Global Warming to Climate change to Climate Catastrophe.

[bilby]

You know, it's worth pointing out that easing back on incentives for having children and spreading awareness about population levels wouldn't actually be the same thing as genocide.

It's also not the same thing as rapidly and dramatically cutting population.

Indeed, I would very much doubt that it would have much impact at all - the same effort put into providing a good, general, primary education to girls in Africa would likely be far more effective.

I certainly don't have any major objection to removing any government incentives to have children. But I seriously doubt that doing so would have any worthwhile impact on climate change - and certainly not in the next century or so.

I wouldn't want to remove the incentives whose function is to help the child that is born, because that would be punishing the child unjustly. But in a hypothetical scenario where we needed to leverage every tool at our disposal, I see a valid place for policies/campaigns that would (a) remind everyone of the impact of having a child, (b) encouraging the adoption of children who are already born and need caregivers, (c) generously reward people who do not have children, and (d) dialing back on the incentives that might cause reluctant couples to be more willing to have a child. All combined with comprehensive education, contraception, and abortion services. Create a culture where having biological children is regarded with the same shake of the head that people who wear mink fur sometimes receive, where it's taboo to just carry a fetus to term without doing due diligence and checking the adoption registry to see if an abortion wouldn't be better for the planet. Get that total back down below 6 billion, or even less, simply by not replacing the ones who naturally die with one or two more. It won't solve our problems, but then again neither will any other measure on its own. And regardless, it will have prevented whatever suffering the people who are not born would have endured, whether by climate-related pressures or otherwise in their lives, while simultaneously making it easier to maintain a comfortable standard of living for everyone else.

Sounds great.

But it's going to have almost no short to medium term impact on climate change. Implement all of that, worldwide, tomorrow, and total world population over the next three decades will be reduced by only a tiny fraction. The impact on climate change would be negligible in that timeframe.

 

[Bomb#20]

A counter argument? Sorry, I didn't notice. Forget about the life of the Sun. We are already degrading our environment, biodiversity, etc, our cities are crowded and congested and the sheer scale of meeting the needs of the world population, ever increasing demand as living standards are lifted, is likely to become unsustainable within a century. This is not just about power generation.

Well then, you're no longer defending this argument:

"Pure physics.....a finite area with finite resources cannot sustain ever increasing resource use."​

That's what counterarguments are for.

So, is there some unsubstitutable resource that you can show we will run out of within one hundred years if we keep using more and more of it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Cut the population 90%, you cut the CO2 90% and thus it takes 10 times as long to reach the same levels--but reach them we will.

More sums apparently pulled out of, um, thin air. Citation for that please. Or stop making stuff up.

You want evidence that x / 10 * 10 = x??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That calculation appears to take for granted that the rate at which the amount of atmospheric CO₂ rises equals the rate at which we add it. That doesn't seem reasonable. CO₂ is constantly being removed from the atmosphere by natural processes. The ground is loaded with carbon -- fossil fuels, peat moss, limestone and dolomite -- that was once in the atmosphere and got sequestered. Consequently, if you cut the population in half the time until disaster more than doubles.

The natural processes run pretty close to balanced--natural CO2 emissions match natural CO2 removal. There is a slight temperature effect that's big enough to maintain temperature stability but not nearly big enough to counter what we are adding.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

The best environmental record is nowhere near enough to stop what is going to happen, if we are to trust what the world's top scientists are telling us in this report.

I agree, but what's the relevance? Switching government systems would just make the problem worse.

 

[DBT]

A counter argument? Sorry, I didn't notice. Forget about the life of the Sun. We are already degrading our environment, biodiversity, etc, our cities are crowded and congested and the sheer scale of meeting the needs of the world population, ever increasing demand as living standards are lifted, is likely to become unsustainable within a century. This is not just about power generation.

Well then, you're no longer defending this argument:

"Pure physics.....a finite area with finite resources cannot sustain ever increasing resource use."​

That's what counterarguments are for.

So, is there some unsubstitutable resource that you can show we will run out of within one hundred years if we keep using more and more of it?

''Pure physics'' also relates to land area, availability of potable water in mega cities, housing, business activity, clothing, arable land, food production, etc, etc, and not just a matter of the means of energy production. Obviously clean power is essential in an overpopulated world, but sustainable use of natural resources and livability are just as important....probably more so. An ever growing population is not sustainable.

