Would that not worsen the current problem of a shortage of people to fill job vacancies in this country?
I'm thinking of GPs, HGV drivers, care workers, agricultural seasonal workers.
No -- think about it.
Wasn't it more that he justified those dissenting ideas with figures from a fictional paper, got debunked by George Monbiot of all people and then retired hurt for a few years before resurfacing to sign the Manhattan Denial apparently holding the same views despite the debunking of their only known foundation?
This is hardly news (except I believe you meant "research", not "Industry"?); you can always find an educated person to support every crackpot theory going.
Throughout the industrial and post-industrial world, there are increasingly more old people in relation to young people. The median age of the UK's population is now 40.4, up 2.5 years since 2001. This means there are more old people requiring above-average care from GPs, care workers, etc, while there are fewer young people to do those jobs today or to go into training to do those jobs in coming years. In Japan this has become such a problem that some care work is done by robots. How can reducing the birth rate further not exacerbate the problem, as today's GPs become tomorrow's patients?
It's not worth *not* taking the "risk".
Not everybody agrees with the climate change industry. Dr David Bellamy spoke out with dissenting ideas, and was airbrushed out of history.
He's not been airbrushed out - he withdrew.Bellamy subsequently accepted that his figures on glaciers were wrong, and announced in a letter to The Sunday Times in 2005 that he had "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming"
By that, I presume you mean climate change believers belong to an industry. Not sure what industry you mean? I fail to see what economic activity climate change could be other than producing media about it. If you are counting this then everything is an industry from wood working to being a Jedi.
Meanwhile back in the real world the behaviour of atmosphere follows the basic longstanding and entirely uncontroversial laws of physics established back in the 19th century, rather than la-la land conspiracy theories or synthetic culture wars.
Don't forget internet forums where we debate "important" issues, but nobody with any power is reading our conclusions. Internet traffic has quite a high carbon footprint!mattsccm wrote: ↑8 Nov 2021, 8:47am Now, on to my opinion. I would like to see the banning of unimportant waste. Take away coffee cups for example. Take you own or better still make it at home. New mobile phones. Just how many millions are replaced each year? Fast food. Driving to a burger joint or even walking iisn't as green as making your own. Food packaging. Ban complex stuff. Why does food need plastic and cardboard?
Recreational cycling. Now there's something that is superfluous!
For years the rise of computers has meant more waste of paper simply because it is easier than havi ng to write it all down. Only now has that lessened with the rise of cloud storage and internet. For example, students submit their work online not in hard copy. Paper usage where I work has nosedived because of this