Climate change strikes

[Fulmar]

From the reading that I have done, it seems that the considered opinion is that global population control is one very important factor but won't solve the climate crisis on it's own or even be the main factor. Also, that global fertility rates are in fact falling and globally the rate has slowed. Also, that it is where the children are born that counts and each child in a developed country is responsible for far more emissions contributing to climate change. Also, that it is people living longer than they did previously (particularly in developed countries) that is a problem- emitting CO2 for much longer than in former times.
Happy New Year one and all.

[orkneycadian]

From the reading that I have done, it seems that the considered opinion is that global population control is one very important factor but won't solve the climate crisis on it's own or even be the main factor.

I would beg to differ. Herewith the words of Sir David Attenborough;

“All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder — and ultimately impossible — to solve with ever more people.”
– Sir David Attenborough, Population Matters patron

From his words, too many people and you cannot solve the environmental problems.

[aqua]

David Attenborough’s claim isn’t in conflict with fulmar’s summary!

[aqua]

From the reading that I have done, it seems that the considered opinion is that global population control is one very important factor but won't solve the climate crisis on it's own or even be the main factor. Also, that global fertility rates are in fact falling and globally the rate has slowed. Also, that it is where the children are born that counts and each child in a developed country is responsible for far more emissions contributing to climate change. Also, that it is people living longer than they did previously (particularly in developed countries) that is a problem- emitting CO2 for much longer than in former times.
Happy New Year one and all.

That’s pretty much the situation as I understand it. I’ve started trying to write a similar summary several times, but I didn’t have the patience to reply to the inevitable one-dimensional backlash.

[Fulmar]

Much as I revere and love Sir David Attenborough (and I certainly do), well when I consider his carbon footprint over his 90 odd years, then I think that maybe he should also consider his own personal contribution to the problem. He has continued to (presumably) fly to all quarters of the globe to make the programmes, continuing to do so even when he has known of the impact on the climate of such actions. He has 2 children (as do I) and I do not know how many grandchildren or great grandchildren. So what are we saying then? That it's alright for people like him or me to have had kids but not now for other young adults. Same goes for Prince William with whom Sir D is closely involved although I admire the setting up of the prizes to reward those who come up with innovative ways of tackling climate change.

[Goodfellers]

Here is a link to an interesting unbiased assesment of the Chinese 'one child' policy https://www.centreforpublicimpact.or...hoC_L8QAvD_BwE

Before anyone says it 'NO' I am not suggesting adopting Chinese policy. The report shows the pros and cons of limiting child birth rates.

The basic idea is sound. Reward couples who only have one child and apply disincentives to having two or more. That could be for future policy makers to decide.

A reduced population would quickly solve any shortage of homes. Developed countries could encourage immigration from third world countries. I would love to see an 'empty' Africa left to return to nature (maybe several centuries on from now) where the population have voluntarily moved to Europe (that would stop migrants risking their lives in inflatables crossing the Med)

I would like to believe that with the mounting evidence for humans slowly destroying this planet, that people would start to consider how much impact they personally have on Earth. If children could be taught about their individual impact, then they themselves may consider how many children they would want.

If you could persuade the public to have less children along with all the other methods of reducing our carbon footprint, the world might survive. But if people continue as they are I'm afraid this planet is doomed, maybe not for a few hundred years, but doomed none the less. Why would you want children with that prospect? Unless of course, you think, 'everyone else can have less children and I'll change nothing'. This seems to be the policy of governments around the world, 'everyone else has to change their ways, but not us'.

Just something to think about.

We can't change what's been, but we can change what's to come.

[Fulmar]

I agree and also think that change has to come and start with each person individually and personal responsibility. I accept that means me (have to say, have been trying to do the right thing in small ways for very many years) and the challenge is how to implement further changes in my life, possibly sacrificially, for the greater good.

[Shabbychic]

Another big cause of the problem, is the animals raised for human consumption. The normal wee family farms are small fry, and in many cases are being put out of business, but the growing Industrial farming trend is a big, big contributor to climate change, as well as appalling animal cruelty. This industry needs lots of land for the animals to live on, and even more to grow food for them, which results in all the forest clearing and burning, water pollution and biodiversity loss. The crop production itself results in excess nitrous oxide being released from the soil into the atmosphere, from the use of fertilisers and manures. The extra transport required for both the food and the animals notches things up even further. Then there is the vast emissions from the animals themselves.


This all adds up to a really big problem in relation to climate change. I don't suggest that everyone should go vegan overnight, but we really need to look at what we eat, and how we view food,

[orkneycadian]

Another big cause of the problem, is the animals raised for human consumption. The normal wee family farms are small fry, and in many cases are being put out of business, but the growing Industrial farming trend is a big, big contributor to climate change, as well as appalling animal cruelty. This industry needs lots of land for the animals to live on, and even more to grow food for them, which results in all the forest clearing and burning, water pollution and biodiversity loss. The crop production itself results in excess nitrous oxide being released from the soil into the atmosphere, from the use of fertilisers and manures. The extra transport required for both the food and the animals notches things up even further. Then there is the vast emissions from the animals themselves.


This all adds up to a really big problem in relation to climate change. I don't suggest that everyone should go vegan overnight, but we really need to look at what we eat, and how we view food,

If only that were true. Global cattle population has remained steady at about 1 billion since 2012;

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...on-since-1990/

In the same period, the number of humans on the planet have increased by over half a billion.

[orkneycadian]

A reduced population would quickly solve any shortage of homes.

With the daily increase in the worlds population of 225,000, then you need to think of all the homes in Aberdeen being required each day just to house all the new the new arrivals. Thats either an awful lot of concrete, bricks, mortar, mud or whatever. By having a few folk in the developed world take their paper to the recycling centre, or swapping to LED light bulbs, is never going to counter the effects of building a new Aberdeen every day.

[orkneycadian]

Much as I revere and love Sir David Attenborough (and I certainly do), well when I consider his carbon footprint over his 90 odd years, then I think that maybe he should also consider his own personal contribution to the problem. He has continued to (presumably) fly to all quarters of the globe to make the programmes, continuing to do so even when he has known of the impact on the climate of such actions. He has 2 children (as do I) and I do not know how many grandchildren or great grandchildren. So what are we saying then? That it's alright for people like him or me to have had kids but not now for other young adults. Same goes for Prince William with whom Sir D is closely involved although I admire the setting up of the prizes to reward those who come up with innovative ways of tackling climate change.

Feel free to read some of the statements from other patrons then;

https://populationmatters.org/our-patrons

As far as Mr Attenboroughs children - They were born in the 1960's or earlier (can only find a report that says they were in their 50's in 2017). So their births predate both the Limits to Growth report of 1972, and the first coalescing of thoughts on climate change in 1988. He had his children before these issues became apparent.