Forum menu
The windmills that are decimating our wild bird populations.
This is total rubbish. There has been a lot of research and very few birds have been killed.
I do wonder what motivates these trolls
Really? It's attention seeking. You deal with them by not responding. Have a look at the last 3 pages or so of this thread. 🥴
As someone who works closely with nature and whose father, grand father and great grandfather all worked on the land, I'm inclined to err more on the side of skepticism about the impact. Each generation had tales of what would now be coined 'climate events' that were more extreme than anything I've seen that's for sure.
Most of what's going on in the world in terms of floods and fired is down to poor urban planning and bad habitat management practices.
Also, if the 'record temperatures' are in fact that- then almost every native species should go extinct right? It is evolutionarily inefficient to be able to cope with extreme temperature variation and yet everything is coping just fine- almost like they've seen it all before. (Anecdotally, nature feels in rude health around the farm here. Especially the insect life which is currently booming).
I also think that the huge advantages of global greening for sustaining an ever greater population are being played down. The predicted food shortages of 20-30 years ago (by the bed wetting armageddon mongers of yesteryear) just haven't materialised largely because plants need co2 and yields have thus gone through the roof.
But the most striking thing reading this thread is how tone deaf the smug liberal elite are. And I guess it brings to mind that line from the Imitation Game where Keira Knightley's Joan says "If you really want to solve your puzzle, then you're going to need all the help you can get. And they are not going to help you if they do not like you!"
And quite frankly I'd rather me, my son and his future family all burned to death in an inferno (or froze to death in an igloo depending on which side of the Gulf Stream argument is being trotted out today) than do anything most of you suggest.
Climate Action seems to me to be the icing on the cake. But in order to make the base for that cake, we need to sort out the easy wins first like stopping pollution, cleaning up litter, ending the recycling charade (all that effort for 9%!! I'd rather be honest and throw it straight in the bin!), stopping the construction of ludicrous wind turbines and solar farms that are desecrating our countryside and building enough state owned nuclear plants that electricity is basically free to use.
Then I want the 'green' tech revolution to be BETTER, CHEAPER and more EGALITARIAN. People will switch automatically if the future is BETTER.
But at the moment it just feels like a lot of very well off people with apparently serious mental health problems going through some kind of guilty midlife crisis.
Imagine if the energy that's gone into this thread was spent writing an inspiring blog about how fantastic your lives are now you have done X,Y and Z to clean up your own personal act and reduce your footprint? Unless.......
But the most striking thing reading this thread is how tone deaf the smug liberal elite are.
Imagine if the energy that’s gone into this thread was spent writing an inspiring blog about how fantastic your lives are now you have done X,Y and Z to clean up your own personal act and reduce your footprint?
I get the feeling nothing will please you....
It should be possible to be inspiring without being smug....
Our new friend(s) seem to have every single type of discourse/delay tactic covered:
https://www.leolinne.com/?portfolio=discourses-of-climate-delay
I see you. I know what you are.
Whilst you may find others here who are willing, I won't be engaging further, since the ability to reason, which the content of your posts indicates you do not possess, is required in order for me to reason with you.
For anyone who would like to read them, the headline points of the latest scientific position are available here:.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/resources/spm-headline-statements
Of particular note are the confidence levels assigned to particular statements, rather than the statements themselves (all of which are pretty well known). The detail underpinning these statements is available in thousands of pages of reports, available on the same website.
@maximumhard 's post earlier about cutting down trees to make way for windfarms is an interesting one – while cutting down trees seems bad for the climate on the surface, in Scotland and on Forestry and Land Scotland land (which is where the article says the felling took place) this is actually a net carbon benefit or no change because of improvements in soil health and organic matter content.
Of all people, the [url= https://www.gwct.org.uk/wildlife/research/upland-biodiversity/planting-trees-carbon-removal-from-the-atmosphere/#:~:text=Trees%20are%20planted%20to%20take,biological%2C%20chemical%20and%20physical%20processes ]Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust[/url] did a pretty thorough study into this. While there may be some bias in it, they found that planting birch or pine trees (it’s likely to be pine that was felled) did not lead to increases in carbon in the ecosystem over a period of 12-39 years, and on one site there was even carbon loss.
I’ve done some studies in the far north of Scotland with the RSPB and a university. The RSPB bought the land from a commercial forester and then felled all the trees to improve bird biodiversity. As part of that, we were monitoring soil carbon and found that where the trees were felled soil carbon was increasing.
