Global Warming to Climate change to Climate Catastrophe.

[bilby]

Just to clarify, anthropogenic climate change is a problem whose scope is demonstrably independent of population levels. The population level (ceteris paribus) has an effect only on the timing of the problem, not on its existence.

For example, let us say that the 'tipping point' at which atmospheric CO₂ levels will qualify as 'disastrous' will come in 12 years, with current population levels and per capita fossil fuel use.

If we unleashed a super virus that killed 50% of humans, leaving the remainder using the same per capita amount of fossil fuel as before, then this disaster will now occur in 24 years. Kill 90% of people, and the disaster STILL happens - albeit not for 120 years.

Wiping out a sizable fraction of the human race seems pretty drastic, as a solution to any disaster - but it's even worse to do this and still face disaster in a few decades time.

The problem is accelerated by larger population figures; But not caused by them.

Any solution must involve reducing the net global CO₂ emissions to the atmosphere to the (near zero) level at which natural processes can recycle the surplus CO₂ (or even to below that level). The only way to hit that target via population reductions is to reduce the population to almost zero.

Clearly we are far better off reducing per capita net CO₂ emissions to (or below) zero, and not worrying so much about population levels. Particularly as we know how to do this within our existing dominant economic paradigm, by imposing a pigouvian tax on fossil fuels, the income from which is spent on extracting CO₂ from the atmosphere, by whatever means is least costly. The level of the tax being determined by the cost of that extraction at any given time.

Getting CO₂ out of air is already something we can do in a number of ways; If the government is paying good money to people for doing this on a large scale, then doubtless the efficiency of these processes will increase over time - but even if it doesn't, that's OK.

All that is missing is the political will to implement this simple solution. Nobody needs to have fewer kids than they want, and nobody has to die.

That many people prefer death over taxes is insane, but apparently this is the world in which we live.

 

[Politesse]

That many people prefer death over taxes is insane, but apparently this is the world in which we live.

If by death we mean "the death of other people", then people have shown a pretty consistent willingness to kill over taxation for as long as there have been taxes... People get murderous in a hurry if they decide taxes are unfair somehow.

 

[DBT]

What happens if or when billions of people who are currently low level consumers, namely the poor of the world, raise their level of consumption (as is their right to do}, to that of consumers in developed nations such as the US? Let's say 8 to 10 billion people using resources on a par with the average US citizen.

 

[bilby]

What happens if or when billions of people who are currently low level consumers, namely the poor of the world, raise their level of consumption (as is their right to do}, to that of consumers in developed nations such as the US?

In terms of climate change? Nothing, as long as their increased energy consumption doesn't come from burning fossil fuels. It really makes little difference; A doubling of CO₂ emissions only brings forward the crisis point by a few years, from what it is with current levels of wealth and consumption. The climate problem needs to be fixed, and needs to be fixed urgently. If we do that, then billions more wealthy people is a good thing for all concerned. If we don't, we are doomed regardless.

In terms of resource use? We just open more mines, and/or recycle more waste. We have barely touched the resources of the lithosphere, and most resources are ridiculously cheap (and trending towards getting cheaper all the time, indicating that supply is not a major constraint).

The only people who think that we might run out of anything important (except, perhaps, Helium) are those who don't know the difference between a resource and a reserve, and are terrified that we will all miss breakfast.

 

[Bomb#20]

How would you react to someone who in all seriousness asked that question? I assume you can see what was wrong with that question. Please articulate it for us.

Nothing is wrong with that question, and the answer is simply no; there is no degree of mass killings that would justify putting guns into the hands of children. You could have just said no to my question as well, and told me what I needed to know.

Oh, for the love of god! A simple "no" doesn't tell you what you need to know unless you are making a religious judgment. (Which of course is what you're doing.) If you were being rational, then you'd also need to know why the answer is "no". The answer is "no", of course, because arming school children for self-defense would not actually reduce the school shooting problem. It would in fact make the problem worse. The question "How bad must X be before you'd consider it bad enough to do Y?" presupposes that Y would help solve X.

The fundamental point is that you think any alternative to capitalism is analogous to arming elementary school students.

And for the purpose of the point I'm trying to get you to deal with, they are analogous. Abolishing capitalism would not actually reduce the global warming problem. It would in fact make the problem worse, just like arming children would increase school shootings.

And since I asked the question in order to determine if there was any reason to engage you in a discussion about the relationship between capitalism and climate change prevention, it looks like we don't have to subject everyone to those pages of rhetorical posturing after all.