''Population, consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow until we either face up to the fact that there are limits on our finite Earth or we are confronted by a catastrophe large enough to turn us from our current course. If Chinese, Indians, and others in the poorer world had consumption levels that rose to current western levels it would be like Earth’s population suddenly increasing to 72 billion, according to Jared Diamond, who then wrote that, “Some optimists claim that we could support a world with nine billion people. But I haven’t met anyone crazy enough to claim that we could support 72 billion. Yet we often promise developing countries that if they will only adopt good policies–for example, institute honest government and a free-market economy–they, too, will be able to enjoy a first-world lifestyle. This promise is impossible, a cruel hoax: we are having difficulty supporting a first-world lifestyle even now for only one billion people.”

 

[steve_bank]

We can figure out how long resources like copper, iron-carbon-steel, and aluminum will last at current uindustrial growth rates. But those kinds of materials are not the issue.

It is food and water followed by shelter. The American aquifers under the mid west 'breadbasket' is drawing down and will never replenish. In Arizona ground is sinking from the water being pumper out. The Colorado river is totally consumed. California farming wells are become saline from increasing depths.

I have driven through eastern Washington, the mid west, and Oregon. The vast majority of arable land is given to agriculture. Drive through Kansa and all you see is green in the summer to the horizon for miles miles.

I imagine Europe is the same. China imports a lot of food. As I understand it the average non city Indian dweller lives on a basic subsistence diet with little variation. Not starving and enough calories to stay alive, but not a diet westerners would not subsist on.

A lot of our year round fresh fruit and vegetables come from Mexico and South America. While many in SA do not eat so well.

 

[aupmanyav]

As I understand it the average non city Indian dweller lives on a basic subsistence diet with little variation. Not starving and enough calories to stay alive, but not a diet westerners would not subsist on.

Not just stay alive but work 12 hours and day and still has time to enjoy life (in his/her own way).

 

[ruby sparks]

Cut the population 90%, you cut the CO2 90% and thus it takes 10 times as long to reach the same levels--but reach them we will.

More sums apparently pulled out of, um, thin air. Citation for that please. Or stop making stuff up.

You want evidence that x / 10 * 10 = x??

No Loren, I didn't ask for that.

Never mind. Sigh.

 

[bilby]

You want evidence that x / 10 * 10 = x??

No Loren, I didn't ask for that.

Never mind. Sigh.

You didn't ask for anything more specific. It's not other people's fault if they don't grasp your meaning, when you don't present them with a detailed question.

I thought that was what you were asking for too. If Bomb#20 had not articulated an actual objection, I would still be wondering what your objection was (if not what Loren asks, above).

 

[ruby sparks]

You want evidence that x / 10 * 10 = x??

No Loren, I didn't ask for that.

Never mind. Sigh.

You didn't ask for anything more specific. It's not other people's fault if they don't grasp your meaning, when you don't present them with a detailed question.

I thought that was what you were asking for too. If Bomb#20 had not articulated an actual objection, I would still be wondering what your objection was (if not what Loren asks, above).

Er, no. I did ask for something more specific.

Ok. Anyways. I'll post in really short sentences, just for you.

1. Your assertion that climate change is independent of population levels was patently bollocks.
2. Your climate change maths, like Loren's, was even more bollocks.

If you don't get why I guess you don't get it. Get someone else, a small child perhaps, to explain it to you maybe.

Look. I know I'm being a bit blunt and that you're butthurt and I'm sorry but it's just that I've read more factual stuff than that about climate change in Teenpops magazine.

 

[bilby]

You didn't ask for anything more specific. It's not other people's fault if they don't grasp your meaning, when you don't present them with a detailed question.

I thought that was what you were asking for too. If Bomb#20 had not articulated an actual objection, I would still be wondering what your objection was (if not what Loren asks, above).

Er, no. I did ask for something more specific.

Ok. Anyways. I'll post in really short sentences, just for you.

1. Your assertion that climate change is independent of population levels was patently bollocks.
2. Your climate change maths, like Loren's, was even more bollocks.

If you don't get why I guess you don't get it. Get someone else, a small child perhaps, to explain it to you maybe.

Look. I know I'm being a bit blunt and that you're butthurt and I'm sorry but it's just that I've read more factual stuff than that about climate change in Teenpops magazine.

You may be being 'blunt', but what you are not being is 'informative'.

You have left me in no doubt as to the strength of your conviction that I am wrong; But I still have no substance to which I can respond. The position 'your argument reads like something from Teenpops magazine' fails to convey what, if anything, you believe to be factually incorrect in my argument; as such, it tells me only thst you are strongly emotionally invested in the belief that population is important here, but not why.

