-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green New Deal
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
- Status
juliusa
Active Member
Name any year in the past. When world population dips below the level of that year, I will agree the population problem has been solved. And when coal consumption dips below the consumption level of that year, we can say the coal problem has been solved, right?
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Name any year in the past. When world population dips below the level of that year, I will agree the population problem has been solved. And when coal consumption dips below the consumption level of that year, we can say the coal problem has been solved, right?
Which direction do you see? I see it going down...
Which direction do you see? I see it going up....
juliusa
Active Member
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Point is that the problem is being solved. Most statisticians would agree it's been solved. The population of the Earth is unlikely to see 12B. Not for any reason other than the trend in birth rate.
Our pathetic addiction to fools fuel is another matter that seriously needs to be addressed
Also; Because Math.
Last edited:
And this is how I know you’re not arguing in good faith. You surely understand the derivative of this chart.
juliusa
Active Member
Do the statisticians agree that GHG emissions are being solved because the rate of growth has slowed?
CO2 reached an all time high in 2018. Population reached an all-time-high in 2018.
CO2 is rising at a slower rate than in the past. Population is rising at a slower rate than in the past.
Imagine GHG emissions if the population were frozen at 1990 levels. Isn't that the year often used for GHG or CO2 emissions?
juliusa
Active Member
I'm not arguing anything. Just pointing out that population is a major controllable driver of GHG and carbon emissions, and good GHG/carbon policy should address it.
Lets compare population to emissions, and population growth to emissions growth.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
CO2 is not rising at a slower rate...
'Brutal news': global carbon emissions jump to all-time high in 2018
juliusa
Active Member
If you say so. Looks pretty flat over the past 40 years to me.Which direction do you see? I see it going up.
juliusa
Active Member
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
FYI; Population growth peaked in ~1970 and it's been declining ever since...
Population rose ~1.1%. CO2 emissions 2.3%; Glad we finally agree. Address per capita CO2 emissions. Just say 'no' to fools fuel.
Last edited:
You were arguing that countries should gauge climate progress on GHG emissions per square mile, which we’ve all agreed is absurd. It’s in the thread, so I’ll omit my references. Just page back if you’ve forgotten.
juliusa
Active Member
I do not agree. I think per capita is absurd.
Per square mile requires countries to be sustainable. Good policy.
Per capita promotes overpopulation. Bad policy.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
The attempts to regulate emissions are by political entity. That seems like it should be to obvious to everyone, and that the implementation details will vary. A much more practical question is how to stop political entities from finger pointing and saying "you first."
It would also help if the US finally realized that AGW is not a hoax. Let's start there.
It would also help if the US finally realized that AGW is not a hoax. Let's start there.
juliusa
Active Member
Agreed.
It would be nice if each country could achieve two of the following each year:
1. Lower their total emissions (or emissions per square mile, which is basically the same thing).
2. Lower their emissions per capita.
3. Lower their percentage of worldwide emissions.
I'm glad the US is leading by example. I'm pretty sure we have achieved at least two of the three every year for the past decade, and often all three.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
You must be joking. The US has done two things:
1. Outsourced production, where emissions are then not counted in the national budget
2. Replaced a lot of coal with NG that has poorly accounted for methane escape
Prosperity reduces birth rates.
Prosperity raises per capita consumption.
People migrate to prosperity.
The world is becoming more prosperous.
Cities are efficient.
Emissions by area ignores trade, migration, and reality.
Per capita emissions focus on a key challenge created by prosperity.
Prosperity itself, driven by technological, development, will ultimately lead to a reduction in population, so we don't need to focus on population.
juliusa
Active Member
Not joking. If EVERY country accomplished those things the world would be much better off.
Yes, there is a lot of shifting that goes on. Trade is one. People migration is another. But if EVERY country does two of those three things every year the world would be a better place.
It is pretty much the Paris accord philosophy. Each country decides what it can do - and rich countries accomplish part of their objective by paying other countries. So the US taking population from other countries helps other countries meet their objectives; outsourcing production helps us meet our objectives while helping the poorer countries to prosper. Apparently prosperity leads to lower population and emissions.
Imagine if China did two of those three things each year. Or even one... Well, at least they are part of the Paris agreement.
- Status
Similar threads
