Climate change: Biggest global poll supports 'global emergency'
27/01/2021
|
news
|
science
|
1,555
More than a million people in 50 countries take part in the biggest poll to date on climate change.
They already have sadly!
The best way to conserve forests and as much land as possible is to somehow end the effective ponzi scheme that is our world economic system: essentially the infinite consumption of resources and increasing population is needed by the super-rich in control, to keep boosting their wealth at others’ expense.
This system is unsustainable, unjust and the big driver for environmental destruction.
This system is unsustainable, unjust and the big driver for environmental destruction.
A good way to conserve ancient forests in the UK is to cancel HS2. Replacing woodland that is hundreds of years old with hundreds of saplings does NOT "replace" that ancient woodland. I will believe all this environmental palaver when governments stop putting private profit before all else, and admit also that endless, unlimited growth is not even possible, let alone sustainable.
The best way to conserve forests is to stop eating meat. Nothing else will do.
I'm old enough to remember the last 5-6 decades of climate prophecies which haven't materialised. Ice ages, +10C warming just haven't happened. Over the years it's always, always, been the venture capitalists in the background pushing the climate 'emergency' message to unlock trillions in taxpayers' money for renewable energy industry. This survey asks mostly kids who are too easily misled. Shame.
I had hoped people who harbour those kind of utterly ridiculous and scientifically unsupported thoughts had long ago gone the way of your fellow dinosaurs!
Whatever your beliefs on climate change, the manipulation of polls to achieve the desired outcome is so problematic it is beyond trust and the polling industry needs regulation (and it is an industry!). To think Labour were seeking election to carry out a 2nd referendum with "Remain or Deal" on the ballot paper tells you what some people believe polls are there for.
Nil points for the creepy "population control" brigade, who never specify HOW they will achieve population reduction.
What is creepy is that you imagine the worst without considering the goal.
Making sure young people have adequate access to contraceptives and are educated on the challenge that parenting at a young age brings is 'population control', breaking the cycle of children being born straight into foster care is 'population control'.... are these things creepy?
Making sure young people have adequate access to contraceptives and are educated on the challenge that parenting at a young age brings is 'population control', breaking the cycle of children being born straight into foster care is 'population control'.... are these things creepy?
Easy, invest in AI/Automation/Robotics, let the machines do the work
Many developed countries already have naturally declining populations if it wasn't for mass immigration.
We don't need people to wash cars, serve coffee etc apart from the fact they consume & make the rich richer there's no point in an ever expanding population
It can only lead to friction & conflict over ever dwindling resources
Many developed countries already have naturally declining populations if it wasn't for mass immigration.
We don't need people to wash cars, serve coffee etc apart from the fact they consume & make the rich richer there's no point in an ever expanding population
It can only lead to friction & conflict over ever dwindling resources
We do it ourselves the orderly and less painful way, otherwise nature does it for us the hard and chaotic way accompanied by a great deal of pain.
Simple, having kids should be means tested; only have them if you can afford them. Would also stop kids being brought up in poverty and would over time bring the population to a more manageable level. The world population has increased from a population of 3 billion in 1960 to nearly 8 billion now; that rate is simply unsustainable
Not Creepy! au contraire - I set out my suggestions earlier: Too many people. One hope is that plastic micro-particles continue to clog up the wedding tackles and prevent the problem worsening. We need campaign where tutting at people with more than 1 child becomes the norm. Also stop interfering with nature with comments such as "Come away from that cliff edge Darling! it looks dangerous".
Removed
Some very simple ways include no longer obsessing with "saving lives" at all costs. When there is some natural catastrophe, just say "How sad" and get on with life. No more rushing halfway across the globe to "save" everyone. When someone is terminally ill, just allow them to die naturally. When people cannot have children, stop providing medical help to enable them to do so. Plenty more ways.
The simplest, cheap and least "unpleasant" option for population control .... get the Catholic church to accept and promote the use of condoms!
If the Pope was just to say OK to contraceptives.......
There would be significantly less 3rd world children dying from malnutrition and childhood diseases caused by grinding poverty and war
If the Pope was just to say OK to contraceptives.......
There would be significantly less 3rd world children dying from malnutrition and childhood diseases caused by grinding poverty and war
The issue I have is we all know with anything political there's some sort of agenda. Someone is looking to profit, i'm concerned who it is.
I used to believe I was right about things which is common for young Oxbridge graduates I suspect
Now I'm 50 I realise the world is so complicated I know I understand roughly the questions but any idea there might be "right" answers that could be implementable went long ago
People care - but power - I'm afraid it doesn't care about anything except keeping it
Keep trying though
Now I'm 50 I realise the world is so complicated I know I understand roughly the questions but any idea there might be "right" answers that could be implementable went long ago
People care - but power - I'm afraid it doesn't care about anything except keeping it
Keep trying though
Which is why they push the propaganda on this fake climate emergency. Crop yields have risen 3 or 4 times since the 50s and life expectancy in the developing world by 50%.
The real emergency is green lunacy which will destroy the energy and agricultural sectors.
The real emergency is green lunacy which will destroy the energy and agricultural sectors.
I'm old enough to remember the last 5-6 decades of climate prophecies which haven't materialised. Ice ages, +10C warming just haven't happened. Over the years it's always, always, been the venture capitalists in the background pushing the climate 'emergency' message to unlock trillions in taxpayers' money for renewable energy industry. This survey asks mostly kids who are too easily misled. Shame.
Except, of course, they're not "scientifically unsupported" - it's the "climate emergency" that is the nonsense, like all the other prognostications of doom we've seen in the last 30-odd years.
Not sure how a poll advertised on gaming website is representative.
I assume activists spread news of it and manipulated the votes.
Typically poor journalism.
I assume activists spread news of it and manipulated the votes.
Typically poor journalism.
Why don`t you just say you don`t care about the young as clearly you don`t?
Problem is that this kind of poll has the potential to become part of govt policy as public opinion is taken from the media and massively influences the political landscape. So uninformed opinions such as this can carry a lot of weight. So they want this, also free uni places, increased benefits, etc, etc - it goes on - the cake is only so big to be shared around - one day people will see it
How did you find out how the poll was conducted?
Was it this "typically poor journalist" who provided you with the facts?
Was it this "typically poor journalist" who provided you with the facts?
Why wouldn't it? Surely you can't have the manufactured view that gamers all live in their parents basements and eat crisps all day? I'm not one but 'gamers' if that's what we are calling them come from all walks of life and ages.
Your first point is good. Please state the evidence to support your second statement.
It is clearly not accurate or representative to say "two thirds of the world". The world didn't vote.
It is a bit like saying the majority (50%+) of Brits voted for Brexit, when 17million out of 68 million (25%) actually voted for it.
It is a bit like saying the majority (50%+) of Brits voted for Brexit, when 17million out of 68 million (25%) actually voted for it.
Assuming things is very dangerous. Maybe, just maybe, the young generation is genuinely concerned about the Earth we'll be leaving them... as they should be!
Except for the fact that it's these 'gamers' who have inherited to problem. Are you saying they don't have a say? Poor education?
The BBC has a clear political agenda, and it's stuff like this that means this agenda is laid utterly bare for all to see.
Is it too much to ask for fair-minded, unbiased news from a Public Broadcaster that is lavishly funded by said (increasingly reluctant, resentful) public, on pain of fines and even imprisonment, and frequently under duress?
They really don't do themselves any favours!
Is it too much to ask for fair-minded, unbiased news from a Public Broadcaster that is lavishly funded by said (increasingly reluctant, resentful) public, on pain of fines and even imprisonment, and frequently under duress?
They really don't do themselves any favours!
Like all surveys, they added weighting factors to correct for sample bias. Have a look at the report.
No reason to suspect they did (or had to) "manipulate the votes". The sample is manifestly a hugely biased one, and the article is even upfront about that. The stupidity is in conclusions such as "... almost two thirds of people around the world now view climate change as a global emergency."
"The UNDP ran the “Peoples’ Climate Vote” in 50 high-, middle- and low-income countries, representing more than half the world’s people. Experts at Oxford University weighted the replies to reflect the population of each nation."
via The Guardian.