So, in terms of atmospheric carbon, felling trees to create a wind farm will have a significant benefit. Even if there’s no change in carbon levels in the ecosystem, you’re removing the carbon associated with a non-renewable method of producing energy. And likely improving biodiversity by removing dense commercial forestry. It’s an easy win that looks like a bad thing on the surface.
@crosshair - nature is not thriving in the current climate. These biodiversity stripes show the decline of biodiversity in the last 50 years, and the increase in global temperatures. There's been a catastrophic decline. While the larger stuff you see may be doing fine (although there's been an enormous drop off of most songbirds, and in agricultural areas kestrel populations are down over 85%) there's smaller stuff you don't that is struggling enormously. In developed nations, agriculture has a lot to do with it, but on the global scale climate is a major driver.
[img]
[/img]
We have tons of kestrels and voles 🤷🏻♂️
This family nest in the tree at the bottom of my garden.
The surveys show that you have less than you used to (although now I've double checked that >80% figure, that applies to Scotland, it's not so bad in England). A better marker UK-wide is probably the skylark, which has declined by over 75% since the '70s. Again, climate isn't entirely to blame but it is playing a major part in biodiversity decline globally.
https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/wildlife-guides/bird-a-z/skylark/threats/
I'll try again with the image-
[img] [/img]
The only species I can think of here is the Lapwing. And we’re not great habitat for them anyway but since (ironically, as it’s for trendy soil health reasons) going away from growing forage maize, there’s nowhere safe for them to nest.
Habitat is king when it comes to biodiversity.
Again- I rode across Salisbury Plain recently and the place is as alive with Skylarks as it ever was.
Suggesting habitat not climate is king.
We have them here but only in one field.
All over the world animals are under pressure due to climate change. from polar bears with no ice floes to hunt from to birds that no longer have the food supplies to feed their young because of the earlier spring each year so the timings of the food plants availability have altered
Animal are moving their ranges north as a result of climate change. My pal lives in the Yukon. their town now has starving mountain lions entering it because the prey species have moved north. 20 years ago they were north of the mountain lion ranges.
do love a **** you "i'm alright jack" with a "panic over it snowed yesterday" and err "that's looking like socialism" all in one post.
munrobiker
Again, climate isn’t entirely to blame but it is playing a major part in biodiversity decline globally.
and here is the thing ... mitigate climate change and you mitigate biodiversity unfortunately you have the environmentalists that prefer saving larks to people.
The really worrying thing is the decline of insects. Dunno how much of that is climate change led but the decline in insects is huge and very worryuing
do love a **** you “i’m alright jack” with a “panic over it snowed yesterday” and err “that’s looking like socialism” all in one post.
+1!
Are the new members the same ones who demonstrated that they are hard of thinking on the COVID thread?
Are the new members the same ones who demonstrated that they are hard of thinking on the COVID thread?
there does seem to be a striking overlap in views.
Ah yes. Insect Armageddon. Anecdotally we're definitely bucking that trend here.
Again, it seems far more related to land use, crop rotation and pesticide abuse than anything climate related.
Coming back to my cake analogy- taking a prime arable field out of food production and plastering it with solar panels is like smearing icing on a turd.
Taking it out of production and letting scrub regenerate or growing a winter food mix for song birds on it would be what we should be doing FIRST- baking a solid cake.
What would you say about the studies that show skylark numbers of skylarks have declined by >75%? Are they wrong? The UK conservation status, set by the government's Joint Nature Conservation Committee, for the skylark is Red, and that's determined by data from the JNCC, RSPB and British Trust for Ornithology.
While I see plenty of skylarks about that doesn't mean there's as many as there should be, and the Red list designation shows that even if there's lots they're declining at an unsustainable rate. The number of red list birds has increased from 36 in 1996 to 70 in 2021.
The BTO's take on it is that "Climate change and milder winters in regions such as the Baltic Sea have resulted in many of these species being less likely to migrate as far west and south as the UK, in a pattern termed 'short-stopping'." If you remove 75% of a single bird's population from the UK that has knock on effects for other bird species, insects and predators. It also has an impact on whichever cooler place they're ending up- if populations are increasing somewhere, that applies extra pressures to that ecosystem. And it's largely down to climate (along with changes to industrial farming practices).
