A thought provoking read on where we are going.

>>No one living, working or travelling in Sydney today needs to be reminded of the costs of the unprecedented growth the city has been undergoing. With close to 100,000 people being added each year, we all experience the clogged roads, crowded trains and endless delays. And as we stare out of the window, we can see the face of the city literally changing before our eyes.

Apparently congestion costs the Sydney $6 billion every year, and this is only getting worse. Infrastructure Australia warns we will need to spend billions more just to make up for our current planning failures – let alone what’s coming.

“If you can imagine adding two more cities the size of Melbourne or Sydney to Australia by 2047, you’ll appreciate the enormity of the challenge,” says Infrastructure Australia chairwoman Julieanne Alroe. Except she’s got it wrong. We aren’t building new cities, we are squeezing more and more people into the cities we have. Mostly that means Sydney and Melbourne which together absorb 60 per cent of Australia’s rapidly growing population.

And what does our infrastructure guru recommend? Her report suggests that more people should be encouraged to move to Wollongong and Newcastle.

So there you have it. Fuelled by the demands of the developers, ordinary citizens are being told to get out of town to be replaced by wealthier new arrivals. Fine for rich people like me, but deeply unfair for most.

Do any of us really want to live in a city of 8 million? That’s where we are told Sydney is headed by mid-century, as if it’s a foregone conclusion.

Yet no one in power seems prepared to answer a simple question: why? Why are doing this, who benefits and who asked us if this is a good idea? I am yet to see a convincing argument that proves more is better for the majority of people.

In 1998 under John Howard, the Australian Bureau of Statistics predicted we would have a population in 2051 of about 24.9 million. Well, we have already exceeded that number 33 years ahead of schedule which tells you a lot about the quality of long term planning in Australia.

This has mostly happened because successive governments have allowed our immigration figures to rise out of control. Pushed by the growth lobby, and in the absence of a real debate or plan, the politicians have encouraged a massive expansion of our immigration program without seeking our permission.

It is staggering that while every Australian family will have a plan for the size of their family, our governments don’t have a population plan for the country.

Gone are the days when we needed more and more people to make things in factories. Now with automation, robotics and artificial intelligence, the jobs of the past are rapidly disappearing. We need to prepare for this future, not rest on the lazy economics that relies on a rapidly growing population to keep our economy afloat.

Federal Treasurer Scott Morrison says a Big Australia means a bigger economy. But he fails to mention that in slicing up the economic pie between more and more people, we are actually going backwards in our quality of life. We are well beyond the sweet spot that allows us to plan for sensible development.

It is amazing that none of the major political parties reflect what most Australians want. Yes, I can understand why. They are sensitive to the developers who fund them, and also of being labelled as “xenophobic” or “racist”. Yet the problem we are creating affect everyone – new arrivals and old. We are conducting a risky experiment that has no parallel among developed nations, with a population growth rate that exceeds most developing countries.

But none of this is inevitable. We can all have a say in our future and it starts with a proper plan for where we want to be. We should bring our immigration down to the long-term average of about 70,000 per year (as it was during the time of Hawke and Keating) while keeping a generous allocation for refugees. This would stabilise our population at about 30 million, not the 100 million we are heading for now.

Others may disagree, but sooner or later we have to accept that there are limits to growth for our city and our nation. And the decisions need to happen now, not delayed so that our grandchildren are left with the consequences.<<

https://www.smh.com.au/national/a-risky-experiment-that-has-no-parallel-among-developed-nations-20180327-p4z6h7.html

As I’ve said before, we need to start building new cities from scratch. Somewhere in the quarter to half million population size. With a bike path system separate to the roads but integrated into the city’s parks and green corridors. Large enough to have a light rail transport system for public transport.

but I’ve already mentioned it before.

On a larger scale, this is another comment about how human population affects biodiversity. Again some very good points are made.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-03-27/corruption-population-impact-biodiversity-loss/9586556?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=%5brn_sfmc_28_03_18_science_df_!n1%5d%3a125&user_id=f3d54f0e4a4d6198fc3dd50a1d97752f4f2003eb7abeddbddb852e79eeec002d&WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Email%7c%5brn_sfmc_28_03_18_science_df_!n1%5d%7c125&utm_content=story_2_img

party_pants said:

As I’ve said before, we need to start building new cities from scratch. Somewhere in the quarter to half million population size. With a bike path system separate to the roads but integrated into the city’s parks and green corridors. Large enough to have a light rail transport system for public transport.

but I’ve already mentioned it before.

