The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[lpetrich]

CNN.com - Transcripts (Google cached version) - Elizabeth Warren in the CNN-hosted climate debate.

CUOMO: So a quick question about going from the worker to the consumer. Today the president announced plans to roll back energy- saving lightbulbs, and he wants to reintroduce four different kinds, which I'm not going to burden you with, but one of them is the candle- shaped ones, and those are a favorite for a lot of people, by the way. But do you think that the government should be in the business of telling you what kind of lightbulb you can have?

WARREN: Oh, come on, give me a break. You know...

CUOMO: Is that a yes?

WARREN: No. Here's the -- look, there are a lot of ways that we try to change our energy consumption, and our pollution, and God bless all of those ways. Some of it is with lightbulbs, some of it is on straws, some of it, dang, is on cheeseburgers, right? There are a lot of different pieces to this. And I get that people are trying to find the part that they can work on and what can they do. And I'm in favor of that. And I'm going to help and I'm going to support.

But understand, this is exactly what the fossil fuel industry hopes we're all talking about. That's what they want us to talk about.

(APPLAUSE)

"This is your problem." They want to be able to stir up a lot of controversy around your lightbulbs, around your straws, and around your cheeseburgers. When 70 percent of the pollution of the carbon that we're throwing into the air comes from three industries, and we can set our targets and say, by 2028, 2030, and 2035, no more. Think about that. Right there.

Now, the other 30 percent, we still got to work on. Oh, no, we don't stop at 70 percent. But the point is, that's where we need to focus. And why don't we focus there? It's corruption. It's these giant corporations that keep hiring the PR firms that -- everybody has fun with it, right, gets it all out there -- so we don't look at who's still making the big bucks off polluting our Earth.

And the time for that has passed. We have a chance, a chance left in 2020 to turn this around, but we are running out of time on this one. So we've got to do this in 2020, and that means the first thing we've got to do is we've got to attack this corruption head on in Washington and say enough of having the oil industry, the fossil fuel industry write all our laws in this area. No more. No more.

(APPLAUSE)

Some video: Mother Jones on Twitter: ".@ewarren is tired of hearing fossil fuel talking points: “This is exactly what the fossil fuel industry hopes we’re all talking about...They want to be able to stir up a lot of controversy around your lightbulbs, around your straws, and around your cheeseburgers.” https://t.co/oR7BEy4F4r" / Twitter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "She’s right.
We all want to, & can, do our part w climate change & environmental justice.
But know that just 3 industries are responsible for 71% of carbon emissions.
& if you’re concerned abt money in politics, the fossil fuel industry is a key source of political corruption. https://t.co/8fWrzCYCmu" / Twitter

McJihad: how fossil fuel has shaped western democracies – Energy Transition
How coal and oil impact democracy differently – Energy Transition
In the late 19th and early 20th cys., coal helped build Western democracy because coal needed lots and lots of workers, and with a lot of workers in one place, they could organize and go on strike and challenge their corporate masters.

Coal is not as good for that nowadays, because of larger machinery and increasing automation.

Oil, however, requires much fewer workers and more skilled ones, ones whose interests are closer to the interests of corporate managements. That, with concentrations of wealth in oil companies, makes oil anti-democratic. This goes to extreme lengths in some countries, like Saudi Arabia, a textbook example of the resource curse.

 

[lpetrich]

The C40 Cities From "About":

Around the world, C40 Cities connects 94 of the world’s greatest cities to take bold climate action, leading the way towards a healthier and more sustainable future. Representing 700+ million citizens and one quarter of the global economy, mayors of the C40 cities are committed to delivering on the most ambitious goals of the Paris Agreement at the local level, as well as to cleaning the air we breathe.

