New report on climate change released today

[Koyaanisqatsi]

To be fair, that was in response to my musing about the plausibility of getting CO2 back to below 300 ppm (in the face of tundra and arctic ocean shelf outgassing) EVEN WITH 99.99% of current humans disappearing in the blink of an eye. It was a hypothetical...

Basically, it is a base from which to work out how much more difficult it will be to reverse the current ~406 pmm CO2 which will have to include the current humans.

If it can't be done with nearly no humans, it can't be done with the population we have now.

Obviously BUA methods are doing nothing.

If, otoh, the 99.99% of humans were (a) carbon neutral and (b) actively engaged in reversal tactics, then we'd have at least 7 billion more trees planted and the like.

Again, it's all about the mentality. And mentality--unfortunately--is controlled by the ruling elite. It just is. So if the ruling elite say, "Do this" then that's what 99.99% of humans will do.

The problem is that the ruling elite have convinced themselves that killing off 99.99% of the world's population will mean they get it all and that's the solution. So they are just as stupidly ruled by a wrong mentality as the rest of us, it's just that their mentality is wrong in that they think they will survive while no one else will.

Too many of them think that they are the ruling elite because of divine providence or "fate" or just straight up narcissism and the like, or that this is all "god's plan," but mainly they are privately believing that they are invincible and the rest of the world's population is expendable (and rightly so).

RVonse's response--however it may have originally been intended--is a perfect illustration of that mentality. It's not his fault; it's all the others on this planet who are to blame. It's not the US's fault, in spite of the fact that we are the largest evil on the planet as a proportion of what we contribute to the problem and how many people we have who do the contributions.

China contributes 4 billion metric tons more than we do, but they also have 1 billion more people! If we had an equal number of people behaving the same way ours currently do, then we would be generating ten times as much carbon emissions as China.

 

[RVonse]

If, otoh, the 99.99% of humans were (a) carbon neutral and (b) actively engaged in reversal tactics, then we'd have at least 7 billion more trees planted and the like.

Show me how 99.99% of humans can possibly be carbon neutral with current technology. It is NOT possible. Not even remotely possible.

And even assuming the aforementioned, there will be no room left to even plant 7 billion more trees. Population does not increase linear it is the same kind of hocky stick increase as the co2 gas.

There has to be a reduction of population or no amount of carbon repair is possible.

Furthermore, sooner or later there will be too many people regardless of carbon. We will run out of places just to throw garbage and run out of places for other species of natural habitat to live.

Clearly the population issue is the most serious problem that no one is going to talk about. Because it is much more fun for people like you to bash and burn Trump and the USA.

 

[PyramidHead]

The majority of humans do not have to directly change their behavior in order to be carbon neutral to the extent required by what is in the report. 70% of the world's carbon output is caused by just a handful of companies and governments. Oddly, these same organizations are the ones that publish media about responsible consumption, tips on how to reduce your carbon footprint, and new ways to sell us commodities that make us feel like everybody is doing their part. Meanwhile they continue to cause basically the entire problem and show no signs of stopping. We shouldn't expect them to stop, as they are handsomely rewarded in such abundance that no amount of external incentives would be enough to stall their activities as rapidly as the situation demands.

So, I agree with RVonse that it's not his fault, unless he happens to work for one of the 100 corporations responsible for 70% of the world's carbon output, and even in that case it's not really his fault because individual actors will tend to find ways to maximize their immediate or medium-term gains in a system where nobody is rewarded for focusing on the long-term gains.

I also agree that population growth is a problem, but not for the reasons RVonse suggests; I do not view the next generation of humans as perpetrators of the climate catastrophe, I view them as victims of it. We can and should reduce the number of victims by refraining from making them. To the extent that it may ease the burden on those who are here to suffer it, that's a bonus. It's strange that I need to remind people, but this does not have anything to do with killing anybody who is already born, so there is really no need for genocide to enter the discussion. On an individual level, not having children is one of the most carbon-negative things a person can do, but even if it wasn't, it's also one of the most humane things a person can do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The human population simply has to match what the earth can provide today with the technology of today. Otherwise the planet is in trouble and all life (even plants) are in peril.

And exactly how is that supposed to be done?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Throughout human history there's always been the doomsayers. The New Testament as well as the old is full of them.

But there have also been a decent number of societies that have failed--sometimes to extinction. This causes a survivor bias--our history isn't one of catastrophe so we think it's not going to happen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We need to rationally plan our production output on an international scale in a careful, sustainable way. We need to de-prioritize growth and accumulation while shifting to long-term stability as a guiding principle. We need to first target the low-hanging fruit of the 100 or so corporations that emit over 2/3 of the carbon, who will need to drastically alter their goals and practices.