In short, you are acting like a theist defending his god with the argument that it is 'obvious'.

I am sure it's obvious to you. But unless you explain why, I see no reason to take your word for it.

I am not butthurt; That's projection on your part. I am just waiting for you to stop emoting about what an awful person I am for even thinking about something so 'obvious', and to actually present something that qualifies as a counterargument.

If you can't or won't do that, you are wasting everyone's time, particularly your own, in posting at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You didn't ask for anything more specific. It's not other people's fault if they don't grasp your meaning, when you don't present them with a detailed question.

I thought that was what you were asking for too. If Bomb#20 had not articulated an actual objection, I would still be wondering what your objection was (if not what Loren asks, above).

Er, no. I did ask for something more specific.

Ok. Anyways. I'll post in really short sentences, just for you.

1. Your assertion that climate change is independent of population levels was patently bollocks.
2. Your climate change maths, like Loren's, was even more bollocks.

If you don't get why I guess you don't get it. Get someone else, a small child perhaps, to explain it to you maybe.

Look. I know I'm being a bit blunt and that you're butthurt and I'm sorry but it's just that I've read more factual stuff than that about climate change in Teenpops magazine.

It's simple: Release CO2, get climate change.

The population changes the rate at which the CO2 is released, it doesn't change the effect of the CO2.

Thus, fewer people, it takes longer to cause climate change but that's all. You're pushing the problem into the future, not avoiding the problem.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You didn't ask for anything more specific. It's not other people's fault if they don't grasp your meaning, when you don't present them with a detailed question.

I thought that was what you were asking for too. If Bomb#20 had not articulated an actual objection, I would still be wondering what your objection was (if not what Loren asks, above).

Er, no. I did ask for something more specific.

Ok. Anyways. I'll post in really short sentences, just for you.

1. Your assertion that climate change is independent of population levels was patently bollocks.
2. Your climate change maths, like Loren's, was even more bollocks.

If you don't get why I guess you don't get it. Get someone else, a small child perhaps, to explain it to you maybe.

Look. I know I'm being a bit blunt and that you're butthurt and I'm sorry but it's just that I've read more factual stuff than that about climate change in Teenpops magazine.

It's simple: Release CO2, get climate change.

The population changes the rate at which the CO2 is released, it doesn't change the effect of the CO2.

Thus, fewer people, it takes longer to cause climate change but that's all. You're pushing the problem into the future, not avoiding the problem.

Are you are saying so long as there are people, climate change is inevitable? Am I understanding you?

 

[bilby]

It's simple: Release CO2, get climate change.

The population changes the rate at which the CO2 is released, it doesn't change the effect of the CO2.

Thus, fewer people, it takes longer to cause climate change but that's all. You're pushing the problem into the future, not avoiding the problem.

Are you are saying so long as there are people, climate change is inevitable? Am I understanding you?

As long as there are people who burn fossil fuels and don't extract from the atmosphere an equivalent amount of CO₂ to that generated by burning those fuels.

A certain (small) amount of this excess may be extracted by natural processes; But essentially the only solution to the problem is to adjust the carbon dioxide (im)balance due to human activity. Population effects only the rate at which the problem develops (all else being equal), so population reductions would need to be drastic to the point of insanity in order to prevent the problem altogether; It's FAR easier to reduce per capita net emissions to zero than it is to reduce population to the level where the remaining humans can burn coal with impunity.

So discussing population in this context is deeply unhelpful, and a pointless distraction from the real actions needed.

 

[DBT]

As I understand it the average non city Indian dweller lives on a basic subsistence diet with little variation. Not starving and enough calories to stay alive, but not a diet westerners would not subsist on.

Not just stay alive but work 12 hours and day and still has time to enjoy life (in his/her own way).

View attachment 18090 View attachment 18091 View attachment 18092 View attachment 18093 View attachment 18094

The pictures appear to convey a level of satisfaction, faces smiling for the camera, etc, that I didn't see during my time in India. People were more accepting of their lot in life than I would have imagined under the circumstances, but undeniable suffering was there to be seen.

 

[Bomb#20]

...CO2 is constantly being removed from the atmosphere by natural processes. ...

The natural processes run pretty close to balanced--natural CO2 emissions match natural CO2 removal. There is a slight temperature effect that's big enough to maintain temperature stability but not nearly big enough to counter what we are adding.