Current Networks by Initiative:

• Adaptation Implementation
  • Connecting Delta Cities
  • Cool Cities
  • Urban Flooding
• Air Quality
  • Air Quality
• Energy & Buildings
  • Clean Energy
  • Municipal Building Efficiency
  • New Building Efficiency
  • Private Building Efficiency
• Food, Waste & Water
  • Food Systems
  • Sustainable Waste Systems
  • Waste to Resources
• Transportation & Urban Planning
  • Land Use Planning
  • Mass Transit
  • Mobility Management
  • Walking & Cycling
  • Zero Emission Vehicles

 

[lpetrich]

Home - C40 World Mayors Summit, Copenhagen 2019

Mark Leon Goldberg on Twitter: "The "C40" is a global coalition of mayors committed to taking on climate change and promoting sustainability at the municipal level
They just announced that @AOC will delivery a keynote at their major summit in Copenhagen next month.
The Green New Deal goes global! https://t.co/QOoa6ASRiu" / Twitter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "We are part of a global community. To combat the climate crisis, we must come together as a nation AND a planet.
The good news: We don’t have to wait. We can start now, from the bottom up.
Cities are creating jobs& advancing justice w/ a #GreenNewDeal, as global mvmts mobilize. https://t.co/4O9FbAE3M2" / Twitter

How will AOC be getting there?

Greta Thunberg's two weeks of sailing across the ocean is a sort of best case of that mode of travel, and I doubt that AOC will be wanting to carve out a month or two of time. So she'll either appear by videoconferencing or fly in and out of there. I suspect that many of the other conference attendees will be flying there.

Surface transport? That should be easy in Europe, with its well-developed passenger-train network. Elsewhere in Eurasia, Japan, South Korea, China, and Russia have good rail networks, and one can go China - Russia by rail and China - South Korea - Japan by ferry. India to the rest of Eurasia will require going by bus, as will Southeast Asia and the Middle East. All of Africa will require buses for nearly all of the trip, and one can catch a ferry between Morocco and Spain. The rest of the world will require a sizable amount of sea travel, though some nations have at least halfway-developed rail systems, like the US and Australia.

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "As we hammer away at climate deniers, the fossil fuel industry is pivoting to promote bogus climate policies.
You better believe they’ll be dumping cash to lobby ALL members of Congress - not just their bread & butter Republicans.
Learn about how they’re working it here https://t.co/fUy1tpB8Xk" / Twitter
noting
Jeff Stein on Twitter: ""Exxon Mobile is funding centrist Democratic think-tank, disclosures reveal," by @KateAronoff https://t.co/4OxSnITuVC" / Twitter
noting
Exxon Mobil Is Funding the Progressive Policy Institute
ExxonMobil is taking a softer line than the Koch brothers or the Mercer family.

Rather than paying people to say that there’s no problem at all, it can rebrand as a good-faith actor in the climate fight with paeans to carbon capture technology, low-carbon fuels (algae!), and carbon taxes that also conveniently exempt it from some of the lawsuits and regulations it’s most worried about. The decades of climate denial Exxon helped fund — and now the Trump administration — have dragged the national debate on climate change so far into the gutter that there are influential liberals willing to give the company credit simply for not denying the science.

This all dovetails well with a centrist approach to climate politics that’s long sought common ground with industry and harbors both temperamental and ideological opposition to big, confrontational proposals like the Green New Deal. The upshot is that they’ve started to sound a lot alike. Carbon capture, R&D, and carbon pricing — while not mutually exclusive with the Green New Deal framework that the Sunrise Movement, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and others have begun to flesh out — have reliably been wielded as a cudgel by establishment types against calls for more sweeping action.

 

[lpetrich]

July matched, and maybe broke, the record for the hottest month since analysis began | World Meteorological Organization
noting
Another exceptional month for global average temperatures | Copernicus

The latest data show that this year continues to bring record-breaking temperatures. Every month in 2019 has ranked among the four warmest for the month in question, and June was the warmest June ever recorded. It is now confirmed that July was also an exceptional month.

The global average temperature for July 2019 was on a par with, and possibly marginally higher than, that of July 2016, which followed an El Niño event. This was previously the warmest July and warmest month of all on record. However, the difference between temperatures in July 2019 and July 2016 is small.

UNITED NATIONS UN Climate Change Summit 2019 - September 23

The latest analysis shows that if we act now, we can reduce carbon emissions within 12 years and hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C and even, as asked by the latest science, to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

...
UN Secretary-General António Guterres is calling on all leaders to come to New York on 23 September with concrete, realistic plans to enhance their nationally determined contributions by 2020, in line with reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45 per cent over the next decade, and to net zero emissions by 2050.

