[Closed] Only rebellion will prevent an ecological apocalypse (Grauniad content)

https://rebellion.earth

Think Global, Act Local.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/
Simple solution

Yeah but he’s got an iphone and leather shoes.

Think Global, Act Local.

Think Local, Start at home. 🤔

Genuinely, I think there's nothing can be done, an ecological collapse is inevitable. I'll keep doing my bit in the spirit of Think Global, Act Local, but it's in vain. Those 'with' are not prepared (in sufficient numbers) to give up the lifestyles they lead, those 'without' aspire to those lifestyles.

It would be nice if we could persuade enough voters to stop electing governments which either don't do anything to change climate, er, change or worse, actually get rid of environmental legislation because of jobs, economy etc. Since more people vote for these short sighted leaders, it is difficult to see how a rebellion could possibly work.

Until someone can define what a sustainable lifestyle is in terms of consumption / materialism, we're in the dark as to what needs doing. So as a privileged westerner who consumes significantly more than the average human across the planet what do I have to stop doing to make the planet sustainable and everyone one else have the same standard of living that I have.

I would suggest IHN is pretty accurate with his assumption that those of us 'with' are under no circumstances going to moderate our lifestyle sufficiently. Even if we did the (understandable) desire of those without to aspire to our current lifestyles would also need curtailing, also not going to happen.

As an anecdote to the underlying issue, we had our waste contractors in to renew our contract at work. We were told that all the segregation we do (and it could be better) apart from vardboard, wood and metals was pretty much irrelevant as everything else now goes for incineration or waste to energy as the industry likes to describe it, since the Chinese stopped taking our waste. 25 years on from recycling becoming a thing, the EU still hasn't been able to create a market where recyclable plastics are in demand. If the EU can't do it I doubt Russia / USA / China has the willpower.

Great article, thanks. Getting rid of the Tories would be a start.

^^ 100% agree. On a moral and ecological level.

But I won't take this ot with anymore comments.Lol ....

What we need is a vast global war machine, shouldn't take much to establish it as the worlds' #1 consumer of fossil fuels to slaughter innocents in far off lands and perpetuate the oil based economy, due to the war machine's need for fuel.

Though the numbers killed will stretch into the millions, their deaths won't have sufficient environmental impact in their own right, since their relative poverty doesn't promote such intense consumption of the planet's resources...

However, on the plus side, the pollution from the continuation of the oil based economy and the related levels of plunder will eventually reduce global population sufficiently to nullify any threat to what's left of the environment.

Then the super rich elite that are left among the ashes can don breathing apparatus and patrol the oceans in their superyachts, admiring the fading garish colours of the plastic landmasses that their wealth was built on.

Getting rid of the Tories would be a start.

...and....? Labour's no better right now, and show little sign that in power they wouldn't turn into more of the same, ecologically speaking. Greens have the right idea but it's just not going to happen.

If there was proportional representation there might be better options (more coalition government so more potential for governments to take on board Green focuses)

Do you ever wonder if Miley Cyrus holds you responsible for her house burning down?

We've already reached peak oil and peak phosphate. Peak lithium is about 50yrs away. We're on a massive population overshoot like yeast cells in a rich agar jelly. With luck after the initial human population collapse, caused by resource wars and starvation, our population curve will follow the classic dampened oscillation seen in every other pioneer population curve. Without luck we'll nuke the planet and that will be that. I ride my bike to forget about it. You can all recycle your plastic and argue about Brexit if you think it helps.

…and….? Labour’s no better right now, and show little sign that in power they wouldn’t turn into more of the same, ecologically speaking. Greens have the right idea but it’s just not going to happen.

Yep this is another major problem for left right splits, people want jobs, unions want jobs and change will cost jobs in traditional labour heartlands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia
Almost the textbook ripping yourself apart in politics example

Nothing in party politics will make a blind bit of difference. We needed a total paradigm shift about 20 years ago.