The sample isn't representative, but they weighted the results to try to capture broader societies' views. That's polling.
via The Guardian.
The sample isn't representative, but they weighted the results to try to capture broader societies' views. That's polling.
It's not the journalism, they're just reporting survey results, it's the UNDP and Oxford University at fault for using the gaming platform for the survey. That is fine if you just want the views from the 14 - say 30 years olds, yes some older people game but are in a huge minority and therefore hardly representative of all ages and incomes etc from 14 - 90! I do agree climate is a serious issue.
The real giveaway is that they called it "People's Climate Vote".
One lesson from recent years is that anything branding itself "The Peoples' [whatever]" is guaranteed to be a populist PR stunt, rather than a serious undertaking.
One lesson from recent years is that anything branding itself "The Peoples' [whatever]" is guaranteed to be a populist PR stunt, rather than a serious undertaking.
Before you make comments based on guesses, why not read the report. It's not too long. the you might understand. Or do you think the BBC shouldn't report accurately a report by the UN Development Programme? Seem more like your prejudice making lazy assumptions.
Thats what the BBC does - have been asked to undertake a survey by the BBC - they won't get the answers they won't - Amazed they are actually asking me. Bet its being cancelled as I type this.
Point well made.
If you want to get a skewed, unrepresentative poll result, then this is the way to do it.
What makes it worse is the fact it was cooked up by United Nations and Oxford University.
From what I have seen of "gaming", the emphasis seems to be on violence and destruction, hardly the sort of mind-set to get a sensible poll from.
If you want to get a skewed, unrepresentative poll result, then this is the way to do it.
What makes it worse is the fact it was cooked up by United Nations and Oxford University.
From what I have seen of "gaming", the emphasis seems to be on violence and destruction, hardly the sort of mind-set to get a sensible poll from.
Im sure some of the change in climates is attributable to fossil fuels use but how much is part of the natural cycle of weather change? I'd like to see more data looking at the patterns now and over 100s and 1000s of years, not some uninformed kid spouting populist claptrap. The only real way forwards is nuclear power, the rest costs too much energy to put in place and maintain or is asynchronous
Oh for goodness sake! What on earth do you think climate scientists actually do, if not consider all those questions and more? Data on anthropogenic global warming is abundant and the evidence overwhelming.
Nuclear is far from the only option, and comes with its own problems, including costs, decommissioning, waste storage, etc. Sustainable energy sources are becoming increasingly competitive.
Nuclear is far from the only option, and comes with its own problems, including costs, decommissioning, waste storage, etc. Sustainable energy sources are becoming increasingly competitive.
There is no data from 1000s of years ago, only what some scientists believe ice core samples tell them. They could have misinterpreted that data. The data from a couple of hundred years ago will be flawed because we did not have the accurate measuring methods we have now and no-one was monitoring the whole world. We are beating ourselves up over data only minutes old in the lifetime of the globe.
Sadly and it is sad, in this day and age polls are shown to be completely out of touch with the real views and untrustworthy. The only polls I have ever seen that deliver accuracy are where a range of services carry out the same poll and where they risk egg on their face for being out, i.e voting intention polls, which coincidently the green party have always done worst in.
I'm just waiting for all the armchair scientists to jump on this article, telling us all baout their theories of how climate is always changing, how it's due to sun activity and how a volcano puts out more gas than humans do.
It's all nonsense, but it won't stop them posting....
It's all nonsense, but it won't stop them posting....
Till the Chinese and usa start taking action it will only get worse
The chinese have taken action, they released a virus from their wuhan lab. which kills people.
Removed
So that is a reason to do nothing???
If we don't take action, how can we expect others to?
It's too late to stick our heads in the sand and do nothing.
If we don't take action, how can we expect others to?
It's too late to stick our heads in the sand and do nothing.
The UK emits 5.6 tonnes of CO2 per capita, which is half the 1980 figure. This is still too high, but we need to continue the good work to get it down further.
Just because we're not as bad as some other countries and have already achieved a lot doesn't mean we can proverbially "take our foot off the gas" now.
We can be a leader
Just because we're not as bad as some other countries and have already achieved a lot doesn't mean we can proverbially "take our foot off the gas" now.
We can be a leader
I'll bet that USA end up saving the world in the rne. - again.
USA is beginning to deal with it as is EU. Agenda 30 will deal with it. Allowing bosses to pay themselves vast sums is not ok. Giving fairer shares to those who prop up the top lot is coming in along with a more even idea of society, education.
Are you aware that Biden has undone a lot of the work Trump did already?
Starting with no new coal power plants, whilst China continues to build more.
Did you know air pollution in China kills more people each year than Covid in USA, UK and Brazil has combined?
Starting with no new coal power plants, whilst China continues to build more.
Did you know air pollution in China kills more people each year than Covid in USA, UK and Brazil has combined?
Why would anyone be against it. Cleaner earth, air and water. Even if you're the tinfoil hat type that thinks all the worlds scientists are in sort of secret cabal to keep their grant money, surely you can't disagree with a cleaner world.
Not against cleaner air etc. Just against the half baked ideas that do more damage.
I don't think they're against a cleaner earth, I think it's because young people are keen on it there's the inherent need for some aspects of society to try to shout them down.
One earlier comment states "50% of those who expressed an opinion don’t actually have to go to work, run a home, look after children, etc" as if that has something to do with being aware of the risks to the environment
One earlier comment states "50% of those who expressed an opinion don’t actually have to go to work, run a home, look after children, etc" as if that has something to do with being aware of the risks to the environment
No one is against environmentalism in the general sense. No one is pro pollution etc.
The disagreements are about; the causes and severity of the issue(s) and what are the best solutions to them.
The disagreements are about; the causes and severity of the issue(s) and what are the best solutions to them.
"surely you can't disagree with a cleaner world."
Well VW did. Pretty sure other companies too.
Well VW did. Pretty sure other companies too.
I think that is the best thing about "Going Green". Having walked my grandson to school in Barnet one morning I was shocked by the exhaust fumes - definitely not good for anybody's health living in London or any big conurbation I would imagine. Climate change, well the deniers are right in as much as the global climate has always changed. The question is the speed of change.
The main problem in addressing climate change is that most of the world believes that some supernatural being is going to ride in on a white horse and save us from ourselves. And the worse things get, the more these gormless idiots will believe he is testing them.
I can't believe anyone would be against it in this kind of survey. But if you ask someone to make a personal sacrifice to do something about it (whilst they perceive the majority as not doing anything about it) - then the outcome would be different.
some people either don't care or are just ignorant of the problems: misunderstanding things,
You cannot buy a new phone or upgrade your car, you should move to a smaller house and recycle/reuse - its the negatives people dont like, obviously.
For the many: unwillingness to pay for what's needed. e.g. Cost of building the necessary infrastructure, giving up eating meat & dairy etc.
For the few: personal gain at the expense of everyone else. e.g. Running oil companies. Financially supported (in politics) by oil companies. Wanting the votes of the many by promising action but avoiding the cost of action.
For the few: personal gain at the expense of everyone else. e.g. Running oil companies. Financially supported (in politics) by oil companies. Wanting the votes of the many by promising action but avoiding the cost of action.
They almost never actually mention the problem
Too many blooming humans consuming far more than they need
& that's just the 20% developed world
The other 80% not consuming more than they need, want to because they want what the developed world has
Who can blame them?
Sadly see little in the future other than more conflict as more people want more resources which are rapidly dwindling
Too many blooming humans consuming far more than they need
& that's just the 20% developed world
The other 80% not consuming more than they need, want to because they want what the developed world has
Who can blame them?
Sadly see little in the future other than more conflict as more people want more resources which are rapidly dwindling
Malthusian thinking. Its been around since the 1790's. It was wrong then and is wrong now. We have the technology and resources to easily support the current world population and more. What we don't have is the political will - that will change.
Well, actually just too many humans, period, as out US cousins would say. David Attenborough continually talks about warming and acidifying oceans etc, but rather skates over the impact of having a ridiculously lar human population. So right, whose going to be first to volunteer for the chop. Thought not.
Not politically acceptable for the Left to discuss this matter - so it doesn't get covered.
