Why do we hear so little from the proponents of anthropogenic Global Warming about the effect of population growth on CO2 emissions?
By 2060 world population is forecast to rise from today's 6.5 billion to around 10 billion. That implies an awful lot more anthropogenic CO2: the grandchildren of even today's poorest will be churning out the CO2 just like the rest of us.
Reining in population growth would be an effective medium and long term way of reining in CO2 emissions.
Those who contribute to population increase by having more than 2 children are doing far more harm to the planet than any 4x4 driver who doesn't. Those extra children and their children will cause large amounts of extra CO2 to be emitted however green they try to be.
Perhaps we should be vilifying those who have many children rather than those who happen to drive cars larger than ours.
As well as pursuing technologies that enable a low carbon economy should we not equally vigorously be taking steps to restrain population growth?
Or is this global warming stuff just an excuse for anti-capitalists and their fellow travellers to have a go at big business and the materialism most people strive for?
Perhaps this is evidence that the proponents of AGW, and the climate scientists who research it aren't the control freaks that they are sometimes made out to be.
Originally posted by Mike RR: Why do we hear so little from the proponents of anthropogenic Global Warming about the effect of population growth on CO2 emissions?
By 2060 world population is forecast to rise from today's 6.5 billion to around 10 billion. That implies an awful lot more anthropogenic CO2: the grandchildren of even today's poorest will be churning out the CO2 just like the rest of us.
Reining in population growth would be an effective medium and long term way of reining in CO2 emissions.
Those who contribute to population increase by having more than 2 children are doing far more harm to the planet than any 4x4 driver who doesn't. Those extra children and their children will cause large amounts of extra CO2 to be emitted however green they try to be.
Perhaps we should be vilifying those who have many children rather than those who happen to drive cars larger than ours.
As well as pursuing technologies that enable a low carbon economy should we not equally vigorously be taking steps to restrain population growth?
Or is this global warming stuff just an excuse for anti-capitalists and their fellow travellers to have a go at big business and the materialism most people strive for?
Originally posted by Mike RR: Or is this global warming stuff just an excuse for anti-capitalists and their fellow travellers to have a go at big business and the materialism most people strive for?
Unfortunately your arguments Mike RR are not based on facts.
Since one billion people go hungry every day and half the world live on less than $2 a day, materialism doesn't come into it. Most people in the world strive for basic needs, such as water, food and shelter on a daily basis, none of which are guaranteed. Many children would love to have education and all would love to have health care.
The idea that "materialism" drives people is a narrow-minded western belief and yes I mean belief.
Those who trust the science that have shown that man-made CO2 emissions is having greatest effect on the climate are accused of being religious.
But the real heresy in the west is to dare to stand up and point out that economic growth won't and has never reduced poverty.
It is redistribution of wealth through education and health care that combats poverty.
I have recently spent some time musing about the issue of global warming and its possible impacts on future societies and economies. Funnily enough the thought of the antropogenic contribution went through my mind too, particularly also since I recall hearing an interview a couple of years ago with XXX who recalled that over his life time, the human popuplation on Earth doubled, and areas he recalled visiting 30-40 years ago, which at that time were largely unoccupied, are now very crowded. The thought of adding another few billion people, with the corresponding impact on the environment generally (not just their impact in terms of CO2), is not a happy one.
One thing that also occurred to me is that in all the debate on the reasons for climate change it is easy to miss a point that seems pretty funadamental to me, and that is that whether or not climate change is caused through human activity is perhaps not that important. Key is the recognition that there will be serious consequences whatever the reason, and that today's societies have to really get to grips with the ultimate challenge of finding credible alternative (i.e. non fossil fuel based) energy sources. Because the task of dealing with the ultimate finite nature of hydrocarbon fuels is so huge, the research into this subject should attrack much more funding and effort than it does. And a successful move towards such alternative energy sources will, by happy coincidence, also address concerns over climate change through greenhouse gases (at least CO2, which of course is not the only greenhouse gas). So, I think at the heart of the climate change debate lies having access to "clean" energy, since access to energy underpins the economic success of all societies. This point, I don't think, is made often enough, and forcefully enough. We should spend many billions year after year on research into the provision of at least cleaner energy sources. Spending that is perhaps comparable to the kind of money that is being spent on the Irak war, for instance, but for which there would hopefully be a better return in the long run.
Robbie: yes, redistribution of wealth via education and healthcare combats poverty. In a sense you are right: economic growth does not necessarily reduce poverty. But spend the increased wealth generated by economic growth on education etc and it will. The desire to redistribute existing wealth is neither an argument for nor against economic growth.
You take a too-western view of materialism. To you it may mean a nicer car but to the poor it may mean a house that is waterproof and has electricity.
But I was making a rather different point: that the more people there are on the planet the more anthropogenic CO2 there will be. As well as pursuing a reduced carbon world economy a focus on population would also be beneficial. Slowing population growth slows the growth of carbon emissions.
However, I do not go along with MindCrime’s idea of forcibly sterilising people any more than I would go along with banning cars or aeroplanes. But I do think that people should be aware that deciding to have a child is deciding to increase anthropogenic CO2 just as deciding to take an aeroplane flight is.
Originally posted by Robbie Writer: But the real heresy in the west is to dare to stand up and point out that economic growth won't and has never reduced poverty.
When has anyone in the West ever said that economic growth has never reduced poverty. Capitalists, such as I, say the opposite.
quote:
Originally posted by Robbie Writer: It is the redistribution of wealth through education and health care that combats poverty.
This the the greenie folks' real agenda-- Socialism. You despise capitalism.
