Our new coalition government.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Our new coalition government.

1 | ... | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | ... | 182

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2313997 10-Sep-2019 09:20

tdgeek:

networkn:

Getting rid of some humans, or at least preventing many more, would be a MUCH more effective method of contributing to climate change.

That would be effective but hardly viable. Managing population growth is too late now

I entirely disagree. If we don't control population, we are effectively extinct inside of 50 years I believe, trees and EV's aren't going to help that.

We simply have too many mouths to feed and not enough resources to provide for them already.

China had a 1 kid per family law for many years.

I believe the next world war will be over water.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2314012 10-Sep-2019 09:22

Mahon:

You could cover our whole country in trees and it would make no difference to climate change....

I stand by my statement. In fact it would probably add to climate change as we would need to import all our food etc. The real culprit just keeps on importing more and more fossil fuels and burns them. Very few actually understand just how bad it is in some countries as the scale of environmental abuse is off the charts.

You state the trees make no difference

The largest contributors are FF for heat and energy, FF for transport, agriculture. Deforestation is right up there

Anything that photosynthesizes adds O to the atmosphere and removes CO2. Basic science

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2314013 10-Sep-2019 09:24

networkn:

The getting rid of existing people was a little tongue in cheek, but the limiting families to 2 kids wouldn't be a terrible idea at this point, surely.

Didn't the Chinese try something like that, then abandon it as unworkable?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2314014 10-Sep-2019 09:26

networkn:

The Government, who else?

The getting rid of existing people was a little tongue in cheek, but the limiting families to 2 kids wouldn't be a terrible idea at this point, surely.

No matter how many trees we plant, humans are by far the biggest problem, it's time to start considering measures by which the world population stops exploding at the rate it has.

I have young kids, this would affect them, and I'm ok with that. I imagine they would be ok with it too.

Completely agree, but its too late. Yes we should enact some population control now, but it wont have ANY benefit to our current problem. It would help in the future, after we have failed to stop climate change and the world becomes smaller. Famine, disease, and wars as we compete for reducing resources will contribute also

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2314015 10-Sep-2019 09:26

Rikkitic:

networkn:

The getting rid of existing people was a little tongue in cheek, but the limiting families to 2 kids wouldn't be a terrible idea at this point, surely.

Didn't the Chinese try something like that, then abandon it as unworkable?

It was certainly more effective than if they hadn't implemented it. Even if some people buck the system, imagine what the population of China would be without it.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2314020 10-Sep-2019 09:30

Rikkitic:

networkn:

The getting rid of existing people was a little tongue in cheek, but the limiting families to 2 kids wouldn't be a terrible idea at this point, surely.

Didn't the Chinese try something like that, then abandon it as unworkable?

No. It was workable, the one child policy. It is still in place, but relaxed. the one child policy is now two children if both parents are only childs. Most Chinese dont want two kids due to the cost to raise them

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Mahon

473 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 214

#2314023 10-Sep-2019 09:31

In my mind, global population control is essential if this planet is to survive in the longer term. Yes, in addition we have to curb our waste and protect our water etcetc, but with our current population growth(global) these other efforts are only short term. The Amazon is being cleared so we can feed the world mostly due to the increasing price of food and greed. China's use of fossil fuels is growing at a unsustainable rate and they are prepared to pillage the planet to satisfy their needs.

The worlds largest countries need true leaders, not idiots like we have now. I blame social media in part for the state we are in. Our current government is no better...very lacking in real leadership across all parties.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2314024 10-Sep-2019 09:32

networkn:

tdgeek:

networkn:

Getting rid of some humans, or at least preventing many more, would be a MUCH more effective method of contributing to climate change.

That would be effective but hardly viable. Managing population growth is too late now

I entirely disagree. If we don't control population, we are effectively extinct inside of 50 years I believe, trees and EV's aren't going to help that.

We simply have too many mouths to feed and not enough resources to provide for them already.

China had a 1 kid per family law for many years.

I believe the next world war will be over water.