Stupid, stupid, stupid, although this is the standard green approach. The greens hate big without regard for whether it's actually the problem. All you'll accomplish is move the carbon production to other companies.

Also, the green approach of getting rid of growth leads to certain catastrophe--even by their own data. Look at their projections--society running down to the edge of the graph. They give no reason to think the line will do anything but fade away in the future.

1. Rationally planning production among businesses is forbidden, even though rationally planning production within businesses is commonplace and expected

History shows it works badly.

2. Massive, seductive incentives exist to ignore long-term stability beyond the horizon of profitability; the first company that adopts this strategy will go bankrupt while the others absorb their sales

Because you're not looking for a working system, but rather the destruction of the system. Of course people don't want to go along with their own suicide.

We shouldn't be trying to get rid of companies, we should be trying to move things to a sustainable approach. A very good start would be a carbon tax. Make it economically beneficial to do things right and business will be a powerful innovator in doing so.

 

[laughing dog]

Clearly the population issue is the most serious problem that no one is going to talk about.

It is not the most serious problem - climate change is. For two reasons. First, the effects of climate change are immediate. The population of this planet - regardless of its size - needs to address it now, because even without anymore contributions to the greenhouse gases, the climate is changing and will continue to change.
Second, it will take much longer for the population of this planet to become too many people assuming no longer run drastic adverse effects of climate change. Of course, if the population takes a Trumparian and your approach, climate change will do the job of reducing the human population to a much more mangeable level.

Because it is much more fun for people like you to bash and burn Trump and the USA.

Climate change has nothing to do with Trump. While it is true that the Trump administration policies are likely to slightly exacerbate this climate change, it is happening regardless. I realize that Trump and his acolytes try to tie everything to personalities in order to distract from the real issues, but climate change is a reality and humans as a group are not doing enough to deal with it.

 

[RVonse]

The human population simply has to match what the earth can provide today with the technology of today. Otherwise the planet is in trouble and all life (even plants) are in peril.

And exactly how is that supposed to be done?

By reducing population until technology has the time to catch up. When it comes to dreaming about carbon control technology we can speculate. But birth control is something that can be done now.

 

[RVonse]

Climate change has nothing to do with Trump.

Thank you. I agree.

Most posters of this thread seem to have a difficult time getting past that simple point.

 

[laughing dog]

Climate change has nothing to do with Trump.

Thank you. I agree.

Most posters of this thread seem to have a difficult time getting past that simple point.

As do you.

 

[TSwizzle]

All of global warming is caused by carbon ultimately traced back to human civilization.

You've lost the plot fella.

 

[Elixir]

Climate change has nothing to do with Trump.

Thank you. I agree.

Most posters of this thread seem to have a difficult time getting past that simple point.

Yah - other than all his hot air, Trump has nothing to do with it. He does, however, have everything to do with enabling, supporting and encouraging science-denial and discrediting science.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

If, otoh, the 99.99% of humans were (a) carbon neutral and (b) actively engaged in reversal tactics, then we'd have at least 7 billion more trees planted and the like.

Show me how 99.99% of humans can possibly be carbon neutral with current technology.

Aside from the fact that my posts were in the context of carbon emissions due to fossil fuels (and there is evidently a debate over what constitutes carbon/climate neutrality) going full-on carbon neutral would simply mean for every person to stop emitting greenhouse gasses. Stop driving a gas-powered car; convert your home to solar power; eat only locally sourced foods (and ensure the farms likewise are either carbon neutral or carbon offset), etc.

It is NOT possible.

It is not only possible, it's primarily a matter of buying every household solar panels and solar powered cars. That would be around $30,000 for a massively tricked out 10 kW house and solar car per household, which would actually only cost $3.8 Trillion, which, ironically, happens to be about the size of the US budget, or about $12,000 per person in America.

But, of course, that would only be a one-time expenditure and the savings--including our lives--would be enormous.

And even assuming the aforementioned, there will be no room left to even plant 7 billion more trees.

Do you not know how to use the internet? There is an estimated 15 Billion acres of total habitable land on Earth. By the most conservative standards, you can plant 100 trees in one acre of land, so to plant another 7 billion trees we would only need to use 70 million acres of that 15 billion.

That's about the size of Colorado.

Population does not increase linear it is the same kind of hocky stick increase as the co2 gas.

And, once again, irrelevant as the current numbers already prove.

There has to be a reduction of population or no amount of carbon repair is possible.

Demonstrably false and more importantly, deliberately false.

