Green New Deal

[nwdiver]

1 ton of GHG emissions is bad.
2 tons of GHG emissions is more bad.

Do you understand that?

The impact on the climate is no different if the emissions came from 2 people or 4 people.

Do you understand that?

Therefore we need to focus on GHG emissions if we want to help the environment.

1 ton per person is bad
2 tons per person is more bad

Do you understand that?

The impact on the climate is no different if 2 people for 4 people emit 2 tons total.

Do you understand that?

Therefore we need to focus on GHG emissions if we want to help the environment.....

 

[juliusa]

Still doesn't make sense.

In Year X the population is P and GHG emissions per person are Y.
GHG emissions in Year X are P * Y.

In Year X+Z we cut emissions per person in half to Y/2.
In Year X+Z population doubles to 2 * P.
GHG emissions in Year X+Z is P * Y.

But we can pat ourselves on the back and say we cut our emissions per person IN HALF!!

In Year X the area of the earth is A and GHG emissions per area is Y.
GHG emissions in Year X is A * Y.

In Year X+Z we cut emissions per area in half to Y/2.
In Year X+Z the area of the earth remains A.
GHG emissions in Year X+Z is A * Y/2.

Now we have actually accomplished something.

 

[juliusa]

LOL... so to your mind coal powered Wyoming is good and Solar powered SF is bad because Wyoming has more empty space?????

No. In your example Wyoming is generating higher GHG emissions per square mile than San Francisco.

It is not that complicated. The amount of GHG emissions from the country is what impacts the climate - having more square miles in a country does not lessen the impact of the GHG emissions from the country.

Yes!! So we must hold each country to a limit based on an immutable characteristic. Land area seems like the right one to me.

 

[nwdiver]

No. In your example Wyoming is generating higher GHG emissions per square mile than San Francisco.

??? No.... it's not even close....

Wyoming is ~650 tons per square mile

SF is a whopping ~106,000 tons per square mile

Geeez WTF San Fransisco... there goes their green cred

You can't just ignore per capita emissions... that's absurd. Obviously San Fransisco is doing a WAY... WAY... WAAAAY better job addressing GHG emissions than Wyoming. Per Capita GHG in SF is ~7 tons per person. Wyoming is ~107 tons!

And to your nonsense math you're conflating two problems with one. Population control and Energy generation are TWO PROBLEMS! NOT ONE! If you double your population but GHG emissions remain the same... yes... that is a HUGE achievement. You're successfully addressing energy generation. Well done. Now start focusing on birth control.

On the flip side if your population declines by 20% but GHG emissions only decline by ~10% you're obviously not even trying to address energy generation....

 

[nwdiver]

Yes!! So we must hold each country to a limit based on an immutable characteristic. Land area seems like the right one to me.

So... Russia would be expected to have GHG emissions limit ~20x higher than Pakistan and ~2x higher than the US. That seems 'right' to you?

 

[juliusa]

So... Russia would be expected to have GHG emissions limit ~20x higher than Pakistan and ~2x higher than the US. That seems 'right' to you?

Yes. Good for them for not over-populating their country.

 

[nwdiver]

Yes. Good for them for not over-populating their country.

LOL.... so they planned on ~80% of their land mass being virtually uninhabitable? If Russia tried to achieve half the population density of Pakistan half would freeze and the other half would starve. Geography matters

 

[juliusa]

Wyoming is ~650 tons per square mile
SF is a whopping ~106,000 tons per square mile

Geeez WTF San Fransisco... there goes their green cred

Wyoming is much greener, but in fairness you should be comparing Wyoming to California.

I'm also in favor of trade - like ZEV credits.

 

[nwdiver]

Wyoming is much greener, but in fairness you should be comparing Wyoming to California.

..... you seriously think that Wyoming is more environmentally friendly even with per capita CO2 emissions >2x the US average because they have 90,000 sq miles of empty space? Really????