Hard to fix the number of people in a hurry without mass murder, but we can fix the consuming.
If the consuming made people happier and healthier we'd have a genuine moral problem - but actually we just have a political one.
People with lots of money keep persuading people with less to do whatever it takes to hand over more and more of what they make to make the people with money richer.
If the consuming made people happier and healthier we'd have a genuine moral problem - but actually we just have a political one.
People with lots of money keep persuading people with less to do whatever it takes to hand over more and more of what they make to make the people with money richer.
More people = more brain power = higher likelihood of a solution being found.
It would only take two or three geniuses (and I mean genuinely clever people) to solve the problem.
Just because you are an idiot who gobbles through resources with no benefit to humanity don't assume that everybody else falls into that category. Removed
It would only take two or three geniuses (and I mean genuinely clever people) to solve the problem.
Just because you are an idiot who gobbles through resources with no benefit to humanity don't assume that everybody else falls into that category. Removed
Absolutely spot on. And I wonder if one of the questions aimed at the "gamers" who took part in this survey was: "Are you prepared to give up your devices as they are a massive drain on the planet's resources and the energy they consume a substantial contributor to carbon emissions?"
Sorry but that is just deflection. It isn't just about the number of people. Its about the amount of CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere.
The population problem is actually the exact reverse. South Korea in 2020 had more deaths than births, meaning they have now slipped under the red line of being able to replace themselves by two parents producing two children. In fact, 13 western developed countries are very close to that line now: including the UK. Whether you think the world has too many people (or not) now, give it 20 years
Read the Richard Dawkins book, 'The Selfish Gene' during the lockdown last year. He talks about population growth, and what might happen in the next 200 years. We says this can't continue and will have to stop by either: a) major action on birth control; b) serious famine; (c) or serious death due to disease.
This subject is never on the table for world leaders, though.
This subject is never on the table for world leaders, though.
As societies get richer they breed less but consume more. How to balance breeding and consumption is the problem.
So you are a fan of covid then?
the 'other' 80% do tend to have by far the highest birth rate though.
I'm pretty sure overpopulation is mentioned reasonably often. It also makes sense that the issues that are easier to propose ethical solutions for tend to be given more coverage, surely?
How many people on this thread complaining about too many children are willing to give up their children/grandchildren?
It's easy to cite the population as the driving factor, but it is possible to grow the population whilst reducing the population's impact on climate. My concerns is that we may already be too late. Shouldn't stop us from trying but the release of methane etc from melting permafrost, warming seas etc, the changing albedo of the planet, may require us to do more than stop our production of gases.
Nobody likes that sort of truth, especially politicians who dare not utter population control.
Large families are celebrated in UK, in TV programmes where in fact they are causing the damage. The Royals don't set good examples either.
Some counties worry about falling populations probably because it means less income, but they are actually doing us a favour.
Large families are celebrated in UK, in TV programmes where in fact they are causing the damage. The Royals don't set good examples either.
Some counties worry about falling populations probably because it means less income, but they are actually doing us a favour.
"...with almost half the participants aged between 14 and 18."
So basically, it is the opinions of children.
So basically, it is the opinions of children.
Yes, I noted that too. I don't know if climate change attitudes vary with age but surely a survey of this sort should, at least, try to represent the world population as a whole?
The ones who'll inherit the planet from us.
""...with almost half the participants aged between 14 and 18."
So basically, it is the opinions of children."
I'm only annoyed that my 4 year old grand daughter wasn't polled for her views in this matter. Perhaps they should've done this on "Hey Duggie" and lauded it as yet more support for the New Puritans.
/sarcasm off
So basically, it is the opinions of children."
I'm only annoyed that my 4 year old grand daughter wasn't polled for her views in this matter. Perhaps they should've done this on "Hey Duggie" and lauded it as yet more support for the New Puritans.
/sarcasm off
More intelligent and less impressionable opinions than Daily Express readers.
Like every survey ever conducted, they added weighting factors to correct for sample bias.
I feel sorry for kids. They are being fed this "We're all going to die" tripe on social media all day, without the necessary background information to filter what's true, what's under discussion, and what's plain wrong. But, of course that's why it's aimed at children. As the Jesuits used to say "Give me a child until they are 7, and I've got them for life".
As I posted above, poor reporting, the description of survey approach seemed suspicious to me, so looked up survey methodology, and the sample was adjusted to be representative on a national basis after the results were in.
So you dismiss the survey because half the participants are aged between 14 and 18.
I'm just curious, what age does someone have to reach, before you start taking him/her seriously?
I'm just curious, what age does someone have to reach, before you start taking him/her seriously?
Who will grow older and start wanting that and that and that as greed gets to them also how many are on gaming consules and there phones for hours and hours and want lifts to travel a couple of hundred yards up the road.
and you wanted the views of dinosaurs? the kids are the people who will inherit the problems we leave them and should have a much bigger say in how things run than the old fogies who just want things to stay the same.
"The UNDP ran the “Peoples’ Climate Vote” in 50 high-, middle- and low-income countries, representing more than half the world’s people. Experts at Oxford University weighted the replies to reflect the population of each nation."
Via The Guardian.
They weighted results to try to get a true assessment for each country. Weighting of an unrepresentative sample is a key part of any polling effort.
Via The Guardian.
They weighted results to try to get a true assessment for each country. Weighting of an unrepresentative sample is a key part of any polling effort.
Yes, children influenced by their teachers A good reason to close schools and take advantage of the lockdown.
I agree it's certainly not an unbiased sample, but in 2011, people under 18 years of age made up nearly 30% of the world population, and people aged 65 or over less than 8%.
Global literacy rates are also increasing rapidly (more than doubling between 1960 and 2015), so today's young are better-educated than previous generations, meaning "the opinions of children" are probably better-informed.
Global literacy rates are also increasing rapidly (more than doubling between 1960 and 2015), so today's young are better-educated than previous generations, meaning "the opinions of children" are probably better-informed.
Well, there is no point asking the older generation, they don't have a clue and don't care. the last 5 or 6 years has completely blown the 'older = wiser' myth wide open.
Half are children, though they are the next generation of adults and they and their children will suffer more than the current adults.
Yes - people that will have to live with your doing when all you will have to worry about is pushing up the daisies
er ... what about the other half of the survey? I think you need to go to some children's maths lessons and learn what number mean
Yes. And they'll be the adults of thge future. It's a race between them growing old enough to take power and the ever greater burden we're putting on natural systems. Quite a few oldies (that includes me) also understand the science, let's get changes made before that race is lost even more than it already is.
I suggest you read section 5 of the report which makes your second statement absurd
Who're brainwashed by the press,TV and thier teachers before they grow up and learn some science. Since most kids seem to take arts based degrees these days they're any easy target for the MMGW religion. One of the leaders of XR removed the photos of his posh holidays from Facebook before the demonstrations started. A load of trustafarians who ought to get proper jobs rather than stopping others.
At the moment climate change takes a back seat to the pandemic.
"..significant numbers of younger people"... ie those who (a) don't have the education necessary to understand "the science", and (b) have been subjected to systematic brainwashing from schools and the media that "the sky is about to fall". Or to put it another way, this poll, like almost all others of the "opinion" variety, is a load of rubbish.
These are strong statements. Please provide the supporting evidence of systematic brainwashing etc. That is what a "scientific" approach would require.
I'm a scientist, I've read the papers & analysed the data and I think it's a serious concern too. How will you denigrate my opinion?
These kids will inherit the Earth from our generation and they're scared (quite rightly). I think their opinions and concerns are valid.
These kids will inherit the Earth from our generation and they're scared (quite rightly). I think their opinions and concerns are valid.
The problem is almost everyone thinks something should be done to fight climate change, but most are unprepared to make changes themselves, whether that's driving a smaller car, avoiding long-haul holidays or just replacing tech items less frequently.
Definitely, SUVs should be available to only those living in places that need them. Flights limited to one short haul annually and a long haul every five years.
I used to do everything I could but I gave up a decade ago.
I'm not having kids, why should I miss out on driving, on flying holidays, spend more being vegan, travelling by train etc when people whose kids and grandkids will suffer don't seem to care?