I.e., you asked the question not as a serious argument but as a rhetorical trap, because you've already made a religious judgment that abolishing capitalism would help. So when I answer "no", you will inevitably treat that answer not as "There's no level of urgency with respect to the threat of climate change that would justify transitioning to a non-capitalist economy, because it wouldn't help", but rather as "There's no level of urgency with respect to the threat of climate change that would justify transitioning to a non-capitalist economy, because capitalism is more important than survival". How else could you interpret it when you are religiously committed to taking it as axiomatic that capitalism makes global warming worse than anticapitalism does?

Isn't it great when major catastrophes like this are prevented before they happen? All you need sometimes is a little foresight.

First produce a substantive reason to believe that authorities entrusted with doing away with capitalism would prioritize keeping carbon dioxide from accumulating in the atmosphere; then abolition of capitalism will become worth discussing.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What happens if or when billions of people who are currently low level consumers, namely the poor of the world, raise their level of consumption (as is their right to do}, to that of consumers in developed nations such as the US? Let's say 8 to 10 billion people using resources on a par with the average US citizen.

A friend of mine likes to use the phrase "self-correcting" when anyone talks about climate change or anything environmental. For example he states that we could cut down trees as much as we want but there will always be more trees to cut down. I know, apparently he's never been to Rapa Nui.

Some people rarely escape their houses. For these folks who never open their windows or shut off their TVs or air conditioners, or even wish to take a walk outside it doesn't matter. They never walk on grass or see a sky, sunset, visit a national park, take a canoe ride, hike, mow the lawn or hear birds.

The earth is certainly capable of sustaining billions and billions and billions of more humans, in effect turning itself into more people, literally. But that has a cost in terms of other species, open spaces, etc. It's a question of what kind of planet one wishes to inhabit as much as how many people can it support.

 

[steve_bank]

moved to another thread.

 

[ruby sparks]

bilby, an honest question about population growth for you since you so often appear to tell us why it's not a problem. Maybe not a pointed question per se, but a comment.

What I'm hearing is that overpopulation should not be a primary concern, since theoretically we could sustain many times the current population if we managed our natural resources more efficiently. Therefore, since there is no problem that can directly be placed at the feet of overpopulation, we should ignore it and focus on the actual problems.

However, since all the problems of human survival on a large scale are intertwined, couldn't you reframe any of them with the same reasoning? For example, why not instead say, "resource management should not be a primary concern, since theoretically we wouldn't have to change anything about how we produce and distribute resources if we could get the population low enough for everyone to be covered."

To put it differently, it seems that there is no reason to single out population growth as a constant or a given, and pull all the other levers around it to make survival happen, rather than treating population growth as the primary lever. You either change the way mouths are fed or change the number of mouths that need feeding, and while it's true that the number of mouths is technically not a problem given the right feeding strategy, it's symmetrically true that feeding all the mouths isn't a problem either given a smaller number of mouths. Yet, you often suggest that focusing on limiting the number of mouths is foolish and wasteful.

Is this because population is self-limiting in a way that resource use is not? At some point we would expect there to be an inflection that would force societies to ration, preserve what they have, and flatten out the allocation of basic goods and services. Does this not mirror the natural tendency of populations to contract (relative to previous years anyway) in times of scarcity? It arguably must, but that doesn't mean talking about improving the allocation of goods is a waste of time.

Not insignificantly, generations of humans that are never born are impervious to all harm. That takes away a huge portion of the risk involved in pulling any lever, be it population or allocation. By itself, that lack of a tangible downside seems to make population control an attractive strategy compared to rationing for a growing population; if rationing is the wrong move, then many people will be affected negatively, but if population control is the wrong move, there will be fewer people to suffer the consequences since they wouldn't have been born to suffer them. Why wouldn't this be a compelling reason to give more attention to at least hastening the decrease in population growth?

By the way, of course we can do both, but I'm placing them in a dichotomy here because you seem set against even considering population control as a topic worth worrying about.

I agree.

Effectively removing population as a factor by setting up theoreticals to counter the effects of population is an odd and artificial way to frame the issue. One could equally say consumption is not the issue by hypothesising a drastic cut in population.

The fact is that as you say, the factors are in reality intertwined; population, global warming and consumption patterns are inextricably linked in their collective global environmental impact.

And yes, capitalist models of growth and the profit motive play a part too.

