Jump to content

What should be done... about climate change


Rippounet

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

One child policy for most countries.

Reproductive freedom works both ways. Women have the right to choose to give birth to multiple babies, just as they have the right to choose to have none. You don't get to make that choice for them, any more than Ted Cruz does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trumps anti-hurricane strategy:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-floated-nuking-hurricanes-to-stop-them-from-hitting-us-report/ar-AAGjFxv?ocid=ob-fb-enus-580&fbclid=IwAR34j_J8UQhWRJ7rnrkFtp744ix1SBxV8PR4YdheHYzQ1v1yHyi03xneNfo

 

President Trump has floated dropping nuclear bombs into hurricanes to stop them from hitting the United States in meetings with Homeland Security and national security officials, Axios reported Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Because dispersing radioactive material into a storm system that will scatter it over half/your entire country/half the world (I'm sure its somewhere in this range) is an excellent idea. Even if it worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

One child policy for most countries.

You realize what that did in China? Killing baby girls, guys kidnapping and force-marrying women from neighboring countries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mikael said:

Cba googling, but isnt most of the west already at a one child policy in practice? Not counting immigration of course.

Personal preference isnt the same as a policy/law, so not really no

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mikael said:

I guess i was unclear. Arent we already at about 1 child/couple, so at least in the west, no such law is needed.

Not quite. I think Italy at about 1,2 is lowest, and up to 1,7/1,8 for other Western European countries.

ETA: Wiki says Spain is lowes, at 1,3. No Western European country above 1,8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The countries that would need a one (or 2-3 instead of 5-7, for starters) child policy won't have one (and not be able to enforce it anyway, many being on the brink of being failed states), and as has been said, most of the West is in practice almost there. This is not going to work and some of the more radical proposals of this kind obviously beg the question what the "saving of the world" should be good for, if not for our children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mikael said:

I guess i was unclear. Arent we already at about 1 child/couple, so at least in the west, no such law is needed.

No you were clear. I understood you meaning low birth rates meant it was unnecessary. Just pointing out that policy/law would be different because it's compelling/forcing the decision, whereas right now preference could change and birth rates rise without consequences.

Your point is fair though, the countries with higher birth rates are not (for the most part) the ones causing major concern over Climate change. There are also compelling reasons FOR the high birth rates in many of these countries (high infant mortality caused by various factors) and unless you address those underlying problems a one child policy isn't really suitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Population per se isn't really a problem so even if birth rates rise it's not necessary to introduce regulatory limits on reproduction. The earth has a higher human carrying capacity than our current population if we transform energy production and substantially reduce waste. Both of which are achievable without having to entertain notions of draconian population controls and without having to sacrifice basic quality of life needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interestingly, the major players affected oppose the rollbacks:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/epa-to-roll-back-regulations-on-methane-a-potent-greenhouse-gas/ar-AAGuC9u?ocid=msnclassic

 

The rollback is particularly notable because major energy companies have, in fact, spoken out against it — joining the ranks of automakers, electric utilities and other industrial giants that have opposed other administration initiatives to dismantle climate-change and environmental rules. Several of the world’s largest auto companies are pushing backagainst President Trump’s plans to let vehicles pollute more, saying those rollbacks stand to split the United States auto market in two, and utilities have opposed the relaxation of restrictions on toxic mercury pollution from coal-burning power plants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a bit of good news...

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/builders-are-swapping-cement-for-hemp-to-reduce-pollution/ar-AAGyKMf?ocid=msnclassic

 

Six years after setting up shop in the shadow of Calgary’s tar sands, Mac Radford, 64, says he can’t satisfy all the orders from builders for Earth-friendly materials that help them limit their carbon footprints. His company, JustBioFiber Structural Solutions, is on the vanguard of businesses using hemp — the cousin of marijuana devoid of psychoactive content — to mitigate the greenhouse gases behind global warming.

 

Around the world, builders are putting modern twists into ancient construction methods that employ the hearty hemp weed. Roman engineers used the plant’s sinewy fibers in the mortar they mixed to hold up bridges. More recently, former White House adviser Steve Bannon weighed in on using so-called hempcrete to build walls. Early results indicate it’s possible to tap demand for cleaner alternatives to cement.

“We have way more demand than we can supply,” said Radford from his plant in Airdrie, which is undergoing expansion and soon expects to churn out enough Lego-like hemp bricks each year to build 2,000 homes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...