Its too late. By the time we control population, we are already toast. Its too late to fix it, other matters need to fix it now, but they wont as well.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2314025 10-Sep-2019 09:32

tdgeek:

Completely agree, but its too late. Yes we should enact some population control now, but it wont have ANY benefit to our current problem. It would help in the future, after we have failed to stop climate change and the world becomes smaller. Famine, disease, and wars as we compete for reducing resources will contribute also

You can't have a credible government enacting population controls but then doing things like massively underwriting tourism which involves thousands of tonnes of Co2 being emitted directly into the atmosphere far above any natural carbon sinks that can reach it. At some point people are going to ask questions about why people who fly to the other side of the world multiple times a year are telling us we're bad people for driving to work.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2314026 10-Sep-2019 09:35

Mahon:

In my mind, global population control is essential if this planet is to survive in the longer term. Yes, in addition we have to curb our waste and protect our water etcetc, but with our current population growth(global) these other efforts are only short term. The Amazon is being cleared so we can feed the world mostly due to the increasing price of food and greed. China's use of fossil fuels is growing at a unsustainable rate and they are prepared to pillage the planet to satisfy their needs.

The worlds largest countries need true leaders, not idiots like we have now. I blame social media in part for the state we are in. Our current government is no better...very lacking in real leadership across all parties.

Its too late cant you see that? We need to act now. If you had a one child policy, and in the real work it would need to be two children, it would take the number of years before the potential third and fourth child comes along to START making any difference. Even then their effect is low to begin with. Great idea, way too late

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2314031 10-Sep-2019 09:41

It's too late. Full stop.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2314033 10-Sep-2019 09:44

GV27:

tdgeek:

Completely agree, but its too late. Yes we should enact some population control now, but it wont have ANY benefit to our current problem. It would help in the future, after we have failed to stop climate change and the world becomes smaller. Famine, disease, and wars as we compete for reducing resources will contribute also

You can't have a credible government enacting population controls but then doing things like massively underwriting tourism which involves thousands of tonnes of Co2 being emitted directly into the atmosphere far above any natural carbon sinks that can reach it. At some point people are going to ask questions about why people who fly to the other side of the world multiple times a year are telling us we're bad people for driving to work.

If you want to cease all activities that generate CO2 thats ok. Think about that. ALL activities

All animal species pollute the Earth, but at a level that the environment can manage. Humans can pollute the Earth, in fact they need to, to allow the environment to have the correct balance of greenhouse gases. We need greenhouse gases. So you assess and reduce what you can and add ability to suck up what you can

Or are you blaming the Coalition for encouraging climate change? Does National have an anti tourism policy? I wouldn't have an issue if tourism was banned. If a $1000 per seat levy was placed on flights, if meat was banned from being farmed as was milk (thats quite sensible).

Govts dont want to upset people as votes are more important than climate change. Most people want green policies but truth be known they dont want to pay for it, classic human behaviour.

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2314071 10-Sep-2019 10:30

tdgeek:

Or are you blaming the Coalition for encouraging climate change? Does National have an anti tourism policy? I wouldn't have an issue if tourism was banned. If a $1000 per seat levy was placed on flights, if meat was banned from being farmed as was milk (thats quite sensible).

Govts dont want to upset people as votes are more important than climate change. Most people want green policies but truth be known they dont want to pay for it, classic human behaviour.

I think we're structurally boned in that we're heavily reliant on tourism, but radical steps such as population control in somewhere like NZ, where we have so few people to begin with, is going to be seen as draconian. We can't even convince people to have fewer kids for the benefit of their own well-being, let alone some loftier inspirational goal like 'saving the planet'. How would you enforce it? Mass sterilisation? Executing third-borns?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2314085 10-Sep-2019 10:41

GV27:

tdgeek:

Or are you blaming the Coalition for encouraging climate change? Does National have an anti tourism policy? I wouldn't have an issue if tourism was banned. If a $1000 per seat levy was placed on flights, if meat was banned from being farmed as was milk (thats quite sensible).

Govts dont want to upset people as votes are more important than climate change. Most people want green policies but truth be known they dont want to pay for it, classic human behaviour.

I think we're structurally boned in that we're heavily reliant on tourism, but radical steps such as population control in somewhere like NZ, where we have so few people to begin with, is going to be seen as draconian. We can't even convince people to have fewer kids for the benefit of their own well-being, let alone some loftier inspirational goal like 'saving the planet'. How would you enforce it? Mass sterilisation? Executing third-borns?

Tourism like MANY things are hard to reduce or stop. If we are creative we can mitigate as much as we can, we dont have to stop everything. As for population control its a good idea albeit way too late. These measures need to be global. For NZ being small, it may make sense to grow the population to get more efficiencies using less FF per capita, etc. Immigration helps, but if we wanted to reduce population of Kiwis, selfishness will rule. Any measures need buy in from individuals, thats why it will fail.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2314089 10-Sep-2019 10:43

This is probably going OT as the theme here is climate change not the thread title

1 | ... | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | ... | 182