 

[bilby]

bilby, an honest question about population growth for you since you so often appear to tell us why it's not a problem. Maybe not a pointed question per se, but a comment.

What I'm hearing is that overpopulation should not be a primary concern, since theoretically we could sustain many times the current population if we managed our natural resources more efficiently. Therefore, since there is no problem that can directly be placed at the feet of overpopulation, we should ignore it and focus on the actual problems.

However, since all the problems of human survival on a large scale are intertwined, couldn't you reframe any of them with the same reasoning? For example, why not instead say, "resource management should not be a primary concern, since theoretically we wouldn't have to change anything about how we produce and distribute resources if we could get the population low enough for everyone to be covered."

To put it differently, it seems that there is no reason to single out population growth as a constant or a given, and pull all the other levers around it to make survival happen, rather than treating population growth as the primary lever. You either change the way mouths are fed or change the number of mouths that need feeding, and while it's true that the number of mouths is technically not a problem given the right feeding strategy, it's symmetrically true that feeding all the mouths isn't a problem either given a smaller number of mouths. Yet, you often suggest that focusing on limiting the number of mouths is foolish and wasteful.

Is this because population is self-limiting in a way that resource use is not? At some point we would expect there to be an inflection that would force societies to ration, preserve what they have, and flatten out the allocation of basic goods and services. Does this not mirror the natural tendency of populations to contract (relative to previous years anyway) in times of scarcity? It arguably must, but that doesn't mean talking about improving the allocation of goods is a waste of time.

Not insignificantly, generations of humans that are never born are impervious to all harm. That takes away a huge portion of the risk involved in pulling any lever, be it population or allocation. By itself, that lack of a tangible downside seems to make population control an attractive strategy compared to rationing for a growing population; if rationing is the wrong move, then many people will be affected negatively, but if population control is the wrong move, there will be fewer people to suffer the consequences since they wouldn't have been born to suffer them. Why wouldn't this be a compelling reason to give more attention to at least hastening the decrease in population growth?

By the way, of course we can do both, but I'm placing them in a dichotomy here because you seem set against even considering population control as a topic worth worrying about.

I agree.

Effectively removing population as a factor by setting up hypotheticals to counter the effects of population is an odd way to frame the issue. One could equally say consumption is not the issue by hypothesizing a drastic cut in population.

The facts is that Population, global warming and consumption patterns are inextricably linked in their collective global environmental impact.

Not so.

Population numbers just tell you how fast you are fucked:

Just to clarify, anthropogenic climate change is a problem whose scope is demonstrably independent of population levels. The population level (ceteris paribus) has an effect only on the timing of the problem, not on its existence.

For example, let us say that the 'tipping point' at which atmospheric CO₂ levels will qualify as 'disastrous' will come in 12 years, with current population levels and per capita fossil fuel use.

If we unleashed a super virus that killed 50% of humans, leaving the remainder using the same per capita amount of fossil fuel as before, then this disaster will now occur in 24 years. Kill 90% of people, and the disaster STILL happens - albeit not for 120 years.

Wiping out a sizable fraction of the human race seems pretty drastic, as a solution to any disaster - but it's even worse to do this and still face disaster in a few decades time.

The problem is accelerated by larger population figures; But not caused by them.

Any solution must involve reducing the net global CO₂ emissions to the atmosphere to the (near zero) level at which natural processes can recycle the surplus CO₂ (or even to below that level). The only way to hit that target via population reductions is to reduce the population to almost zero.

Clearly we are far better off reducing per capita net CO₂ emissions to (or below) zero, and not worrying so much about population levels. Particularly as we know how to do this within our existing dominant economic paradigm, by imposing a pigouvian tax on fossil fuels, the income from which is spent on extracting CO₂ from the atmosphere, by whatever means is least costly. The level of the tax being determined by the cost of that extraction at any given time.

Getting CO₂ out of air is already something we can do in a number of ways; If the government is paying good money to people for doing this on a large scale, then doubtless the efficiency of these processes will increase over time - but even if it doesn't, that's OK.

All that is missing is the political will to implement this simple solution. Nobody needs to have fewer kids than they want, and nobody has to die.

That many people prefer death over taxes is insane, but apparently this is the world in which we live.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

History is littered with failures of long-term planning that led to wholesale political collapse later on. We are not, as a species, talented at focusing on distant threats whose solution would conflict with immediate needs.

Quite accurate.

It's a species thing, sure, but it also just boils down to a decision of ours that we are free to make at any time.

We can either have capitalism or we can have a habitable planet.