I totally agree with IHN but I'd add that we're on the verge of economic and societal collapse too. It makes no difference which political party you vote for they're all funded by warmongers and leeches (except the Greens)

In the last 50yrs alone we've killed 60% of all wild animals globally and there's been a massive insect population collapse in the UK over the past 30yrs. We may have a chance of extending the effects for a couple of years but nothing we do now is going to have an impact. I'm sure the cock roaches will do a better job

Lets put it into perspective - proxy data in relation to global temperature reconstruction suggests that 95% of measurable temperatures throughout history were warmer than it is today the same can be said about atmospheric Co2 concentration. There is no climate emergency.

Yet we are still managing to kill just about every other living thing on the planet & we’re busy making sure we can’t feed our own...

How do you square that circle?..

There is no climate emergency.

Have you published any papers on the subject, what's your qualification in climate science?

We’re on a massive population overshoot

Population is actually declining at the moment isn't it? Is it it just the growth that is declining?

The growth will be the only thing that is slowing (If indeed it is but its a fairly easy fact to check)
Population continues to grow.

So population growth is slowing up

But with that % and the population as it stands the number we are adding is going to keep going up, even slowing up, even slowing down to 0.1% still see's it going way up.

As for temperature and sea level what would the impact of the UK losing some of it's most fertile farming land? That is significant

If only that were true! As usual different measures have different outcomes. Generally the bulk agree that growth has been slowing or declining for a while. Some even claim since the 60s/70s.

A lot of western counties are declining in poplualtion but they measure differently so ndot necessarily comparable. Events like Syria either reduce or displace large numbers of people but it is really hard to track which. So you can get any result you want when you google it, depending in what source you choose

losing some of it’s most fertile farming land? That is significant

Too true. Read a book recently looking at that sort if effect if climate change. As he said we've foughtt wars over all sorts of things in all sorts of ways but the next big ones will be new - it'll be over potable water and arible land.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/people/will-earths-population-decline.aspx
https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/science/article/2016/07/13/four-reasons-global-population-will-level-soon
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98371&page=1

I'm looking for some evidence of that, unfortunately a population of this size events like Syria are just noise that doesn't tickle the line as it rises. I'd like to see some evidence you have but throwing stones at the method of counting isn't that valid.

95% of measurable temperatures throughout history were warmer than it is today the same can be said about atmospheric Co2 concentration

And how was the earth doing in those times? Did humans exist? Did it get that hot this quickly?

Weirdly, climate change will probably be good for Scotland. A little warmer won't hurt, a little wetter might, but loads of open, habitable space that climate refugees will want to come live in.

Scotland could be the new French Riviera

Superdez, it's not just about climate change. Open your eyes.

Just in case anyone needs a name
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

throwing stones at the method of counting isn’t that valid.

I am not doing anything of the sort. I'm pointing out that different methods get different results and like most questions of this nature there is no definitive answer. The more results you get that generally agree using either similar methods or different tmethods the more valid the results are judged to be. That's the scientific method.

There is a growing body of work showing that popluation projections are too high because the way they are calculated is possibly not valid, plus the assumptions that underlie them are flawed. E.g. the assumption that economic growth is always desirable, and that it is best achieved by continuing to expand the workforce. The former is in question and the latter failed to account for things like robots and automation.

There is a growing body of work showing that popluation projections are too high because the way they are calculated is possibly not valid, plus the assumptions that underlie them are flawed.

Which doesn't change the current levels being measured though does it, as I said like to see some of your evidence or sources there

I couldn't even begin to list all the different sources out there and presenting one source as definitive isn't useful, it just becomes a battle of conflicting sources without knowing how good they are. Trends of multiple sources is much more useful. This will give you an idea why.

https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/how-is-the-global-population-counted.html

Nice classic sceptic/debunk article there, yes there is uncertainty in the method of counting but how can you be sure it's all in the downward direction?