Furthermore, sooner or later there will be too many people regardless of carbon. We will run out of places just to throw garbage and run out of places for other species of natural habitat to live.

Horseshit. We are unnecessarily destroying natural habitats with reckless abandon and for no dire need. As to the garbage, that too is all mentality and can easily be changed by top-down decree.

Clearly the population issue is the most serious problem that no one is going to talk about.

The fact that you are so desperately trying to make it the issue--in spite of the undeniable facts that it is not--likewise proves that it is not.

Because it is much more fun for people like you to bash and burn Trump and the USA.

Yeah, that's why I'm doing it. Because our species-ending event is "fun."

 

[Elixir]

Yeah, that's why I'm doing it. Because our species ending event is "fun."

Y'know, I think I'd rather live in a world with far fewer than our 7+billion people, than in a world with 15 billion carbon-neutral people. In fact, I liked it a lot more when there were 2.8 billion, as there were when I realized that overpopulation was a problem. Under 2 billion would be nice.

 

[southernhybrid]

Climate change has nothing to do with Trump.

Thank you. I agree.

Most posters of this thread seem to have a difficult time getting past that simple point.

No, no no. We know that Trump didn't cause climate change, but he denies that it's happening and some of his deregulating of industry has the potential to speed things along a bit. The problem is that we need a leader, who not only understands the basics of the science that explains climate change, we need a leader that is willing to act. For example, Obama tried to implement higher fuel standards in cars in the coming years, while Trump negated those regulations. It's very difficult to get much accomplished when the leader denies that anything needs to be done.

There was a time when other countries looked to America for leadership or at least were easily persuaded or influenced by the US and its policies. Since Trump has been president, the only countries that admire Trump are the leaders of autocratic countries. These leaders understand that they can manipulate him by giving him false praise and admiration. We are no longer leading. We are being lead by some of the most autocratic, despotic rulers in the world. Trump either envies them or he denies that these leaders are despots.

 

[bilby]

The human population simply has to match what the earth can provide today with the technology of today. Otherwise the planet is in trouble and all life (even plants) are in peril.

And exactly how is that supposed to be done?

By reducing population until technology has the time to catch up. When it comes to dreaming about carbon control technology we can speculate. But birth control is something that can be done now.

It has been done. It's complete. Over. Finished. Population HAS BEEN stabilised by the (entirely voluntary) use of birth control. But it takes a few decades for the numbers to stop rising, because the number of old people duing off is lower than the number of babies being born, due to the extreme youth of the population. Old people don't die in sufficient numbers because many of them were never born.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Elixir]

By reducing population until technology has the time to catch up. When it comes to dreaming about carbon control technology we can speculate. But birth control is something that can be done now.

It has been done. It's complete. Over. Finished. Population HAS BEEN stabilised by the (entirely voluntary) use of birth control. But it takes a few decades for the numbers to stop rising, because the number of old people duing off is lower than the number of babies being born, due to the extreme youth of the population. Old people don't die in sufficient numbers because many of them were never born.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI[/YOUTUBE]

That's a great talk by Rosling (I think I've posted it before).
There is a flaw to the model he presents... but damned if I can remember what it is.

 

[ruby sparks]

By reducing population until technology has the time to catch up. When it comes to dreaming about carbon control technology we can speculate. But birth control is something that can be done now.

It has been done. It's complete. Over. Finished. Population HAS BEEN stabilised by the (entirely voluntary) use of birth control. But it takes a few decades for the numbers to stop rising, because the number of old people duing off is lower than the number of babies being born, due to the extreme youth of the population. Old people don't die in sufficient numbers because many of them were never born.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI[/YOUTUBE]

That's a great talk by Rosling (I think I've posted it before).
There is a flaw to the model he presents... but damned if I can remember what it is.

His estimate of population topping out at 11 billion by 2100 is the same as the UN's median forecast, so I don't think his assessment of that is flawed. That said, the difference in the fertility rate assumptions that account for the difference between the UN high forecast (22 billion and rising by 2011) and low forecast (7 billion and falling by 2100) are very slight. Something like a difference of 0.5 births per family either way. In other words, no one really knows if population will top out at 8 billion, 11 billion, 22 billion or what. Too many variables and uncertainties.

Where he is wrong is when he says that we can't do anything about population. Voluntary family planning policies (which have been in decline because of a relative lack of funding) have worked well in the past and can continue to work in the future, and can made a substantial difference to both the total population forecasts and CO2 emissions.

 

[starwater]

Rice paddies
Cattle production

Are the two biggest contributors to global warming. Not cars.

 

[ZiprHead]