Are you concerned about the destruction of the natural world and climate change?

That's exactly my point... a commercial company looking for you to reduce your waste output to save yourself money, is as likely as turkeys voting for Christmas. Getting you to pay more for using their service less, is the only way they can survive. The business model is flawed from the outset, waste disposal is a national issue and should be managed and provided as a necessary public service, like it once was. You can fine people for not doing it correctly, but you should not financially penalise people for reducing their waste output, simply because your service then becomes unviable as a commercial enterprise.

I post a chart which was the product of an enormous body of scientific work and you - who are always appealing to 'science' - say I am arrogant? That chart shows that the long time normal temperature of the surface atmosphere is around 22° C. The 20th century average is 13.7° C, and yet you want to claim that a 1.5°C rise will be catastrophic.

All life on Earth ultimately depends on photosynthesis as the originating energy/nutrient source - and no, deep ocean thermal vents don't count. I'll bet you don't even know what the ideal temperature for photosynthesis is, do you?

Life on Earth thrives at higher temperatures and CO2 levels because photosynthesis is far more productive at higher temperatures; about 25°C being optimum. Look at the CO2 levels and temperatures during the Carboniferous period, when plant life on Earth thrived so much it resulted in coal and oil deposits, according to the prevailing theory. A full 7°C higher global average temperature and 5-6 times as much CO2 at the start as we have currently, which declined over many eons as it was gobbled up the abundant plants, presumably.

The average annual temperature of Sydney is 20°C, with the average in January, the hottest month, being 23°C. Humanity is not going to be made extinct by global average temps of 22°C, let alone 16 or so degrees.

You call me arrogant, yet all you do is spit out one-liners and sighs in response to threats to your cherished eco paranoia.

The one thing I really hate about the CO2 hysteria is it has sidelined what to me are the real eco threats - deforestation/diversity and habitat destruction and overfishing. I believe the massive recent rise in shark attacks on humans may be because the pelagic fish stocks have been so terribly depleted the normally pelagic sharks, like white pointers, have been forced into seeking food in shallower littoral waters, which if the case, I find far more terrifying than the current, historically low level of CO2.

Green party are FFGs mudguard, they'll all be dipping into Mummy's trust fund again in the next couple of years,

You should look up the study on Easter Island population. They adapted and adapted as the island's ecosystem was dying. They ended up as cannibals.

The planet will survive humans don't have to and population collapse has a long recorded history showing humans don't adapt. They leave if they can or die that is not adapting

I was concerned about climate change but not so much now as I don't have kids and will be dead when things get bad so won't really effect me. Will still do my bit and recycle and reuse mostly because it just make sense. Others realise the same thing and pollute because they just don't care.

I think the recent IPCC report shows that AGW is real and will have a detrimental affect on our planet.

That cannot be discounted as media driven hysteria anymore. It is backed by hundreds of climate scientists world wide, what the Guardian or the BBC or RTE say is immaterial. This is not a political ideology.

Those dismissing it as such are however pursuing an unfounded political ideology with no significant scientific backing.

As for what can be done that will have to be on a global level individual actions will always be hard to mobilize unless the danger is clear and present as they say.

There was never serious pandemic planning done until the world was faced with one.

I'm optimistic about technical solutions but I'm afraid we will wait until the very last moment when a lot of damage will already have been done.

A lot of the Green propaganda borders on the racist and xenophobic , keeping the developing world down seems to be their mantra,

All current packaging is being replaced with 100 percent bio- degradable packs by 2023, Greencore are already trialling it in the UK, all packaging will be fully recyclable by 2025, innovation not Luddite backwardism

There are only two ways to significantly reduce the current rates of carbon emissions, in my humble opinion - one is to present a technological alternative in power generation that allows people to maintain a similar standard of living to, or better than, what they currently have, or else for a situation to arise that would force humans to stop generating so much carbon, i.e. a catastrophic global unrest, war, starvation and genocides arising due to climate change and large areas of Earth's landmass becoming virtually uninhabitable.

I concur with the idea here that human nature is really hamstringing us. For most of our evolution we had no need to really plan far into the future, and it wasn't until a bit more than a hundred years ago that most people would become concerned with, or even knew about, much that went on beyond the edge of their town, city or village. Our technology has improved so much, but our ability to plan and think for the future on the kind of scale required is sorely lagging behind.

Just came across this success story, where logging has played a part. Interesting that Greenpeace, Conservation International, and other local and international NGOs strongly opposed it when it began.

Russia is still very powerful and has adapted, it didn't collapse it changed. Cannibalism is the ultimate form of adapting in society as one of the largest taboos in human culture. Low of staple foods adapt to eat something else which was humans. How is not adapting to available food sources? You start with the dead then the weak then you keep the people alive and cut bit off them so the meat doesn't go off. Reality of cannibalism over a prolonged period with lots of documentation.

It is a terrible form of adaptation that only prolongs the inevitable, and if it progressed to the point of keeping people alive for fresh meat, hacking off limbs here and there, would require practitioners to rid themselves of just about every bit of humanity and empathy they once had, and once they run out of farmed humans, it would be so normalised that they would just turn on each other. What an utterly grim existence that would all be. Normal people would prefer death.

But it's pointless telling the hardline Greens, the prepared food and packaging industry is a huge employer in Ireland but jobs and decent living standards are everything they hate

yes it is but that is what has happened in the face of scarce resources.

You have to feel a bit pessimistic about the whole thing when there are still people who are finding big audiences or political opportunities from saying that climate change is either a hoax, overblown, or is happening but is a natural part of the earth's cycle so carry on as normal.

Now imagine if the other half experience it too at the same time. You probably don't believe in Small pox or Polio either