I'm not having kids, why should I miss out on driving, on flying holidays, spend more being vegan, travelling by train etc when people whose kids and grandkids will suffer don't seem to care?
That's me complying then. Got a smaller car, drive a lot less, last holiday abroad and flying was 20 years ago, have a mobile phone that's nearly 15 years old and still works perfectly.
The problem with the rich, industrialised West getting on their high horse about climate change is that there are 2 billion in Asia and another billion in Africa that are too poor to have the luxury of caring.
Global inequality must be solved first before the long term climate challenges can be tackled.
Global inequality must be solved first before the long term climate challenges can be tackled.
Not to mention using technology for useful purposes, not gaming, social media etc.
The thing is, it isn't difficult to live sustainably. I'm flight-free; drive a hybrid and minimise my use of the car; no children; vegan; actively recycle as much as possible; go litter picking; only buy new clothing when if absolutely necessary; use things until they break; don't mindlessly fill my house/life with cheap Chinese plastic tat - and I still have an enjoyable, comfortable lifestyle.
they should find some climate change before squealing about it , global climate warming change just is not happening as ordered , so much so climate alarmists have been reduced to claiming temperatures do not matter , garbage science will always be found out
Unilateral actions is pointless...emissions move around the world...
What is creepy is that you imagine the worst without considering the goal.
Making sure young people have adequate access to contraceptives and are educated on the challenge that parenting at a young age brings is 'population control', breaking the cycle of children being born straight into foster care is 'population control'.... are these things creepy?
Making sure young people have adequate access to contraceptives and are educated on the challenge that parenting at a young age brings is 'population control', breaking the cycle of children being born straight into foster care is 'population control'.... are these things creepy?
Easy, invest in AI/Automation/Robotics, let the machines do the work
Many developed countries already have naturally declining populations if it wasn't for mass immigration.
We don't need people to wash cars, serve coffee etc apart from the fact they consume & make the rich richer there's no point in an ever expanding population
It can only lead to friction & conflict over ever dwindling resources
Many developed countries already have naturally declining populations if it wasn't for mass immigration.
We don't need people to wash cars, serve coffee etc apart from the fact they consume & make the rich richer there's no point in an ever expanding population
It can only lead to friction & conflict over ever dwindling resources
I can't believe this is considered news and presented this way. Ask children via an advert in a gaming app as an acceptable methodology? Since there was a breakdown available by things such as gender, what about a breakdown by age cohort? i.e. it would be interesting to know what 14 to 18 year olds think, but I don't want to make policy based on what my child thinks between gaming rounds.
Could it be that children have most to lose from climate change??
Just saying...
Just saying...
Why don't you take the time to read the report, notably section 5 before you post on HYS?
The 18 year old can vote in UK elections and most of those aged 17,16, 15 and even 14 will be able to by (probable) time of next General Election..
Do you know many politicians who ignore vote(r)s at elections ? I don't.
That gives their views potentially a lot of political clout, I suggest.
Do you know many politicians who ignore vote(r)s at elections ? I don't.
That gives their views potentially a lot of political clout, I suggest.
I'm not going in for climate denial but the BBC need some serious lessons in statistics. If 50% of your sample come from an age range of 14 - 18, and also only includes people who do mobile gaming then you simply cannot extrapolate this to make a claim about "almost two thirds _of the world_". Sadly this sort of misuse of data is endemic in journalism.
More BBC lies.
So 50% of those who expressed an opinion don’t actually have to go to work, run a home, look after children, etc
Particularly at the BBC!
Misuse of statistics in journalism is rife and needs to be investigated. With the internet and spread of misinformation it's more important than ever that press are required to reprint highlighting errors they have made in previous editions in a format AS VISIBLE AS THE MISINFORMATION WAS. Not some tiny comment in font 7 on the bottom of page 48.
Scandalous. Journalism led by agenda rather than facts, And the BBC wonder why they are the least trusted national broadcaster?
This can only be being voted down by two groups, either BBC journalists or people too stupid to understand misuse of statistics.
You are wrong. The article clearly says that this fact (re two-thirds) is "a key finding of the report". If you bother to read the report, you will see that that is absolutely correct, the report states "64% of people said that climate change was an emergency." It also says that stat has a +/- 2% margin of error. You are attacking the BBC for reporting accurately what the report states.
"organised by the United Nations Development Programme in conjunction with Oxford University." Not the BBC.
However the level of education plays an important factor. You should take note of that.
However the level of education plays an important factor. You should take note of that.
The BBC stopped doing journalism to do soundbites years ago - if you can't answer their question yes or no the problem is you - not their question
[you simply cannot extrapolate this to make a claim about "almost two thirds _of the world_"]
I don't follow, unless you're excluding 4-18-year-olds as part of the world.
You presumably know ~2.5 billion play mobile games, so the sample size of well over a million from such a wide base seems robust to me.
Is there any similarly large survey which contradicts the findings?
I don't follow, unless you're excluding 4-18-year-olds as part of the world.
You presumably know ~2.5 billion play mobile games, so the sample size of well over a million from such a wide base seems robust to me.
Is there any similarly large survey which contradicts the findings?
So you're saying that the opinions of the people that will have to live in the mess you've made don't count? ... Next thing you'll be complaining that young people don't respect Daily Mail readers. :)
No survey ever gets a truly representative sample.
You always add weighting factors to correct demographics to the population average.
Of course the people who prepared this report (note: not the BBC) did this.
You always add weighting factors to correct demographics to the population average.
Of course the people who prepared this report (note: not the BBC) did this.
You are right. I'm not a climate-change denier either, but asking a group of youths with a predilection for computer games doesn't seem a particularly scientific way of conducting a poll, especially as I doubt they've probably got little appreciation of history over the last fifty years, let alone the last 7000. But it is happening fast, now doubt about it.
It's not lessons in statistics these journalists need, they must surely understand what they are doing ... what they need are lessons in ethical, unbiased, balanced reporting and clear communication.
Oh, wow, how did you find out out it was mostly 14-18 year olds? Bloody BBC, hiding that fact ALL THE WAY THGROUGH THE ARTICLE. You should go to CEI.org, now they know how to omit inconvenient facts properly.
Having actually read the report, the methodology (as applied by Oxford population experts) involved appropriate extrapolation of the results to balance for age/gender/education level etc.
Please, only comment on the report's applicability if you have read the methodology report.
(Interesting that support for climate emergency is strongly correlated with educational attainment worldwide).
Please, only comment on the report's applicability if you have read the methodology report.
(Interesting that support for climate emergency is strongly correlated with educational attainment worldwide).
It is almost equivalent to Fake News.. manufactured statistics to support a view point
Why attribute your own assumptions to: a) the BBC b) 50% in 14-18 age-range, c) why the insult, d) please see https://www.greenbiz.com/article/it-possible-make-steel-without-fossil-fuels I quote: '[HYBRIT in Sweden] aims to replace coking coal with electricity from renewable energy sources and hydrogen in a process that will produce steel and water as opposed to steel and carbon dioxide.'
I agree poor reporting. But if you follow the links and skip to the summary of the survey methodology you will see that:
" An expert team from the University of Oxford weighted (or rebalanced) the data to generate estimates to be as representative as possible of the joint distribution of age, gender and education in each country."
So a statistically representative sample was achieved.
" An expert team from the University of Oxford weighted (or rebalanced) the data to generate estimates to be as representative as possible of the joint distribution of age, gender and education in each country."
So a statistically representative sample was achieved.
So it doesn't fit your agenda or demographic, typical response these days, detract from the issue discussed making all about you, more narcissism!
It's actually about 45% but you carry on with you lesson in statistics
I suspect that you haven't read the report or you would have spotted "the most profound driver of public opinion on climate change was a respondent’s level of education" [Not Age] ... Hence you hilarious and ill-informed comment "I'm not going in for climate denial, BUT ... "
:) :) :)
:) :) :)
Our World is undergoing huge habitat loss and changes to climate caused by humans and all you can do is argue about statistics - typical Trumpism !