If skylarks numbers were down because of climate change then the effect would be even more noticeable where the habitat is still suitable. It’s not. The skylarks are still there.
Which suggests it’s primarily a land use issue…
Thing is, even as someone with a seat at a land management table, with machinery and the knowledge to literally move the earth, alter crops and change habitats- I feel pretty powerless to effect change in a pro-wildlife fashion V the foresters, farmers, estate managers and land owners who also share that table with me. Everyone here is fighting over the same 3000 acres.
So I totally sympathise that for someone sat in a bed-sit in their poo stained pants with only the left wing internet as a peephole into the natural world, things must seem terrifyingly scary and ‘out of control’.
I’d strongly suggest getting out and about (heck, maybe even go crazy and spend a few carbon credits to get there) and seeing that IRL- things aren’t as bad as they are being sold to be.
Maybe these threads would be toned down a little and people could see that the solution to most of the REAL problems we face in the environment are largely in the hands of land owners, the supermarkets and big business and are nothing to do with the climate.
I’d strongly suggest getting out and about (heck, maybe even go crazy and spend a few carbon credits to get there) and seeing that IRL- things aren’t as bad as they are being sold to be.
I do, and I have. I've spent 12 years doing soil, air and water sampling and monitoring across the whole of the UK, now I review data, academic papers and government studies of the environment for an environmental regulator. I've worked with air quality experts, ecologists and arboriculturalists. I've seen the trends change, I've seen all the data first hand and collected a lot of it myself. I don't get any benefit from investigating and pushing the green agenda (other than my livelihood, but my job would still exist even if we weren't finding a problem), and in fact for most people I work with sorting out environmental problems costs them money and reduces their profits. There's no business or government gain from improving the environment in the short term.
We are damaging the environment in almost all possible ways, even in the UK, but we can do something about it. I'm not a Maltheusian downer - there will be technological and societal ways to prevent the problems we're causing. We just need to get everyone to recognise that there's an issue and then actually get on and do them.
Panic over guys - it's all ok in a corner of a field in Wiltshire. Job jobbed.
This is what my company thinks of it all & you could never accuse us of being socialists....
I think crosshair is a bot created by an angry ill-informed student at agricultural college
Thats a bit unfair chaps - crosshair is giving anecdotal examples from his experience which is very different to most of us. He was not being a denialist
…the point being that whatever corner of Wiltshire you think I’m referring to isn’t a biosphere immune from the effects of ‘climate change’.
Three legged stool of conservation- good food, clean water and shelter. Build it and they still come 🤷🏻♂️
I just think all this ethereal climate angst is so terribly misdirected when there’s real tangible stuff we could improve.
Suggesting that I've got a field full of bird species A so the wider population decline of that species isn't as bad as people say is a bit weird at best
I’m not saying that. I’m saying that if we have a field full of birds that are supposedly in decline “cuz planes and cars!!” then either our climate is unique or maybe they are in decline elsewhere for OTHER REASONS 😀
Even if all the expert bodies involved say that climate is a major reason for their decline?
And as tjagain points out- I’m not denying anything about the existence of climate change, man made or otherwise. I’m incredibly skeptical of the motives of the people behind it but the science is what it is.
Beyond that I’m just trying to apply logic to what I see with my own eyes.
I just think all this ethereal angst is so terribly misdirected when there’s real tangible stuff we could improve.
There is loads of stuff that man has ****ed up that could be improved. However, this thread is specifically about climate change rather than increasing the number of hedgehogs (and I saw one of those last year so they are okay really aren't they)
@crosshair - Do you also have an abundance of puffins in your fields despite their wider decline around Europe due to the ocean's warming up ?
I live in W Yorks half way up the hill to the Moors. We see lots of lapwings and curlews up on the moors yet across the UK their numbers are rapidly falling. That doesn't mean that I walk around shouting they are not in decline 'cos I saw 3 on Sunday
I think group think and funding models can make people say all sorts of things 😉
As I say- it’s just logic at the end of the day. If bird A is thriving in a place where habitat is being managed correctly and locally extinct 50 miles away, then it is fairly unlikely “climate” is to blame.
Still missing the point….
This thread is about climate change. If you want me to change my behaviour to stop **that** happening then don’t try and persuade me by using examples of things that are in fact caused by changes in land use, habitat loss, pollution, over population, predation pressure or myriad other non climate related factors.
And if you care about the natural environment then solving these other things should be of far greater importance to you in the short term than stopping people using fossil fuels.
