I assume you mean India and maybe a few other places where having 14 kids is kind of normal. An old fashioned approach when lots of kids died young, but still carried on now with chances of survival increased. I know we have a few over here that do the same thing, but if it was left to the indigenous population our birth rate would probably be falling.
It depends also on your definition of the 'developed world'. Not only have India and Africa got uncontrolled reproduction, but they've sidestepped basic sanitation and gone on to techno-consumption in a big way. China tried to sort the first problem, while contributing enormously to the second. I've seen the brainwashing and hypocrisy of France's approach at first hand. A purely cynical excuse for taxation. As for 'green' energy...bear in mind that heat pumps run on...electricity, that ground source systems require either a lot of land (for the shallow captor variety) or deep boreholes (as damaging as fracking, en masse?).Not terribly practical in a country as densely populated as England. Solar, well it's OK in countries without dense cloud cover for 3/4 of the year. Methane conversion plants, now, that's the way to go :-) Unlimited raw materials, especially around seats of government ;-)
I've not been around for a while and it has certainly taken me a long time to work my way through this thread! Our solar panels have been guaranteed for 20 years (I think) and the inverter for 10 years. Even in supposedly sunshine poor England we are producing 3,900 kWh of electricity per annum. We went on the Aldermarston marches but they weren't in school time - always held at Easter. We're in our sixth year with no noticeable drop off of efficiency although they estimate that it should be about 1% per annum. Newer panels are expected to be a lot more environmentally friendly. This is something that I've been saying for a long time. They seem to want to blame our generation for all their ills but it's their demands that are fueling it. They're not prepared to go without - or less than they have at the moment. Although neither am I, in some respects. I hope they do get inspired, but in the right way. All I seem to hear, and I must admit that I tend to ignore them a lot nowadays, is highly voluble and aggressive speeches and chants with very little positive suggestions. I have become fairly selfish over recent years and combine my on way of helping the environment with also doing things that don't help. I see very little actually being done to help or combat the current situation and the sceptic in me sees measures being suggested that rarely seem to have a possible positive outcome. It's mainly political posturing. We grow a lot of our own food (not as much as we used to as we can't physically do it nowadays), have an organic garden with a lot of environments for wildlife and carbon absorption. Buy very little that is packaged in environmentally damaging wrappings. Recycle most of what we do have. Have no food wastage (a lesson learned from wartime shortages and lack of money) and produce a lot of, but not all, of our electricity. On the other side of the equation we have what we always said we would work towards when we were working 60 - 70 hours a week for nearly fifty years - which was to be comfortable in our senior years and also travel. We keep our house well heated in the winter, have a large comfortable car (change it every 10-11 years) and do a lot of travelling. We don't feel the least bit guilty about flying on our holidays but do our best to assist the underprivileged in the out of the way areas that we travel. We have only just returned from visiting local areas in Myanmar and from taking helpful gifts of a lot of toiletries and health products to an orphanage/school and making donations of food to a nunnery. I have no intention of giving up eating meat (I'm a devout carnivore) and am sceptical about the practicality of doing away with farmed animals. The economy of our country, and many others, relies too heavily on farming to make this a practical change in anything but the longer term. On the matter of climate, the terrible fires that have been occurring show the possible negative effect of solely relying on trees to combat the proliferation of carbon dioxide. Trees are certainly good carbon sinks but when they burn, or die, they release the carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. Grass, on the other hand, is not quite as good a carbon sink as trees but releases its carbon through its roots into the soil. Cutting your grass too low reduces that effectiveness and if you use fertilisers on your lawns you are negating, to some degree, the effectiveness of the carbon sink as it gives off carbon dioxide to produce the fertilisers. So, don't cut too low, don't fertilise and don't water (carbon dioxide is produced to clean our water and distribute it). Using grass as a reasonable carbon sink is effective in our type of climate but not in a dry one. Having grazing animals on the grass is still providing a carbon sink as long as you don't allow them to graze it too low - move them to another field. Sorry to have written so much but it takes a while to catch up. I'm just off to roast some beef.
I had a video recommended to me on YouTube last night (probably because I like all things automotive), and had a quiet giggle to myself as it showed just how far things have actually come along in this country. Indeed, one of the comments simply said "Greta Thunberg has left the chat" My own experience also bears this out - around 20 years or so ago, we were still running round in MCW Metrobuses (fantastic vehicles by the way), and when it was a freezing cold morning a lot of drivers would arrive early for work to 'light the fire' whilst we had a cup of coffee on the go to keep us warm. This wasn't because we wanted heaters working before we left the shed - far from it, as they took well over an hour to even think about blowing any heat - it was simply to get the engine to run at an acceptable level to drive. When we had buses parked in the shed, as opposed to out in the open air, between around 5am and 7am the air in the shed was thick with diesel smoke to the point you could barely see more than the length of a bus. Nowadays, even the oldest ones on the fleet start up and run spot on immediately.
If that is the case, then perhaps her sister will not get any more death threats due to Gretas activities. Bet that wasnt reported in the UK media.
So "Super Sprog" is now in Davos preaching to the world, (well bits that want to listen), have you seen how much it costs to attend that rich persons winter holiday? Anyway, apparently China is still building coal power stations and now the festering S***hole is spreading a deadly virus around the world. I still think she is preaching to the wrong part of the world.
I saw a video yesterday of a refuse truck emptying its bowels directly into a river somewhere in Equador (allegedly) - it certainly wasn't the UK for sure. The whole time stuff like that is going on, we are doomed. No amount of freezing our bits off by switching off the heating is going to solve that kind of ecological damage.
This is a difficult one. Although I agree with the sentiment and idea behind her speaking I think she is overplaying her hand and gradually turning the politicians against her. Her presentation needs to be toned down somewhat. She needs to avoid being lumped in with Extinction Rebellion's extreme end of the spectrum who seem to have taken over the original group. This is getting to the dangerous level of alienating a lot of the public that originally agreed with them. I think that once the weather improves in the Spring this group will be out demonstrating again. Some of the figures for attendance at the World Economic Forum in Davos are in the article below (we have to hope that the quotes may be fairly accurate). Wearing my cynical hat: How much of what goes on is just hot air and could the expense have been put to better use? Not to mention the air pollution caused by of all the 2,000 members, their entourage and the world's media getting there and back. Did I say not to mention it? What a silly saying! 119 billionaires, 53 heads of state, and an $8.3 million security bill: A look at Davos by the numbers Does anyone know whether this annual shindig actually gets anything done?
Woo also agrees with Greta ,he's not one for burying his head in the sand,and thinking a problem will go away if you just ignore it,he's lived on this planet for a long time and seen the climate change a few times over the years but this last couple of years has been something else which is living proof, for enjoy your day of course this is just Woos personal opinion