UNITED NATIONS UN Climate Change Summit 2019

In order to ensure that the transformative actions in the real economy are as impactful as possible, the Secretary-General has prioritized the following action portfolios, which are recognized as having high potential to curb greenhouse gas emissions and increased global action on adaptation and resilience.

• Finance: mobilizing public and private sources of finance to drive decarbonization of all priority sectors and advance resilience;
• Energy Transition: accelerating the shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy, as well as making significant gains in energy efficiency;
• Industry Transition: transforming industries such as Oil and Gas, Steel, Cement, Chemicals and Information Technology;
• Nature-Based Solutions: Reducing emissions, increasing sink capacity and enhancing resilience within and across forestry, agriculture, oceans and food systems, including through biodiversity conservation, leveraging supply chains and technology;
• Cities and Local Action: Advancing mitigation and resilience at urban and local levels, with a focus on new commitments on low-emission buildings, mass transport and urban infrastructure; and resilience for the urban poor;
• Resilience and Adaptation: advancing global efforts to address and manage the impacts and risks of climate change, particularly in those communities and nations most vulnerable.
• Mitigation Strategy: to generate momentum for ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and long-term strategies to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement.
• Youth Engagement and Public Mobilization: To mobilize people worldwide to take action on climate change and ensure that young people are integrated and represented across all aspects of the Summit, including the six transformational areas.
• Social and Political Drivers: to advance commitments in areas that affect people’s well-being, such as reducing air pollution, generating decent jobs, and strengthening climate adaptation strategies and protect workers and vulnerable groups.

 

[Jokodo]

I doubt that the author was being deliberately misleading. Be it an error or not, it doesn't negate or alter the overall picture being painted by the article. The issue is still rising consumption and resources use in relation to carrying capacity and climate change. An insignificant error here or there doesn't change a thing.

It may well be true that the green revolution was a one of event in history and comparable improvements in crop yields will not be achievable in the future. Or not. B but it's an argument that needs making. Taking a shortcut pretending that lower pet capita acres are a problem in and if themselves (rather than only when not offset by higher yields) is indeed misleading. It turns a well argued article into a poorly argued one when crucial argument chains are missing.

Pretending that 900 million hungry is a sign we're already on a descending spiral when in fact it is the lowest absolute figure since we reached a population of 3 billion and the lowest relative figure in all of recorded history is similarly misleading. It may be counter intuitive, but 900 (or 800 today) million hungry is something to celebrate, not something to bemoan.

Maybe the author is not being dishonest, maybe those are honest mistakes - but if so, if he's making such simple mistakes without realising, we should be taking every thing else he has to say on the topic with a big grain of salt.

In your habitual manner you seize upon a word here or a minor error there and blow it out of all proportion. No article is word perfect, every dot and comma in place, every stat flawless. The real world doesn't work like that.

Your insistence that I'm nitpicking about poor wording doesn't make it so. I'm pointing out the misleading use of d context free facts. Sure, 900 million hungry sounds like a big number, and that's probably the desired effect in the reader. It does not however work as an argument that we're heading towards overpopulation. For a start, it's less than 13% of the population - were used to have in excess of 33% hungry for much if the 20th century, and probably a majority in much of our earlier history. Also, the are surely 900 trillion or more hungry ants at any one time - does that make ants overpopulated and headed toward collapse?

The issue still remains rising consumption in relation to supply and climate change, ie, carrying capacity of the human population living on the planet under the projected conditions of consumption and climate.

By some estimates;

Our Ecological Footprint

''One way to address the challenges associated with making future projections is to look at current human impact on the planet. The ecological footprint is a measurement of the anthropogenic impact on earth. It tracks how much biocapacity (biological capacity) there is and how much biocapacity people use by comparing the rate at which we consume natural resources and generate waste to the planet’s ability to replenish those resources and absorb waste. Today, our global footprint is in overshoot. It would take 1.5 Earths to sustain our current population. If current trends continue, we will reach 3 Earths by the year 2050.''

Where Do We Grow From Here?

