[Article] Less Babies Is Best Climate Change Solution

Pappy o' daniel

http://www.greenandsave.com/green_news/green-lifestyle/study-less-babies-best-climate-change-solution-4978



Why didn't Al Gore tell us this?

Macha

This is not After Hours, Pappy o'daniel, and unless this thread rapidly evolves into a decent debate it will be locked.

BigDuffman

I thought this thread would of been a soap box for feministas!

Cunsiderthis

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

http://www.greenandsave.com/green_news/green-lifestyle/study-less-babies-best-climate-change-solution-4978



Why didn't Al Gore tell us this?

We are told that climate change is the result of man's activities, so it follows that the more people on the world, the worse the problem. It seems to be the elephant in the room as many people seem to eiteher not accept, or not want to accept, the fact that population is the problem.

Consequently, we now have 6.5 billion people in the world and the projections are that we will have 20 billion people soon....

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

and the projections are that we will have 20 billion people soon....

Out of interest, who projects 20 billion and for what year?

mike65

Doug Stanhope tells it like it is. People pollute, ergo fewer people the better (esp in the "developing" world as they have further to go whereas we in the first world are as about as polluting as we are ever likely to be at this stage)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2o7y_b04YE

Macha

mike65, as per the charter, please put down your own opinion/short analysis of your link. Thanks!

Pappy o' daniel

Apologies taconnol, the title may be attention grabbing but its a serious point I wanted to make.

It seems to be taboo to bring this up, David Attenborough joined some organision to bring attention to over population, but the media responded with stoney silence.

If people desire a decent quality of life 20 or 30 years in the future, then population will have to be limited in some way.

Macha

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

Apologies taconnol, the title may be attention grabbing but its a serious point I wanted to make.

Ah no you're grand - just wanted to make sure it didn't go down a different route.

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

If people desire a decent quality of life 20 or 30 years in the future, then population will have to be limited in some way.

Which populations, of which countries will have to be limited? What sort of quality of life are you talking about and how much of our quality of life depends on carbon emitting/polluting activities?

Pappy o' daniel

taconnol wrote: »

Which populations, of which countries will have to be limited? What sort of quality of life are you talking about and how much of our quality of life depends on carbon emitting/polluting activities?

Well, the more people there are the more resources will be consumed which will impact on quality of life, aswell as the pollution produced.

Also there will less an less "wild areas", as jungles and plains are prepared for agriculture to feed the masses. In a century it could be that the only large animals that exist are ones we eat or keep as pets.

Pembily

mike65 wrote: »

Doug Stanhope tells it like it is. People pollute, ergo fewer people the better (esp in the "developing" world as they have further to go whereas we in the first world are as about as polluting as we are ever likely to be at this stage)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2o7y_b04YE

Not necessarily, unless we closely monitor it "developed" countries will polltue as much as "developing"!!!

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

Well, the more people there are the more resources will be consumed which will impact on quality of life, aswell as the pollution produced.

Also there will less an less "wild areas", as jungles and plains are prepared for agriculture to feed the masses. In a century it could be that the only large animals that exist are ones we eat or keep as pets.

It is true, population needs to be curtailed but in reality is far more difficult to do this as it is not politically correct!

djpbarry

Thread title amended to something slightly less AH-like.

Macha

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

Well, the more people there are the more resources will be consumed which will impact on quality of life, aswell as the pollution produced.

Why does this have to be the case.

And who are using up the most resources?

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

In a century it could be that the only large animals that exist are ones we eat or keep as pets.

Aren't large animals part of eco-systems that we might best leave alone?

Pappy o' daniel

We can't leave them alone because we will need the land they live on to grow food.


As India and China develop they will consume more per capita than they do now.


It seems inevitable to me.

djpbarry

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

As India and China develop they will consume more per capita than they do now.