BBC jorno's love a cut an paste easy made article, they cannot do statistics or business as they have absolutely no experience or knowledge of either
I agree that this article is bad, the problem is that it does not include a statement to the effect of this (copied from the Guardian's article on the same report):
"The UNDP ran the “Peoples’ Climate Vote” in 50 high-, middle- and low-income countries, representing more than half the world’s people. Experts at Oxford University weighted the replies to reflect the population of each nation."
"The UNDP ran the “Peoples’ Climate Vote” in 50 high-, middle- and low-income countries, representing more than half the world’s people. Experts at Oxford University weighted the replies to reflect the population of each nation."
Now we have a Leader of the Free World who accepts that climate change exists there is a chance we can fight it.
Unfortunately the UK government's response has been to open coal mines.
Unfortunately the UK government's response has been to open coal mines.
The coal mine is to facilitate steel production. You need carbon to make steel, do some research.
Coal mines have been opened becuase we want greener energy and cars, Steel needs carbon to be made, we need moe steel due to the "green" electric cars, ergo more coal, ergo more pollution
I had hoped people who harbour those kind of utterly ridiculous and scientifically unsupported thoughts had long ago gone the way of your fellow dinosaurs!
Not sure how a poll advertised on gaming website is representative.
I assume activists spread news of it and manipulated the votes.
Typically poor journalism.
I assume activists spread news of it and manipulated the votes.
Typically poor journalism.
Well for a start let's stop the super rich flying around everywhere. Lear jets lining most airports these days. Make it more expensive to travel to the ski resorts were our wealthy take their children every chance they get . Italy February 2020? What did they bring back. Also we should stop the reliance on China. Make it here and pay more or become a fossil found by whatever comes next .
Apparently 70% of flights are by just 15% of the population
Maybe a frequent flyer tax may help?
Maybe a frequent flyer tax may help?
I agree with you but we need to have special permits for those who know best about the climate to fly round the world to explain it to the not so knowledgable. I think Prince Harry and Princess Meghan need to be able to fly wherever tey feel the poulation needs thir superior knowledge and Greta must be able to enlighten the ignorant too...
Cars need to be banned immediately, no excuses they are killing us! Next we need to ban house central heating yet another wy of destroying our only planet. hen are people going to wake up and lsten to Greta?
Curtail rather than ban the use of personal transport.
Ban burning gas for electricity (55%ish efficiency) rather than burning it in central heating systems (95%ish efficiency).
Ban burning gas for electricity (55%ish efficiency) rather than burning it in central heating systems (95%ish efficiency).
Ok "genius" how are people meant to travel around the country tranporting valuable food that CAN NOT be grown by people, or medicines. your idea is the single stupidest idea there is,
We have survived over millennia by being able to adapt. It seems strange, that although we think we're now more intelligent than ever, many believe the world has to remain static for us to survive. We can't fight nature, we will always lose. Our greatest asset, is our ability to adapt.
On the contrary, the rest of the life on this planet adapts to the environment, while humans adapt the environment to suit themselves. That is the root of the issue.
The future looks grim ,,, AI as one of many examples and Human greed, emotional greed for money or power are increasing , the real problem is the manipulation of the masses , Humans are becoming more manipulative cunning and dishonest than ever before .The reason why they spy on you and brain wash you is because they are afraid , It is dog eat dog out there children Trust no one but mum
Why would anyone be against it. Cleaner earth, air and water. Even if you're the tinfoil hat type that thinks all the worlds scientists are in sort of secret cabal to keep their grant money, surely you can't disagree with a cleaner world.
What half-baked ideas? What damage? Why do you think this is about "clean" air?
"Not against cleaner air etc. Just against the half baked ideas that do more damage"
.... Such as?
.... Such as?
What damage would that be?
Like hs2?
You don't make decisions based upon what a bunch of brainwashed kids think, there's a reason Labour wants the voting age reduced and this poll is a good example of the ignorance you have at that age.
"brainwashed" I think you're super naive and a halfwit who has know idea the amount of damage we have done to our home planet as it is already ad yet you call kids who have been informed for a long time about how our planet is going to change not for the better for the younger generation. Good why do people like you exist, I'd prefer people like you were extinct.
Removed
Exactly. Now let's put that Thunberg child back into school and tell her to shut up.
A young kid thinks she has the answers to all the world's problems!
Well, a lot did at that age, then they grew up and learned some facts.
A young kid thinks she has the answers to all the world's problems!
Well, a lot did at that age, then they grew up and learned some facts.
There's an old saying...If you're not a socialist at 20 you've got no heart....If you're still a socialist at 40 you've got no brain..... The young always KNOW what the world should do, then they grow up and realise that they didn't have a clue. The planet will survive and humans will evolve/adapt or die out.
Not sure how a poll advertised on gaming website is representative.
I assume activists spread news of it and manipulated the votes.
Typically poor journalism.
I assume activists spread news of it and manipulated the votes.
Typically poor journalism.
I work in one of the most disadvantaged schools in the country.
What I don't care about is rich activists trying to destroy the future of the kids I work with to further their egos.
What I don't care about is rich activists trying to destroy the future of the kids I work with to further their egos.
Two significant action that can help with climate change.
1. Admit that there are too many of us and we need to encourage less population growth.
2. Invest in Nuclear power.
How many environmentalists are in favour of either of these?
1. Admit that there are too many of us and we need to encourage less population growth.
2. Invest in Nuclear power.
How many environmentalists are in favour of either of these?
Agreed. Nuclear is the only viable long term solution. You cannot rely on making everything electric if you don't have the means to support it. Ironically, I thing the Chinese will be the ones to make the breakthrough on this.
Quite a lot these days, actually.
Thing is, nuclear has its own issues (cost, safe waste disposal, decommissioning, cost, ...) while renewable sources are becoming more competitive by the day.
Everyone acknowledges population is a problem (as is unequitable distribution of resources), but few have any realistic ideas about *how* to reduce population growth.
Thing is, nuclear has its own issues (cost, safe waste disposal, decommissioning, cost, ...) while renewable sources are becoming more competitive by the day.
Everyone acknowledges population is a problem (as is unequitable distribution of resources), but few have any realistic ideas about *how* to reduce population growth.
I'm an environmentalist and I favour nuclear power as an option.
Renewables are great and the UK has the opportunity with tidal/wind to go 100% renewable one day, but other countries may have to rely on nuclear.
Thorium breeder nuclear plants are promising way of satisfying many environmentalist concerns about nuclear. It's not quite there yet, but we can favour traditional nuclear for now.
Renewables are great and the UK has the opportunity with tidal/wind to go 100% renewable one day, but other countries may have to rely on nuclear.
Thorium breeder nuclear plants are promising way of satisfying many environmentalist concerns about nuclear. It's not quite there yet, but we can favour traditional nuclear for now.
No let's save every life we can for as long as we can . Vaccinate the centenarians.
I'd call myself an environmentalist (as I want humans AND the planet to be sustainable) and I go further than this: your 'encourage less growth' is far too feeble - it's still travelling in the WRONG direction. We need to stop over-replacement (more than 2 kids) immediately.
And nuclear is a no-brainer for one with a scientific background.
So be careful about your assumptions and prejudices.
And nuclear is a no-brainer for one with a scientific background.
So be careful about your assumptions and prejudices.
We already have a fully working, zero cost, zero maintenance nuclear fusion reactor which can provide all our power for free...it's called the sun.
A coupe of basic facts; China, with the largest population in the world, is continuing to increase its industrial activity. Secondly, Africa is going to go through an industrial revolution within our lifetimes, spurred by Chinese investment. Separating your rubbish into 3 separate piles before it is shipped of to be incinerated and sold back to us is not going to change that.
A completely skewed poll if 50% of respondents are 14-18 years old.
A truly pointless piece of journalism.
A truly pointless piece of journalism.
BBC pushing its woke agenda in full force today.. they must be a big part of the Great reset ,,,, What about the more important topic of peoples livelyhoods and their bank accounts .. The BBC cannot be trusted thy really cannot ..
People who think talking about the need to look at climate change is woke are the ones not to be trusted. Go back to the Daily Mail and racist online videos.
Drax power station has reduced the amount of coal that it burns. Instead of coal the company cuts down trees and burns them instead. This is somehow spun as "green" energy and the company receives huge subsidies from the government...
