Comments on: 7 Billion People, 30 Gigatons of CO2, 1 Warming Planet: Population & Climate in the 21st Century

By: Terry Halligan

Terry Halligan — Thu, 03 May 2012 17:51:07 +0000

The argument is well thought out and expressed in this article that emissions are directly related to population growth, or is it? It is my observation that countries with rapidly growing “birth” populations, versus immigration growth, have the lowest per capita emissions rates well countries with stagnant or declining “birth rates” have the highest emissions per capita. Therefore I believe that activity is far more important then just a head count on emissions projections.

By: TigerArt

TigerArt — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:02:37 +0000

Nothing really matters until zero population growth is achieved. Even with clean energy sources, this planet can sustain only a certain amount of biomass, including human beings. Eventually we will go the way of the dinosaurs but our asteroid will be the mass of humans. If nature does what it usually does, however, and makes adjustments to balance ecosystems, we will eventually see negative population growth through famine and global disease until everything is back in balance. Unless we pass the tipping point, and they we will reach the Hellstrom Chronicle by natural means.

By: Zach Singer

Zach Singer — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:07:34 +0000

I’m a big fan of Brunner’s Stand on Zanzibar in which he details the difficulties inherent in a eugenics program. I also think that a global birth control program will be necessary but I doubt it will be anything like his imagined eugenics board. I think that people should abort more and be content that someone is giving birth to and spending money on the next generation. It doesn’t have to be you and there is nothing to suggest that the children you would have would be any greater of a contribution to the population than the children anyone else would. Given that in the end we only have control of our own choices; make the right one and don’t procreate. Furthermore, it seems to me that parenthood is a thankless and unenviable occupation.

PS: on the topic of sustainable energy Japan seems to be leading the way in regards to SSPS technology but the California based research group Artemis Innovation is also working on what could one day be an indispensable technology. Y’all should educate yourselves about its advantages over unconcentrated ground based solar power.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 19:39:53 +0000

@matt says “the earth hasn’t warmed for 15 years” without providing a source of this supposition.

The reality is exactly the opposite: The 13 hottest years in over a century have all been in the last 15 years:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45474215/ns/us_news-environment

By: matt

matt — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 20:51:34 +0000

What is really scary is that people still think that human caused global warming is an issue when the earth hasn’t warmed for 15 years, during which CO2 levels have gone up. Hmm, unexplained.
In this huge world, the issue is land use and localised over-population due to politics, not actual worldwide over-population
In recent weeks we saw another release of emails from the university of East Anglia, once again showing a bias of the ‘scientists’, with which many peer-reviewed studies are based on and need to be revisited.
Even if these were real issues, the only solutions offered are feudalistic, depopulation ideas, which will decrease growth by force. Industry will move to China (where there are less stringent emissions standards) and the people of the west will be homeless, with no way to heat their houses.
I welcome any positive ideas.

By: Wiley

Wiley — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 18:14:13 +0000

I think the great bard Terence McKenna said it best… (10-15 years ago)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xeGcLhszuI

By: yogi-one

yogi-one — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 02:41:53 +0000

What’s frightening to me is that over the years we have had a number of studies that contrast futures in which we make progress vs futures in which everything stays the same (rate of emissions that is). The baseline in which we do nothing (everything stays the same) was called ‘worst case scenario’. In fact, we have been increasing emissions so that in the real world today what we have is actually “exceeds worst case scenario.” Yikes!

And while I love your study, in the real world we have the denialist industry. While they have lost the argument that AGW is not happening at all, they did throw back progress most likely by two decades at least (admittedly just a guesstimate). But just because they lost that argument (as they knew they eventually would – they know the game they are playing), doesn’t mean they are going away. They have a big industry and Big Fossil Fuel still has deep pockets and is still interested in delaying the day when we convert to cleaner energy.

So you are going to see arguments that coal is getting cleaner, that fracking doesn’t really harm the environment, that clean techs are still far in the future and therefore not realistic solutions (none of which are true of course), and using the economy as leverage, the claim that Big Fossil Fuel creates jobs (true – but at what cost to society overall?). This last claim will be used to justify continued deregulation and tax cuts/loopholes for their industry. Politicians in on the take will be too happy to oblige, I’m afraid.

So if they can tack a couple of more decades of delay onto the damage they have already done, they will consider it a victory. Big Fossil Fuel will continue to reap obscene profits while the rest of our lives get dirtier, less profitable, and the quality of life on earth in general degrades while we weather a mass extinction as best we can day-to-day.

Given their ethics, none of this is a problem for them – they still get their payday. We are talking about institutionalized corruption here – the same problem that plagues our banking industry and the economy in general.

Our problem is still, as it has been since the 1960s – to wake people up and engage them in the process of learning about what the heck is really happening to them and how they can change things.

If the general populace is ignorant (or as disinformed as the Deep-Pocketed wish) civilization will never get down to the business of implementing the wedge strategy.

By: Catherine

Catherine — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 01:31:47 +0000

my boyfriend & I would like a tax credit for deciding not have kids! Anyway, I have an issue of Discover magazine from Oct. 2000, 20th anniversary edition, it’s scary how much predicted is coming true! The population swelling & “you are going to have to somehow live while you watch a billion people starve” well not having kids(or just 1 or 2) is kinder then watching them all starve.

By: Messier Tidy Upper

Messier Tidy Upper — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:37:32 +0000

Overpopulation and climate change. Not a good nor sustainable combo for the future.

By: Monkey

Monkey — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 11:09:18 +0000

The most pressing problem……