Global Warming

silverharp · 16-04-2009 08:30PM

bonkey wrote: »

If our national output were lower, but our output per capita were higher, then surely it would be only fair that the Dutch would be rated better then us?

Thats the question , does per capita matter more or the fact that are low population density is more sustainable?

bonkey · 16-04-2009 09:40PM

silverharp wrote: »

Thats the question , does per capita matter more or the fact that are low population density is more sustainable?

To be honest, my question was somewhat unfair. I'd argue that both options are badly flawed. I don't believe that carbon taxes form a workable system in the first place...although they may be a necessary (unworkable) evil to force people to go and focus on a proper solution.

In terms of population density the question should be asked as to why population density is measured at a national level. If lower density means more sustainability (which I would argue is flawed in the first place), then why average that density over a nation? Why is someone living in the countryside in Holland (to stick with our example) to be penalised over and above someone living in the middle of Dublin city?

Per-capita has a comparable problem, of course. I'm not suggesting otherwise for a moment.

If I had to choose one, I'd lean towards per capita as the lesser of two evils, but stick to my basic stance that there can be no equitable and fair solution.

silverharp · 16-04-2009 11:00PM

bonkey wrote: »

To be honest, my question was somewhat unfair. I'd argue that both options are badly flawed. I don't believe that carbon taxes form a workable system in the first place...although they may be a necessary (unworkable) evil to force people to go and focus on a proper solution.

In terms of population density the question should be asked as to why population density is measured at a national level. If lower density means more sustainability (which I would argue is flawed in the first place), then why average that density over a nation? Why is someone living in the countryside in Holland (to stick with our example) to be penalised over and above someone living in the middle of Dublin city?

Per-capita has a comparable problem, of course. I'm not suggesting otherwise for a moment.

If I had to choose one, I'd lean towards per capita as the lesser of two evils, but stick to my basic stance that there can be no equitable and fair solution.

I dont disagree , but just looking at it from an Irish perspective , by definition the average Irish person uses more energy then the average Dutch person by virtue of lower density and less then ideal settlement patterns. However given that Ireland is "underpopulated" by a possible factor of 2 or 3 by default we must be better custodians of our little bit of the planet.
As an aside given that the Irish economy will be decimated over the coming years we should be able to beat any projections made from 2007?

djpbarry · 17-04-2009 10:09AM

silverharp wrote: »

...the average Irish person uses more energy then the average Dutch person by virtue of lower density and less then ideal settlement patterns. However given that Ireland is "underpopulated" by a possible factor of 2 or 3 by default we must be better custodians of our little bit of the planet.

Are you assuming a linear relationship between population size and per capita emissions?

djpbarry · 17-04-2009 10:13AM

O'Morris wrote: »

Are you saying James Lovelock isn't respected? Why? Is it because he defied the trendy, liberal environmentalist consensus…

I would have put Lovelock squarely in the middle of the “trendy, liberal environmentalist” bracket, right next to Gaia.

O'Morris · 17-04-2009 10:19AM

bonkey wrote:

If our national output were lower, but our output per capita were higher, then surely it would be only fair that the Dutch would be rated better then us?

If it is found that our per-capita consumption is above average then that's all the more reason for us reduce the growth in our population. A growth in our population will have worse effects than the growth of population in a country with a lower level of per-capita consumption.

Jared Diamond mentioned this in the final chapter of his book Collapse where he pointed to the damaging effects that the movement of people from low-consumption countries to high-consumption countries like the US can have on dealing with the problem of climate change.

bonkey wrote:

Being a global problem, I'm sure you'd also agree that its a question of global demographics, rather than national ones, right?

It's both a global and a national issue. Unsustainable population growth is a global problem. I would put it up at the top of the list of global problems that need to be faced up to in the 21st century.

bonkey wrote:

Humanity need to face up to it. Demographics are - as you say - a big factor. So we can combine these to say that human demographics (i.e. global demographics) are key.

Exactly. We need to slow down the growth in the world's population. The planet has reached its carrying capacity and we can't afford to continue on growing at the same rate as we have been growing over the last fifty years.

It has become politically-incorrect to face up to this problem due to the fact that most of the population growth is occuring in the developing world. Europe's population is in decline and so it's not as much a problem in this part of the world. It is a problem in the poorer countries in Africa and Asia though and it has the potential to cause problems for us further down the line.