For each tree they cut down they have to plant another and the sustainability criteria more-or-less limit their supply to commercial forestry.
the expense of space races bug me
we're already on a space ship with a dodgy boiler
we're already on a space ship with a dodgy boiler
"More than a million people in 50 countries took part in the survey, with almost half the participants aged between 14 and 18"
So kids with no adult responsibilities think this ?
This is not a news story BBC...
.
So kids with no adult responsibilities think this ?
This is not a news story BBC...
.
They'll inherit the planet we leave them.
Written by online journalists who probably aren't much older than the poll sample and with little general or scientific knowledge.
I didn't realise you had to be an adult to have an opinion that matters.
"The UNDP ran the “Peoples’ Climate Vote” in 50 high-, middle- and low-income countries, representing more than half the world’s people. Experts at Oxford University weighted the replies to reflect the population of each nation."
[From The Guardian]
It is news worthy, but it's a badly written article that doesn't mention that they followed standard sample/polling methodology.
[From The Guardian]
It is news worthy, but it's a badly written article that doesn't mention that they followed standard sample/polling methodology.
So the BBC should ignore a report by the UN Development Programme of the largest opinion poll ever conducted on the issue? I suggest you read section 5 of the report, where you will discover that your comment is inaccurate, inane and reveals more about your prejudices
Every Baby that is born has the same impact on climate change as a car covering 500,000 miles a year
Thank you for not having children. Unfortunately people need pensions and it's the younger people that pay for them.
Younger generations live a lot less carbon intensive life than the older people did.
Younger generations live a lot less carbon intensive life than the older people did.
"...with almost half the participants aged between 14 and 18."
So basically, it is the opinions of children.
So basically, it is the opinions of children.
Who cares what the over-eighties think. They will not have to deal with the problem. In ten years those 14 year old kids will be driving the economy and shortly after, the global agenda. You people need to get real or fall behind. Sadly the average IQ level will preclude many Luddites from ever 'grasping the isssue'.
They wouldn't do that as they wouldn't get the result they wanted!
What you usualy do is scale the data, i.e. you use the survy to decide what 14-18 year olds think then scale that with the number of 14-18 year old people in the world.
Read section 5 of the report
Most of us have been raising this issue (long-term) for years, the centrists and right wing folks have been putting their heads in the sand for years they do not want to hear it or read about it at all. They know it'll effect the bottom line, unless they move their assets into green energy asap.
Im sure some of the change in climates is attributable to fossil fuels use but how much is part of the natural cycle of weather change? I'd like to see more data looking at the patterns now and over 100s and 1000s of years, not some uninformed kid spouting populist claptrap. The only real way forwards is nuclear power, the rest costs too much energy to put in place and maintain or is asynchronous
Oh for goodness sake! What on earth do you think climate scientists actually do, if not consider all those questions and more? Data on anthropogenic global warming is abundant and the evidence overwhelming.
Nuclear is far from the only option, and comes with its own problems, including costs, decommissioning, waste storage, etc. Sustainable energy sources are becoming increasingly competitive.
Nuclear is far from the only option, and comes with its own problems, including costs, decommissioning, waste storage, etc. Sustainable energy sources are becoming increasingly competitive.
"What on earth do you think climate scientists actually do" - as far as I can see, a good proportion of them seem to spend their time running-up massive "carbon footprints" jetting round the world to "conferences" in exotic locations.
"and the evidence overwhelming" - the outputs of shonky computer models are not "evidence". Proper empirical evidence is almost non-existent.
"and the evidence overwhelming" - the outputs of shonky computer models are not "evidence". Proper empirical evidence is almost non-existent.
Agree that nuclear isn't the only answer but do the actual sums on costs, i did, if we spent 10% of the monies put into battery research on nuclear waste storage research we would have all of the answers now. Love the bit on 'becoming' competitive, think i'll start believing in magic not electrical engineering
Not sure how a poll advertised on gaming website is representative.
I assume activists spread news of it and manipulated the votes.
Typically poor journalism.
I assume activists spread news of it and manipulated the votes.
Typically poor journalism.
I'm old enough to remember the last 5-6 decades of climate prophecies which haven't materialised. Ice ages, +10C warming just haven't happened. Over the years it's always, always, been the venture capitalists in the background pushing the climate 'emergency' message to unlock trillions in taxpayers' money for renewable energy industry. This survey asks mostly kids who are too easily misled. Shame.
Whatever your beliefs on climate change, the manipulation of polls to achieve the desired outcome is so problematic it is beyond trust and the polling industry needs regulation (and it is an industry!). To think Labour were seeking election to carry out a 2nd referendum with "Remain or Deal" on the ballot paper tells you what some people believe polls are there for.
Let her burn
Climate change summits. Bringing in hundreds of people from around the world by air, to talk about unnecessary pollution ....
Or climate change conferences held in nice places, like Bali in 2007, with thousands of people working for environmental charities travelling thousands of miles and living the high life on expenses. No wonder they're so keen on keeping the MMGW religion going. Mind you I originally typed woking for working. Think I was right the first time.
"brainwashed" I think you're super naive and a halfwit who has know idea the amount of damage we have done to our home planet as it is already ad yet you call kids who have been informed for a long time about how our planet is going to change not for the better for the younger generation. Good why do people like you exist, I'd prefer people like you were extinct.
Removed
The media and the politicians only care about themselves and they will be be responsible for the country , the world in 100 years time ...they do not work in mines .. or on Boats , they do work with old people , they do not work in hospitals , they do not put out fires , they do not deliver parcels , they do not wash dishes , All they do is stratgeise how to hold on to power and their money
It's a shame people are placing such faith in a "poll" that obviously wasn't in any way representative.
Unfortunately, most people seem still to be unaware or uninterested in the issue of climate change.
That means it will not be a vote-winner if governments take action. Which means that in most cases, they won't.
Unfortunately, most people seem still to be unaware or uninterested in the issue of climate change.
That means it will not be a vote-winner if governments take action. Which means that in most cases, they won't.
The weather in the UK wasn't this extreme 10 years ago, we can see the change, yet some people still selfishly drive big SUVs. There's no need unless you live in a remote area.
Read a stat a while back
At that time 6% of cars sold in South Wales, hilly country, lots of farmland, muddy tracks, were 4 x 4s
London, city streets, no farms or muddy tracks, not much in the way of steep hills
16% of cars bought were 4 x 4s
Just blooming status symbols for the insecure
At that time 6% of cars sold in South Wales, hilly country, lots of farmland, muddy tracks, were 4 x 4s
London, city streets, no farms or muddy tracks, not much in the way of steep hills
16% of cars bought were 4 x 4s
Just blooming status symbols for the insecure
No it was much warmer than this January has been
dilemma one -
advances in health, utilities and transport have boomed populations
driving further consumption because the dominant model is
consumption
however
as places get 'richer' they tend to have slightly regressive demographics
more old, less young and those countries' populations then stabilise
question is
what gives first?
advances in health, utilities and transport have boomed populations
driving further consumption because the dominant model is
consumption
however
as places get 'richer' they tend to have slightly regressive demographics
more old, less young and those countries' populations then stabilise
question is
what gives first?
I don't know if anyone saw Countryfile, but seeing many 200 year-old trees cut down all for the sake of HS2 was very, very shocking.
Totally unacceptable.
Totally unacceptable.
this climate stuff is too little to late..we all know deep down that nothing will change until we are forced by continuous disasters across the planet to change the way we live..the world economic model is still based on growth..so the outlook going forward is unremittingly bleak..the top 1% that own everything will not change a system thats benefitted them for generations..would you...
I'm not going in for climate denial but the BBC need some serious lessons in statistics. If 50% of your sample come from an age range of 14 - 18, and also only includes people who do mobile gaming then you simply cannot extrapolate this to make a claim about "almost two thirds _of the world_". Sadly this sort of misuse of data is endemic in journalism.
Removed
Well for a start let's stop the super rich flying around everywhere. Lear jets lining most airports these days. Make it more expensive to travel to the ski resorts were our wealthy take their children every chance they get . Italy February 2020? What did they bring back. Also we should stop the reliance on China. Make it here and pay more or become a fossil found by whatever comes next .