But I was making a rather different point: that the more people there are on the planet the more anthropogenic CO2 there will be. As well as pursuing a reduced carbon world economy a focus on population would also be beneficial. Slowing population growth slows the growth of carbon emissions.
However, I do not go along with MindCrime’s idea of forcibly sterilising people any more than I would go along with banning cars or aeroplanes. But I do think that people should be aware that deciding to have a child is deciding to increase anthropogenic CO2 just as deciding to take an aeroplane flight is.
As I understand it, improving peoples' education and prospects results in reductions in population growth. Whether they also end up having a larger carbon footprint as a result, I don't know.
Originally posted by Robbie Writer: But the real heresy in the west is to dare to stand up and point out that economic growth won't and has never reduced poverty.
When has anyone in the West ever said that economic growth has never reduced poverty. Capitalists, such as I, say the opposite.
quote:
Originally posted by Robbie Writer: It is the redistribution of wealth through education and health care that combats poverty.
This the the greenie folks' real agenda-- Socialism. You despise capitalism.
That is your right-wing ignorance phlipper. Greens have a different philosophy to Socialists.
Socialists only differ from Capitalists over the control of the means of production but they don't question the effects of over-production. And they don't question the effects of ever-expanding markets, which are eating away at the finite resources on the earth.
...mindcrime... sterilise everyone now... in 100 years world population approx zero... no more anthropogenic CO2... no more global warming... problem solved!!! why has nobody thought of this before??? the greenies ultimate wet dream surely... no more nasty capitalists or socialists bespoiling the planet... mother nature restored to her glory...
Originally posted by Mike RR: Why do we hear so little from the proponents of anthropogenic Global Warming about the effect of population growth on CO2 emissions?
By 2060 world population is forecast to rise from today's 6.5 billion to around 10 billion. That implies an awful lot more anthropogenic CO2: the grandchildren of even today's poorest will be churning out the CO2 just like the rest of us.
Reining in population growth would be an effective medium and long term way of reining in CO2 emissions.
Those who contribute to population increase by having more than 2 children are doing far more harm to the planet than any 4x4 driver who doesn't. Those extra children and their children will cause large amounts of extra CO2 to be emitted however green they try to be.
Perhaps we should be vilifying those who have many children rather than those who happen to drive cars larger than ours.
As well as pursuing technologies that enable a low carbon economy should we not equally vigorously be taking steps to restrain population growth?
Population growth tends to be highest in the poorest countries in the world -- whose contribution to greenhouse-gas emissions is very low. In the wealthiest countries, populations are stable (or in some cases, even slightly declining), except were there are high rate of immigration.
In poor countries, people tend have large families as an insurance policy; with no basic pensions or social security and a high infant mortality rate, your best chances of survival into old age is to have plenty of kids to look after you. Provide adequate social security and family planning education, and population growth stabilises.
quote:
Or is this global warming stuff just an excuse for anti-capitalists and their fellow travellers to have a go at big business and the materialism most people strive for?
No. First of all, many major industries are extremely worried about global warming -- because if the mainstream scientific consensus is correct and no action is taken, the economic consequences for these buinesses will be very grave. Agribusiness and the insurance industry spring to mind -- but itseems likely virtually every major industry will be adversely effected by the economic fallout. In general, severe global warming, over the next few decades, would represent an immense obstacle to succesful capitalism, material progress and economic growth. Avoiding that makes good business sense.
In any case, criticising big business, where criticism is justified, doesn't necessarily make you an "anti-capitialist". I'm a businesman -- so I could hardly call myself an anti-capitalist. And material aspirations are OK -- so long as they don't override all other moral considerations. As Adam Smith argued, capitalism is a great system -- so long as we play fair and act responsibly (the libertarian/corporatist right tend to forget this part of the argument). It's the job of democracy to see that we do that.
* Free-thinking does not just mean choosing to believe whatever makes you feel good. There's no thought at all in that. *
I am quite prepared to be shot at for the following just stretching things a little.
If we humans are responsible for the increase in C02 and this is the cause of GW, then as others have said a decrease in the population may be required. One might say that wars are a good thing (in terms of reduction of C02), less people less C02 produced by them. Just remember your polluting 4x4 only produces C02 when it is operating and not sitting in the garage unlike the driver who produces C02 all the time. When we breathe more quickly we produce more C02, just think of the C02 produced by some of the above people who have posted items on this forum, The more wound up we all get the more C02 we all produce ! If we are serious ? about population decrease and what might be good for the planet, ok ban all medical services - i know is a bit hard for the individual concerned but think of the good it does for the planet. We (the human race) is very good a playing God when it suits us. Strange that the other creatures such as animals etc, don't go to the doctors when they are ill ( if it kills them thats the way that nature works). I remember from my history lessons, that certain world leaders have also tried to reduce the population by force.
Developing countries are not going to be stopped in their efforts to attain western style development if they so wish. To try and do so could provoke serious conflict - leading to a reduction in population through violence. If every Chinese family only has one child, the population still increases greatly. If they all have one car, tv etc just think of all that loverly C02 !
We (the human race) have the choice wether to pass on our genes, just remember as you do so, your legacy may be large in terms of C02 that can be attributed to your decendants.
Remember that The Earth doesn't care tuppence about global warming. It has been much warmer, much colder, much wetter and drier (but not much) throughout it's history. Life has carried on. Probably even mammals will carry on (they're supremely adaptable, after all).
The only thing that really cares about global warming is US - Humans! It's just because we have this very fragile civilization and we value every individual, every life, that global warming matters to us.
To say that wars may be a good thing because it will ultimately "save" the world from GW is to get things very confused.
just stretching things a little.