I dunno, change planning laws. With land values the way they are, change planning laws and you have a financial incentive, a big one, to convert four quarter acre blocks of three bedroom homes into units for say a really conservative 600 beds in four storeys.

Roads and sewage will be an issue though. Cities have to become denser.

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

As I’ve said before, we need to start building new cities from scratch. Somewhere in the quarter to half million population size. With a bike path system separate to the roads but integrated into the city’s parks and green corridors. Large enough to have a light rail transport system for public transport.

but I’ve already mentioned it before.

I dunno, change planning laws. With land values the way they are, change planning laws and you have a financial incentive, a big one, to convert four quarter acre blocks of three bedroom homes into units for say a really conservative 600 beds in four storeys.

Roads and sewage will be an issue though. Cities have to become denser.

People don’t like density. Density means congestion, noise, smells and general unpleasantness.

party_pants said:

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

As I’ve said before, we need to start building new cities from scratch. Somewhere in the quarter to half million population size. With a bike path system separate to the roads but integrated into the city’s parks and green corridors. Large enough to have a light rail transport system for public transport.

but I’ve already mentioned it before.

I dunno, change planning laws. With land values the way they are, change planning laws and you have a financial incentive, a big one, to convert four quarter acre blocks of three bedroom homes into units for say a really conservative 600 beds in four storeys.

Roads and sewage will be an issue though. Cities have to become denser.

People don’t like density. Density means congestion, noise, smells and general unpleasantness.

So people really like dense city living.

Peak Warming Man said:

party_pants said:

AwesomeO said:

I dunno, change planning laws. With land values the way they are, change planning laws and you have a financial incentive, a big one, to convert four quarter acre blocks of three bedroom homes into units for say a really conservative 600 beds in four storeys.

Roads and sewage will be an issue though. Cities have to become denser.

People don’t like density. Density means congestion, noise, smells and general unpleasantness.

So people really like dense city living.

They’re the sort that wear lyrca bike pants in cafes, that everyone else tends to avoid.

party_pants said:

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

As I’ve said before, we need to start building new cities from scratch. Somewhere in the quarter to half million population size. With a bike path system separate to the roads but integrated into the city’s parks and green corridors. Large enough to have a light rail transport system for public transport.

but I’ve already mentioned it before.

I dunno, change planning laws. With land values the way they are, change planning laws and you have a financial incentive, a big one, to convert four quarter acre blocks of three bedroom homes into units for say a really conservative 600 beds in four storeys.

Roads and sewage will be an issue though. Cities have to become denser.

People don’t like density. Density means congestion, noise, smells and general unpleasantness.

It may do, it doesn’t have to. But yeah I get your point. Thing is though, we can’t keep paving over farmland. I think room, or space is a cultural thing, we have already proven you don’t need a big back yard, the McMansions have proved that given a choice peop,e will prefer a bigger house to a backyard. At the same time, acres and acres of McMansions all with the airconditioning on constantly in summer trying to cool a big glassy box are not working.

We need some planning rules, higher densities allowed, compulsory energy ratings and water tanks for every house.

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

AwesomeO said:

I dunno, change planning laws. With land values the way they are, change planning laws and you have a financial incentive, a big one, to convert four quarter acre blocks of three bedroom homes into units for say a really conservative 600 beds in four storeys.

Roads and sewage will be an issue though. Cities have to become denser.

People don’t like density. Density means congestion, noise, smells and general unpleasantness.

It may do, it doesn’t have to. But yeah I get your point. Thing is though, we can’t keep paving over farmland. I think room, or space is a cultural thing, we have already proven you don’t need a big back yard, the McMansions have proved that given a choice peop,e will prefer a bigger house to a backyard. At the same time, acres and acres of McMansions all with the airconditioning on constantly in summer trying to cool a big glassy box are not working.

We need some planning rules, higher densities allowed, compulsory energy ratings and water tanks for every house.

A city of half a million with mow-medium density needn’t be all that big. Not talking about 1000 sq m (1/4 acre) with massive lawns, but about a third to half that size with plenty of public open space/green space. The city wouldn’t need to be more than 10km diameter, and need not necessary be built on good farming land.

But we need better planning laws to set hard limits on the edge of the city and not just let them keep spreading. Other countries like the UK and France have planning laws to protect the rural landscapes. They do it for a different reason, but they do it much better than us.

party_pants said:

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

People don’t like density. Density means congestion, noise, smells and general unpleasantness.