Ah, no - tax will not help anything. The filthy rich can afford to pay it, after all. In any case, there would be a dodge, such as calling it "essential business travel" or something and they would be exempt.
Get rid of the , Microsoft , the BBC , Netflix , facebook , Twitter , Apple , Cnn and i guarentee you Life will get much better
Nobody asks you to use them.
Which device devoid of any of those platforms did you use to write that on?
It is even more worrying given the fact that on long cycles, we should be living through a low temperature cycle, but in fact we are seeing record high temperatures.
The difference is far greater and climate change is real.
100 years of industrial activity is the reason, and it continues relentlessly with an exponential rise in human population. (50+M p.a.)...All requiring more and more cars etc.
The difference is far greater and climate change is real.
100 years of industrial activity is the reason, and it continues relentlessly with an exponential rise in human population. (50+M p.a.)...All requiring more and more cars etc.
Yeah I get that. I'm a supporter of green energy and believe in climate change. I just want to know more about the groups funding the protests as well. When they hide behind the curtain it gives off a sinister vibe.
how long before tptb start taxing green energy.?politicians only interested in things they can tax.
The planets population is 7.8 Bn and growing by the day.
Most of these people want a better standard of life, how do you square this circle ??
Most of these people want a better standard of life, how do you square this circle ??
Equitable distribution of resources and pressure to reduce population growth. Nether of those things are likely to happen, unfortunately.
Sorry - please don't mention growing population. The BBC don't because it might offend someone's religious sensibilities.
Stop people in rich countries from being so greedy.
'half the participants aged between 14 and 18.' Ok BBC - I'll fix your agenda led headline
Climate change: Biggest global poll supports 'global emergency'
to
Climate change: Biggest global poll of children supports 'global emergency'
Climate change: Biggest global poll supports 'global emergency'
to
Climate change: Biggest global poll of children supports 'global emergency'
Notice the ratio of downvotes you have, showing that people don't like to lose the ability to chose for themselves. Unfortunately, without some kind of prescriptive restrictions, the only alternative (if we actually attempt to tackle the problem) is to increase the costs of heavy carbon usage. This won't stop the really rich from flying every week, while the hard working normal folk will be unable
That sounds a tad like jealousy to me. Who are you to decide who needs an SUV and who doesn't?
And as to limiting flights, what do you think about the electric and hydrogen powered planes being developed? Or do you just want to restrict people for the sake of it because you can only afford those few flights?
Ships pollute far more than planes anyway. Stop buying things from China.
And as to limiting flights, what do you think about the electric and hydrogen powered planes being developed? Or do you just want to restrict people for the sake of it because you can only afford those few flights?
Ships pollute far more than planes anyway. Stop buying things from China.
Nobody 'Needs' an SUV. Presumably you mean people like farmers etc? Considering that with most of them the off-road ability is virtually nil, and they aren't suitable for taking the pigs to market and only take the same number of people as a classic estate car, I can't see why anybody buys them. Oh, I forgot, they've been told their 'Prestigious'.
will that apply to politicians, celebs, footballers etc with their own 1 man/women jets.
53 Chelsea Tractor drivers disagree with you and would rather still keep clogging up inner-cities where 99% of the power of their huge machines is never used and they're the only person in the car.
I do not necessarly agree with your opinion, but I can see it coming to that, or even worse in say another 20 years. However the rich will not be affected as usual with private planes and yachts and their donations to political parties!
Except for celebrities / reporters though ... how else would they zoom round the world, first class, to lecture the rest of us on what we should be giving up ?
The number of down votes for this tells us more about peoples real opinions that this so called opinion poll!
Removed
Zero holidays would be better for the environment. You either want to help or you dont, sounds like you want to continue going on your usual holliday every year. Selfish.
My wife's Fiesta does 35mpg; my SUV does 43mpg; a Zoe small electric vehicle is £31k! It's not nearly as simple as the ignorant imply!
Why would anyone need a Stupid Useless Vehicle any way. So big half' the women who drive them cannot see over the steering wheel.
If you have a kid you'll have caused more CO2 than I ever will from flying or driving my SUV.
Not sure how a poll advertised on gaming website is representative.
I assume activists spread news of it and manipulated the votes.
Typically poor journalism.
I assume activists spread news of it and manipulated the votes.
Typically poor journalism.
Problem is that this kind of poll has the potential to become part of govt policy as public opinion is taken from the media and massively influences the political landscape. So uninformed opinions such as this can carry a lot of weight. So they want this, also free uni places, increased benefits, etc, etc - it goes on - the cake is only so big to be shared around - one day people will see it
Yeah let’s only have socialism for OAPS.
"...with almost half the participants aged between 14 and 18."
So basically, it is the opinions of children.
So basically, it is the opinions of children.
Get rid of the , Microsoft , the BBC , Netflix , facebook , Twitter , Apple , Cnn and i guarentee you Life will get much better
Removed
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Add the BBC's impeccably even-handed incisive journalism, and........
Add the BBC's impeccably even-handed incisive journalism, and........
I'm not going in for climate denial but the BBC need some serious lessons in statistics. If 50% of your sample come from an age range of 14 - 18, and also only includes people who do mobile gaming then you simply cannot extrapolate this to make a claim about "almost two thirds _of the world_". Sadly this sort of misuse of data is endemic in journalism.
What exactly have they lied about? The report claims exactly what the BBC article says it claims, so what lie exactly are you referring to? Or can you just not read English/not accept anything you disagree with?
As the poster said - in journalism - ALL - keep your bias to yourself.
So long as the world economic system is driven to make more and more money by exploiting more and more resource to feed a growing consumer market, the environment is stuffed. Nothing will change except some window dressing because the people who make the decisions are the ones who benefit from the status quo.
God Bless Greed.
God Bless Greed.
Two significant action that can help with climate change.
1. Admit that there are too many of us and we need to encourage less population growth.
2. Invest in Nuclear power.
How many environmentalists are in favour of either of these?
1. Admit that there are too many of us and we need to encourage less population growth.
2. Invest in Nuclear power.
How many environmentalists are in favour of either of these?
So when the Chinese are 100% nuclear will they still be making the cheap plastic toys and collectible figures for the US toy companies that the 3-10 year-olds want?
Nuclear is NOT the only viable long term solution.
It should be a part of the solution, but there are plenty of other alternatives.
It should be a part of the solution, but there are plenty of other alternatives.
I'm old enough to remember the last 5-6 decades of climate prophecies which haven't materialised. Ice ages, +10C warming just haven't happened. Over the years it's always, always, been the venture capitalists in the background pushing the climate 'emergency' message to unlock trillions in taxpayers' money for renewable energy industry. This survey asks mostly kids who are too easily misled. Shame.
The weather in the UK wasn't this extreme 10 years ago, we can see the change, yet some people still selfishly drive big SUVs. There's no need unless you live in a remote area.
Unfortunately you are 100% correct.
I live in Kensington (Disclaimer: I'm not rich myself), it's just not practical to own a 4x4 here, yet everyone has one.
They clog up the tiny streets, take up over half of the road and pump the air full of exhaust fumes. You're a banker, you're not commuting to a farm every day guys!
They clog up the tiny streets, take up over half of the road and pump the air full of exhaust fumes. You're a banker, you're not commuting to a farm every day guys!
And they will solve the problem hopefully.
"So kids with no adult responsibilities think this ?" This has to be one of the most idiotic statements I've ever read.
"So kids with no adult responsibilities think this ?" This has to be one of the most idiotic statements I've ever read.
Yes, tell them that they can't be taken to see friends or to school by car, and that they'll be holidaying in a B&B in Southend this year and wait for the reaction. Mind you, if things keep going like this they may be holidaying in Southend anyway! 7000 years ago (a very short time) you could walk to the Netherlands, and the Persian Gulf was a pleasant river valley. Just saying.
The survey was distributed through mobile gaming apps. Oh dear. So highly biased responses then. Completely missing the vast majority of ordinary folk. There is no climate emergency, the climate is screwed. So that's the end of that. Enjoy what we have, it's all downhill until the population is massively reduced.
As the exodus to the cities continues the problem sorts itself out. Urban families have fewer children. By the end of the century there will be far fewer human inhabitants by natural causes.