We need to find some way to get people living in those countries to stop having so many children. We need to educate them about family planning and about why it's in their interest to not have such big families. I think we need to massively increase the amount of money we spend on educating women in the third world. I read that there is a strong correlation between a country's female literacy rate and a country's birth-rate.

bonkey wrote:

Surely we should be advocating that our population density be managed as part of a global strategy

No, we should be managing it as part of a national strategy. Every country should look out for it's own interests. It needs to calculate the potential costs to it's country of the problem and then plan to prevent the worst from happening. From our point of view Ireland's interests must come first, just as India's interests must come first in the eyes of the Indians. We can and we should work collectively to try to reduce carbon emissions but for dealing with the specific problems caused by global warming, I think the main responsibility should lie with the national governments.

bonkey wrote:

...that if its more efficient to move Irish abroad, we do so...or that if its more efficient to move people living abroad to Ireland to balance out global demographics, we should do that?

I don't know if you mean this as a hypothetical or if you genuinely believe that was would be a realistic or workable solution to the problem. If it's the latter can you explain why you think this could be an option for us because I can't envisage any possible scenario in which this would be an efficient or effective means of dealing with the problems of global warming. I think it would be both hugely inefficient and hugely disruptive to move people around like that. It would cause more problems than it would solve.

To answer you question though, yes, I think we should do whatever is necessary to prevent the worst effects of global warming. I don't like the idea of mass immigration into Ireland and the mass emigration of Irish people out of the country but if that is found to be the most effective means of dealing with the problem then I think we should support it.

Global warming is such a huge problem that we can't afford to let our values get in the way of an effective solution. If it is in Ireland's interests to replace a large part of our population with a foreign population then I think we should do that. In the same way I'm sure you would be prepared to support measures that might conflict with some of your most deeply held values. If it is found that a combination of nuclear energy and abortion and euthanasia and a restrictive immigration policy is found to be the best method of avoiding the worst effects of global warming in this country would you be in favour of us adopting those measures?

bonkey wrote:

Exactly my point. Drawing lines at borders for demographic distribution is almost unquestionably not the most efficient method.

That's where I would have to disagree. I think drawing lines at borders is a vastly more efficient method of dealing with problem than the alternatives. I think if every country looks out for it's own interests and plans to avoid the worst effects of the problem for their own country then we'll be much better able to deal with the effects of global warming. Rational self-interest operates much more effectively at a national level than a supranational one. People manage resources and plan for the future better when they feel some personal attachment (i.e. ownership) to those resources than when those resources are held in common.

As well as dealing with the global problem in general I want us to focus on we can effectively deal with the problem in this country in particular. James Lovelock's comments are encouraging and we should think very seriously about what policy measures should follow on from his predictions.

djpbarry wrote:

I would have put Lovelock squarely in the middle of the “trendy, liberal environmentalist” bracket, right next to Gaia.

So why don't you think he's respected then?

asdasd · 17-04-2009 10:24AM

So why don't you think he's respected then?

He is definitely on the whackier end of Alarmism.

silverharp · 17-04-2009 11:18AM

djpbarry wrote: »

Are you assuming a linear relationship between population size and per capita emissions?

I'm guessing there is a tendancy for low population density countries to be not as efficient in the use of energy as high density countries , there will be more dispersed settlement which will imply more miles driven etc. the electricity grid will be less efficient. but on the flip side we wouldnt exactly be doing the globe a favor if we had a population of 16m living "efficiently" in large cities , in alsolute terms we would be putting more stress on the environment?

djpbarry · 17-04-2009 03:41PM

O'Morris wrote: »

If it is found that our per-capita consumption is above average then that's all the more reason for us reduce the growth in our population. A growth in our population will have worse effects than the growth of population in a country with a lower level of per-capita consumption.

That is, at best, overly simplistic and at worst, grossly inaccurate. Take for example the following scenario:

John lives in a 3-bed semi-detached house on his own. His personal emissions amount to x tonnes of CO2 per annum. Suppose John decides to rent out the two spare bedrooms in his house. It is highly unlikely that John’s personal emissions will remain at x tonnes of CO2 per annum as the energy consumption of the house is now shared among three people. Now, while the total emissions of the household will likely increase to some new value of x + y tonnes per annum, it is highly unlikely that y = 2x. So, in all likelihood, John’s personal emissions (or the per capita emissions of the population of the house), will decrease to (x + y)/3.

