Me, I'm into reducing waste. So, enough already on my plate. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it in not leaping into this one: Greens need to grasp the nettle: aren't there just too many people?
Frankly, between the article and the posts (never seen so many either edited or deleted by the moderator - passions running high, I guess), the whole issue has been pretty well thrashed out.
However, it was not until the end that I caught one who tried to answer the question, and did so quite well, I thought, for all the good it does us:
'There's no profit, politically or economically in population reduction. It's laughable to suggest that people would accept this, as the green lobby and government are only too aware . 'Green taxes', however, will potentially bring in billions of pounds for the Exchequer and private finance, the public will begrudgingly feel they're doing their bit to save the planet and we can all go home and have a nice cup of tea.'
More milk, vicars?
1 comment:
Hmmmm, that really did bring out the poles apart views, as does any piece which even touches on 'the policy that dare not speak its name'.
Yet, as the arguments rage on, certain governmental departments are quietly starting to look at just what the consequences of an over-populated planet undergoing significant climatic change might be - as in this, also from today's Guardian, reporting on an MOD funded project contracted to the Met Office.
"The research aims to identify countries where battles could break out over increasingly scarce supplies of food and water, as well as predict the likely conditions in which British troops may have to fight in future."
Now, please correct me if I'm reading something into this that isn't actually there, but doesn't that sound as if our very own MOD are anticipating, and perhaps even expecting, a worst case scenario somewhere down the line?
Post a Comment