Guardian Readers berate Black Lives Matter.

So you are complaining about the industrial revolution, something that has saved the life of hundreds of millions of people. Unbelievable, and hypocritical, why don't you stop using the internet and computer, both which wold not have existed without the revolution and begin an Amish life, hypocrite.

It's a shame that the person who wrote that comment couldn't be bothered to click on the source that the article author so kindly provided which showed that this statistic is based on cumulative emissions, not annual emissions. It really doesn't take a lot of effort to click on a hyperlink.

If the drugs company had saved the lives of hundreds of millions of people but destroyed a local town doing so, it would be worth it, and I would support that drugs company.

I want the good aspects of industrialisation (of which there are many) without the negatives. I want a star trek style future. If this is the end it will be so disappointing.

Even if that destruction was completely unnecessary and was simply done to give company executives a bigger bonus?

And let's not distort the stakes at play here, climate change isn't a matter of flying the banner of human progress on the one hand versus saving pretty flowers on the other hand, it's one of the greatest risks facing humanity in the current century and has the potential to cause more economic and humanitarian damage than any other crisis in modern history.

But up to now, the destruction has not been unnecessary, companies do not pollute for fun.

Regarding your 2nd point, I agree to a certain point, hence why I want to dramatically reduce the global population, but leftists are against this, just another reason why I hate leftists. They are against what I want, yet want less pollution, basically meaning that we have to continuously as a globe cut omissions per person just to keep level as a result of increasing global populations, a losing battle.

If the global population was the same as in 1950, the world would be a greener place.

You can use the "destruction has not been unnecessary" argument to some extent up to the 1970s because people genuinely were not aware of the problems they were causing but since then, that argument is completely defunct. Scientists have been arguing for decades about the critical need to curb emissions and the technology required to minimise emissions has been around just as long. The reason why this hasn't been put into place is because political institutions that gave ever greater powers to multinational corporations came about at a very similar time which is why industry lobbies have very effectively managed to paralyse the world into not taking serious action against climate change. I can only repeat - we know perfectly well how to reduce our environmental footprint have have known for decades. This is a political problem, and the root cause is companies who don't want regulations to cut their profits.

And how exactly do you propose to radically reduce the world's population without committing mass murder? Global birth rates are falling and have been falling for a considerable time now, that isn't the problem. The problem is the fact that people are enjoying longer lives, something which you've already admitted is a good thing. A population with a stable birth rate but an increasing life expectancy is going to increase because the same number of young people can support a greater number of older people.

You can't just conveniently forget something just because it happened in the past, this country's historical emissions are to a significant extent responsible to the problems we are facing today.

Here's a good one: *

"10 11 I believe that I went to (a very posh public) school with one of the protesters. She's been a professional climate campaigner for pretty much all her adult life, with a particular focus on airports, and a history of direct actions including breaking onto runways and clambering onto the roof of parliament. Given that the earlier BLMUK protests targeted airports, this was probably the agenda all along, and what we're looking at here are a group of hardline environmental campaigners who are perfectly happy to stir up some racial hatred if it gets their agenda in the news. I'd suspect that they couldn't care less about the issues facing minorities in the UK."

Also saw this on FB lol:*

**

Global birth rates in the Western world are find, same for China, Japan, Vietnam and Korea, no problem there, most of the problems are in other parts of Asia and in Africa, the population booms that some African nations are having now are startling, they are the problem, and will be the world downfall, so I have no sympathy when those African nations complain about climate change. Yes, people are living longer, but the main problem is birth rates on a global scale.

How would I do it? - The China way, 1 child policies etc.

I agree, that would be nice, what I am objecting to is the other users comments that somehow Britain is expected to specifically do something about the current problems.

Please actually look at the data. Birth rates in Africa, by and large, have been falling for decades. Of course they're higher than they are in western nations but they started falling much more recently. It's a myth that there's some kind of a birth rate explosion going on. Also, assuming you do not want to have mass starvation on your hands, imposing a one child policy on subsidence-farming based African countries would be absolutely insane. If your only means of keeping yourself alive is a farm in a drought-prone region, you can not afford to just have one child.

Well China are beating us to it. Then again. China are owning more and more of our country so...

We lead the industrial revolution. We should be leading the computing and green revolution. The cool breeze of sustainable technology should be the future.

The rate is almost 6! This is what you seem to be ignoring, I don't care if it is dropping, which it may well be, the damage that as being done in the mean time is what concerns me.

And some nice casual racism by yourself, thinking that the Africans are having lots of children as they are subsidence farming. Ignoring all of the local middle class families that have lots of children just because they can. I want to save the world, you want to over-populate it and destroy it.

If I make the assumption that you are a sensible, rational human being, then you will realise that a country's birth rate is not going to drop from 6 to 2 in a decade but that would absolutely ruin the country. So I'm going to assume that you know that your first paragraph was a pretty desperate response so I'll leave it at that.

And secondly... no, there is absolutely nothing racist about what I said, it's a fact. Wealthy middle class families do not tend to have six children.