We have updated our Privacy Notice, you can read the updated document here
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Climate change and humans?

  • #2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,167 ✭✭✭ The One Doctor


    Firstly, I do believe in anthropogenic climate change.

    Governments are saying 'we have to reduce our carbon footprint' to comply with various agreements.

    Fine, but the Earth's population is increasing rapidly. How do we balance global population growth with global carbon reductions?

    I spoke with a climate expert recently (an extremely intelligent, resourceful, qualified and practical person) and put that question to them. They simply said 'We can't. Climate change will continue to accelerate at the same pace that the global population does, no matter what we do.'

    So I asked why there's such a big deal about climate change if we can't control it without population control. They just shrugged and said 'Money. Universities, NGOs and experts get huge amounts of money by raising awareness, commissioning studies and building careers around climate change. It's just another bandwagon to jump on'.

    That really opened my eyes. Any thoughts?


Comments

  • #2


    Fine, but the Earth's population is increasing rapidly. How do we balance global population growth with global carbon reductions?
    growth rates have slowed

    Educating women is perhaps the quickest and cheapest way of reducing population growth in the long term.


  • #2


    It's impossible to talk about climate change and population without addressing the elephant in the room. The world population doesn't consume or emit uniformly. The emissions from the lifestyles of the wealthiest 10% is the equal to the emissions of the remaining 90%. We live in a world where the poor subsidise the emissions of the rich who then often turn around and blame climate change on the growing population of poor people.

    The world can sustain plenty more Ugandans and Kenyans. Another Irish person living in a McMansion in Meath, driving an SUV, eating meat every day of the week and taking 10 flights a year is a problem.

    figure1.png

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/richest-10-per-cent-cause-half-of-lifestyle-carbon-emissions-climate-expert-1.3727750
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/12/09/carbon-footprints-climate-change-rich-one-percent/


  • #2


    Peregrine wrote: »
    The world can sustain plenty more Ugandans and Kenyans. Another Irish person living in a McMansion in Meath, driving an SUV, eating meat every day of the week and taking 10 flights a year is a problem.

    Agreed, so why is the focus on providing them with grants for consuming the production of new electric SUV's, and more electricity, and eco renovation deep retrofit grants for their Howth McMansions, works that the rest of us will never afford ? As usual the rich will be facilitated in avoiding carbon taxes, while the ordinary working person can never afford to avoid carbon taxes, just like every other tax break for the rich. I suppose someone has to continually pay the wealthy's taxes and debts for them.


  • #2


    So after we make all the climate change measures, how much will the rate of global warming be slowed by ?


  • #2


    Peregrine wrote: »
    It's impossible to talk about climate change and population without addressing the elephant in the room. The world population doesn't consume or emit uniformly. The emissions from the lifestyles of the wealthiest 10% is the equal to the emissions of the remaining 90%. We live in a world where the poor subsidise the emissions of the rich who then often turn around and blame climate change on the growing population of poor people.

    The world can sustain plenty more Ugandans and Kenyans. Another Irish person living in a McMansion in Meath, driving an SUV, eating meat every day of the week and taking 10 flights a year is a problem.

    figure1.png

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/richest-10-per-cent-cause-half-of-lifestyle-carbon-emissions-climate-expert-1.3727750
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/12/09/carbon-footprints-climate-change-rich-one-percent/

    There's a bit of a contradiction in you portrayal of Irish people there I think.

    How many Irish people are in the top 10% of the world's most wealthy? Even the top 20% or 30%.
    There is a big drop off again after each of these steps.

    I'm guessing we can sustain a lot more Irish people also.

    What are the 10% doing to contribute so much?
    Is there any breakdown of the specifics of this?

    Does involve a lot of private jets, mansions, supercars, multiple holiday homes, luxury goods etc. Etc.

    I don't think SUVs in meath are the problem, unless it's your, butler's/nannies/personal assistants, run around car, when the Bentley is being washed and polished.


  • #2


    ForestFire wrote: »

    How many Irish people are in the top 10% of the world's most wealthy?

    Depending on how you look at it all of them. In terms of GDP per capita Ireland is somewhere around the 4-6th richest nation.

    Now you can argue what that means for the average person and if GDP is really a good measurement.

    Or if you would prefer you can look at wealth. If you trust https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/07/how-much-money-you-need-to-be-in-the-richest-10-percent-worldwide.html

    You need about 77000 Euro of assets to be in the top 10%

    And if you trust https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-hfcs/householdfinanceandconsumptionsurvey2018/wealth/

    Somewhere between 60% and 70% of Irish households fall into that


  • #2


    ForestFire wrote: »
    There's a bit of a contradiction in you portrayal of Irish people there I think.

