PeteBauxigeg

🚨 GENERAL ELECTION 🚨

Well I don't think that's a given and I also don't think that if that was the case it'd then follow that this policy is silly but I see and agree with the general points you're making

I don't really see how it's pointless? The average person probably underestimated the risk of the UK being dragged into a conflict in this decade or the next and thus also the risk they'd need to prepare for that, so it's probably helpful to bring how much people think they need to prep in line with how much they should prep, could save some lives.

I don't

Society is, for now, somewhat optional

Move to northern canada (possibly illegally using a tourism visa and just not leaving) and go live in the Yukon or Northern Territories or something. The woods will be your community. It's too big and too expensive to find you, but you may struggle to find food.

I mean, given the number is completely unreliable, the milestone doesn't really mean much

Population: 1, 10, 100 (100,000 people)

Can ye not

It's a bit 'terminally online' at times, but only a bit more than Reddit

Capitalism

The thing is that free markets have a fix for CO2 emissions - my (person A's) climate and my property being affected by person B's CO2 emissions is not a consensually entered contract, I didn't agree to this. So allowing people to release CO2 emissions doesn't follow the two rules of private property + free markets.

But people who gain from CO2 emissions being allowed just have way to much power

The article talks about biofuel, but not gas to liquids (i.e. Fischer–Tropsch).

Both are expensive but very much possible, it's only the fact that burning fossil fuels is so cheap that prevents them being economically possible.

'both sides'