slide wrote: ↑
Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:52 pm
I thought you might like this one , birmingham uk , is to only allow private cars into the city from now on
And I thought you might like an explanation of what you just posted.
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england ... m-51088499
What you are talking about is population density, not climate change. While population density does increase pollution (density), it has nothing to do with climate change.
Maybe you are trying to relate sea level rise to population relocation?
But if you really want a solution to the increasing density of population in certain cities, there are two ways to go about reducing that.
In the US, certain cities have become such a horrible place to live that no one even bothers to think about living there. In some of those run down inner cities, only every fourth house is occupied. While this is certainly not an ideal solution, it does reduce population density, though it produces an area where no one would want to visit anyway.
The other option to reduce population density, is to simply allow native demographics to do that naturally. Given that British fertility rate is 1.8 children per female, the problem seems to be solving itself. However the demographic for non-native British immigrants is much higher.
Again, slide, you are wonderful for making your opposition's point for them. How can the AGW community be so adamant about fixing climate change, while at the same time being so pro-immigration/maintaining high populations?
The inconsistency in logic is laughable with the left (AGW community, climate change enthusiast's, pro immigration voters). Or rather it would be laughable, if it didn't actually produce laws and regulations that further that logical inconsistency.
Looking at leftist policies of the past 50 years regarding the environment, I guess if you really hated the environment you would want to support those leftist policies. Not to say that the left's opposition's policies would not have had a certain amount of environmental destruction associated with them, but a more moderate approach could have facilitated actual progress towards reducing the environmental impact of human activity.
Again not to sound like a broken record, but the history of the:
EPA simply moving and increasing pollution worldwide by virtually banning its production in the West
disastrous attempt at widespread recycling in the West which produced the garbage problem in the oceans,
many other major failures of environmental initiatives which also caused more damage than they mitigated.
It seems like the greatest environmental danger we have are leftist policies.
And this is where I get my political stance of -
The right is absolutely despicable, utterly worthless, and completely useless, at fixing any of the problems that the left causes Humanity.