    How many Irish people are in the top 10% of the world's most wealthy? Even the top 20% or 30%.
    There is a big drop off again after each of these steps.

    Considering there's a billion living on less than €1 a day, it doesn't take much to put you in the top 10% of people.

    As I said in another thread, the consumption of your average Irish person produces 50 - 100 times more Co2 than the average person in sub-Saharan Africa.

    So population isn't a problem, the lifestyles of the western world are the problem. But the world economy is based on production and consumption, so we're in a catch 22.

    On the flip side, the poorest live in more inhospitable climates that can't tolerate any dramatic shifts in temperatures and they will suffer and die long before we feel it.

    Climate migration is already huge.


  • #2


    SantaClaw wrote: »

    And if you trust https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-hfcs/householdfinanceandconsumptionsurvey2018/wealth/

    Somewhere between 60% and 70% of Irish households fall into that

    How do they define household? I can't see it in the link.


  • #2


    Blacktie. wrote: »
    How do they define household? I can't see it in the link.

    From the website:
    A household is defined as a single person or group of people who regularly reside together in the same accommodation and who share the same catering arrangements. The household members defined in this fashion are not necessarily related by blood or by marriage.

    It's a bit vague, but it's used to define access to wealth, more than owned wealth.

    Having assets worth less than €4000 would put you in the bottom 50% wealthiest in the world.
    Most Irish 17 year olds would fit that category, but the family of that 17 year old would likely be in the top 5%, due to parents income and property, and the 17 year old would have access to that wealth to pay for college etc.


  • #2


    Padre_Pio wrote: »
    So population isn't a problem, the lifestyles of the western world are the problem. But the world economy is based on production and consumption, so we're in a catch 22.

    And yet the solution being pushed is to produce and consume brand new electric cars, and provide those who can afford them with grants to consume them, and encourage the consumption of even more electricity so the price skyrockets. Produce more giant wind turbines and slide more bogs in rural Ireland. Then provide those wealthy enough to afford it with deep retrofit grants, so they can rip out, transport and dump all their existing heating systems, and produce and consume hi tech HVAC systems, and produce and consume large volumes of polystyrene insulation. All the while telling a Granny burning a little solid fuel and reusing what she already has, that she is the real eco terrorist and the cause of all this, and must pay all of the carbon taxes the wealthy can afford to avoid.


  • #2


    ForestFire wrote: »
    There's a bit of a contradiction in you portrayal of Irish people there I think.

    How many Irish people are in the top 10% of the world's most wealthy? Even the top 20% or 30%.
    There is a big drop off again after each of these steps.

    I'm guessing we can sustain a lot more Irish people also.

    What are the 10% doing to contribute so much?
    Is there any breakdown of the specifics of this?

    Does involve a lot of private jets, mansions, supercars, multiple holiday homes, luxury goods etc. Etc.

    I don't think SUVs in meath are the problem, unless it's your, butler's/nannies/personal assistants, run around car, when the Bentley is being washed and polished.

    If you think the richest 10% in the world have butlers and Bentleys then you're in for a real shock.

    There's a very good chance that you're in that top 10% richest in the world who, together, contribute to 49% of global lifestyle emissions. During my life, I can expect to be in the richest 10% too. Certainly, most of Ireland are in the richest 20%.

    But it's the poorest 50% who are only responsible for 10% of emissions that will suffer first and suffer the most.


  • #2


    Swindled wrote: »
    And yet the solution being pushed is to produce and consume brand new electric cars...

    Exactly.
    Governments could solve the climate crisis today if they wanted to, but they'd need to put the world's population on the breadline.

    The alternative (and the only politically acceptable solution) is to keep the cycle of production and consumption going, only encourage green products and hope to God that we can somehow outrun the looming climate disaster.

    The problem is that this process should have started 40 years ago and it didn't, and all evidence says that unless our consumption changes dramatically, we're all fvcked.


  • #2


    Padre_Pio wrote: »
    Exactly.
    Governments could solve the climate crisis today if they wanted to, but they'd need to put the world's population on the breadline.

    The alternative (and the only politically acceptable solution) is to keep the cycle of production and consumption going, only encourage green products and hope to God that we can somehow outrun the looming climate disaster.

    The problem is that this process should have started 40 years ago and it didn't, and all evidence says that unless our consumption changes dramatically, we're all fvcked.

    I completely agree with you. It's too late to just give up and keep polluting as we have been doing since The Industrial Revolution until now. We have to change now.


  • #2


    Peregrine wrote: »
    If you think the richest 10% in the world have butlers and Bentleys then you're in for a real shock.

    There's a very good chance that you're in that top 10% richest in the world who, together, contribute to 49% of global lifestyle emissions. During my life, I can expect to be in the richest 10% too. Certainly, most of Ireland are in the richest 20%.