Seriously though.... there are ~7B people in the world. The need birth control but those people didn't chose to be born. To suggest that people living in Pakistan needs to get by on 1/20th the resources of someone living in Russia because 'Russia is bigger' is idiotically insane.

 

[juliusa]

LOL.... so they planned on ~80% of their land mass being virtually uninhabitable? If Russia tried to achieve half the population density of Pakistan half would freeze and the other half would starve. Geography matters

Yes it does!! Saudi Arabia won the jackpot with oil and nobody seemed to think that resource belonged to "the world". Countries without oil had to buy from them. Countries without land will have to pay for their overpopulation and disproportionate contribution to climate change.

Highly-populated countries can export the product of all that human capital, and import carbon credits.

 

[juliusa]

..... you seriously think that Wyoming is more environmentally friendly even with per capita CO2 emissions >2x the US average because they have 90,000 sq miles of empty space? Really????

Yes. Like you said, they are putting much less carbon in the air than San Francisco. Leaving land empty is an excellent way to reduce carbon emissions - forests actually sequester carbon.

Population is a huge driver of carbon emissions and climate change. Drive a Hummer and have 2 kids, or have solar panels drive an EV, and have 8 kids. Which family has made a "green" choice?

 

[nwdiver]

Yes it does!! Saudi Arabia won the jackpot with oil and nobody seemed to think that resource belonged to "the world". Countries without oil had to buy from them. Countries without land will have to pay for their overpopulation and disproportionate contribution to climate change.

Highly-populated countries can export the product of all that human capital, and import carbon credits.

Soooo Russia gets to be wasteful... burn coal and gas.... ignore wind and solar... have GHG emissions >20x higher than the global average.... how does that help reduce emissions???

Here's a crazy thought.... EVERYONE uses wind... EVERYONE uses solar... EVERYONE works toward lower GHG emissions.... EVERYONE is held to the same standard regardless of how many square miles of barren land they happen to live near....

 

[nwdiver]

Yes. Like you said, they are putting much less carbon in the air than San Francisco. Leaving land empty is an excellent way to reduce carbon emissions - forests actually sequester carbon.

Population is a huge driver of carbon emissions and climate change. Drive a Hummer and have 2 kids, or have solar panels drive an EV, and have 8 kids. Which family has made a "green" choice?

*sigh*

No... they're not... they're adding >10x more than someone living in SF.... So, if someone moved from WY to SF and cut their emissions by 50% that's somehow worse??? If someone moved from SF to WY and increased their GHG 5x that's somehow better? Trying to determine just how insane you really are... or is this some nth level trolling...

I'm not talking about birth rate... those people exist.... cities are the most environmentally friendly thing we have. That's WHY large open places like Wyoming exist instead of being swallowed by urban sprawl.

There are ~7B people now. They didn't chose to be born. What exactly are you proposing???

Here's a crazy thought.... EVERYONE uses wind... EVERYONE uses solar... EVERYONE works toward lower GHG emissions.... EVERYONE is held to the same standard regardless of how many square miles of barren land they happen to live near....

 

[mspohr]

There is some truth to this (see: Dick Cheney) but it flourishes due to externalized costs of resource wars.

The Repukes sold the Iraq war as a "spreading democracy" but the dog whistle Americans heard loud and clear was "we get their oil."

Interesting article in the Intercept about how the military state has co-opted even liberal media.
That an entire generation of Democrats paying attention to politics for the first time is being instilled with formerly right-wing Cold Warrior values of jingoism, über-patriotism, reverence for security state agencies and prosecutors, a reckless use of the “traitor” accusation to smear one’s enemies, and a belief that neoconservatives embody moral rectitude and foreign policy expertise has long been obvious and deeply disturbing. These toxins will endure far beyond Trump, particularly given the now full-scale unity between the Democratic establishment and neocons.
Veteran NBC/MSNBC Journalist Blasts the Network for Being Captive to the National Security State and Reflexively Pro-War to Stop Trump

 

[mspohr]

1 ton per person is bad
2 tons per person is more bad

Do you understand that?