It may do, it doesn’t have to. But yeah I get your point. Thing is though, we can’t keep paving over farmland. I think room, or space is a cultural thing, we have already proven you don’t need a big back yard, the McMansions have proved that given a choice peop,e will prefer a bigger house to a backyard. At the same time, acres and acres of McMansions all with the airconditioning on constantly in summer trying to cool a big glassy box are not working.

We need some planning rules, higher densities allowed, compulsory energy ratings and water tanks for every house.

A city of half a million with -mow-medium density needn’t be all that big. Not talking about 1000 sq m (1/4 acre) with massive lawns, but about a third to half that size with plenty of public open space/green space. The city wouldn’t need to be more than 10km diameter, and need not necessary be built on good farming land.

But we need better planning laws to set hard limits on the edge of the city and not just let them keep spreading. Other countries like the UK and France have planning laws to protect the rural landscapes. They do it for a different reason, but they do it much better than us.

low

You people are all thinking about how we can fit this mass of people in, not the benefits of a slower growing population achieved by reducing the number of immigrants.

It’s really really hard to just make cities though as a means to house population. Cities are where they are for economic reasons. It is true those economic reasons might date back to the first fording of a river but none the less, without an economic reason a city cannot be imposed.

party_pants said:

AwesomeO said:

party_pants said:

People don’t like density. Density means congestion, noise, smells and general unpleasantness.

It may do, it doesn’t have to. But yeah I get your point. Thing is though, we can’t keep paving over farmland. I think room, or space is a cultural thing, we have already proven you don’t need a big back yard, the McMansions have proved that given a choice peop,e will prefer a bigger house to a backyard. At the same time, acres and acres of McMansions all with the airconditioning on constantly in summer trying to cool a big glassy box are not working.

We need some planning rules, higher densities allowed, compulsory energy ratings and water tanks for every house.

A city of half a million with mow-medium density needn’t be all that big. Not talking about 1000 sq m (1/4 acre) with massive lawns, but about a third to half that size with plenty of public open space/green space. The city wouldn’t need to be more than 10km diameter, and need not necessary be built on good farming land.

But we need better planning laws to set hard limits on the edge of the city and not just let them keep spreading. Other countries like the UK and France have planning laws to protect the rural landscapes. They do it for a different reason, but they do it much better than us.

Yes. It’s extraordinary in Europe and Britain to see wheat crops right up to the back fences of houses on tiny blocks. The village/town/city stops here. Can be seen from the air (and rail), and experienced on the ground, walking.

PermeateFree said:

You people are all thinking about how we can fit this mass of people in, not the benefits of a slower growing population achieved by reducing the number of immigrants.

yes, that’s correct.

PermeateFree said:

You people are all thinking about how we can fit this mass of people in, not the benefits of a slower growing population achieved by reducing the number of immigrants.

Can’t do that anymore. It’s racist.

Or an ageing issue in common with most of the west. Actually it’s both but the first influences the second.

> A thought provoking read on where we are going.

> No one living, working or travelling in Sydney today needs to be reminded of the costs of the unprecedented growth the city has been undergoing. With close to 100,000 people being added each year, we all experience the clogged roads, crowded trains and endless delays. And as we stare out of the window, we can see the face of the city literally changing before our eyes. Apparently congestion costs the Sydney $6 billion every year, and this is only getting worse. Infrastructure Australia warns we will need to spend billions more just to make up for our current planning failures – let alone what’s coming.

Last time I was in Sydney I happened to notice that while the main road through the north shore was absolutely chockers with traffic, a parallel road was carrying no traffic at all. A few changes in street signs would greatly increase throughput. Cost zero.

I also noticed a shocking lack of off street parking in parts of Sydney. The result is the roads are all narrowed by on-street parking. Supply sufficient off-street parking and you widen the roads by enough to double the number of lanes in each direction and as a consequence more than double the throughput. Cost, not a heck of a lot.

mollwollfumble said:

> A thought provoking read on where we are going.

> No one living, working or travelling in Sydney today needs to be reminded of the costs of the unprecedented growth the city has been undergoing. With close to 100,000 people being added each year, we all experience the clogged roads, crowded trains and endless delays. And as we stare out of the window, we can see the face of the city literally changing before our eyes. Apparently congestion costs the Sydney $6 billion every year, and this is only getting worse. Infrastructure Australia warns we will need to spend billions more just to make up for our current planning failures – let alone what’s coming.