I assume you would all be the same sort of nutters who were building bunkers in the 70s and 80s, or preparing for the end of days in the medieval period. Humans love a good apocalypse yet are stunningly bad at accurately predicting them.

Before you start heckling me, I'm not denying climate change is happening, or that it's an issue. The destruction of society by the measures proposed by the self appointed eco warriors just doesn't sound like a great solution, though (just as an example, have they ever thought what would happen to the economies of countries reliant on tourism if air travel were seriously limited, as they propose?)

Malthus was wrong, as was the nameless Tory MP from the Victorian era who extrapolated from contemporary data that London would be 6ft deep in horse excrement by the end of the 20th Century, yet most of the apocalyptic predictions are based on the same flawed logic. People have been predicting peak oil for about 30 years now, and no, it hasn't happened (check out a graph of Brent crude over the last decade if you don't believe me (warning: this requires a basic understanding of economics).

And if you want to talk about overpopulation you should, perhaps look into what contemporary demographers are actually saying about population growth (clue: it's not what you learnt in geography at school 30 years ago):

https://medium.com/s/story/by-the-end-of-this-century-the-global-population-will-start-to-shrink-2f606c1ef088

We're in a transition zone at the moment between two ages - ultimately technology will provide the solutions rather than our returning to some dark ages style subsistence society.

JP

Nice cherry picking there JP, just to check you do know that if the world population starts to shrink by the end of the century it's been growing for another 80 years. It's just about what the chart I posted above showed, by then another 4bn people will be living on the planet

Where are your sources? Where are you sources?

Nice classic sceptic/debunk article there,

Oh. I disagree with them.

It isn't possible to know, in isolation. It is possible to know that birth rates are declining, with reasonable certainty. It is possible to determine, with reasonable accuracy, that people are having less kids and having them later in life in developed countries. So there are some trends which suggest that population may be trending down not up. It is possible to determine that there are areas if china with a lot of houses but no people, despite their claims Etc, etc. Also points out that any number prior to 1946 is highly suspect.

This might be more your speed

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

Oh. I disagree with them.

o I disagree with the conclusion, it was a very cleverly written piece, it listed several facts that could not be disputed, it then goes on to make speculative conclusions that try to debunk an accepted view that population has been growing and is still growing.
It's accepted that the rate is slowing and will continue to but it's still growing, 0.1% of 7bn is still 7 million people which is just shy of the population of London, your analysis bit requires everything to fall in your favour....

JP what about the ecological collapse currently happening? Is that also a prediction that isn't based on reality?

And this ∆ , people, is why we're ****ed.

All too often, rebellion that threatens the status quo is stifled, no matter how damaging or corrupt that status quo may be...

Great article, thanks. Getting rid of the Tories would be a start.

No, it wouldn’t. Getting rid of Trump and the Republicans would be a start, they’re systematically dismantling every positive ecological development that’s been introduced in America over the last decade or more, selling off public land for oil and coal, in highly sensitive environments. They’re actively encouraging the expansion of coal-fired power plants, discouraging the expansion of solar power generation, all on a scale far greater than anything our tiny little island could match.
Then there’s the global loss of forests, which is exacerbating CO2 growth, as well as being an environmental disaster from the loss of habitats.

Great article, thanks. Getting rid of the Tories would be a start.

No, it wouldn’t.

Count you misunderstand a start, it has to start somewhere in the UK it can start there, it's what we can do, the US can start it's thing - we can't directly but we can through pressure and shame. We could deal with the UK government and it's rubbish decision to freeze fuel duty and inability to punish car ownership, or it's lack of support for big nuclear generation. Successive Uk governments have dodged the tough questions on energy security and supply, they knew this day was coming and they knew that a serious decision or 2 10 years back would have made the UK a very different place. Sat through a futures plan of the NW energy coast around cumbria, it would have transformed that areas economically and environmentally but no action was forthcoming.

My primary hope is that human technology hasn't got good enough to keep us alive by the time the environment is well and truly ******.

