Some thought that the world was over populated in the 1800's when the total population was less than one billion. As a species we are pretty good at development and advances in science and technology.

The best way to reduce population is to let the rest of the world including Africa etc is to let them develop and improve their lives and use fossil fuels in this development.

There are two ways to interpret this...

Not sure what the 2 ways are?



I want all of the world to continue to develop specifically countries when compared to Western countries and have underdeveloped infrastructure, low life expectancy and poor medical resources.

Why shouldn't these countries be allowed to improve their living standards?

What is the other interpretation?

Some would argue that the continued burning of fossil fuels will indeed be an effective way of reducing the world's population. Starting with Bangladesh, various low-lying Pacific islands etc. It's certainly complicated. Raise living standards - which no decent person would oppose - might well reduce birth rate. The downside is that although the population might decrease, consumption and carbon footprint invariably increases with elevated living standards - and the aggregate is overall greater.

Thats if you believe in the impact of carbon dioxide on the climate. What about the impact of the sun and clouds on the climate? What do you propose we do about them as they impact the climate significantly more than carbon dioxide?



Bangladesh has had floods for many centuries so what caused those before the industrial revolution? If Bangladesh had the resources of Holland which is also below sea level then maybe they could combat floods far better than they do now.



Nobody and I mean nobody in the world can predict the climate in the future and all this bs about carbon is just total utter bs

Could start by kicking Catalan out of SL. They have only a car full of away fans, and their home games wont have the generous away support that they get, thus reducing the RL carbon footprint.

Is it not time this was shut down now

Aye. When people decide they're not going to commit to the death of the human race I imagine.

Need more of these.

British Rugby League always used to support a reduced carbon footprint by limiting the travel required by players & fans to games along one public transport network. It is only since the birth of Summer Rugby that they've dropped the ball by inviting sides from London, France, Cumbria, Wales and now Canada to play. The RFL/SL should hang their heads in shame.

LOCK IT!

You're not old enough to remember Barrow in the old first division then or Workington ??

There is history to the game pre SL

IMF have proclaimed that governments should have taxes hikes for climate change. What a surprise, the IMF who have ransacked more countries than the ancient Goths whilst pretending to be helping them, want taxpayers to pay for this climate change hoax and not the fatcats they represent. Climate change used to be called Global Warming until they noticed the earth has been cooling down.