Last time I was in Sydney I happened to notice that while the main road through the north shore was absolutely chockers with traffic, a parallel road was carrying no traffic at all. A few changes in street signs would greatly increase throughput. Cost zero.

I also noticed a shocking lack of off street parking in parts of Sydney. The result is the roads are all narrowed by on-street parking. Supply sufficient off-street parking and you widen the roads by enough to double the number of lanes in each direction and as a consequence more than double the throughput. Cost, not a heck of a lot.

Or you could ban on-street parking and get the plebs to supply their own. They’d do it, or get rid of the other car, or even catch public transport (gasp).

Michael V said:

mollwollfumble said:

> A thought provoking read on where we are going.

> No one living, working or travelling in Sydney today needs to be reminded of the costs of the unprecedented growth the city has been undergoing. With close to 100,000 people being added each year, we all experience the clogged roads, crowded trains and endless delays. And as we stare out of the window, we can see the face of the city literally changing before our eyes. Apparently congestion costs the Sydney $6 billion every year, and this is only getting worse. Infrastructure Australia warns we will need to spend billions more just to make up for our current planning failures – let alone what’s coming.

Last time I was in Sydney I happened to notice that while the main road through the north shore was absolutely chockers with traffic, a parallel road was carrying no traffic at all. A few changes in street signs would greatly increase throughput. Cost zero.

I also noticed a shocking lack of off street parking in parts of Sydney. The result is the roads are all narrowed by on-street parking. Supply sufficient off-street parking and you widen the roads by enough to double the number of lanes in each direction and as a consequence more than double the throughput. Cost, not a heck of a lot.

Or you could ban on-street parking and get the plebs to supply their own. They’d do it, or get rid of the other car, or even catch public transport (gasp).

or vote out the council or state government that introduced it, and go back to bad habits.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

You people are all thinking about how we can fit this mass of people in, not the benefits of a slower growing population achieved by reducing the number of immigrants.

Can’t do that anymore. It’s racist.

Or an ageing issue in common with most of the west. Actually it’s both but the first influences the second.

You didn’t read the OP did you? It has nothing to do with racism.

They have it all under control. They’ll raise all the dam walls more and more metres and keep telling everybody around the world to drop in put a shrimp on the barbie and don’t come the raw prawn with us. Just get out there and make more money out of destroying the very things that make Australia unique.

Paving over farmlands? It’s OK Giorgio and Salvatore came here with nothing. Made Australia great by growing foodstuffs where the diggers back from the war couldn’t, then sold the family farm which they got for £300, for 2 million bucks but that was after they sold their so called water rights for 10 million.

Now they can sit back and live off the profits of their drug labs and maryjane plantations which are run by the new waves of immigrants. All so that people can enjoy living in choking smoking cities.

mollwollfumble said:

> A thought provoking read on where we are going.

> No one living, working or travelling in Sydney today needs to be reminded of the costs of the unprecedented growth the city has been undergoing. With close to 100,000 people being added each year, we all experience the clogged roads, crowded trains and endless delays. And as we stare out of the window, we can see the face of the city literally changing before our eyes. Apparently congestion costs the Sydney $6 billion every year, and this is only getting worse. Infrastructure Australia warns we will need to spend billions more just to make up for our current planning failures – let alone what’s coming.

Last time I was in Sydney I happened to notice that while the main road through the north shore was absolutely chockers with traffic, a parallel road was carrying no traffic at all. A few changes in street signs would greatly increase throughput. Cost zero.

I also noticed a shocking lack of off street parking in parts of Sydney. The result is the roads are all narrowed by on-street parking. Supply sufficient off-street parking and you widen the roads by enough to double the number of lanes in each direction and as a consequence more than double the throughput. Cost, not a heck of a lot.

To do all of that, where are you going to park the cars? We are talking about land highly valuable to developers. They don’t want carparks or they would have included plenty by now.

Do we really want to repeat the same mistakes made the world over?
What will we achieve by bringing them all here to do the same they did there?

roughbarked said:

Do we really want to repeat the same mistakes made the world over?
What will we achieve by bringing them all here to do the same they did there?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-03-27/corruption-population-impact-biodiversity-loss/9586556?section=science

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-29/curious-sydney-what-happened-to-sydneys-green-belt/9576144

party_pants said:

As I’ve said before, we need to start building new cities from scratch. Somewhere in the quarter to half million population size. With a bike path system separate to the roads but integrated into the city’s parks and green corridors. Large enough to have a light rail transport system for public transport.

but I’ve already mentioned it before.