The impact on the climate is no different if 2 people for 4 people emit 2 tons total.

Do you understand that?

Therefore we need to focus on GHG emissions if we want to help the environment.....

You use per person numbers but then say persons don't matter.

 

[juliusa]

You use per person numbers but then say persons don't matter.

Number of people DOES matter.

More people means more emissions.
More emissions means more climate change.
More climate change is more bad.

Less people is more better.
Less burning of fossil fuels is more better.
Less people burn less fossil fuels which is more better.

 

[juliusa]

No... they're not... they're adding >10x more than someone living in SF

But the earth cares not about how many people are creating emissions, but about the emissions themselves.

A family of 9 produces half the emissions per person as a family of 4.

Which family is contributing more to climate change?

There are ~7B people now. They didn't chose to be born. What exactly are you proposing???

See above. Smaller families. Someone can feel all high and mighty with their solar panels and low carbon footprint and eating salad, but their family of 9 in SF is contributing more to global warming than the family of 4 in Wyoming getting electricity from coal, driving a Hummer, and eating beef.

 

[ohmman]

I can't believe I've been wasting my time with electric cars and solar. To do my part for climate change, I should move to an empty desert and install propane fired everything. Because my actions don't matter, the relative population density of my area does. The fact that my state or country, housed within manmade imaginary lines, has an outsized area of uninhabitable land should definitely dilute my personal GHG impact. Hey, Greenland looks good. Population density 0.03 people per square kilometer. No wonder it's called Greenland!

It has opened my eyes to a number of other things as well. We should look at the number of cheesecakes eaten per square centimeter of a nation to compare health statistics. Doesn't matter how many people live there, low population nations should be rewarded for their lower cheesecake eating habits.

If you want to remove the personal incentive structure from living, breathing human beings, measure GHG output per square mile. Population density is tremendously abstracted from our control and dependent on myriads of other factors - education, climate, elevation, natural resources, etc. If you want to actually have a metric by which to reasonably measure the outcome of climate change policy, measure per capita. This is not to say that you ignore population growth as an overall factor in resource use, but implying that somehow population size is a result of good national climate policy is entirely specious.

 

[mspohr]

I can't believe I've been wasting my time with electric cars and solar. To do my part for climate change, I should move to an empty desert and install propane fired everything. Because my actions don't matter, the relative population density of my area does. The fact that my state or country, housed within manmade imaginary lines, has an outsized area of uninhabitable land should definitely dilute my personal GHG impact. Hey, Greenland looks good. Population density 0.03 people per square kilometer. No wonder it's called Greenland!

It has opened my eyes to a number of other things as well. We should look at the number of cheesecakes eaten per square centimeter of a nation to compare health statistics. Doesn't matter how many people live there, low population nations should be rewarded for their lower cheesecake eating habits.

If you want to remove the personal incentive structure from living, breathing human beings, measure GHG output per square mile. Population density is tremendously abstracted from our control and dependent on myriads of other factors - education, climate, elevation, natural resources, etc. If you want to actually have a metric by which to reasonably measure the outcome of climate change policy, measure per capita. This is not to say that you ignore population growth as an overall factor in resource use, but implying that somehow population size is a result of good national climate policy is entirely specious.

Good points.
I live close to the border with Nevada. Just by moving a few miles, I can drastically reduce my climate impact!

 

[juliusa]

Because my actions don't matter, the relative population density of my area does.

Yes. Of your country. Population is a choice, just like solar or propane is a choice.

If you think it is hard to get agreement on emissions, wait until it is time to get agreement on population. There is a finite number of people that this planet will support, and a finite amount of time until that level is reached.

Most economies are a pyramid scheme - reliant on an ever growing workforce of young people to support the aging population. Social Security and Medicare are emblematic of the issue. Japan is feeling the effects now.

If people are the problem, more people is more problem.

So yes - do your part. Live in Wyoming using propane for your family of 4, and generate less emissions than the greenies in SF with their family of 9 eating salad.