Green New Deal

[nwdiver]

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?

Numbers aren't your strong suit are they? The amount of energy we receive from the sun is so absurd that land area is irrelevant. Pakistan could be 90% smaller and they would still get enough energy from the sun for >1000% of their needs...

The use of solar is limited by... our use of solar. NOT land area.

 

[juliusa]

not zero sum, my friend.

Talk to the climate scientists and policy makers.

Scientists tell us the maximum size of the pie to achieve a result. Policy makers divvy it up.

Yes, nothing wrong with some exceeding their goal and not eating their entire slice of the pie.

 

[juliusa]

Population isn't birth rate.

Yes it is. Higher birth rate leads to a higher population than lower birth rate. You posted the chart.

If nobody had any children, what would happen to the populations? Hint: In about 100 years the population would be 0.

If women had on average 10 children throughout their live, what would happen to the population? Hint: it would grow dramatically.

 

[nwdiver]

Talk to the climate scientists and policy makers.

Scientists tell us the maximum size of the pie to achieve a result. Policy makers divvy it up.

Yes, nothing wrong with some exceeding their goal and not eating their entire slice of the pie.

??? No... this isn't about dividing up one resource... this about shifting to a different effectively infinitely large pie.

 

[nwdiver]

Yes it is. Higher birth rate leads to a higher population than lower birth rate. You posted the chart.

Ok. Pakistan has ~144M people. China has 1.4B. If population is birth rate then you should able to tell me the birth rate of those counties with the information provided.... and.... go. Show your work

 

[juliusa]

this about shifting to a different effectively infinitely large pie.

Even when 100% of energy is from non-GHG sources, people (and animals) will still fart.

As population grows, there will be more agriculture and less offsets from forests.

It is a finite planet - it is zero sum.

In the last century population quadrupled. Imagine if it had only doubled - we would be producing half the GHG emissions.

It will likely double in this century. Imagine if it didn't change at all. Again, we would be producing half the GHG emissions.

It is not an either/or - it is an all of the above. Shift to renewable energy AND control population, since population drives GHG emissions.

 

[juliusa]

If population is birth rate

Absolutely!! Higher birth rate is higher population over time, Lower birth rate is lower population over time.

World population quadrupled in the 1900s. It is expected to double in the 2000s. What has changed?

Or, put in a different way.
World population quadrupled in the 1900s. It is expected to double in the 2000s. Do you think this is primarily a result of:
a. Lower birth rate?
b. More wars?
c. More disease?
d. Shorter life expectancy?
e. Other____________

 

[juliusa]

Pakistan has ~144M people. China has 1.4B.

Not from birth rate? Where did all those people come from - you think they are mostly immigrants? Perhaps immortality?? Well even with immortality there would be no increase without births...or cloning.

 

[nwdiver]

Not from birth rate? Where did all those people come from - you think they are mostly immigrants? Perhaps immortality?? Well even with immortality there would be no increase without births...or cloning.

Obviously Birth Rate increases population. Obviously Birth Rate ISN'T population. One country has solved the birth rate problem... the other hasn't. You can't tell by looking at their population because birth rate isn't population......

It is a finite planet - it is zero sum.

Not in terms of energy from any rational perspective.

It is not an either/or - it is an all of the above. Shift to renewable energy AND control population, since population drives GHG emissions.

Yep. Birth Rates are falling, GHG emissions are rising. Which do you think we should focus on? .... probably.... probably shifting from fools fuel to renewables....

 

[juliusa]

he other hasn't. You can't tell by looking at their population because birth rate isn't population......

Of course it is...excluding migration which is minimal.

So you are saying it will take too long for birth rates to impact population so no point in starting?

Do you know the best time to plant a tree? 20 years ago. You know the next best time to plant a tree? Today.

Sounds like the argument the climate deniers use - too late to make changes. Something miraculous will be invented by human ingenuity in the future that will make any adjustments now unnecessary.

 

[nwdiver]

So you are saying it will take too long for birth rates to impact population so no point in starting?

???? What????

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.



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.

 

[juliusa]

???? What????

Population density has two components. Population and area.

Area is constant - whether you are talking about a country or the earth. So population and population density are the same thing.

 

[nwdiver]

Population density has two components. Population and area.

Area is constant - whether you are talking about a country or the earth. So population and population density are the same thing.

???? ..... WTF is going on? You're trolling right? I feel like at this point I kinda have a right to know...

 

[ohmman]

Someone is not arguing in good faith, which is obvious rereading the last few pages here. Probably worth moving on.

 

[Merrill]

I always thought that climate change was man made, therefore the more people the more GHG.

 

[nwdiver]

I always thought that climate change was man made, therefore the more people the more GHG.

That's why god gave us the sun and the intelligence to use it....

More than enough energy for everyone...

 

[Merrill]

That's why god gave us the sun and the intelligence to use it....

More than enough energy for everyone...

Yes, the problem is getting the uninformed to try to go green. Everyone is just thinking about themselves and living in the moment, no one thinking about the future unless they can make money from it.

 

[nwdiver]

Yes, the problem is getting the uninformed to try to go green. Everyone is just thinking about themselves and living in the moment, no one thinking about the future unless they can make money from it.

Yep... that's the point. We need to address THAT problem. We need more educated people more than we need fewer people... Solving the first problem also tends to solve the second problem over time since educated people tend to have fewer kids.

 

[juliusa]

I always thought that climate change was man made, therefore the more people the more GHG.

Please stop being so logical!

That's why god gave us the sun and the intelligence to use it....

More than enough energy for everyone...

Yes!! I'm pretty sure all the energy we use comes from the sun except nuclear.

We need more educated people more than we need fewer people...

Agree. Need to educate people on the impact population has on GHG emissions. Based on this thread, with probably 1%ers in terms of education, it will be no easy task.

tends to solve the second problem over time since educated people tend to have fewer kids.

So you do agree birth rate is part of the problem?

 

[nwdiver]

So you do agree birth rate is part of the problem?

'was' would be more accurate.