If only the people in Canberra had an existing Australian city they could use as a model.

The Rev Dodgson said:

party_pants said:

As I’ve said before, we need to start building new cities from scratch. Somewhere in the quarter to half million population size. With a bike path system separate to the roads but integrated into the city’s parks and green corridors. Large enough to have a light rail transport system for public transport.

but I’ve already mentioned it before.

If only the people in Canberra had an existing Australian city they could use as a model.

smirk

PermeateFree said:

On a larger scale, this is another comment about how human population affects biodiversity. Again some very good points are made.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-03-27/corruption-population-impact-biodiversity-loss/9586556?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=%5brn_sfmc_28_03_18_science_df_!n1%5d%3a125&user_id=f3d54f0e4a4d6198fc3dd50a1d97752f4f2003eb7abeddbddb852e79eeec002d&WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Email%7c%5brn_sfmc_28_03_18_science_df_!n1%5d%7c125&utm_content=story_2_img

So we need to rapidly increase migration to Australia to try to smooth out these problems, fair point.

> To do all of that, where are you going to park the cars? We are talking about land highly valuable to developers. They don’t want carparks or they would have included plenty by now.

They do want carparks. They just haven’t realised yet that the number of retail sales is proportional to the number of carparks.

> Do we really want to repeat the same mistakes made the world over?
What will we achieve by bringing them all here to do the same they did there?

We are already repeating the same mistakes. In the name of “worldwide unification of standards”. Melbourne governments are already starting to cripple their road network by adopting the same traffic standards as London and Amsterdam.

When are we going to learn not to deliberately copy disasters?

As for Canberra, I once tried to find out who was responsible for the awful road layout. It wasn’t Burley Griffin because all the Canberra street maps from his time show a rectangular street layout exactly like that in Melbourne.

The poor layout of main roads throughout Sydney isn’t entirely the fault of the planning authorities. My sister did a town planning project on this and found that all the main roads had initially been laid out in such a way as to follow the ridgetops, which minimises the occurrences of dips and crests along these main roads. Which makes perfect sense in steep terrain such as North Sydney, but not south of the harbour.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

On a larger scale, this is another comment about how human population affects biodiversity. Again some very good points are made.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-03-27/corruption-population-impact-biodiversity-loss/9586556?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=%5brn_sfmc_28_03_18_science_df_!n1%5d%3a125&user_id=f3d54f0e4a4d6198fc3dd50a1d97752f4f2003eb7abeddbddb852e79eeec002d&WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Email%7c%5brn_sfmc_28_03_18_science_df_!n1%5d%7c125&utm_content=story_2_img

So we need to rapidly increase migration to Australia to try to smooth out these problems, fair point.

Only if we want to increase our problems too, although Jesus will save us all.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

On a larger scale, this is another comment about how human population affects biodiversity. Again some very good points are made.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-03-27/corruption-population-impact-biodiversity-loss/9586556?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=%5brn_sfmc_28_03_18_science_df_!n1%5d%3a125&user_id=f3d54f0e4a4d6198fc3dd50a1d97752f4f2003eb7abeddbddb852e79eeec002d&WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Email%7c%5brn_sfmc_28_03_18_science_df_!n1%5d%7c125&utm_content=story_2_img

So we need to rapidly increase migration to Australia to try to smooth out these problems, fair point.

Only if we want to increase our problems too, although Jesus will save us all.

Shakes head.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

So we need to rapidly increase migration to Australia to try to smooth out these problems, fair point.

Only if we want to increase our problems too, although Jesus will save us all.

Shakes head.

Don’t you believe in Jesus?

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Only if we want to increase our problems too, although Jesus will save us all.

Shakes head.

Don’t you believe in Jesus?

If he was real he’d have come back to kick some arse for people doing all sorts of nasty stuff in his name.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

Shakes head.

Don’t you believe in Jesus?

If he was real he’d have come back to kick some arse for people doing all sorts of nasty stuff in his name.

I have you know, Jesus is quite capable of doing all sorts of nasty stuff in his own name. Beware or you will be damned (if you haven’t already)!

Christians in anger overdrive over Sweet Jesus ice cream

http://freethinker.co.uk/2018/03/26/christians-in-anger-overdrive-over-sweet-jesus-ice-cream/

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Only if we want to increase our problems too, although Jesus will save us all.

Shakes head.

Don’t you believe in Jesus?

