Green New Deal

[ohmman]

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

No.

Your example of a country that needed to deal with higher population was China. They had state-imposed population control for years. Do you feel the irony?

Show me the science that says population isn't a result of climate, topography, education, religiosity, and other factors, and is simply a choice. Because until then you're making extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence.

 

[mspohr]

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.

No. Just no.
It doesn't matter where you live.
Generating pollution in Wyoming is just as bad as generating pollution in San Francisco.

 

[juliusa]

Show me the science that says population isn't a result of climate, topography, education, religiosity, and other factors, and is simply a choice.

Humans are not rabbits. Procreation is a choice.

It doesn't matter where you live.
Generating pollution in Wyoming is just as bad as generating pollution in San Francisco.

Agreed. That is why a family of 4 in Wyoming driving the Hummer and eating beef is better for the environement than the family of 9 with solar, and EV, and eating salad. Their emission per person is half that of the family in Wyoming, but they still contribute more to climate change.

Every country needs to reduce emissions. How they do it is a choice. Power from renewables, no consumption of meat, lower population, more efficient use of energy. Lots of ways.

Population is the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about.

Could give every family a carbon quota.

 

[ohmman]

Humans are not rabbits. Procreation is a choice.

Thanks for this incredible “science.”

You give humans a lot more credit for free will than we deserve. I suggest reading a bit about the human brain and choice. You’ll be astounded.

 

[mspohr]

Humans are not rabbits. Procreation is a choice.

Agreed. That is why a family of 4 in Wyoming driving the Hummer and eating beef is better for the environement than the family of 9 with solar, and EV, and eating salad. Their emission per person is half that of the family in Wyoming, but they still contribute more to climate change.

Every country needs to reduce emissions. How they do it is a choice. Power from renewables, no consumption of meat, lower population, more efficient use of energy. Lots of ways.

Population is the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about.

Could give every family a carbon quota.

You talk about population being important but then you fail to see the importance of individuals carbon emissions.
"Could give every family a carbon quota." is stupid. Will just lead to more and smaller families.

 

[nwdiver]

Procreation is a choice.

Dude... you're confusing procreation with population. I honestly can't tell if it's ignorance or trolling. Population is only a choice in terms of birth rate unless you want to go down some really dark roads.... Pakistan could choose to be 80% renewable by 2030. Really no ethical way to reduce their population 80% by 2030....

People exist. Solar and wind can cut net GHG emissions to zero practically overnight.

No one here is arguing that we should breed like rabbits. But people shouldn't be held to a different ethical standard in terms of GHG emissions just because they were born in an unpopulated area. That's insane. Don't have 9 kids; use solar and wind. That's pretty good sustainable advice no matter where you live....

 

[juliusa]

You talk about population being important but then you fail to see the importance of individuals carbon emissions.
"Could give every family a carbon quota." is stupid. Will just lead to more and smaller families.

Nonsense. A breeding pair is a family and can have a varied number of offspring. It is a choice, and if they had to pay the full cost of the offspring they may make different choices.

 

[juliusa]

Population is only a choice in terms of birth rate unless you want to go down some really dark roads.

Yes. I'm talking birth rate.

People exist. Solar and wind can cut net GHG emissions to zero practically overnight.

How will you fly in your private jet?

Don't have 9 kids; use solar and wind. That's pretty good sustainable advice no matter where you live....

I see a lot of preaching about fossil fuels and Hummer shaming, but nobody is talking about the carbon impact of people that have lots of kids. Or countries that are overpopulated and producing a disproportionate share of emissions.

 

[juliusa]

You give humans a lot more credit for free will than we deserve. I suggest reading a bit about the human brain and choice. You’ll be astounded.

So you believe people have no choice when it comes to their own procreation, but they can have the ability to choose between solar and oil? Or are you suggesting people should have no choice - the government can decide for them while flying around in their private jets? Not working out so well in France right now.

I also differentiate between procreation and sex. For at least the past 50 years there have been many ways to have sex without procreating.

 

[nwdiver]

Yes. I'm talking birth rate.

No you're not... you're talking about population density. They're not the same thing. In many cases they're the complete opposite. Rural areas with low population density usually have a higher birth rate than cities.

I see a lot of preaching about fossil fuels and Hummer shaming, but nobody is talking about the carbon impact of people that have lots of kids. Or countries that are overpopulated and producing a disproportionate share of emissions.

Yeah... because birth rate has fallen dramatically. Not a lot of people having lots of kids these days. CO2 is another problem. Like I've been saying, two problems. One we've effectively addressed... the other we haven't.

 

[ohmman]

So you believe people have no choice when it comes to their own procreation, but they can have the ability to choose between solar and oil? Or are you suggesting people should have no choice - the government can decide for them while flying around in their private jets? Not working out so well in France right now.

I believe nothing, which is why I have asked you to provide me with data that supports your outlier opinion. I'm talking about what the facts support. Do I like your ideas better? Sure, I love the idea that people can just make a quick choice and that's that. But sadly, that's not the reality.

Suggested reading that might help you understand the science about choice. This is all pretty accessible reading.

Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman
Blink, Malcolm Gladwell
Nudge, Richard Thayler

 

[abasile]

US GHG emissions are lowering, while China's are rising. They should stop exporting crap to lower their GHG emissions. And they should stop exporting people too.

I'm not sure why you have an issue with China "exporting people". Their birthrate is below the replacement rate. Many of our most talented professionals, or their parents, have immigrated from China. I am thankful that so many people around the globe continue to see America as a land of opportunity. Further, besides "crap", China exports quite a number of high quality goods.

 

[juliusa]

I'm not sure why you have an issue with China "exporting people".

No issue at all. Some countries are net exporters of carbon-emitting population, and others are net importers.

I'm sure China took their rate of procreation and rate of export into account when they committed to their Paris climate accord emission levels. They are important factors.

 

[nwdiver]

No issue at all. Some countries are net exporters of carbon-emitting population, and others are net importers.

.... you realize this isn't a net zero game... right? County X can/should lower their emissions without forcing Country Y to increase theirs....

 

[juliusa]

I love the idea that people can just make a quick choice and that's that. But sadly, that's not the reality.

So some families randomly end up with 2 kids, and others with 7 kids?

China's years of one-child policy scientifically proves that population can be controlled through policy - and people making a (forced) choice.

 

[juliusa]

you realize this isn't a net zero game... right? County X can/should lower their emissions without forcing Country Y to increase theirs....

It is one planet, my friend. It is zero sum. If we want to control the amount of GHG emissions, it is a fixed-size pie that gets divvied up by country.

 

[nwdiver]

It is one planet, my friend. It is zero sum. If we want to control the amount of GHG emissions, it is a fixed-size pie that gets divvied up by country.

...... what????......

Um.... we're not using ~99.99% of the solar energy that hits the surface... if country Y used ~1% more of the solar energy they received they could cut their GHG emissions by ~90%.... not zero sum, my friend.

 

[juliusa]

No you're not...

Yes, I am talking birth rate. And do are you with the chart you posted.

At least we are starting to get to the heart of the matter of climate change - it is driven by people, and more people is more climate change until marginal GHG emissions per person is 0 or less.

 

[juliusa]

we're not using ~99.99% of the solar energy that hits the surface...

So you are starting to come around and see that the land area of a country is the determining measure of the population it can support in a sustainable way?

 

[nwdiver]

Yes, I am talking birth rate.

Really? Where? Population isn't birth rate. Population density isn't birth rate...