''Our planet does not have the biocapacity to sustain our current levels of growth and resource consumption. So, what can be done to minimize our collective impact on the environment? In his book, How Many People Can the Earth Support?, mathematical biologist Joel Cohen classifies current solutions into three paradigms: those looking for a “bigger pie” (improving technology), those advocating for “fewer forks” (slowing population growth), and those looking to rationalize and improve decision-making though “better manners” (changing global culture). Cohen argues that, standing along, each paradigm is necessary in solving our environmental crisis, but not sufficient. Change must come from a combination of all three. “Promoting access to contraceptives, developing economies, saving children, empowering women, educating men, and doing it all at once,” he writes, is a way to both lower our impact on the planet and improve the quality of life for all.

In other words. The things that need doing from a population perspective need doing anyway. Can we please promote the empowerment if women globally without framing it as a necessary evil to keep the number of n***ers under control in order to get conservative racists in board? Thank you.

Perhaps Oxford economist Robert Cassen said it best, “Virtually everything that needs doing from a population perspective needs doing anyway”. Adopting human-centered initiatives targeted at addressing both population growth and consumption habits, ranging from the individual to trans-national level, are our best hope for achieving a sustainable future.''

 

[DBT]

Your insistence that I'm nitpicking about poor wording doesn't make it so. I'm pointing out the misleading use of d context free facts. Sure, 900 million hungry sounds like a big number, and that's probably the desired effect in the reader. It does not however work as an argument that we're heading towards overpopulation. For a start, it's less than 13% of the population - were used to have in excess of 33% hungry for much if the 20th century, and probably a majority in much of our earlier history. Also, the are surely 900 trillion or more hungry ants at any one time - does that make ants overpopulated and headed toward collapse?

Denying that you nitpick over wording or insignificant statistical errors doesn't make it so. You clearly are focusing on an insignificant element of the overall picture that the article paints in order, apparently, to dismiss the premises of the article a whole. You've done that time and time again.

The issue is not about gains that we have made to date, or that are likely to make, but our current ecological footprint, the high probability of rising consumption rates as living standards are raised in developing nations in relation to climate change.

That is essentially the problem. An error in calculation here or there, or someone misspelled a word changes nothing.

Just one aspect of the problem for example;

''The panel concluded that if average global temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius over the pre-industrial average — something that previous reports by the panel have suggested could happen by the end of the century — the risk of food supply instabilities “are projected to be very high,” according to the report, which was written by more than 100 scientists from around the world.

One of the key ways food production could be affected is by extreme weather events. Studies have shown that climate change is increasing both the frequency and severity of extreme weather, causing more intense downpours during storms or lengthening extreme heat waves, for example, which can disrupt crops or alter growing seasons.''

 

[Jokodo]

Your insistence that I'm nitpicking about poor wording doesn't make it so. I'm pointing out the misleading use of d context free facts. Sure, 900 million hungry sounds like a big number, and that's probably the desired effect in the reader. It does not however work as an argument that we're heading towards overpopulation. For a start, it's less than 13% of the population - were used to have in excess of 33% hungry for much if the 20th century, and probably a majority in much of our earlier history. Also, the are surely 900 trillion or more hungry ants at any one time - does that make ants overpopulated and headed toward collapse?

Denying that you nitpick over wording or insignificant statistical errors doesn't make it so.

I did not even complain (in a nitpicking manner or otherwise) over wording at all, and I'm not claiming the article contains statistical errors. What it does contain is a fallacious appeal to emotion - because that's what using a big-and-scary number just because it sounds big-and-scary without providing any context to evaluate it is.

t seems you're projecting - I remember vividly a discussion where you were trying to tell me off for using "to experience" in a non-mentalistic sense as "to undergo" as in "the bridge experienced structural damage" (a usage well established in the in industry and recorded in multiple dictionaries) because the verb also has a mentalistic meaning which is somehow the only proper one and thus using it in any other sense, however established, is apparently "strictly speaking false". That is nitpicking over wording. Pointing out that quoting a random number because it sounds big without providing context to evaluate it smells of an appeal to emotion in lieu of a proper argument isn't.

You clearly are focusing on an insignificant element of the overall picture that the article paints in order, apparently, to dismiss the premises of the article a whole.

What exactly are "the prremises of the article a whole" you want us to take home, and on what basis do you conclude that I dismiss them?

You've done that time and time again.