I believe that a man called Jesus existed. There are lots of people with the name.
I believe that he saw a way to change the status quo and undertook to do so. The rest is probably mostly made up.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Don’t you believe in Jesus?

If he was real he’d have come back to kick some arse for people doing all sorts of nasty stuff in his name.

I have you know, Jesus is quite capable of doing all sorts of nasty stuff in his own name. Beware or you will be damned (if you haven’t already)!

According to the bible, Jesus re-entered the earth after the ascension in order to save his beloved people. If that is so then he has been playing a low profile.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

Shakes head.

Don’t you believe in Jesus?

I believe that a man called Jesus existed. There are lots of people with the name.
I believe that he saw a way to change the status quo and undertook to do so. The rest is probably mostly made up.

You’ll never go to heaven with that attitude.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Don’t you believe in Jesus?

I believe that a man called Jesus existed. There are lots of people with the name.
I believe that he saw a way to change the status quo and undertook to do so. The rest is probably mostly made up.

You’ll never go to heaven with that attitude.

I don’t know. I don’t clainm to be privy to the science done on that.
I do know that heaven is the few moments in life that aren’t hell.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

I believe that a man called Jesus existed. There are lots of people with the name.
I believe that he saw a way to change the status quo and undertook to do so. The rest is probably mostly made up.

You’ll never go to heaven with that attitude.

I don’t know. I don’t clainm to be privy to the science done on that.
I do know that heaven is the few moments in life that aren’t hell.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

On a larger scale, this is another comment about how human population affects biodiversity. Again some very good points are made.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-03-27/corruption-population-impact-biodiversity-loss/9586556?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=%5brn_sfmc_28_03_18_science_df_!n1%5d%3a125&user_id=f3d54f0e4a4d6198fc3dd50a1d97752f4f2003eb7abeddbddb852e79eeec002d&WT.tsrc=email&WT.mc_id=Email%7c%5brn_sfmc_28_03_18_science_df_!n1%5d%7c125&utm_content=story_2_img

So we need to rapidly increase migration to Australia to try to smooth out these problems, fair point.

Only if we want to increase our problems too, although Jesus will save us all.

Jesus has a plan?

to reduce world population
to plant more trees
to bring industrial waste to close to zero as possible
to reduce a person’s carbon footprint and energy use.
to make companies more aware and responsible for the environment
to reduce seawater pollution
to reduce food waste
to clean up plastics in the environment and the ocean
to breed more fish sea plants and corals.
to accept that humanity has an effect on the environment
to accept climate change and fix it
to accept that humanity is reducing other lifeforms and contributing to their extinction
to stop species becoming extinct
to reduce our energy consumption by using smarter energy saving techniques
to build houses to a better energy saving standard
to bring manufacturing energy levels down
to focus on more efficient engines and technologies for transport
to reduce domestic waste towards zero
to recycle 100 percent domestic waste
to reduce emissions in the atmosphere
to eliminate non nonrenewable as much as possible
to stop coal mining
to electrify our cars and make transport more efficient, reducing time at traffic lights using smarter technologies.
to create better home to work work to home times, closer home work locations.
to create an incentive to save energy.

Jesus has had over 2000 years for working on a plan.

So he should have one by now.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

So we need to rapidly increase migration to Australia to try to smooth out these problems, fair point.

Only if we want to increase our problems too, although Jesus will save us all.

Jesus has a plan?

to reduce world population
to plant more trees
to bring industrial waste to close to zero as possible
to reduce a person’s carbon footprint and energy use.
to make companies more aware and responsible for the environment
to reduce seawater pollution
to reduce food waste
to clean up plastics in the environment and the ocean
to breed more fish sea plants and corals.
to accept that humanity has an effect on the environment
to accept climate change and fix it
to accept that humanity is reducing other lifeforms and contributing to their extinction
to stop species becoming extinct
to reduce our energy consumption by using smarter energy saving techniques
to build houses to a better energy saving standard
to bring manufacturing energy levels down
to focus on more efficient engines and technologies for transport
to reduce domestic waste towards zero
to recycle 100 percent domestic waste
to reduce emissions in the atmosphere
to eliminate non nonrenewable as much as possible
to stop coal mining
to electrify our cars and make transport more efficient, reducing time at traffic lights using smarter technologies.
to create better home to work work to home times, closer home work locations.
to create an incentive to save energy.

Jesus has had over 2000 years for working on a plan.

So he should have one by now.