Hopefully, some less complex species will manage to stay alive. Maybe their descendants will make better custodians than we are.

@ stumpyjon did you know 97% of aluminum cans are recycled material? It is economic to recycle ALU in the UK due to the transport and refinery costs (we have no smelters or bauxite mines).

Govt is there to provide public services, right? in this way, they can subsidise plastic recycling and promote reuse.

Reduce, reuse and recycle is the mantra. Don't give up all hope just because you accidentally put a staple in the paper bin.
Start a project at work, bring a bag scheme.

Precious plastic is an open source recycling/ reuse platform - check it out...

(we have no smelters

Shit best tell the lads in Fort William the bad news when did that happen 😉

OK. I was wrong about the smelters! see the bit about staples though. I think we should focus on the overall ecology rather than petty details like 'oh you made a mistake there' I'd rather be recycling and doing something for the planet and making mistakes than watching it happen and saying oh shit when my house gets flooded or average temps hit 30 degree's.

i heard something on the radio yesterday that went something like "it is better for millions of people to do a bit (for the environment) than have a few that are perfect".

I have to say that the protesters and Hammersmith Bridge falling down have been far more effective than the congestion charge at improving my cycle into London yesterday and today.

Reduce, reuse and recycle is the mantra.

I totally agree but trying to get someone who is aspirational and has been sold the idea that more is better to believe it is difficult.

Punishing car ownership and use is a good idea to start with, that might force more cars off the road and slow the manufacture of new ones.

So we cut down, work less, manufacture less, earn less but we're buying less. What do we do when the amount of money we can earn is no longer enough to cover the bills? People are feeling squeezed now but still have to find the rent/mortgage/bills money each week.

What about social housing groups? Run locally and worked by the people who live in them instead of subcontracting it out to companies with shareholders. I'd work one day a week if it covered the rent on a basic, liveable house.

OK. I was wrong about the smelters! see the bit about staples though. I think we should focus on the overall ecology rather than petty details like ‘oh you made a mistake there’

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-47143459

The reason I know is that there is a new project on at the moment that will be producing wheels from the smelter up there, it should deliver a significant energy saving over current production methods.

I know I will get flamed for this but I think JP has a point. Humans are obsessed with stories of upcoming apocalypses. It goes right back into our earliest mythologies and religions and crops up throughout our history. Either real - the plague, world wars, or imagined - the last judgement, the coming ice age (predicted in the 1970s), nuclear holocaust, Y2K.....Or look at the enjoyment we get at the endless stories and movies about coming apocalyptic destruction (normally starting in New York). We love talking up and imagining the absolute worst.

Humans are incredibly adaptable. I predict chaos this century but I also reckon we will work our way out of it. A bit like every century previously. Whether it’s through technology or a major catastrophe that wipes out lots of us to allow a new start or who knows? Humans will survive. The only certainty is change.

I am not saying we should be complacent though. We should fight as hard as we can against it but I suspect there’s little we can realistically do. The fight will help form the emerging world. It’s not the end of the world though it will just be a different world we end up with in the future.

I'll bring this one back again

, nuclear holocaust, Y2K…..Or look at the enjoyment we get at the endless stories and movies about coming apocalyptic destruction (normally starting in New York). We love talking up and imagining the absolute worst.

Given thos 2 were man made take a look at how much work went into averting them, how much effort was directed into preventing them causing harm.

Humans are incredibly adaptable. I predict chaos this century but I also reckon we will work our way out of it. A bit like every century previously.

lapdog, I'm not here to 'flame' anyone. But would like to engage in debate.

