The only reason this exists as any type of debate topic is because the wealthiest industry in human history has spent billions of dollars to spread disinformation in the hope of maintaining their profits.

Oil and gas companies such as ExxonMobil were tracking the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere and climate modelling as early as 1970s and on repeated occasion their own research was showing the damage their industry was having.

[Link]

You can read about it above. They then spent insane amounts of money on lobbying politicians and the media to lie and block climate legislation.

If you deny the effects of climate change you are simply doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry, only difference is you the sucker not getting paid like the politicians and talking heads on TV.

There are lots of lobbies lobbying politicians and spending money to influence. I have little doubt that you would approve of some of them as you disapprove of others. So while, I'd agree that the power of lobbyists is a disfigurement of the democratic process.....I'm not exactly sure what should be done about it.....as interest groups themselves exist to enact change or the maintenance of what motivates them.

So your lobbyist point kind of gets an acknowledgement from me but also a shrug.

Moving onto your ExxonMobil points....you seem to think that everyone who reads your post is going to agree with you that oil and fossil fuel multinationals are inherently bad for us. While I'd probably agree that these companies are no different to most self interested capitalists I'd also make the point that oil and fossil fuels are essential for modern life.

If these companies didn't exist modern civilisations around the globe would collapse from their current lifestyle levels and mass starvation would exist on a national level in many locations.

In truth this is the outcome of warm worded policies pushed by the 'Greta lobby' and ExR in action and most of us are obviously opposed to it.

While I'd agree that climate change is a reality I also regard the claims made by its 'Greta' activists are mostly extreme and based upon fear mongering.

That said, the climate change from emissions is obviously going to worsen as countries continue to develop globally and the world population increases (though as stated this population increase isn't from Europeans themselves). So anyone (and I'm not saying you) serious about this issue is kidding themselves to think that using multicolored bins and less plastic carry bags makes even the slightest difference.

Indeed, it often makes me smile that those who support the 'Greta' lobby also support mass immigration into Europe.....Without seeming to realise or accept the obvious result that increasing the population in Europe will more quickly increases emissions due to the higher lifestyle.

I wonder why they would hold two such contradictory desires in their heads? I summise that for some of them it'll be because they just don't examine the ideas much...for others, it'll be because their environmentalism is just part of a wider agenda.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Mar 2020 7.26am)

Technology is not the answer. Reduce the population massively (as unPC as it sounds) will be the major step. Mother Earth can’t cope. We have bred and spread like a cancer raping and pillaging ever depleting resources. The iron, precious metals, oil, flora and fauna are not able to be replaced and we are running out fast. The outfall goes into our climate and oceans by way of pollution exasperating the problem. It’s a downward circle. Those that can’t see the link really do need to join the flat earth society.

Wash your mouth out you....
Denier you.
Should be arrested for not agreeing with him.

I have some sympathy with your viewpoint however I don't in seriousness see world leaders taking the sterilization route.....So that's why I say it's technology or bust.

I'd also say that the earth will be fine regardless of whether humans are fecking up the environment or not.