The issue is not about gains that we have made to date, or that are likely to make, but our current ecological footprint, the high probability of rising consumption rates as living standards are raised in developing nations in relation to climate change.

Those are valid issues. But framing them in the mythology of "there are too many people to feed already" hurts, rather than helps, addressing them. Not least because it is easy to dismiss valid issues when they're presented in a bundle with obvious factual errors or using logical fallacies. The point is strong enough without those.

That is essentially the problem. An error in calculation here or there, or someone misspelled a word changes nothing.

No calculation errors or misspellings that I'm aware of. It's certainly not what I complained about. Sure, the article quotes "over 900 million hungry" when more recent figures suggest a number closer to 800 million, but that's not an error and I never intended to insinuate it is - it is expected as the article is 10 years old.

 

[DBT]

I did not even complain (in a nitpicking manner or otherwise) over wording at all, and I'm not claiming the article contains statistical errors.

I was referring to not only this occasion but every other occasion that we have had disputes,ie, your method. Essentially no different then or now in composition and tone.

What it does contain is a fallacious appeal to emotion - because that's what using a big-and-scary number just because it sounds big-and-scary without providing any context to evaluate it is.

The article has nothing to do with appeal to emotion. It just gives a summary of the situation we are currently in given the reality of climate change, etc, with an outline of the problems facing us in the coming decades and beyond. That is reality, not emotion.

It seems you're projecting

The article is projection into a possible future.

I remember vividly a discussion where you were trying to tell me off for using "to experience" in a non-mentalistic sense as "to undergo" as in "the bridge experienced structural damage" (a usage well established in the in industry and recorded in multiple dictionaries) because the verb also has a mentalistic meaning which is somehow the only proper one and thus using it in any other sense, however established, is apparently "strictly speaking false". That is nitpicking over wording. Pointing out that quoting a random number because it sounds big without providing context to evaluate it smells of an appeal to emotion in lieu of a proper argument isn't.

OMG.

What exactly are "the prremises of the article a whole" you want us to take home, and on what basis do you conclude that I dismiss them?

The article describes its premises in the form of the problems that the human race is facing....which you appear to dismiss as an appeal to emotion.

I'm not sure what your point is, perhaps just a desire to argue.

No calculation errors or misspellings that I'm aware of. It's certainly not what I complained about. Sure, the article quotes "over 900 million hungry" when more recent figures suggest a number closer to 800 million, but that's not an error and I never intended to insinuate it is - it is expected as the article is 10 years old.

It's age is irrelevant. Another meaningless nit pick, yet a change from spelling or stats....that's a relief. The problems the article describes are not predicted to happen overnight. Some give a timeline for a growing environmental/climate change crisis to start biting after mid century.

 

[Jokodo]

I was referring to not only this occasion but every other occasion that we have had disputes,ie, your method. Essentially no different then or now in composition and tone.



The article has nothing to do with appeal to emotion. It just gives a summary of the situation we are currently in given the reality of climate change, etc, with an outline of the problems facing us in the coming decades and beyond. That is reality, not emotion.

The "situation we are currently in given the reality of climate change" cannot be adequately paraphrased as "OMG we're all starving already" when undernourishment has never been as relatively rare before as it is today. Throwing about a big number, decontextualized, hoping that the audience will read it as that without having to actually say it is indeed an appeal to emotion, not a sober analysis of reality today.

It seems you're projecting

The article is projection into a possible future.

I remember vividly a discussion where you were trying to tell me off for using "to experience" in a non-mentalistic sense as "to undergo" as in "the bridge experienced structural damage" (a usage well established in the in industry and recorded in multiple dictionaries) because the verb also has a mentalistic meaning which is somehow the only proper one and thus using it in any other sense, however established, is apparently "strictly speaking false". That is nitpicking over wording. Pointing out that quoting a random number because it sounds big without providing context to evaluate it smells of an appeal to emotion in lieu of a proper argument isn't.

OMG.

What exactly are "the prremises of the article a whole" you want us to take home, and on what basis do you conclude that I dismiss them?

The article describes its premises in the form of the problems that the human race is facing....which you appear to dismiss as an appeal to emotion.