If total energy consumption outpaces population growth, yes. However, I can't see per capita emissions in India or China coming close to those in Ireland any time soon:

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=en_atm_co2e_pc&idim=country:CHN:IND:IRL&tstart=-315619200000&tunit=Y&tlen=45

Cunsiderthis

The actual numbers are just predictions and lets not get too hooked on the projections. What is certain is that in the 20th Century the population really took off, growing faster than ever before between 1900 and 2000. (part of that is a startling decreases in child mortality).

At the root of all the converging crises in today's world is the issue of human overpopulation. Each of the global problems we face today is the result of too many people using too much of our planet's finite, non-renewable resources and filling its waste repositories of land, water and air to overflowing.

That the population is increasing daily, and is projected to grow hugely in the next 40-80 years, with each individual contributing more and more to greenhouse gases, must be worrying to all who believe that greenhouse gases are not good for us as a species.

taconnol wrote: »

Out of interest, who projects 20 billion and for what year?

Pembily

If some one could possibly tell me how to put up excel images I can show graphs I have drawn up from various sources showing an increase in population and over the same time frame a similar incease in fossil fuel use, and increased GHG!!!

Capt'n Midnight

world population is expected to peak at 11 billion

as women are educated on contraception and standards of living and social support rise such that it's no longer a life and death situation for parents without children to support them in their old age


But yeah , most of the environmental damage and land pressure and CO2 emissions has happened since the end of the second world war

Turtwig

Pembily wrote: »

If some one could possibly tell me how to put up excel images I can show graphs I have drawn up from various sources showing an increase in population and over the same time frame a similar incease in fossil fuel use, and increased GHG!!!

Sure, make sure the graph is an object. Select it for copying and paste it in MSpaint. Then save the file and attach to your post.:)

Pappy o' daniel

So most people are agreed that booming population growth is a problem, but how would we deal with it?

Macha

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

So most people are agreed that booming population growth is a problem, but how would we deal with it?

I'm not sure that's been established at all.

The UN estimates the global population to peak at around 10 billion in 2100. The graph provided by Cunsiderthis is not supported by any meta-data nor any credible authority on population that I am aware of.

djpbarry

Furthermore, we're still a long way from establishing that a 'booming' population in the developing world renders our efforts to cut emissions futile, given (1) the huge disparity in per capita emissions between (for example) Ireland and India and (2) the (suspected, but admittedly undemonstrated) inverse relationship between per capita emissions and birth rates.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

I'm not sure that's been established at all.

The UN estimates the global population to peak at around 10 billion in 2100. The graph provided by Cunsiderthis is not supported by any meta-data nor any credible authority on population that I am aware of.

As you quote the UN, I assume you think it a reasonable and reliable body when it comes to populations figures.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf

says, on page 1, "...during this (20th century) the population increased from 1.65 billion to 6 billion..."

The report also says that it has taken just 10 years to add the most recent billion people, which gives some indication at the acceleration of population growth in recent times.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

As you quote the UN, I assume you think it a reasonable and reliable body when it comes to populations figures.

I certainly consider it more of an authority on global population projects than the source of your graph, yes.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

The report also says that it has taken just 10 years to add the most recent billion people, which gives some indication at the acceleration of population growth in recent times.

And? There are new factors coming into play that strongly suggest that the rate of population growth will slow this century.

According to the UN population division, over half of the world's population will have a fertility rate of 2.1 or below, the magic replacement number, by the middle of this decade, including countries like India, Brazil, China and Russia. Fertility is taking a lot less time to drop in developing countries than it did in developed countries. This trend is mirrored in other speeded-up developments in areas such as infrastructure, mobile-phone up take, etc.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

I certainly consider it more of an authority on global population projects than the source of your graph, yes.


And? There are new factors coming into play that strongly suggest that the rate of population growth will slow this century.

