphole like Australia that there is already no hope for and leave the rest of us happy non-parents to slightly pollute the world which would have been fine if you'da just kept your damn fool legs crossed missis!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,331 ✭✭✭✭bronte


    Bloody kids. Even when it was the immigants, I knew it was the kids.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 345 ✭✭Pappy o' daniel


    Yes, now you know why sodomy rhymes with God-to-me.

    And it will save the planet.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 690 ✭✭✭Gingervitis


    patmac wrote: »
    As a DINKY I shall use this answer when nosy feckers ask us why we don't have any children.
    I saw a comedian on Charlie Bookers Newswipe (BBC3) making the same observation apparently a woman increases her Carbon Footprint 40 times for every child she spawns.
    I'm off to trade in my Prius in for a 1983 5 litre diesel Jag safe in the knowledge that I am saving the planet by being sprog free.

    Clip in question:



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭BigDuffman


    Theres something fishy about this....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,755 ✭✭✭tony1kenobi


    patmac wrote: »
    As a DINKY I shall use this answer when nosy feckers ask us why we don't have any children.
    I saw a comedian on Charlie Bookers Newswipe (BBC3) making the same observation apparently a woman increases her Carbon Footprint 40 times for every child she spawns.
    I'm off to trade in my Prius in for a 1983 5 litre diesel Jag safe in the knowledge that I am saving the planet by being sprog free.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    People could also reduce their carbon footprints by killing themselves.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,038 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Total rubbish the earths population has peaked and will be on a downward trend from now on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 447 ✭✭bluecatmorgana


    Overpopulation is a problem Ive always believed.
    and its probably going to get worse considering that in 2008(9?) the most amount of babies were born in a year in Ireland than for a hundred years.

    This and many, many other reasons is why Im never having kids.
    Ladies do yourself a favour if you feel the clock ticking, get a dog or a cat.


Advertisement
Advertisement