    But it's the poorest 50% who are only responsible for 10% of emissions that will suffer first and suffer the most.

    I started a reply to this, but I think we are getting into the endless world of statistics, and we could go on all night we numbers on both sides (You know what they say about statistics).

    I will say however, that 10% of the worlds population is 80 Million and there are almost 52 million millionaires in the world.

    So unless your a millionaire or probably close to being one, I don't think you, or I, are in the top 10%.

    Top 20%/30% is much more likely I would say, and sure the top 20% are "only" emitting twice the amount compare to there population size :o, While the top 10% is 5 times the amount!!

    I do agree though that this whole climate change is heavily dependant on overall population size.

    As a modern, intelligent (Another debate) species, surely we can implement systems of appropriate population control?

    Is the idea of 2/3 kids person/couple really a restriction on human rights?
    If you want to go above this figure, are they ways to allow it, but discourage it? Or incentivise 1 and 2 child families?

    Even rewarding childless people? There a whole forum on this now here, and if you got offered 50K to stay childless, would you take it? and would it help?


  • #2


    ForestFire wrote: »

    Is the idea of 2/3 kids person/couple really a restriction on human rights?
    If you want to go above this figure, are they ways to allow it, but discourage it? Or incentivise 1 and 2 child families?

    Even rewarding childless people? There a whole forum on this now here, and if you got offered 50K to stay childless, would you take it? and would it help?

    What's the birth rate for western Europeans compared to the rest of the world ?
    Also why did China abandon the one child policy ?


  • #2


    china is facing the same demographic time bomb as many other countries now.
    abandoning the one child policy has not helped much.


  • #2


    ForestFire wrote: »

    I will say however, that 10% of the worlds population is 80 Million and there are almost 52 million millionaires in the world.

    So there's only 800 million people in the world?

    News to me.

    Our problems are solved boys!


  • #2


    ForestFire wrote: »
    I will say however, that 10% of the worlds population is 80 Million and there are almost 52 million millionaires in the world.

    10% of the world's population is not 80 million. You're way off here.


  • #2


    ForestFire wrote: »
    I will say however, that 10% of the worlds population is 80 Million and there are almost 52 million millionaires in the world.

    10% of the world's population is 800 million people. That's most of us. In light of that, you should review your entire post.

    If 80 million was 10% and there are 52 million millionaires, do you actually think that 6.5% of the population are millionaires?


  • #2


    Okay 800 million (just missed 1 decimal point)... And I told you all we would be here all night .....

    Let's just skip over that and try to concentrate on population control here :-)

    How to we incentives the poorest countries, generally with the highest birth rates to have less children...

    Education, economy, opportunities.......do we need a world wide system to deal with poverty?

    Will the rich (us), subsidise this?


  • #2


    ForestFire wrote: »
    Okay 800 million (just missed 1 decimal point)... And I told you all we would be here all night .....

    Let's just skip over that and try to concentrate on population control here :-)

    You're asking to skip over the issue and concentrate on your preferred non-solution. Why?


  • #2


    Peregrine wrote: »
    You're asking to skip over the issue and concentrate on your preferred non-solution. Why?

    Look I made a mistake, and admitted it (with some embarrassed humour), so yes that post on the 10% is meaningless now.... what exactly do you want, blood?


    I don't have a solution for population control , just trying to have a discussion and what, if anything is possible.


  • #2


    ForestFire wrote: »
    I don't have a solution for population control , just trying to have a discussion and what, if anything is possible.

    Population control is not a solution. We could have 20 billion people on the planet and have no climate issues.

    The issue is consumption. The biggest polluters in the world are power plants and fossil fuel companies who power the world economies.

    People need to change their habits. This can only be achieved through worldwide government incentives, which is happening, but far too slowly.


  • #2


    there are countries where the average CO2 output per capita is 100kg.
    the average amount of driving i do in a month is equivalent to this. forget everything else i do, driving 1000km in a reasonably modern ICE car is equivalent to what a citizen in once of these countries produces in total in a year.


  • #2


    there are countries where the average CO2 output per capita is 100kg.
    the average amount of driving i do in a month is equivalent to this. forget everything else i do, driving 1000km in a reasonably modern ICE car is equivalent to what a citizen in once of these countries produces in total in a year.

    100kg is what the national grid emits in a fraction of a second. We have feck all control over this as the government keeps bringing in more foreign investors to build new gas power stations

    Personal choices and self inflicted eco-hardshipping won't help a bit.


  • #2


    yeah, the government will keep on generating electricity even if we don't want to use it; or, i actually am not sure what point you're making there.

    the CO2 my choices are responsible from don't solely come from power stations in ireland.


Society & Culture