@crosshair - the oceans are warming up due to climate change and the sandeels are struggling, hence their numbers are declining. Puffins and other seabirds eat sandeels and due to their declining numbers the seabirds are in decline too.
That is definitely attributed to climate change - how does your better land management approach solve that problem?
And if you care about the natural environment then solving these other things should be of far greater importance to you in the short term than stopping people using fossil fuels.
they are not mutually exclusive, given the latter would be beneficial to the former.
So obviously I have less personal experience of that issue but I do wonder if the effects of any (apparent) shift in their range are intertwined with the impact of EU supertrawlers that hoover them up for fishmeal…..
If climate change is the sole issue then I’m guessing no environmentalists are calling for fishing bans….. Oh wait…. 😉
“ A call for evidence by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) last year found that the industrial fishing of sandeels could be negatively affecting the populations of some of the UK’s most beloved and endangered species, including puffins and kittiwakes.”
All these issues are complex and need to be better evidenced.
@klunk No they are not but one is cheap and quick and the current proposals for the other are expensive and damaging.
The biggest problem I see in the Sandeel story is that of a Brexit benefit (control of our own fish stocks and marine habitats) being squandered.
Even the RSPB agrees 🤣
New post-Brexit fisheries powers mean the UK can fight for its seabirds. It now needs to close UK waters to commercial sandeel fishing or, at the very least, drop catch limits so more fish are available for our seabirds.
So stopping hard working Dean, Sarah or Steve from going to Greece in a plane for their hols “cuz Puffins!!!” might be overkill when some effective governance could solve the problem….
Still missing the point….
This thread is about climate change. If you want me to change my behaviour to stop **that** happening then don’t try and persuade me by using examples of things that are in fact caused by changes in land use, habitat loss, pollution, over population, predation pressure or myriad other non climate related factors.
^^^ Exactly this - and it's not REALLY what you and I think but what the electorate think ^^^
We are damaging the environment in almost all possible ways, even in the UK, but we can do something about it.
We could ..OR we could mitigate climate change.
Thanks to the environmentalist lobby we can't do BOTH anymore, that ship has sailed.
Equally the majority of the electorate need a simple goal. Diluting one with the other just waters down the lot.
Sometimes I wonder if the environmental groups are just so used to lying and denying science they don't believe climate change is real.
It seems to me that some organisations are so wrapped up in what they don't want for non factual reasons they can't focus on the possible.
Also, if the ‘record temperatures’ are in fact that- then almost every native species should go extinct right? It is evolutionarily inefficient to be able to cope with extreme temperature variation and yet everything is coping just fine- almost like they’ve seen it all before.
It depends what you call "native species"... lions and hippo's are "native" but they died out due to climate change along with the majority of their ecosystems.
We also had cold adapted species but they died out due to climate change.
What we have now since Dogger disappeared are the temperature resilient or introduced
The West European hedgehog or common hedgehog, is native to Europe from Iberia and Italy northwards into Scandinavia and into the British Isles.
Plenty of species live in wide temperatures, Orcas as one example can swim to any zone. Not to mention the migratory birds that live from Africa to Scandinavia.
Introduced species such as the European Rabbit thrive from the Australian Outback to Northern Scotland.
You're not a very good troll despite your thoughts to the contrary
Well quite. We generally consider the last ice age to be a good cut off in the native/non-native debate for that very reason.
Arguing the toss over whether the UK temp range extends from -27 to +40 degrees or -29 to +42 degrees in any given decade when that is well within the comfortable sphere of existence for all our flora and fauna just seems laughable.
crosshair
Arguing the toss over whether the UK temp range extends from -27 to +40 degrees or -29 to +42 degrees in any given decade when that is well within the comfortable sphere of existence for all our flora and fauna just seems laughable.
well there are 2 sides...
If we look at Rabbits in Australia for example we can see they are resilient but we can also see they compete for resources with humans and native species.
The other side is species are forever competing with each other and humans as yet another species so why does it matter if a few disappear or become less common. Sure Red Squirrels are cute but if they are replaced by grey does it really matter in the vast scheme of things? I mean, if we could flick a switch and kill every grey squirrel in the UK or Rabbit in Australia should we?
I think the real issues of climate change are competing for resources - not only the UK or not only humans.
To this extent perhaps killing every rabbit in Australia is more useful (due to competing resources) than every grey squirrel in the UK.
Great, when we do start the killing?
I mean, if we could flick a switch and kill every grey squirrel in the UK or Rabbit in Australia should we?
Of course we should. How can reversing some of the extensive damage caused by humans to the fine balance of nature ever be a bad thing?
As of course are most of the humans on this island archipelago. all you ruddy anglo saxon types, coming over here and colonising our land.
Why is anthropomorphic introduction of species ‘bad’ and natural colonisation ’good’ anyway?
Is it mainly because humans have decided we are ‘supra-natural’ beings?
That’s part of the crux of this crusade too isn’t it. To demonise human impact as if we are no longer part of nature.
Rabbits were imported by the normans as a food source IIRC
Rabbits are non native to the UK as well.
Yup. The question is how damaging are they to the ecosystem where they are nonnative. Grey squirrels certainly are and if rabbits pose a similar threat I would want a switch for them.
As of course are most of the humans on this island archipelago.
No all humans. Homo sapiens did not evolve in Europe, let alone the British Isles.
Ah but some of us came here shortly after the ice age. All you Anglo Saxons and Normans are jonny come latelys ie invasive species.
That’s part of the crux of this crusade too isn’t it. To demonise human impact as if we are no longer part of nature.
Can we start the cull with you?
Guys - you are attacking crosshair unfairly here IMO. ease off a bit?
And I got modded for saying there were ‘sanctimonious’ and ‘hypocritical’ posts in this thread 🤣
Literally all I’ve said is we would be better off tidying up the earth and the sea before we concentrate on the atmosphere 🤷🏻♂️🤣🤣
Im not sure blaming the illegal immigrant rabbit population is going to reverse a century of carbon pollution, some of which is directly responsible for the rise in the worlds average temperature.
Reducing consumerism and differentiating between wants and needs would. No one needs 10 push bikes, multiple cars, new clothes every week, a new kitchen every 3 years, 12 pairs of trainers, 2 new phones a year, 3 foreign holidays, 5 TVs, and 4 kids yet we all get sucked in. Tjat we are failing in life if we dont conform and provide all the usual tat for our family
Ah but some of us came here shortly after the ice age
Who taught you art and literature?
Before that you were reduced to grunting as you "painted" using hand prints on cave walls.
Ah but some of us came here shortly after the ice age
A newcomer then?
Side-tracked: If I had access to time travel, pre ice age Britain would be on my list of places to visit. It would be just amazing.
...as you were
Side-tracked: If I had access to time travel, pre ice age Britain would be on my list of places to visit. It would be just amazing.
So I am not the only one who thinks that!
I have long thought that a big budget movie set in the ice age, or before, in the northern hemisphere would make a brilliant epic film.
It could be based on normal human interactions but set at a time when wolves, bears, beavers, etc, roamed freely instead of being set in contemporary times. It would be awesome imo!
Pre which ice age? there have been a few.
the UK would have been a very different place for sure. NO rabbits taking over
Crosshair is not saying that if skylarks in x location its all ok and that climate change has no effect on wildlife... but dont let that get in the way a good onslaught
See the pond thread, how many are saying look what i have here since i built my pond, dragon flys toads frogs etc etc..simple example but valid..
Same as the open cast mines that get lanscaped..a few round my way now are amazing..bursting with wildlife that was not there when it was a mine.
Thats all that is being said, im thick as mince but can see the point being made...
Pre which ice age?
Preferably one in which humans existed just to give the film a plot. Humans arrived in Europe about 40k years ago, so before the last one.
To demonise human impact as if we are no longer part of nature.
We have forgotten to be a part of nature and ridden over it. Leaving extensive damage in our wake. We have one planet and therefore should look after it. Not **** it over for financial gain or endless expansion. I see the last few pages have had a focus on land use and change. That’s a contributory factor to biodiversity loss and rolls right back to. You guessed it, anthropogenic climate change.
We should be demonised because we’re a set of utter ****s hell bent on destroying the only home we have.
But everything ‘destroys’ something else to exist.
Even plants are scrambling to shade each other out.
Where do you draw the line? We can’t go back to being nomadic hunter-gatherers (as fun as that would be).
If anything, fossil fuels have been a godsend in terms of allowing more people to exist whilst using **fewer** resources.
I’m not even convinced 7 billion nomadic hunter gatherers would have less environmental impact given the acreage of land the remaining tribes need to exist.
Where do you draw the line?