It's certainly comforting to imagine that we are 'working our way out', as evidenced (?) by 'every century previously'. Yet try as I might I cannot remember reading of previous century where we were experiencing mass (anthropogenic) extinction of plants and animals — ie

the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We're currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

You say:

, nuclear holocaust, Y2K…..Or look at the enjoyment we get at the endless stories and movies about coming apocalyptic destruction (normally starting in New York). We love talking up and imagining the absolute worSt

Really? Seems to me that we also find false comfort in homes and cinemas by simultaneously scaring and reassuring ourselves with filmic schlock-horror parables. Parables that more often part-hair as they pass over heads. Yes, they are 'it's-only-a-movie-monsters' - yet still we aren't really connected to the reality of what is happening now? Burning orang-u-tans for our biscuit enjoyment is not a crowd-puller for movie dorectors, at least not nearing the same scale as those never-ending filmic masterpieces such as 'Mr Fantastical Always Saves Everything In The End. Redux #27'

Forget discussing the importance of plants, and that we have just now lost 68% of medicinally evaluated plants to extinction. I can partially understand finding comfort in escapism, but it seems an art is being made of it. We in the 'developed world' most often live in a bubble, ie from windscreen to tv screen to phone screen to computer screen and back. A closed circle.

We get glimpses of (say) deforestation and pollution on the odd documentary or news-clip. Then it's back to the fantasy-fest of fictional drama and partisan prattle. We think we can sign a petition to solve it, but woe betide us giving up our biscuits or making loose leaf tea instead of using nylon bags. What are we, eco-nuts??! Uncivilized? What's a few rainforests? Whhy do we need amphibians, mosses, insects, weeds and (let's face it, other primates) anyway?

Or maybe, if the majority of 'disaster' movies we watched were on-the-ground documentaries chronicling the actual destruction of the living world rather than escapist fantasy then maybe we would be in a better position to work it out. Even then I think by now we are too detached for it to mean much.

Mary Shelley (I am convinced)' when writing the novel that I've long considered to be the 'perfect parable'could never have foreseen it being quite so fantastically dumbed-down. Could not have foreseen it being made for movies, to be stripped of the message yet (in a move beyond all irony) pulped entirely into a 'post-modern Prometheus'. An unintentional anti-sequel to her genius parable. A what?

A plastic mask of an empty man, now merchandised for decades and still sold in millions along with countless plastic-pumpkins etc, all manufactured in the world's most toxic sweatshops. As the real seasons are in chaos, our now abstract seasonal festivals are marked with mass-production, rapid mass-consumption and immediate waste of mostly plastics, petroleum and palm oil. We are disastrously disconnected.

So how do we 'work our way out' of this one? Any ideas? Maybe begin with some (or one) of your examples from a previous century? Do you have one?

I can only see technology answering the CO2 issue. I cannot believe that enough of us haves will reduce our energy consumption by anywhere near enough and I cannot see the have nots moderating their own aspirations by anywhere near enough.

Whether that technology can be developed and put into action quickly enough is an unknown but it at least has however slim a small chance of success.

Whether that technology can be developed and put into action quickly enough is an unknown but it at least has however slim a small chance of success.

Most of it is here already, we can generate huge amounts of energy without mass CO2, we can build transit systems on electric (again generate with low CO2) problem is that is expensive and sometimes unpopular.

Most of it is here already, we can generate huge amounts of energy without mass CO2, we can build transit systems on electric (again generate with low CO2) problem is that is expensive and sometimes unpopular.

It's going to take till what, 2040 to complete HS2 because....NIMBYs and planning etc. By which time we will be 10 years away from the date set in the Paris accord. China would do it inside 5 years, my old man saw them tunnel straight through a hill/mountain and bridge a valley in a matter of days.

I don't hold up any hope for us getting our act together with a clean integrated transport system. We don't have the guts to make the hard and unpopular decisions that need to be taken.

Considering how slow we are. mitigating climate change now without impacting everyone's living standards is like planning for no deal brexit tomorrow.

Considering how slow we are. mitigating climate change now without impacting everyone’s living standards is like planning for no deal brexit tomorrow.

Indeed, the general consensus seems to be we are past the point of reversing the damage and can now only prevent new damage, but only if we are quick.