The fake climate change religion wants to stop developing countries from achieving this goal.
The fake climate change religion wants to stop developing countries from achieving this goal.
Watch any BBC Weather bulletin....and note how often they say something like "...keep an eye on the forecast for later in the week, as it could change..." - so, can't tell what the weather will do 3-5 days in advance....yet climatologists can say with absolute certainty that man made climate change will raise temperatures.....yeah right.....just shows 14-18 year olds can be indoctrinated.
'The organisers distributed poll questions through adverts in mobile gaming apps'
Yes, that's the way to get a good cross section of reasoned opinion.
Is climate change a threat? Not as much as a banana falling on my head in Candy Crush 19
Yes, that's the way to get a good cross section of reasoned opinion.
Is climate change a threat? Not as much as a banana falling on my head in Candy Crush 19
The weather in the UK wasn't this extreme 10 years ago, we can see the change, yet some people still selfishly drive big SUVs. There's no need unless you live in a remote area.
Have you not noticed that we're having much longer hot and dry periods and also lots of heavy rain much more frequently now then? Our town flooded again this month.
1801 GB census population 10 million
an industrial GB started this folks
don't look to others to end it
that would be foolish or disingenuous
an industrial GB started this folks
don't look to others to end it
that would be foolish or disingenuous
The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old givve or take and we've managed to screw it up in just over 200 years. Quite an achievement. As a species the maths will get us eventually, be it pandemic, war, meteor strike or AI. If we want to survive as a species, and I don't think we really deserve to, we need to hedge our bets and colonise beyond the Earth.
Err, we haven't screwed up the earth. It has survived for billions of years and will survive for billions of years more. We've screwed up humanity because we bred too much. Soak it up.
As a species we need to do that anyway as in c.3Bn years the sun runs out of hydrogen, expands to become a red giant and sweeps the earth away as it does so.
So top 10% get there 1st& cycle starts all over again-Gr8 idea!Personally we've all allowed this to happen.We've had WorldWars but we missed the elephant in the room-Consumerism tru Globilisation where Profit&greed are the measure of 1s success because we've been fed Capitalism for 200yrs-the Planet has been raped&those that av benefitted dont pay it back!Money makes Policy not Governments!
You would have thought control population growth would have been one of those top policies. Ignoring the elephant in the room again.
Who would pay your pension then?
I thought COVID was taking care of that? Slowly, but surely.
And talking about elephants, fifty years ago the discussion was about the damage to (their) environment that elephants were doing, partly because they couldn't migrate the distances they used to because of the growth of population and farming in Africa.
And then ignoring the elephant in *that* room - the HUGELY skewed distribution of wealth, and consequently resource consumption, among the global population.
You are assuming that nobody can live in ballance with the world, in reality they can but choose not to. Its not the number of people so much as they way the live that is the problem.
That has an answer; it doesn't involve any repression. In every country where women are getting as good an education as men, and where they have equal job opportunities and control over their own fertility population growth goes negative. (Because of increased longevity there's a time lag till that results in actually reduced populations.) Achieve gender equality and the problem will solve itself.
Presumably you haven't had children yet? If so you're a hypocrite . But please do make your own personal contribution to depopulation asap.
Not sure how a poll advertised on gaming website is representative.
I assume activists spread news of it and manipulated the votes.
Typically poor journalism.
I assume activists spread news of it and manipulated the votes.
Typically poor journalism.
I read the article which stated how poorly it was conducted.
Too many people. One hope is that plastic micro-particles continue to clog up the wedding tackles and prevent the problem worsening. We need campaign where tutting at people with more than 1 child becomes the norm. Also stop interfering with nature with comments such as "Come away from that cliff edge Darling! it looks dangerous".
Removed
Seems like most people go on about climate change till it involves them having to change their ways, then they are not bothered.
Always someone elses responsibility
Always someone elses responsibility
That's unfair. Many people are making the changes in their lives
My family has ditched the car in favour of bicycles, we have a plant based diet 5 days a week & we cut out beef/lamb, I've arranged to have no more business trips that use air travel (using zoom instead) and I donate the money saved on petrol/tax/meat to environmental causes.
I know dozens of people making similar commitments.
My family has ditched the car in favour of bicycles, we have a plant based diet 5 days a week & we cut out beef/lamb, I've arranged to have no more business trips that use air travel (using zoom instead) and I donate the money saved on petrol/tax/meat to environmental causes.
I know dozens of people making similar commitments.
The planets population is 7.8 Bn and growing by the day.
Most of these people want a better standard of life, how do you square this circle ??
Most of these people want a better standard of life, how do you square this circle ??
Not unless you can get the world's richest to give up their wealth.
Third world families in the first world still have twice as many kids on average. This is not about equal distribution - that will lead to an even greater growth in population.
Either we can take action to manage our numbers or the climate will....
Places like Africa have far more resources than the UK or Japan - do they get to give us some of them?
The planets population is 7.8 Bn and growing by the day.
Most of these people want a better standard of life, how do you square this circle ??
Most of these people want a better standard of life, how do you square this circle ??
Well for a start let's stop the super rich flying around everywhere. Lear jets lining most airports these days. Make it more expensive to travel to the ski resorts were our wealthy take their children every chance they get . Italy February 2020? What did they bring back. Also we should stop the reliance on China. Make it here and pay more or become a fossil found by whatever comes next .
I agree with you but we need to have special permits for those who know best about the climate to fly round the world to explain it to the not so knowledgable. I think Prince Harry and Princess Meghan need to be able to fly wherever tey feel the poulation needs thir superior knowledge and Greta must be able to enlighten the ignorant too...
The Elite like Bill Gates , Face book Apple , BBC bosses would glady wear dresses and push you off there Life Raft after the titanic while the Titanic is sinking ....
Oh for goodness sake! What on earth do you think climate scientists actually do, if not consider all those questions and more? Data on anthropogenic global warming is abundant and the evidence overwhelming.
Nuclear is far from the only option, and comes with its own problems, including costs, decommissioning, waste storage, etc. Sustainable energy sources are becoming increasingly competitive.
Nuclear is far from the only option, and comes with its own problems, including costs, decommissioning, waste storage, etc. Sustainable energy sources are becoming increasingly competitive.
"What on earth do you think climate scientists actually do" - as far as I can see, a good proportion of them seem to spend their time running-up massive "carbon footprints" jetting round the world to "conferences" in exotic locations.
"and the evidence overwhelming" - the outputs of shonky computer models are not "evidence". Proper empirical evidence is almost non-existent.
"and the evidence overwhelming" - the outputs of shonky computer models are not "evidence". Proper empirical evidence is almost non-existent.
You would have thought control population growth would have been one of those top policies. Ignoring the elephant in the room again.
That is a ponsi scheme that will collapse. You can't think like that, it's what got us here in the first place.
YOu do by saving I guess. Evening out the incomes of many people is the future, paying for hours actually worked as opposed to crafty marketing as it is now. The top end don't get more than say three times what an average worker gets. Fairer system.
Yes, this is the biggest problem with reducing population size - you end up with lots of old very old people and nobody to earn money or look after them. In some ways this is already being seen in places like Japan. I guess over a few generations things would balance out, but it would be an difficult century or so.
State pension sure, then again your state pension wont give you much by then anway. How about you have your own pension, which you pay into?
And who pays the pensions of the people who are paying yours? Increasing the population is unsustainable whether at country or global level.
I would - from the money I've saved into my private pension over my lifetime.
If we got off the stupid hamster wheel of thinking economic growth is the be all and end all (whilst really only making the ultra-rich even richer) and worked on a solution of sustainable living that didn't revolve around us all buying as much crap as possible then the solutions would be very simple indeed - I imagine that most of us would be a lot happier and healthier too. Think outside the box.
Ironic that when you raise the elephant in the room, you get downvoted. Support in old age is the driver of population growth. We even have gov'ts offering incentives to have more kids specifically to help keep the shape of the population pyramid.
LOL. Wonderful comment, exemplifying the asinine public sector worldview that pensions only get paid out of taxation. Completely divorced from reality.
It's all nonsense, but it won't stop them posting....