The nations with the best environmental record are the capitalist ones--the ones with the wealth to be able to afford to look to the future and the sufficiently open press to make an issue of things the powers that be would prefer to hush up.

 

[ruby sparks]

Not so.

Population numbers just tell you how fast you are fucked:

Maybe if you keep saying it, it'll be true.

 

[bilby]

Not so.

Population numbers just tell you how fast you are fucked:

Maybe if you keep saying it, it'll be true.

Maybe if you think it's not true, you should articulate why.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's a species thing, sure, but it also just boils down to a decision of ours that we are free to make at any time.

We can either have capitalism or we can have a habitable planet.

The nations with the best environmental record are the capitalist ones--the ones with the wealth to be able to afford to look to the future and the sufficiently open press to make an issue of things the powers that be would prefer to hush up.

Dubious. And I think you are more talking about democracy there..

- - - Updated - - -

Not so.

Population numbers just tell you how fast you are fucked:

Maybe if you keep saying it, it'll be true.

Maybe if you think it's not true, you should articulate why.

No, you just carry on articulating a denial of the bleedin' obvious, that population is a relevant factor and concern.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

* * *
You seem to be confusing economic systems with governmental systems. Governmental policy to find "solutions" could even work better under a capitalistic economic system than a centrally controlled economic system (history has shown this is the case). Capitalism drives innovation. The advancement in fields such as solar cells and electric automobiles has advanced because there has been economic incentives such as tax incentives given to capitalistic enterprizes to innovate in those fields. Governmental agencies, on the other hand, tend to be very poor at innovation.

Correct. Trying to use a heavy hand on the market just makes it work very inefficiently.

Don't mandate how business operates. Just make good conduct cheaper and bad conduct more expensive.

Global warming? Tax net carbon emissions at the original source. A pound of coal came out of the ground? Tax the carbon in it. Someone did something with that pound of coal that means that carbon isn't going into the atmosphere for the foreseeable future, they get back the tax on that carbon. There's not a lot they could do with that coal to get back that tax, but lets say they grow trees, take a log with a pound of carbon in it and throw it in a salt mine. That carbon isn't coming out for the foreseeable future, they get the tax back.

 

[bilby]

Not so.

Population numbers just tell you how fast you are fucked:

Maybe if you keep saying it, it'll be true.

Maybe if you think it's not true, you should articulate why.

No, you just carry on. I'll stick to common sense and what most accepted science says.

So I am left to wonder: Did you not read my post; Did you not understand my post; Or do you not have any arguments to present that counter my post?

I am disinterested in dogmatic claims. Present arguments, or GTFO.

ETA - I see you edited your response.

If it's bleeding obvious, you should be easily able to articulate what, exactly, is wrong with my post.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For those who are interested, this is a good article about the kind of shift I'm talking about, from a fairly neutral news outlet, that explains why the mechanisms of capitalism are ill-equipped for this challenge:

Why Growth Can’t Be Green

Study after study shows the same thing. Scientists are beginning to realize that there are physical limits to how efficiently we can use resources. Sure, we might be able to produce cars and iPhones and skyscrapers more efficiently, but we can’t produce them out of thin air. We might shift the economy to services such as education and yoga, but even universities and workout studios require material inputs. Once we reach the limits of efficiency, pursuing any degree of economic growth drives resource use back up.

These problems throw the entire concept of green growth into doubt and necessitate some radical rethinking. Remember that each of the three studies used highly optimistic assumptions. We are nowhere near imposing a global carbon tax today, much less one of nearly $600 per metric ton, and resource efficiency is currently getting worse, not better. Yet the studies suggest that even if we do everything right, decoupling economic growth with resource use will remain elusive and our environmental problems will continue to worsen.

In short, the current situation requires us to quickly and voluntarily decide to make fewer things next year than we made this year, and keep following that trend for an indefinite period of time. The driving force behind capitalist innovation is exactly the opposite and can, at best, be attenuated by incentives to something like make slightly fewer things than you originally planned to make next year while still making more things overall. That's not gonna fly anymore. Or, if you think I'm doomsaying and the situation isn't as bad as all the scientists say, well, one day it'll be that bad. Because the minute there is a whiff of "we might have over-estimated the timeline of this threat BUT PLEASE BE CAREFU--" all of the gears of production will wind up again to capitalize (that word again) on this newfound confidence.