In the long run, yes, that's true; but that's because it's the normal behavior of any system in dynamic equilibrium. In the example of soda pop in a sealed bottle, CO2 molecules come out of solution into the gas space at the top of the bottle at exactly the same rate that CO2 molecules in the gas go under the surface and dissolve. As you put it, natural CO2 emissions match natural CO2 removal. But that doesn't mean that if you stick a CO2 injector through the lid and add a gram into the gas space, you'll end up with one more gram out of solution and the same amount dissolved as before. Adding the gram will increase the partial pressure of the gaseous CO2, which will increase the CO2 removal rate; i.e., it will start dissolving faster than it comes out of solution, because the pressure went up. This will remove CO2 gas, lowering the pressure, lowering the dissolving rate, while the increase in dissolved CO2 will increase CO2 emission from the solution back into the gas. Eventually the system will stabilize at a new dynamic equilibrium point, with some of that extra gram in the gas and some in the solution.

Likewise, our putting more CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the partial pressure in the atmosphere, which will increase the natural CO2 removal rate, so it will exceed natural CO2 emissions until we stop adding it or a new equilibrium point is reached. So natural sequestration will speed up, so not all the CO2 we add to the atmosphere will stay there. Your "Cut the population 90%, you cut the CO2 90% and thus it takes 10 times as long to reach the same levels--but reach them we will." calculation is intuitively plausible, but it fails to take this effect into account.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well then, you're no longer defending this argument:

"Pure physics.....a finite area with finite resources cannot sustain ever increasing resource use."​

That's what counterarguments are for.

So, is there some unsubstitutable resource that you can show we will run out of within one hundred years if we keep using more and more of it?

''Pure physics'' also relates to land area, availability of potable water in mega cities, housing, business activity, clothing, arable land, food production, etc, etc, and not just a matter of the means of energy production. Obviously clean power is essential in an overpopulated world, but sustainable use of natural resources and livability are just as important....probably more so. An ever growing population is not sustainable.

So who's advocating an ever growing population? Given the current number of births per year, the population should stabilize at about 9 billion; the projected spike up to 11 billion or more is just a transient. There's no reason 9 billion can't be fed, clothed and watered sustainably. We need to massively switch to nuclear power to solve the CO2 problem and to desalinate our way to safe drinking water for 9 billion, but that will be doable if its opponents just get a bloody reality check, which the world will probably eventually deliver to them, one way or another.

''Population, consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow until we either face up to the fact that there are limits on our finite Earth or we are confronted by a catastrophe large enough to turn us from our current course. If Chinese, Indians, and others in the poorer world had consumption levels that rose to current western levels it would be like Earth’s population suddenly increasing to 72 billion,

No, it just wouldn't. People consuming 8 times as much doesn't mean they take up 8 times as much space, or need 8 times as many cities, or need to drive 8 times as far. All sorts of things do not scale with standard of living just because they scale with population. 9 billion rich people are a lot more environmentally benign than 72 billion poor people.

according to Jared Diamond,

...who is a biologist, not an economist.

who then wrote that, “Some optimists claim that we could support a world with nine billion people. But I haven’t met anyone crazy enough to claim that we could support 72 billion. Yet we often promise developing countries that if they will only adopt good policies–for example, institute honest government and a free-market economy–they, too, will be able to enjoy a first-world lifestyle. This promise is impossible, a cruel hoax:

Why is it impossible, a cruel hoax? I'll ask you again, is there some unsubstitutable resource that you can show we will run out of within one hundred years if we keep using more and more of it?

we are having difficulty supporting a first-world lifestyle even now for only one billion people.”

Classic zero-sum-game reasoning, typical of scientists who think their scientific expertise makes them expert economists.

If developing countries will only adopt good policies–for example, institute honest government and a free-market economy–their productivity will rise. It isn't we who will let them enjoy a first-world lifestyle; it's their own production that will let them enjoy a first-world lifestyle. So the fact that we are having difficulty supporting a first-world lifestyle even now for only one billion people is beside the point. We will only need to support it for one billion; the other eight billion people can support their own first-world lifestyle.

 

[steve_bank]

moved

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's simple: Release CO2, get climate change.

The population changes the rate at which the CO2 is released, it doesn't change the effect of the CO2.

Thus, fewer people, it takes longer to cause climate change but that's all. You're pushing the problem into the future, not avoiding the problem.

Are you are saying so long as there are people, climate change is inevitable? Am I understanding you?

No. I'm saying so long as people burn fossil fuels there will be climate change. The only true answer is to get away from fossil fuels.

 

[steve_bank]

moved