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?
Junkk.com promotes fun, reward-based e-practices, sharing oodles of info in objective, balanced ways. But we do have personal opinions, too! Hence this slightly ‘off of site, top of mind' blog by Junkk Male Peter. Hopefully still more ‘concerned mates’ than 'do this... or else' nannies, with critiques seen as constructive or of a more eyebrow-twitching ‘Oh, really?!' variety. Little that’s green can be viewed only in black and white.
Monday, September 10, 2007
1 comment:
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.
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'.
ReplyDeleteYet, 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?