He is supposed to be whispering in your ear or shouting about the destruction of earth’s biodiversity. If you can’t hear him then you aren’t listening.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

So we need to rapidly increase migration to Australia to try to smooth out these problems, fair point.

Only if we want to increase our problems too, although Jesus will save us all.

Jesus has a plan?

to reduce world population
to plant more trees
to bring industrial waste to close to zero as possible
to reduce a person’s carbon footprint and energy use.
to make companies more aware and responsible for the environment
to reduce seawater pollution
to reduce food waste
to clean up plastics in the environment and the ocean
to breed more fish sea plants and corals.
to accept that humanity has an effect on the environment
to accept climate change and fix it
to accept that humanity is reducing other lifeforms and contributing to their extinction
to stop species becoming extinct
to reduce our energy consumption by using smarter energy saving techniques
to build houses to a better energy saving standard
to bring manufacturing energy levels down
to focus on more efficient engines and technologies for transport
to reduce domestic waste towards zero
to recycle 100 percent domestic waste
to reduce emissions in the atmosphere
to eliminate non nonrenewable as much as possible
to stop coal mining
to electrify our cars and make transport more efficient, reducing time at traffic lights using smarter technologies.
to create better home to work work to home times, closer home work locations.
to create an incentive to save energy.

Jesus has had over 2000 years for working on a plan.

So he should have one by now.

GO JESUS!!!

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Only if we want to increase our problems too, although Jesus will save us all.

Jesus has a plan?

to reduce world population
to plant more trees
to bring industrial waste to close to zero as possible
to reduce a person’s carbon footprint and energy use.
to make companies more aware and responsible for the environment
to reduce seawater pollution
to reduce food waste
to clean up plastics in the environment and the ocean
to breed more fish sea plants and corals.
to accept that humanity has an effect on the environment
to accept climate change and fix it
to accept that humanity is reducing other lifeforms and contributing to their extinction
to stop species becoming extinct
to reduce our energy consumption by using smarter energy saving techniques
to build houses to a better energy saving standard
to bring manufacturing energy levels down
to focus on more efficient engines and technologies for transport
to reduce domestic waste towards zero
to recycle 100 percent domestic waste
to reduce emissions in the atmosphere
to eliminate non nonrenewable as much as possible
to stop coal mining
to electrify our cars and make transport more efficient, reducing time at traffic lights using smarter technologies.
to create better home to work work to home times, closer home work locations.
to create an incentive to save energy.

Jesus has had over 2000 years for working on a plan.

So he should have one by now.

GO JESUS!!!

Who couldn’t love someone who died to save us from ourselves?

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Only if we want to increase our problems too, although Jesus will save us all.

Jesus has a plan?

to reduce world population
to plant more trees
to bring industrial waste to close to zero as possible
to reduce a person’s carbon footprint and energy use.
to make companies more aware and responsible for the environment
to reduce seawater pollution
to reduce food waste
to clean up plastics in the environment and the ocean
to breed more fish sea plants and corals.
to accept that humanity has an effect on the environment
to accept climate change and fix it
to accept that humanity is reducing other lifeforms and contributing to their extinction
to stop species becoming extinct
to reduce our energy consumption by using smarter energy saving techniques
to build houses to a better energy saving standard
to bring manufacturing energy levels down
to focus on more efficient engines and technologies for transport
to reduce domestic waste towards zero
to recycle 100 percent domestic waste
to reduce emissions in the atmosphere
to eliminate non nonrenewable as much as possible
to stop coal mining
to electrify our cars and make transport more efficient, reducing time at traffic lights using smarter technologies.
to create better home to work work to home times, closer home work locations.
to create an incentive to save energy.

Jesus has had over 2000 years for working on a plan.

So he should have one by now.

GO JESUS!!!

I think your having me on.

In fact, I think I know why Jesus doesn’t have a plan.

It’s because the Romans killed him and didn’t give him enough time to write it down.

Then he came back and got killed again and he still didn’t do it.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Jesus has a plan?

to reduce world population
to plant more trees
to bring industrial waste to close to zero as possible
to reduce a person’s carbon footprint and energy use.
to make companies more aware and responsible for the environment
to reduce seawater pollution
to reduce food waste
to clean up plastics in the environment and the ocean
to breed more fish sea plants and corals.
to accept that humanity has an effect on the environment
to accept climate change and fix it
to accept that humanity is reducing other lifeforms and contributing to their extinction
to stop species becoming extinct
to reduce our energy consumption by using smarter energy saving techniques
to build houses to a better energy saving standard
to bring manufacturing energy levels down
to focus on more efficient engines and technologies for transport
to reduce domestic waste towards zero
to recycle 100 percent domestic waste
to reduce emissions in the atmosphere
to eliminate non nonrenewable as much as possible
to stop coal mining
to electrify our cars and make transport more efficient, reducing time at traffic lights using smarter technologies.
to create better home to work work to home times, closer home work locations.
to create an incentive to save energy.

