Perhaps I should rephrase what I think. If human beings were all rational cooperative people who would willingly give up something for the greater good, perhaps we might work together towards putting into place safety measures against increasing negative weather events.

Last year, a poll was conducted across many countries. It turns out that half the people are totally unwilling to change their lifestyle, and the other half would change very little.

About 6 months ago, there was a government survey put out by the Irish government. Would we give up beef? Would we come vegetarian. Total uproar. The farmers point blank refused to give up their cows.

On another note, if you do a search for floods every week, there are now 3 or 4 major floods every single week - cities and farmlands completely under water.

What, exactly does 'slow climate change' mean? Does this mean that in two decades all the floods will stop because there is no more methane in the air?

Some say we have gone past that 1,5 degrees. Others say we have .3degrees to go.

It really doesn't matter. At this point, climate change is dishing out a lot of negative weather. So whether we are at 1.2 or 1.5, it's irrelevant. It's not going back to the way it was.

You see, there is a difference between slowing the rate of climate change and reversing climate change. Are you saying that if it was somehow possible to get people in 195 countries to stop eating meat, that within 20 years, it would change back to a more stable climate?

That would not be slowing down climate change. That would be reversing clkmate change.

But if the climate, in 20 years time, didn't get progressively worse every year at such a fast rate, then I have another question.

Just how bad are these weather events going to get every year if the methane isn't stopped, and if it is stopped, how much will the weather improve?

I think there is a lack of realism here.

1. There is very litle chance that the poorer nations of the wotld are going to give up their cows. It's all they have. And there is even less chance that people in the west are going to give up their meat.

2. The weather has already changed, and thst is proof thst the climate has changed. There are mountain ranges that no longer have ice. Is stopping the methane going to return the ice to them?

3. Also, this is rather like trying to stop a train that has massive momentum. It simply cannot be done in a minute or two. There are thousands of bits and pieces that make up the climate. Turning off one bit may not make that much difference. The train still moves on - perhaps a little less rapidly - but not slow enough to stop in time.

In any evrnt, George Monbiot - the writer at the Guardian - has been going on about people needing to stop eating meat - for about two years now. Nobody is listening.

To be honest, I'm not sure I buy into any of it. I think we have crossrd the line. I think over the next 5 or 6 years, we'll realize just how much, and I don't think ot's going to be pretty.