Now, the question becomes, is this a good move for the planet as a whole? Well, from John’s perspective, yes it is, because he has just reduced his per capita emissions (assuming nothing else in his lifestyle has changed). But what about the population of the household as a whole? Well that depends on how the lifestyle of John’s two new tenants has changed as a result of their new living arrangements, i.e. are they using more or less energy than they were previously using? The changes in circumstances in the houses they have left also have to be taken into consideration.

O'Morris wrote: »

The planet has reached its carrying capacity…

Has it? News to me. Is there a ‘maximum capacity’ detailed somewhere on the Earth’s safety certificate?

djpbarry · 17-04-2009 03:42PM

silverharp wrote: »

I'm guessing there is a tendancy for low population density countries to be not as efficient in the use of energy as high density countries , there will be more dispersed settlement which will imply more miles driven etc. the electricity grid will be less efficient.

Yep, sounds reasonable.

silverharp wrote: »

but on the flip side we wouldnt exactly be doing the globe a favor if we had a population of 16m living "efficiently" in large cities , in alsolute terms we would be putting more stress on the environment?

Well, again, that depends on where all those people have come from. If, for example, the population of Dublin increased to 16 million people and the demographics of the rest of the globe remained unchanged, then I suppose you’d be right. But in reality, all those people obviously have to come from somewhere, so the change in demographics in the places they left behind would have to be taken into consideration before we can conclude whether or not this was a good or bad move for the planet as a whole.

O'Morris · 17-04-2009 06:15PM

djpbarry wrote: »

That is, at best, overly simplistic and at worst, grossly inaccurate. Take for example the following scenario:

John lives in a 3-bed semi-detached house on his own. His personal emissions amount to x tonnes of CO2 per annum. Suppose John decides to rent out the two spare bedrooms in his house. It is highly unlikely that John’s personal emissions will remain at x tonnes of CO2 per annum as the energy consumption of the house is now shared among three people. Now, while the total emissions of the household will likely increase to some new value of x + y tonnes per annum, it is highly unlikely that y = 2x. So, in all likelihood, John’s personal emissions (or the per capita emissions of the population of the house), will decrease to (x + y)/3.

Now, the question becomes, is this a good move for the planet as a whole? Well, from John’s perspective, yes it is, because he has just reduced his per capita emissions (assuming nothing else in his lifestyle has changed). But what about the population of the household as a whole? Well that depends on how the lifestyle of John’s two new tenants has changed as a result of their new living arrangements, i.e. are they using more or less energy than they were previously using? The changes in circumstances in the houses they have left also have to be taken into consideration.

I think you've misunderstood my position. My position is that the fewer people there are living in the high-consumption countries of the world the less carbon that will be emitted into the atmosphere and the better if will be for the planet.

Read this article on the findings of the research that has been done into the demographics of climate change as it relates to the Unites States. I think the first quote answers you're question from above.

immigrants in the United States produce an estimated four times more CO2 in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin.

U.S. immigrants produce an estimated 637 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually — equal to Great Britain and Sweden combined.

The estimated 637 tons of CO2 U.S. immigrants produce annually is 482 million tons more than they would have produced had they remained in their home countries.

If the 482 million ton increase in global CO2 emissions caused by immigration to the United States were a separate country, it would rank 10th in the world in emissions.

Although this relates to the Unites States, being a high consumption/high immigration country ourselves much of the same would probably apply to us. That's why I think our policy response to global warming in this country should be to focus on low population growth as well as on low consumption.

djpbarry · 17-04-2009 06:33PM

O'Morris wrote: »

My position is that the fewer people there are living in the high-consumption countries of the world the less carbon that will be emitted into the atmosphere and the better if will be for the planet.

Ah, I see. So we divide the planet into “high-consumption” regions and “low-consumption” regions and we keep all the poor people in the “low-consumption” regions and deny them access to a higher standard of living (and in doing so, maintain our own)?

Would it not make more sense to attempt to create a single, relatively homogenous global region (in terms of living standards and “consumption”)? Seems fairer to me.

Flamed Diving · 17-04-2009 06:43PM

Has someone posted this yet?

Obama to regulate 'pollutant' CO2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8004975.stm

bonkey · 17-04-2009 06:52PM

O'Morris wrote: »

If it is found that our per-capita consumption is above average then that's all the more reason for us reduce the growth in our population.

I would have argued that if it is found our per-capita consumption is above average for comparably developed nations, then its all the more reason for us to reduce our per-capita consumption. Hell, if its below average, we should still reduce our per-capita consumption if the means to do so are tolerable.