According to the UN population division, over half of the world's population will have a fertility rate of 2.1 or below, the magic replacement number, by the middle of this decade, including countries like India, Brazil, China and Russia. Fertility is taking a lot less time to drop in developing countries than it did in developed countries. This trend is mirrored in other speeded-up developments in areas such as infrastructure, mobile-phone up take, etc.

I suppose only time will tell and we have to bear in mind that predictions of population growth are just predictions.

The one thing which seems to curb population growth is affluence, and the other thing we know about affluence is that with it comes vastly increased carbon footprint.

Which suggests that countries like India etc will slow their rates of growth, but are likely to increase their carbon footprint per head of population at in advance of slowing their birth rates.

It seems a difficult circle to square.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I suppose only time will tell and we have to bear in mind that predictions of population growth are just predictions.

Hmm, you seemed pretty happy with your own prediction a few posts ago.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

The one thing which seems to curb population growth is affluence, and the other thing we know about affluence is that with it comes vastly increased carbon footprint.

Yes, an increase in living standards slows fertility rates. Do these increases in living standards necessarily have to be accompanied by large increases in carbon emissions per capita?

Also, research shows that the desired fertility rate is much lower than the actual fertility rate in many countries, suggesting that family planning and increased education and rights for women over their own fertility would significantly reduce fertility rates.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

Hmm, you seemed pretty happy with your own prediction a few posts ago.

Perhaps you missed it when I said this yesterday

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

The actual numbers are just predictions and lets not get too hooked on the projections...

I frequently get things wrong and tried to cover my tracks by saying that! But you spotted my dastardly attempt!

taconnol wrote: »

Yes, an increase in living standards slows fertility rates. Do these increases in living standards necessarily have to be accompanied by large increases in carbon emissions per capita?

Of course not. The desires of those Indians and Chinese are to attain the western lifestyle, which means two cars per family, to live with central heating, aircon, eat meat 7 days a week, take foreign holidays and so on. It probably will even streach to a desire to drive to their bottle banks in the SUV’s and 4x4’s they aspire to own!

All of which illustrates why their increasing affluence will be accompanied by huge increases in their carbon footprints.

That’s before one considers the expected increases on commercial carbon outputs too, mainly powered by fossil fuel generated electricity.

I’m not a luddite and expect that technology will be the answer, as I really don’ think population control will be politically acceptable. But also we can’t bury our heads in eh sand and really expect the rest of the world to reduce it’s carbon footprint when one does look at the problems of increasing populations and increasingly affluent populations.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I frequently get things wrong and tried to cover my tracks by saying that! But you spotted my dastardly attempt!

I did miss that

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Of course not. The desires of those Indians and Chinese are to attain the western lifestyle, which means two cars per family, to live with central heating, aircon, eat meat 7 days a week, take foreign holidays and so on. It probably will even streach to a desire to drive to their bottle banks in the SUV’s and 4x4’s they aspire to own!

Which begs the question, why do those Indians and Chinese desire to attain a Western lifestyle and why do they aspire to such a carbon-heavy Western lifestyle? Because there are large variances between Western countries.

Canada - 16 tonnes ghg per capita
Sweden - 6 tonnes ghg per capita.

Why are we advertising and exporting the more materialistic extreme of our lifestyles as the ultimate aim,
a) when the planet cannot even support us few living this way
b) we have some serious issues, apart from environmental ones, such as obesity.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I’m not a luddite and expect that technology will be the answer, as I really don’ think population control will be politically acceptable. But also we can’t bury our heads in eh sand and really expect the rest of the world to reduce it’s carbon footprint when one does look at the problems of increasing populations and increasingly affluent populations.

What is the difference between Sweden and Canada - technology? Is there something Sweden knows that they're not telling the rest of us? No - it is a mix of behaviour modification and properly implemented technology.

I don't see the issue as growing populations, I see the issue as increasing ghg per capita emissions. Even if we were to freeze the world's population at 6.5 billion, there's no way the planet could accommodate every one of those 6.5 billion living as you or I do.