The only way to avert that situation is to go for the biggest contributor to the problem: the 100 companies that contribute over 70% of the carbon output in the world today. Predictably, they are mostly oil and gas companies. Coal is a big part of it as well. These industries are neither willing nor can they be convinced through stick-and-carrot policies to do what is needed for the next few generations of human beings to have a livable biosphere. They want to "transition to clean energy", which is corporate marketing-speak for "spend as little as we can possibly spend, based on forecasts of public opinion of our brand." That approach was never good enough, never fast or comprehensive enough, and now it's becoming obvious.

Bear in mind that I'm not saying we can actually fix the problem, even if we do take the first step and deconstruct the global economy down to first principles. Even then, it's nowhere near guaranteed that there will be a positive outcome for us, as the Czechoslovakian example and others in history have shown, though perhaps during times when the gravity of the situation wasn't as appreciated. It could very well be that as humans, we are incapable of doing what is necessary to deal with climate change. But that does not change the fact of what is necessary, which is all I'm pointing out here.

You're coming at this from the utterly insane green perspective--that the only solution is to cut back drastically.

1) As you note, this is not going to fly under our system. What you don't note is that it's not going to fly under any system.

2) The green "solution" pushes doomsday back but doesn't avoid it--we might get several hundred years before the crash but the crash is certain. The only truly long term solution is to figure out better ways and you're guaranteeing we won't.

3) Growth isn't the enemy in the first place. Things like carbon are. Tax the carbon, don't try to interfere with growth any more than you have to.

 

[ruby sparks]

Maybe if you keep saying it, it'll be true.

Maybe if you think it's not true, you should articulate why.

No, you just carry on. I'll stick to common sense and what most accepted science says.

So I am left to wonder: Did you not read my post; Did you not understand my post; Or do you not have any arguments to present that counter my post?

I am disinterested in dogmatic claims. Present arguments, or GTFO.

ETA - I see you edited your response.

If it's bleeding obvious, you should be easily able to articulate what, exactly, is wrong with my post.

No, you carry on.

By the way, that population is a factor and a concern is bleeedin' obvious partly because it's accepted science.

But hey, go you.

Just out of curiosity, where did you get those figures, that if human population was cut drastically, there'd still be an equivalent environmental catastrophe in a few decades time? A 90% cut would merely defer the disaster for 120 years, you said. Please don't tell me you just made that up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Eco system collapse can be quite hard to reverse, climate change may become a huge problem.....and given the sheer number of hungry mouths to feed, 7 billion plus high maintenance, high consumption omnivores, a major climatic shift can mean that this situation becomes rapidly unsustainable.

Yes, all of that is possible. None of it has squat to do with the amount of economic growth that can or cannot theoretically occur without leading to unsustainable outcomes.

Yes it does. Pure physics.....a finite area with finite resources cannot sustain ever increasing resource use. At some point the carrying capacity of that area is exceeded. The Earth is finite, finite land mass/area, finite arable land, etc, so we cannot keep increasing our consumption rate in the form of economic growth and at the same time have 'sustainable economic growth'

Keep in mind that I did mention the distinction between economic growth and development.

Development, research, etc, if it doesn't entail ever increasing consumption of resources is sustainable indefinitely.

And note that in many respects increasing tech means decreasing resources because consumers value smaller, lighter items. Look at how many previous items have been replaced with our phones. Those phones use less resources than what they replaced.

 

[bilby]

Maybe if you think it's not true, you should articulate why.

No, you just carry on. I'll stick to common sense and what most accepted science says.

So I am left to wonder: Did you not read my post; Did you not understand my post; Or do you not have any arguments to present that counter my post?

I am disinterested in dogmatic claims. Present arguments, or GTFO.

ETA - I see you edited your response.

If it's bleeding obvious, you should be easily able to articulate what, exactly, is wrong with my post.

No, you carry on.

By the way, that population is a factor and a concern is bleeedin' obvious partly because it's accepted science.

But hey, go you.

Just out of curiosity, where did you get those figures, that if human population was cut drastically, there'd still be an equivalent environmental catastrophe in a few decades time?

I used a technique I like to call 'arithmetic'.

It beats the shit out of 'common sense'.

 

[ruby sparks]

I used a technique I like to call 'arithmetic'.

No source? Just your own made up sums? Oh dear.

It beats the shit out of 'common sense'.

And accepted science?

Population is a relevant factor and a concern. As pyramidhead implied, taking it out of the equation simply by theoretically rebalancing all other factors is arbitrary and dubious, when in reality all relevant factors are intertwined.