Jesus has had over 2000 years for working on a plan.

So he should have one by now.

GO JESUS!!!

I think your having me on.

In fact, I think I know why Jesus doesn’t have a plan.

It’s because the Romans killed him and didn’t give him enough time to write it down.

Then he came back and got killed again and he still didn’t do it.

How do you know that he isn’t speaking through you now?

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Jesus has a plan?

to reduce world population
to plant more trees
to bring industrial waste to close to zero as possible
to reduce a person’s carbon footprint and energy use.
to make companies more aware and responsible for the environment
to reduce seawater pollution
to reduce food waste
to clean up plastics in the environment and the ocean
to breed more fish sea plants and corals.
to accept that humanity has an effect on the environment
to accept climate change and fix it
to accept that humanity is reducing other lifeforms and contributing to their extinction
to stop species becoming extinct
to reduce our energy consumption by using smarter energy saving techniques
to build houses to a better energy saving standard
to bring manufacturing energy levels down
to focus on more efficient engines and technologies for transport
to reduce domestic waste towards zero
to recycle 100 percent domestic waste
to reduce emissions in the atmosphere
to eliminate non nonrenewable as much as possible
to stop coal mining
to electrify our cars and make transport more efficient, reducing time at traffic lights using smarter technologies.
to create better home to work work to home times, closer home work locations.
to create an incentive to save energy.

Jesus has had over 2000 years for working on a plan.

So he should have one by now.

GO JESUS!!!

I think your having me on.

In fact, I think I know why Jesus doesn’t have a plan.

It’s because the Romans killed him and didn’t give him enough time to write it down.

Then he came back and got killed again and he still didn’t do it.

It’s a bit bloody difficult trying to write, when you have two very large holes in your hands. It was hard times, you must make allowances.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

GO JESUS!!!

I think your having me on.

In fact, I think I know why Jesus doesn’t have a plan.

It’s because the Romans killed him and didn’t give him enough time to write it down.

Then he came back and got killed again and he still didn’t do it.

How do you know that he isn’t speaking through you now?

Aliens could be speaking through me too, how could I know?

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

GO JESUS!!!

I think your having me on.

In fact, I think I know why Jesus doesn’t have a plan.

It’s because the Romans killed him and didn’t give him enough time to write it down.

Then he came back and got killed again and he still didn’t do it.

It’s a bit bloody difficult trying to write, when you have two very large holes in your hands. It was hard times, you must make allowances.

A shpw on ABD me, Mr Stink, shows me that Jesus is in the homeless.

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think your having me on.

In fact, I think I know why Jesus doesn’t have a plan.

It’s because the Romans killed him and didn’t give him enough time to write it down.

Then he came back and got killed again and he still didn’t do it.

How do you know that he isn’t speaking through you now?

Aliens could be speaking through me too, how could I know?

Jesus was clearly an alien in human flesh.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

GO JESUS!!!

I think your having me on.

In fact, I think I know why Jesus doesn’t have a plan.

It’s because the Romans killed him and didn’t give him enough time to write it down.

Then he came back and got killed again and he still didn’t do it.

It’s a bit bloody difficult trying to write, when you have two very large holes in your hands. It was hard times, you must make allowances.

Someone should have given him a microphone and voice recorder.

He could have done with one of those.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think your having me on.

In fact, I think I know why Jesus doesn’t have a plan.

It’s because the Romans killed him and didn’t give him enough time to write it down.

Then he came back and got killed again and he still didn’t do it.

It’s a bit bloody difficult trying to write, when you have two very large holes in your hands. It was hard times, you must make allowances.

Someone should have given him a microphone and voice recorder.

He could have done with one of those.

The best available at the time was the recently invented papyrus.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

It’s a bit bloody difficult trying to write, when you have two very large holes in your hands. It was hard times, you must make allowances.

Someone should have given him a microphone and voice recorder.

He could have done with one of those.

The best available at the time was the recently invented papyrus.

He’s note taker must have been dreadful.

Kim Jong-un’s note takers look very keen to write things down.