I'm not sure that we should be using the Chinese as an example of getting things done quickly though, they generally do it at the expense of the environment.

I’m not sure that we should be using the Chinese as an example of getting things done quickly though, they generally do it at the expense of the environment.

Yes, but you can be sure that if they decide to make their entire transport system run on clean electricity - it will be done practically overnight.

Where as we need to be planning 100 years ahead it would seem. Good luck doing that in a democracy that votes in a new parliament that is dominated by short termism, every 5 years!

I assume you would all be the same sort of nutters who were building bunkers in the 70s and 80s, or preparing for the end of days in the medieval period.

.......

Before you start heckling me,

Classic!

Don't heckle me, you simpleton ****ers! It wouldn't be fair! 😆

Yes, but you can be sure that if they decide to make their entire transport system run on clean electricity – it will be done practically overnight.

Historyy would suggest otherwise. It may be done overnight. They may power it with electricity but it won't be clean. It will either use the dirtiest (I.e. cheapest) coal they can find, or by burning garbage and e-waste they import from elsewhere, in factories with zero emission controls and workers with no PPE. They are able to do things quickly and cheaply precisely because they don't have the kind of regulations that prevent damage to people and the environment.

It's a bit like the argument that it will destroy our economy if we have to do things in an environmentally friendly fashion. It may do short term harm to the economy but doing nothing will surely destroy it.

They are able to do things quickly and cheaply precisely because they don’t have the kind of regulations that prevent damage to people and the environment

There is a huge difference between global environmental damage and uprooting some villagers and wrecking a few tributaries etc.

If regulation starts to impede on the ability to respond to global impacts then what is the point?

As I said, hard decisions need to made quickly and so you have just highlighted my point.

There is a huge difference between global environmental damage and uprooting some villagers and wrecking a few tributaries etc.

You are joking, I hope?
The difference is basically time. That sort of thing is what got us here. What does it matter if you block a river or plant a few trees where there used to be a gorilla habitat? you start doing the damage right away and when everyone does it for 50 or 100 years you have done the kind of irreversible global environmental damage we see now.

The point of regulation is to adopt best practises so that one solution doesnt merely do damage in a different way or a different place.

Good decisions need to be made in a considered fashion. More haste, less speed.

Evolution is smarter than we are. This is my only long-term hope for the world.

sorry missed this, so did one here https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/the-extinction-rebellion-actions-in-london-and-worldwide/

what can you do?

on a personal basis (I'm assuming that educating girls and empowering women doesn't apply to readers here)
* plant based diet, be strict about food waste
* stop flying
* join and work with a group pushing for political/society wide change

pretty much everything else on a personal level is just frippery, don't kid yourself that recycling beer cans will stop it. it's a global and (inter)national level problem.

Malvern rider I am not pretending to have any answers of course. I do believe humans seem to revel In apocalyptic disaster scenarios though. It’s not just movies - that was only an example. Most religions have it - Christianity has the end of days, Judaism and Islam have similar. Look at the late art of Michaelangelo, Bosch, Goya....These are not escapist ideas but deeply embedded in the psyche of people in the past.

Previous centuries have certainly had apocalyptic times when it seemed like the world was coming to an end - the various pandemics are the best example - the Black Death killed 75 million in Europe alone. Then there are the wars. In terms of ecological devastation we have it as well. My home country New Zealand was devastated by mass burn offs across vast tracts of the country prior and post colonialism which made a lot of the fauna extinct (Moas being the best known example). There are no lessons from this for today’s world other than we are still here.

What’s happening at the moment is horrific - the plight of orangatuns, rhinos and elephants from poachers, etc, etc. the destruction of the rainforest and subsequent reduction of eco diversity is hugely concerning for the future. We must battle against this of course.

All I say is humans are adaptable and will survive. Technology is breathtaking as well - DNA manipulation, the possibilities of resurrecting extinct species, the elimination of disease (smallpox for example), etc. who knows what our future holds. It will be different but the world will survive. I don’t think it will necessarily be totally dystopian either but we will see.

