What Happens If Someone Tries A Discussion About "Ecology Versus Economy " ("Climate Change") Upon This Forum

Greetings, Anyone. I do not Post as Frequently as I used to. But this is a "Hot Topic" socially right now, but, a bit like CARS, no-one started a Thread about it.

My question is... the folly of "because One cannot see it, then it does no-one harm?"

...With regards to "Climate Change", this here WWW/Internet... & Electricity, Smartphones, Radiowaves, UHF, Mining Rare Minerals for said products, etc... All of this activity grows exponentially, just like the Population. Both are harmful in My Own opinion... but I am, um, 'insignificant'... so I was wondering about what anyone else's opinions about "Climate Change" are here in general.

(Beware I often have to sign off abruptly, sorry. But I post this and see if/how anyone else is interested in anyone else about it all.) From Me, Good Fortune To All Good People.

Parents
  • I have the idea that we all pollute our environment in many ways that are immediately dangerous, 

    petrol chemicals nuclear leaks and other ways that will take time to become obvious like radio wave causing cancer and damaging DNA of all things in nature.

     Not so often talked about GMO pollution which should be included in climate change but never is,

    Water theft to feed huge farms like Avacardo farms in South America. 

    But honestly the most hideously egregious is the dumping of waste into the sea.

    All of these things are done buy giant corporation that are without impunity.

    As everyday people we at most litter and drive cars and are subsequently taxed for this trespass. 

  • One of these politicians produces more pollution in a single flight to a climate change conference than a car does in a year. Yet one person gets paid to do that out of public funds and the other ends up penalised. And the politician could do all that with teleconferencing while some work requires a vehicle (e.g. plumbing)

    It's the same thing with cars. If they want people to use trains, then make them cheaper. If they want people to use electric cars, then don't just put up the price of ordinary cars, make electric cars competitive and supply charging points in remote areas.

Reply
  • One of these politicians produces more pollution in a single flight to a climate change conference than a car does in a year. Yet one person gets paid to do that out of public funds and the other ends up penalised. And the politician could do all that with teleconferencing while some work requires a vehicle (e.g. plumbing)

    It's the same thing with cars. If they want people to use trains, then make them cheaper. If they want people to use electric cars, then don't just put up the price of ordinary cars, make electric cars competitive and supply charging points in remote areas.

Children
  • yes your teleconferencing is completely correct.

    trains should be subsidized (given same fuel tax break as aerofuel ).

    i agree with more competitve electric car prices. 

    charging points wont be so difficult. Every lamp post could have one.

    home worker should be a legal requirement for anyone commuting in more then 10 miles.

    all hail aidie. do as i say. NOW ! lol

    ...