What you say may well be the case.
However, if the climate crisis is to be taken seriously, governments accross the globe will have to find ways to reduce the carbon being pumped into the atmosphere and if this means restricting flying, so be it.
For now, the issue isn't being taken too seriously and with China in particular chasing economic growth and still commissioning coal fired power stations etc, to feed their thirst for electricity, there is one hell of a long way to go.

A reduction in consumption would probably be the easiest way to reduce emissions in the short term but, the economic consequences of this would make difficult for most governments to encourage.

The "throw away" society needs to change.

Maybe the "influencers" around the planet should be advocating the hippy lifestyle, instead of promoting st1t that nobody needs

There is no climate crisis, the planet evolves.

I do find snowflake wokes to be funny though.

More insightful stuff from the East Coast.

If the evolution of the planet means that huge numbers of it's inhabitants will die or have nowhere to live, should we sleepwalk into a difficult situation or, would it be a better idea to try and mitigate future difficulties.
I'll go for the latter but, you can close your eyes and cover your ears.
Snowflake trumps idiot all day long.

The planet has moved cyclically for millenia, species have thrived and died, it is the natural balance of evolution. You forgot your trademark



You can't accept people disagree, that shows a lack of belief in your own position.

So, are you happy for the human species to die, without taking any preventative action or, do you think that we should try and help ourselves.
Although the planet has indeed been around for millions of years, human beings certainly haven't.

So, are you closing your eyes, covering your ears and just accepting of the future or, do you think a change in our lifestyles and improving the future for our children and their children may be a more sensible way forward.

The planet warming up is due largely to the human species and we should all take some responsibility.

The planets temperature changes cyclically, has done for many millions of years, I don't take any responsibility for something which is a natural phenomenon.

So you are in denial about any contribution made to climate change by human beings and therefore ARE going to close your eyes and cover your ears ?
Do you also think that people like David Attenborough are wrong ?

I am not in denial, I accept the actions of all living creatures contributes to the cycle. Attenborough is simply regurgitating the liberal woke spcheel he is given.

Climate Change is fashionable, but they never mention the carbon footprint and environmental impact of all the documentary makers jetting around the world.

I am not in denial, I accept the actions of all living creatures contributes to the cycle. Attenborough is simply regurgitating the liberal woke spcheel he is given.

Climate Change is fashionable, but they never mention the carbon footprint and environmental impact of all the documentary makers jetting around the world.

Come on, commit yourself.
Are you saying that human being, having cause a significant element of climate change should carry on regardless and feck the consequences ?

Yes or no will be enough.

I am saying that the whole climate change thing is blown out of proportion, parents setting their 7 year old kids up as climate change protestors, ffs. The vast majority of people are fed up of being preached to by snowflake millenials.

The human species, the most intelligent life on this planet.

And the only ones destroying it.

What do you think would be proportionate, in terms of coverage and action?

Can i have a nice hot summer please?

It's not "global warming" now, it's "climate change"....

Not mentioning it on every news bulletin, and banning F1 for a start.

What annoys me about most of this is as a nation britain is responsible for about 1.8% of carbon emissions what about the big boys producing the other 98% unless you get us china india indonesia and brazil round the table to do anything about it the amount we contribute is virtually negligible its just another way they can find to provide a form of taxation to the masses and justify it as a green tax. That said as a scientist we do have to encourage some kind of change in the future to alter things. Dont even get me started on volcanoes that produce over 70% of carbon emissions!!

And livestock, and all those vegans and vegetarians giving off gases...

Quote ="Alchemist1"What annoys me about most of this is as a nation britain is responsible for about 1.8% of carbon emissions what about the big boys producing the other 98% unless you get us china india indonesia and brazil round the table to do anything about it the amount we contribute is virtually negligible its just another way they can find to provide a form of taxation to the masses and justify it as a green tax. That said as a scientist we do have to encourage some kind of change in the future to alter things. Dont even get me started on volcanoes that produce over 70% of carbon emissions!!'" We’re only about 0.9% of the world population, and I don’t think anybody expects the UK to solve it alone. Equally, if everybody waits for everybody else to start solving it, nowt will happen. Volcanoes: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... or-humans/ Quote ="IR80"banning F1.'" I did check.

Quote ="Alchemist1"What annoys me about most of this is as a nation britain is responsible for about 1.8% of carbon emissions what about the big boys producing the other 98% unless you get us china india indonesia and brazil round the table to do anything about it the amount we contribute is virtually negligible its just another way they can find to provide a form of taxation to the masses and justify it as a green tax. That said as a scientist we do have to encourage some kind of change in the future to alter things. Dont even get me started on volcanoes that produce over 70% of carbon emissions!!'" We’re only about 0.9% of the world population, and I don’t think anybody expects the UK to solve it alone. Equally, if everybody waits for everybody else to start solving it, nowt will happen. Volcanoes: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... or-humans/ Quote ="IR80"banning F1.'" I did check.

Turn every other street light off between midnight and 5 am in villages. Stop illuminating public buildings at the same times, ban all non commercial vehicles above 1.6 litres, ban log burners, ban hot tubs, patio heaters, BBQ's etc. There is a lot that could be being done, but nobody would win an election if they suggested it, and it would make very little difference.

Some good ideas there. This is what we should have after Brexit, innovative ideas being suggested from the public rather than waiting for 'elites' to tell us what to do.

You're right about the UK "only" being responsible for a very small percentage of the planets carbon emissions and you are also right that other larger nations need to take some action, some more than others. However, the point is that EYERONE can and should do their bit.
I do have one real big gripe with Britain claiming to have done more than other nations though.

Having effectively "exported" much of our "dirty" manufacture to China and some of the Asian nations, we are trying to claim that we have cleaned up our act. However, if consuming products that are causing the biggest issues, it doesn't really matter where they have been produced, as the carbon effect will be the same and possibly worse.

Certain politicians will always put their own position above that of the wider population

I fly long haul return every month, sometimes twice, and have done for the past 12 years or so. Mainly China / Asia but also the States and south America. I conference when I can, but as I project lead I really need to be on the ground. I have no problems paying an extra tax, though like many of my colleagues who also fly often, I contribute to carbon offset schemes and conservation schemes. I would hate families who go on holiday once a year to see a price hike because of people like me flying as often as I do. A staggered taxation of frequent flyers taking into account aircraft type, miles covered etc would be pretty fair I think, with a certain number of miles exempt for those that travel only once.

The only way to tax flights "fairly" would be to lift the price accross the board.
I agree that this would be tough on families going on holiday once a year but, apart from offering "family tickets", any other frequent flier tax would most likely be abused, unless a levy could be linked to passports.

Exactly what I would propose. The only way you could make it fairly airtight would be to link it to individuals.