You are joking, I hope?
The difference is basically time. That sort of thing is what got us here. What does it matter if you block a river or plant a few trees where there used to be a gorilla habitat? you start doing the damage right away and when everyone does it for 50 or 100 years you have done the kind of irreversible global environmental damage we see now.

The point of regulation is to adopt best practises so that one solution doesnt merely do damage in a different way or a different place.

Good decisions need to be made in a considered fashion. More haste, less speed.

Disagree. For one, there aren't that many globally important species in the UK in the same way that a mountain gorilla is and considering how utterly different the UK is to it's preindustrial state - very few species that couldn't weather a rapid expansion of public transport. The world needs to be developed in places that are already ecologically ****ed, like the UK and people need to migrate out if relatively undamaged areas so they stay wild. It is for example, utterly pointless to build a massive rail infrastructure in the DRC when these people could live in the developed north in urban environments.

Secondly, the carbon footprint makes ecological issues in the UK pale in comparison. Thirdly, we certainly don't have to be taking every nimby villagers opinion into account.

At the end of the day, if we really want to contribute to lowering carbon footprint - the UK needs to find a way of building HS2 sized carbon neutral transport projects in 5 to 10 years instead of 25.

I don't know where to start. You do know that environmental concerns extend past simply carbon? And that there is so much interconnectedness that you can't just look at the UK in isolation?
Bees, for instance, may not be globally important but they are disappearing everywhere, including the UK, and without then there won't be much food to eat, because they are the main pollination vector.
And those villagers are often doing farming in a pretty environmental way and are often displaced to grow palm oil to meet the UK's, among others demand, which just destroys native habitats.
Not to mention the fact that rainforests are really good at removing carbon from the atmosphere, which slows artic ice melt, which postpones the point at which the UK ends up half under water.

There's a reason they say think globally, act locally.

Trains don't do too much to effect the bees do they? That's habitat destruction for agriculture, pesticides and leechables. But you knew that yeah?

The idea that the world should be creating islands for humans in areas that are already ecologically pretty ****ed, is not new. The UK should be one of those islands/prisons/mental institutions for humans.

Trains don’t do too much to effect the bees do they? That’s habitat destruction for agriculture

The bees was an e.g. but you knew that, yeah?

If you build the train where there was agriculture, the train will affect the bees. But you knew that.

Some people might say the UK is already well on its way to a prison/mental institution...

The UK should be one of those islands/prisons/mental institutions for humans.

You could make the case that it's already happened; just a look around at all the ****ty cars on tick being driven bumper-to-bumper to 40 hour a week jobs in order to keep up the payments on them, the vape shops (vaping FFS! WTF?! There's a ****ing brilliant use of resources, eh?) popping up like weeds in high streets, zombies shuffling about staring at their phones waiting for 'likes' to appear, trees being cut down in order to build retail parks. It's ****ed, properly ****ed.

So the clear answer is to shut down clean public transport systems in a city that already has pretty strict controls on what vehicular traffic is allowed in, then?
Stroke of genius, that. #rollseyes

Some people might say the UK is already well on its way to a prison/mental institution…

That's why I propose turning it into a giant version of Hong Kong. London from here to the Scottish border - sensible people can live north of the border but we'll make the masses think that it's like ****ing Game of Thrones north of the wall. Rebuild hadrians wall on a grander scale and depopulate and deindustrialise the developing world through mass immigration, start a transport building program that makes the Manhattan Project look quaint and piss off all the gammons as well! We can attract everyone by giving away free apartments in wall to wall 300 story high rises, free iphones and 70 quid a week in benefits.

Those of us who like the vast outdoors get passports, the others - who like nuuuu shiny iphonez get locked on the island.

Maybe we can nuke the stupid ****s from orbit as well.

Maybe we can nuke the stupid **** from orbit as well.

It is, as the poet said, the only way to be sure.