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

I did miss that


Which begs the question, why do those Indians and Chinese desire to attain a Western lifestyle and why do they aspire to such a carbon-heavy Western lifestyle? Because there are large variances between Western countries.

Canada - 16 tonnes ghg per capita
Sweden - 6 tonnes ghg per capita.

India currently has 1.2 tonnes per capita.

So even if they attain the Swedish model, thats currently an increase of 500% for a population which is currently 1.2 billion, which is almost 20% of the worlds population.

If they attain the USA model (a country they know much more about than Sweden), where the GHG per capita is 19 tonnes per capita, then that would be an increase of 1580%, for 20% of the worlds population.

We are not advertising anything as the ultimate aim, so to ask why we are seems pointless. The Indians, through popular culture, tv, films, the intrenet and so on can see how other live, and they want that too!

Even in Ireland we want to grow and progress (is there anyone even in Ireland who wants the economy to shrink??) and its the same the world over.

You may not see the issue of population growth as important, but I suggest that you may be wrong if you accept that we have to reduce our global carbon emissions, and can do that while the population currently increases each year by 1.5% or 100 million.

China and India(including Bangladesh) currently comprise 40% of the worlds population. They are also the two areas which are determined to grow their economies and where most economic growth is currently happening.

A 1% increase in GHG per capita in China and India is the equivalent of a 5.3% increase for Europe on average, or an increase of 8.6% in the USA, which puts it into a little bit of perspective.

djpbarry

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

India currently has 1.2 tonnes per capita.

So even if they attain the Swedish model, thats currently an increase of 500% for a population which is currently 1.2 billion, which is almost 20% of the worlds population.

If they attain the USA model (a country they know much more about than Sweden), where the GHG per capita is 19 tonnes per capita, then that would be an increase of 1580%, for 20% of the worlds population.

Unless Indian per capita emissions increase exponentially (which is unlikely), then 19 tonnes per person will not be reached any time soon (around about the year 2600 for a linear increase).

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

You may not see the issue of population growth as important...

It is important, but in the context of emissions, or, more generally, energy consumption, it distracts from the main issue i.e., the Western ‘model’ or, more specifically, the US model.

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

China and India(including Bangladesh) currently comprise 40% of the worlds population. They are also the two areas which are determined to grow their economies and where most economic growth is currently happening.

Would it be fair to say you’re conflating economic growth and population growth? Rapid population growth is unlikely to be accompanied by rapid growth in per capita emissions.

Capt'n Midnight

djpbarry wrote: »

Furthermore, we're still a long way from establishing that a 'booming' population in the developing world renders our efforts to cut emissions futile, given (1) the huge disparity in per capita emissions between (for example) Ireland and India and (2) the (suspected, but admittedly undemonstrated) inverse relationship between per capita emissions and birth rates.

Don't forget that we are still a long way off our peak population

26 counties, not the whole island

Capt'n Midnight

Blame the farmers

Hunter gatherers have stable populations - look at the amerindians / aussies / the people who live in the artic , tens of thousands of years within the same migratory areas

until recently cities didn't generate surplus population, and you could argue that developed cities today don't either


Farmers, who love to spout the whole love the land bit are the people who historically have produced lots of kids, the eldest kept the farm and the rest went out to carve out new farms out of the wilderness or emigrated overseas or to the cities. Historically they are the ones who have created deserts and destroyed the land over a period of generations. It's no coincidence that many of the areas of early civilisation are now deserts. Egypt used her forests building the pyramids , and the whole ceders of Lebanon thing too.


ICI had a tall tank (fluidised reactor) in Liverpool IIRC where they could grow cattle feed from bacteria feed with natural gas and fertilizer. It produced the same amount of protein as soya covering an area the size of Wales. If we have enough energy food is not a major problem.

Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen based energy sources and fertilizers can be made from thin air. Posphates (the major component of washing power - so not exactly rare) and other minerals may be the limiting factors.