# Let's depopulate the earth!



## TRG

Last night, I watched the Academy Awards while the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" got the award for best documentary feature. Upon receiving the award, Mr. Gore talked briefly about what it would take for us to solve the GW problem. Frankly, his comments had all the seriousness of the advocacy of an anti-littering campaign. He gives people the impression that we can fix this with just a bit of tweaking of our energy supplies and a small dose of moral commitment to changing our profligate ways. I beg to differ. We really don't have a good way to put the brakes on CO2 emissions, but one thing is sure, if we had a lot fewer people there would be much less GHG emissions. In a hundred years, almost everyone now living will be dead. If we stop reproducing then the problem just keeps getting smaller and smaller. Why doesn't anyone propose this you might ask. Well, some have such as this guy here. If he sounds a bit harsh then why not something more moderate? I suggest we simply impose birth control on a world wide basis with some forumla that would get the global population down to, say, one billion people in some set period of time, say, a hundred years. So my questions are:

1. Why isn't depopulation talked about more as a solution to global climate change?

2. Is there anything morally wrong with this approach?


----------



## .   1

There is nothing morally right about it.

.,,


----------



## TRG

. said:


> There is nothing morally right about it.
> 
> .,,


 
Even if it becomes clear that not doing it will cause pain and suffering on an enormous scale?


----------



## french4beth

Sounds like a "final solution" to me.  

How about some serious conservation efforts on everyone's part, instead? For example, I've heard that if you installed solar collectors on every house in New York state, you would have more than enough energy to run the entire state of California! E.G. solar clothes dryers (clotheslines)? More alternative energy cars & vehicles? Greater availability of biodiesel fuel?


----------



## TRG

french4beth said:


> Sounds like a "final solution" to me.
> 
> How about some serious conservation efforts on everyone's part, instead? For example, I've heard that if you installed solar collectors on every house in New York state, you would have more than enough energy to run the entire state of California! E.G. solar clothes dryers (clotheslines)? More alternative energy cars & vehicles? Greater availability of biodiesel fuel?


 
This, unfortunately, is the problem. Lot's of well meaning people have been lead to believe that we can significantly alter the course of GW in this manner. We can't. I know you have heard of the Kyoto Protocols which has been put forward as a first step, if not the final solution, to solving the problem. It will actually take 30 Kyotos or more to get to where we can be certain we have the problem under control. Kyoto doesn't even put a dent in the problem. I would also note that of the countries that have signed on to Kyoto, only a few are meeting the goals and that is generally because they have some unique circumstance or they are exporting the problem to somewhere else. This problem is much more difficult than most politicans are willing to admit.


----------



## cuchuflete

> Why isn't depopulation talked about more as a solution to global climate change?


It has been talked about in other threads in these forums.  

Obviously, fewer consumers of energy, both directly and in the form of products, will lead to less human contribution to atmospheric pollution.  If you believe that such pollution contributes to climate change—not everyone here accepts that proposition—then population control is perhaps the most effective way to ameliorate the problem.

China's one child per family policy has probably had a positive impact on air pollution.  Falling fertility rates in developed countries would have the same, without governmental policy intervention.  That creates a political dilemma: should wealthy countries, with the greatest awareness and concern for global warming, tell poor countries with high fertility rates to do something about that?


----------



## I.C.

TRG said:


> 1. Why isn't depopulation talked about more as a solution to global climate change?
> 
> 2. Is there anything morally wrong with this approach?


Because it won’t happen, at least not peacefully. 
You might as well suggest truly universal healthcare and social security. Without solving the problem of poverty, which would involve sharing, this would boil down to culling the poor.  Family also is an insurance. 
Besides, men was meant to populate the earth.


TRG said:


> This, unfortunately, is the problem. Lot's of well meaning people have been lead to believe that we can significantly alter the course of GW in this manner. We can't.


 A journey begins with the first step. But obese peoples fear exercise. 


> This problem is much more difficult than most politicans are willing to admit.


No sane politician likes to make suggestions that would hinder fund-raising and be or be made so unpopular with his voter base, they'd make re-election unlikely.


----------



## Bonjules

french4beth said:


> Sounds like a "final solution" to me.
> 
> How about some serious ............ Greater availability of biodiesel fuel?


 
Beth, 'biodiesel' has an appealing name, that's about it.
You need to commit enormous stretches of land to grow
the plants to yield the diesel (obviously, you can't grow food at the same time).
Diesel, bio- or not, is terrible for your health. Very carcinogenic exhaust; contributes much soot that speeds melting of snow/ice.


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> Even if it becomes clear that not doing it will cause pain and suffering on an enormous scale?


There is no need to postulate on impossible scenarios like this.  The bugs will get us.  Trillion upon teeming trillion of them just waiting for us to blink and then poof the world will be populated by mushrooms which will be no different to how our politicians treat us now.

.,,


----------



## Dawei

TRG said:


> Frankly, his comments had all the seriousness of the advocacy of an anti-littering campaign.



YES!!! