Calculate your carbon footprint

"altheim" wrote in message
...

"charles" wrote:
altheim wrote:

But from my wish-list you have only mentioned one desi
"to where you want to go" and already your public transport
fails. Suppose you want to visit Aunt Maud in Lytchett Minster
in the morning and be back home for Eastenders and while,
there she asks you to deliver a present for her brother in
Bury St Edmunds 'cos its his birthday. . . See my point?
The chances of being able to do that by public transport
is virtually nil.

but .. your Aunt, if she knew you were using public transport, could have
posted her brother's present. But she knew you were coming by car and
wouldn't mind a 'minor' detour.

That is just being unnecessarily picky. My example was
just one of thousands I could have used to show why a
car is better than the bus or train. They can't stop on a
whim because you spotted a village fete or a pick your
own strawberry field.

The simple fact is that the use of public transport rather than private
transport causes a great reduction in one's quality of life. I for one will
fight tooth and nail to keep off public transport. Let them just try!

Bill

"charles" wrote in message
...
But perhaps we'll all have to regulate our lives a little bit to "save the
world".

Oh come on Charles, it's all ********.

Bill

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Talk-n-Dog wrote:
To help the Co2 that worries so many.... limit the population of cities
to what the reasonable flow of traffic will handle(or just a MAX
capacity for any city).

Yes, limiting the population is the ultimate answer to nearly all our
problems, though I can see a few possible practical and/or ethical
problems putting this into effect. How exactly would you "limit the
population of cities"?

It's too late to do anything now because the Muslim birthrate is so high. We
might as well accept the fact that they will be running this country by
2100, and the aboriginal population will be history, just the same as
happened in Australia when the Europeans arrived.

What a catastrophic disservice successive governments have done to Britain,
allowing unrestricted immigration of people whose values and morality is so
different to our own.

Bill

In article , Altheim wrote:
Population growth is almost entirely due to immigration

How do you explain that the population of the entire world is
constantly rising? Do you seriously believe that everybody else is
propagating like bunnies, but not us?

Rod.

In message , Roderick
Stewart writes
In article , Altheim wrote:
Population growth is almost entirely due to immigration

How do you explain that the population of the entire world is
constantly rising? Do you seriously believe that everybody else is
propagating like bunnies, but not us?

Rod.


Aliens
--
Mike_B

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Altheim wrote:
Population growth is almost entirely due to immigration

How do you explain that the population of the entire world is
constantly rising?

He was talking about the UK population.

It's the same in the US. The native population has stabilized, the
population growth is from immigration.

Do you seriously believe that everybody else is
propagating like bunnies, but not us?

Oddly, reports are the immigrant mexican women have more children
on average than they have at home in mexico.

Cheers,

Rich


Rod.

In article , Rich wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Altheim wrote:
Population growth is almost entirely due to immigration
*
How do you explain that the population of the entire world is*
constantly rising?*

He was talking about the UK population.

It's the same in the US. The native population has stabilized, the
population growth is from immigration.

I still have a problem understanding how that is supposed to explain a
steady growth in population *everywhere*. The excess people can't
always be from "somehere else" - somebody must be producing them
somewhere, so who are they?

Do you seriously believe that everybody else is*
propagating like bunnies, but not us?

Oddly, reports are the immigrant mexican women have more children
on average than they have at home in mexico.

Does that mean more pregnancies or simply more children who survive?
There's a very simple explanation if it's the latter.

Rod.

"charles" wrote:
In article ,
altheim wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" wrote:
In article , Talk-n-Dog
wrote:
To help the Co2 that worries so many.... limit the population of
cities
to what the reasonable flow of traffic will handle(or just a MAX
capacity for any city).

Yes, limiting the population is the ultimate answer to nearly all our
problems, though I can see a few possible practical and/or ethical
problems putting this into effect. How exactly would you "limit the
population of cities"? What would you do with all the excess people?

How about this:

Central government empowers local authorities to decide how
much housing is needed but tells them they must use brownfield
sites for the betterment of the town/city environments - eg for
parks, playgounds, leisure etc., thus improving the quality of
life for existing residents. New housing may only be built when
land becomes available.

Population growth is almost entirely due to immigration and
since we have no responsibility for new arrivals (immigrants)
they should be turned away.

but the demand for new housing is caused by single parent families.
Nothing to do with immigrants.

Where are all these immigrants living then? I mean, you hear
stories of whole families - large ones - crammed into small
town flats. Sooner or later they will all need homes of their own.

Ok I agree that single parent families are a contributory factor
but it's misleading to say that it is nothing to do with immigrants.

--
altheim

"Wood Pigeon" wrote:
"altheim" wrote

Are you really pleased to see our Greenbelt disappear
under concrete to give yet more immigrants somewhere
to live?

"Greenbelt" my arse.

Start with the golf courses.

You nationalist *******.

Nah. You're a socialist *******.

And way behind the times.

--
altheim

"charles" wrote:
altheim wrote:
"charles" wrote:
altheim wrote:

But from my wish-list you have only mentioned one desi
"to where you want to go" and already your public transport
fails. Suppose you want to visit Aunt Maud in Lytchett Minster
in the morning and be back home for Eastenders and while,
there she asks you to deliver a present for her brother in
Bury St Edmunds 'cos its his birthday. . . See my point?
The chances of being able to do that by public transport
is virtually nil.

but .. your Aunt, if she knew you were using public transport, could
have
posted her brother's present. But she knew you were coming by car and
wouldn't mind a 'minor' detour.

That is just being unnecessarily picky. My example was
just one of thousands I could have used to show why a
car is better than the bus or train. They can't stop on a
whim because you spotted a village fete or a pick your
own strawberry field.

But perhaps we'll all have to regulate our lives a little bit to "save the
world".

Yep. I take your point. I did start off in this group being a
mild believer in human induced global warming and though
I should like to stay on the fence about it, it is hard when
faced with the reality of change.

It would make it easier if everyone showed some enthusiasm.

--
altheim