Jared Diamond mentioned this in the final chapter of his book Collapse where he pointed to the damaging effects that the movement of people from low-consumption countries to high-consumption countries like the US can have on dealing with the problem of climate change.

He has a point, in that by moving those individuals to the US, their individual consumption will tend to increase, thus adding to the global problem.

We need to slow down the growth in the world's population.

There is a problem with this, in that the only effective method we've found for long-term control of population growth is the comination of education and affluence. The richer and more educated societies are, the lower their birth-rate tends to be. Unfortunately, that would mean that to reach a long-term goal of population management, we would first have to incur an unsustainably large increase in consumption which would result from raising billions out of poverty.

The planet has reached its carrying capacity and we can't afford to continue on growing at the same rate as we have been growing over the last fifty years.

Carrying capacity is meaningless as a measure, unless we factor in lifestyle.

Wasn't it Diamond who pointed out that to allow everyone to live like Americans, we'd need the resources of 7 planets? From that perspective, we're well beyond our carrying capacity...but that hasn't stopped us. On the other hand, to allow everyone to live like the poorest souls (take your pick), we've more than enough resources to allow for even more people.

We need to find some way to get people living in those countries to stop having so many children. We need to educate them about family planning and about why it's in their interest to not have such big families. I think we need to massively increase the amount of money we spend on educating women in the third world. I read that there is a strong correlation between a country's female literacy rate and a country's birth-rate.

Exactly. We need to increase the money we spend on teh poor, rather than on ourselves. We need to spend money to raise them out of poverty...only then we'll have to spend more to ensure they don't raise too far out of poverty, or they'll start increasing their consumption and it'll be like moving them to America.

I don't know if you mean this as a hypothetical or if you genuinely believe that was would be a realistic or workable solution to the problem.

I don't think its realistic or workable...any more than I think its realistic to think that population control is a viable option in general, or that restricting the flow of people amongst nations will make any signiifcant difference.

To answer you question though, yes, I think we should do whatever is necessary to prevent the worst effects of global warming.

Whatever is necessary?

Seriously...no limits?

Global warming is such a huge problem that we can't afford to let our values get in the way of an effective solution.

I agree to a point.

Global warming is a virtually-unique problem in that what it really threatens is our way of life....but the only paths which seem to offer solutions at present all involve abandoning our way of life.

In a very real sense, our values are the problem. The question is really which aspects of our way of life we will jettison to get through this.

Because it will come down to that. Regardless of what choices humanity makes (collectively or as nations), we (or our near descendants) will be forced to abandon central aspects of our current way of life.

Currently, I oppose extreme measures, because I don't believe that any of them can be shown to be fully thought through.

granzer · 18-06-2009 03:31PM

why is it that the news media has never spoken about using rivers to produce electricity?

this would save the country billion of euro legally in ireland to produce coal, oil and gas. we already have the dams on the shannon (bally shannon) ard na crusha

these dams could be converted to the system used at niagara falls in canada which is a much smaller river than the shannon and uses a different system for generating electricity. instead of running the generators across the river, the generators are put in a tunnel that is out alongside the river. this tunnel and generators provide enough electricity for 8 million people in the state of new york...the same thing could be done here on the shannon. i request anyone reading this to go to 'www.niagarafrontiertunnel.com'

i would sincerely like a discussion on the subject

asdasd · 18-06-2009 03:32PM

Start a new thread.

hoser expat · 20-06-2009 09:51AM

granzer wrote: »

why is it that the news media has never spoken about using rivers to produce electricity?

this would save the country billion of euro legally in ireland to produce coal, oil and gas. we already have the dams on the shannon (bally shannon) ard na crusha

these dams could be converted to the system used at niagara falls in canada which is a much smaller river than the shannon and uses a different system for generating electricity. instead of running the generators across the river, the generators are put in a tunnel that is out alongside the river. this tunnel and generators provide enough electricity for 8 million people in the state of new york...the same thing could be done here on the shannon. i request anyone reading this to go to 'www.niagarafrontiertunnel.com'

i would sincerely like a discussion on the subject

Well, in general the amount of power a river can generate is controlled by the gradient, or hydraulic head, as well as the volume of water. You need a steep drop to generate power, and if you look at Niagara that's exactly what the have. And it's exactly what the Shannon doesn't have.

Global Warming

Comments