The problem comes when new things raise expectations that become unsustainable.

Free university tuition and generous final salary pension schemes that allow people to retire at 60 on a good income also made the world a better place.

Unfortunately there comes a point where it becomes unsustainable and strict rationing needs to be put on future generations.

Given the scale of the climate emergency we need to make serious changes in lifestyle now on things like flying and meat/dairy consumption or we will leave a very difficult situation for future generations who will not have the option just to 'carry on as usual'.

The scientific community is in a broad consensus about this. Some people just choose to ignore it because they don't want to compromise on their own lifestyle, and bury their heads in the sand with the belief "it can't be as bad as they say". Strangely these are also probably the same people who would say the country can't afford free tuition and generous final salary pension schemes because that would be super-devastating...

What you say may well be the case.
However, if the climate crisis is to be taken seriously, governments accross the globe will have to find ways to reduce the carbon being pumped into the atmosphere and if this means restricting flying, so be it.
For now, the issue isn't being taken too seriously and with China in particular chasing economic growth and still commissioning coal fired power stations etc, to feed their thirst for electricity, there is one hell of a long way to go.

A reduction in consumption would probably be the easiest way to reduce emissions in the short term but, the economic consequences of this would make difficult for most governments to encourage.

The "throw away" society needs to change.

Maybe the "influencers" around the planet should be advocating the hippy lifestyle, instead of promoting st1t that nobody needs

More insightful stuff from the East Coast.

If the evolution of the planet means that huge numbers of it's inhabitants will die or have nowhere to live, should we sleepwalk into a difficult situation or, would it be a better idea to try and mitigate future difficulties.
I'll go for the latter but, you can close your eyes and cover your ears.
Snowflake trumps idiot all day long.

The planet has moved cyclically for millenia, species have thrived and died, it is the natural balance of evolution. You forgot your trademark

You can't accept people disagree, that shows a lack of belief in your own position.

So you are in denial about any contribution made to climate change by human beings and therefore ARE going to close your eyes and cover your ears ?
Do you also think that people like David Attenborough are wrong ?

I am not in denial, I accept the actions of all living creatures contributes to the cycle. Attenborough is simply regurgitating the liberal woke spcheel he is given.

Climate Change is fashionable, but they never mention the carbon footprint and environmental impact of all the documentary makers jetting around the world.

I am not in denial, I accept the actions of all living creatures contributes to the cycle. Attenborough is simply regurgitating the liberal woke spcheel he is given.

Climate Change is fashionable, but they never mention the carbon footprint and environmental impact of all the documentary makers jetting around the world.

Come on, commit yourself.
Are you saying that human being, having cause a significant element of climate change should carry on regardless and feck the consequences ?

Yes or no will be enough.

I am saying that the whole climate change thing is blown out of proportion, parents setting their 7 year old kids up as climate change protestors, ffs. The vast majority of people are fed up of being preached to by snowflake millenials.

The human species, the most intelligent life on this planet.

And the only ones destroying it.

What do you think would be proportionate, in terms of coverage and action?