Unsustainable lifestyles, so the line has long gone. I’m just encouraging my kids to play Fallout 4 as a future lifestyle simulator.
How are you getting fewer resources used from the introduction of fossil fuels? We consume a lot more resources than we need. A hell of a lot. Fossil fuels and the products they produce play a huge part in this. How much unnecessary plastic shite do you have in your house? So your argument doesn’t really work.
https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/superconductor-breakthrough-electricity-power-paper-b2382711.html
I predict that ebikes are about to be taken to the next level, as is electricity transportation.
Surely constructing things out of oil that was locked away in the ground is actually more sustainable than cutting down wood to build things 🤷🏻♂️
(And the unlocked co2 is then freed up to green up the planet ♻️) 🤣
Presumably your kids were playing an imaginary, mime version of Fallout 4, not wasting electricity on an unnecessary electronic device 😉
It’s always other people’s consumption that people highlight as an issue…..
But everything ‘destroys’ something else to exist.
Even plants are scrambling to shade each other out.Where do you draw the line?
I am not sure that you fully appreciate the potential consequences of anthropogenic climate change if you are comparing it with plants scrambling to shade each other out.
You are suggesting that it is difficult to know where to draw the line between plants scrambling to shade each other out and the melting of the polar caps, collapse of the Gulf Stream, etc. as if they are all perfectly normal natural phenomenons.
My kids don’t play Fallout 4 and I don’t own a PlayStation. I was being sarcastic and you’re being a piss poor troll by pretending you don’t know the difference between mining and drilling for fossil fuels or cutting down trees. Any idea of how bad the cement industry is?
I do what I can, try educate others and have recently changed jobs in to the field of sustainability. But it’s nothing in the grand scheme of things.
Butterfly effect innit 😉
The point I was actually making is that it’s nobody’s right in a free and equal society to tell another person that their consumption is the problem if you haven’t 100% eliminated your own.
Hence my original post about the lack of inspirational ‘this is how I’m tackling climate change’ threads.
The alternative would require veering into eugenics and ethnic cleansing territory!
The point I was actually making is that it’s nobody’s right in a free and equal society to tell another person that their consumption is the problem if you haven’t 100% eliminated your own.
That would be impossible to do outside of committing suicide. Even then disposing of the corpse would take up resources. How’s about forming a sensible point or response. Say reducing consumption to around five tonnes of carbon each year?
And bless you for thinking we live in a free and equal society.
No- the corpse would free up some nutrients for something else to exist. Proper recycling.
What if I buy the carbon allowance from ten starving African orphans? Can I have fifty five tons then please?
Ie it still wouldn’t work. Like communism.
Carbon allowance? That’s not how it works. You’re just being a massive dickhead now so I’m leaving it here. Also corpse disposal would take resources. You’re thinking of decomposition. I appreciate that it’s a big word so may confuse you.
No- you have no right to set the limits of anyone else’s consumption.
You can try and inspire them or persuade them but to force them requires setting limits.
Would they be based on basal metabolic rate? Only allow people who can exist on less than 900kcals a day to survive?
Stop letting people over a certain height and weight breed?
Kill anyone who starts accumulating body fat?
Yeah ain’t gonna happen.
Change needs to come from the production end. Green tech needs to allow people to consume as much or even more with less emissions. As I say- nuclear power and almost infinite free electricity would be a good starting point.
As much as crosshair is being a ****, he's right about production. Our personal carbon footprint (a concept invented by BP btw, to shift blame) is pretty marginal compared to that of industry. HOWEVER, the industry is there to serve us, people. The reason the petroleum industry is a massive shit is because we keep using their products. Same with construction, cement manufacture makes up a huge percentage of CO2e emissions, but while people want huge underground parking structures, it's going to continue. It seems like a chicken/egg situation, but it isn't really. Remove demand, change behaviour or simply demand better from the companies responsible. Governments need to be on board and force policy.
Trouble is, climate change is too big. It's too much to even think about and grasp. There's nothing tangible in it, so getting people on board is hard, and suggesting changes to someone's precious little routine, or disrupting their commute, or denying them something only has the apparent effect of making things worse by harbouring resent. People are lazy as **** and stuck in their ways, we essentially had it too easy for too long.
Ah but some of us came here shortly after the ice age. All you Anglo Saxons and Normans are jonny come latelys ie invasive species.
You must be able to trace your family back a long way.