Hunger is not a problem the human race is facing in the early part of the 21st century. Yes, there are around 800 to 900 million hungry, but compared to pretty much any other part of our history, or to pretty much any other species on the planet, that's peanuts, down from . It's about 11% of the population, down from 15% at the beginning of the millennium and probably around 30% when I was born. Now this may well change, and discussing the threat of hunger becoming a problem in the second half of the 21st century is a valid topic for the practical application of science that, and one that should rightly be discussed in a popular science magazine. That's not what I call an appeal to emotion. Throwing a big-scary number like "OMG 900 million hungry!!!11oneeleven!!" at the audience without that much context, just because it sounds big and scary, is however an appeal to emotion.

This shit isn't all that hard.

I'm not sure what your point is, perhaps just a desire to argue.

No calculation errors or misspellings that I'm aware of. It's certainly not what I complained about. Sure, the article quotes "over 900 million hungry" when more recent figures suggest a number closer to 800 million, but that's not an error and I never intended to insinuate it is - it is expected as the article is 10 years old.

It's age is irrelevant. Another meaningless nit pick, yet a change from spelling or stats....that's a relief.

I did not complain, or nitpick, about its age. Presenting "900 million hungry" as "OMG we are already too many to feed!!!111!!" is an appeal to emotion whether written in 2009 or 2019.

The problems the article describes are not predicted to happen overnight. Some give a timeline for a growing environmental/climate change crisis to start biting after mid century.

Sure, and things look rather more dire today than they did in 2009. That doesn't make "OMG 900 million!!!! Soon we're all going to starve!!11!" anything but a base appeal to emotion, either than or now.

 

[DBT]

Nitpicking over irrelevant details, conjuring emotion where there was no emotion not being silly enough, now you are misrepresenting my use of OMG? That's sad.

A waste of time, Sweetie.. I'll leave you to argue with your own strawman. You are good at that.

 

[Jokodo]

Now you are misrepresenting my use of OMG. A waste of time. I'll leave you to argue with your own strawman.

I'm not referencing your use of "OMG". The world doesn't revolve around you. I'm illustrating the (expected, and possibly intended) reaction of a reader unaware of the improvmentes in nutrition that have been achieved globally over the last decades when being hit by a big-scary-number like 900 million without any context. Which makes using it without context or qualification an appeal to emotion.

Even a little word "still" (as in "there are still 900 million hungry") would have helped a lot not to make it look like one wants the audience to conclude that the downward spiral has already begun and oh my god, there's simply too many of us as is. Without any context or qualification, the figure, accurate as it was/is, is more likely to mislead than inform the average reader.

 

[DBT]

Still irrelevant.

 

[Jokodo]

Still irrelevant.

When discussing whether the world is or will be overpopulated now or in the near or farther future, the fact that 12% hungry is the lowest rate in history is a not irrelevant.

The fact that the situation re climate change is looking dire (and more so than 10 years ago) but focussing on the wrong problems isn't going to solve it is not irrelevant when discussing whether and how we can.

Not so for anyone interested in doing something about the very real - and pressing - problems of the real world.

 

[lpetrich]

Enthusiasm builds for 'Blue New Deal' after climate town hall | TheHill

A fisherman asked a question at CNN’s climate town hall this past week that got Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) very excited.

With all the focus on protecting land from global warming, he said, what about the other 70 percent of Earth? Do we need a “Blue New Deal” to protect the oceans?

“I like that!” Warren responded. “He’s got it exactly right, we need a Blue New Deal.”

 

[DBT]

Still irrelevant.

When discussing whether the world is or will be overpopulated now or in the near or farther future, the fact that 12% hungry is the lowest rate in history is a not irrelevant.

The fact that the situation re climate change is looking dire (and more so than 10 years ago) but focussing on the wrong problems isn't going to solve it is not irrelevant when discussing whether and how we can.

Not so for anyone interested in doing something about the very real - and pressing - problems of the real world.

It's still not about past hunger rates or current hunger rates but the projected conditions as climate change effects production and supply in a world of ever growing demand as living standards are raised in developing countries ....which means that your line of argument has no point,. As the issue relates to possible conditions from mid century onwards, your objections are not relevant.

 

[steve_bank]

The UN says that 'food security' which had been globally rising is now declining due to climate change.

The Univ Of Washington predicts the Columbia River will lower due to reduced snowpacks. The Columbia provides water for farming in Eastern Washington and Oregon.

As to overpopulation we are already seeing the effects. The last wave of immigrants walking across Europe and the crisis at our southern border. Growing numbers of people who have no hope and no future.

In Africa there is large scale migration as people search for work.

Bring the world in toto up to western middle class standards of living and I'd say the ecosystem, food and water supplies collapse.

China is vacuuming up fish to feed its 1 billion people. Climate change is accelerating the tipping-crisis point.

Puerto Rico is already a welfare state and is becoming unsustainable due to weather. The Bahamas are probably unsustainable as well.

 

[DBT]

The UN says that 'food security' which had been globally rising is now declining due to climate change.

The Univ Of Washington predicts the Columbia River will lower due to reduced snowpacks. The Columbia provides water for farming in Eastern Washington and Oregon.

As to overpopulation we are already seeing the effects. The last wave of immigrants walking across Europe and the crisis at our southern border. Growing numbers of people who have no hope and no future.

In Africa there is large scale migration as people search for work.

Bring the world in toto up to western middle class standards of living and I'd say the ecosystem, food and water supplies collapse.

China is vacuuming up fish to feed its 1 billion people. Climate change is accelerating the tipping-crisis point.

Puerto Rico is already a welfare state and is becoming unsustainable due to weather. The Bahamas are probably unsustainable as well.

That's how it looks.

 

[fromderinside]

Wait. When industry began searching for places to cut costs they ultimately went to Bangladesh. Bangladesh was made made so by repeated flooding by Typhoons. It was a failed state that became a haven for companies wanting cheap labor. Wallah. Bangladesh the economic miracle. I'm pretty sure that the Bahamas and Puerto Rico will recover when they are discovered as opportunities for companies to make money off cheap labor.

Hey Ivanka. Look. Puerto Rico and the Bahamas are close to large markets and their labor is desperate enough to work for almost nothing. Certainly they are better than Bangladesh for your product manufacture. Just think three hats rather than just one. MAGA, Bahamans Are Prosperous Again (BAPA) and Puerto Rican Are Working Again (PRAWA).

That's the ticket.

 

[Jokodo]

The UN says that 'food security' which had been globally rising is now declining due to climate change.

Yes, there are threats to food security due to climate change. If you want to learn more about it, here's detailed recent report: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5188e.pdf That doesn't make it right to pretend that it's already declinign, and it doesn't make throwing about big numbers without telling that, big as they are, they're actually an improvement anything but misleading.

The Univ Of Washington predicts the Columbia River will lower due to reduced snowpacks. The Columbia provides water for farming in Eastern Washington and Oregon.

What percentage of the population of Washington and Oregon are farmers? What percent of the world's food supply is produced in Washington and Oregon?

As to overpopulation we are already seeing the effects. The last wave of immigrants walking across Europe and the crisis at our southern border. Growing numbers of people who have no hope and no future.

Growing numbers of people with no hope and no future are a sign of an unbalanced economy and high heredity of socio-economic status, not of overpopulation. Incidentally, the countries where most of the people at your southern borders are coming from all have total fertility rates between 2.0 and 2.5 (only Guatemala slightly higher at 2.9), all down from around 7.0 - 7.5 in the 1960s/70s

In Africa there is large scale migration as people search for work.

Again, that's indicative of economic factors. Specifically, of the large gaps in development between different African countries.

Bring the world in toto up to western middle class standards of living and I'd say the ecosystem, food and water supplies collapse.

Compared to previous decades and by many indicators, the world is at western middle class standards. Child mortality in Gabon or Ghana today is about what it was in France 1950.

China is vacuuming up fish to feed its 1 billion people. Climate change is accelerating the tipping-crisis point.

Puerto Rico is already a welfare state and is becoming unsustainable due to weather. The Bahamas are probably unsustainable as well.

Puerto Rico may well be a welfare state and unsustainable, but it's one of the poorest possible examples as an argument for overpopulation: It has one of the world's lowest fertility rates at about 0.5 less per woman than the mainland US, and a population that has been declining every year since 2001. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Puerto_Rico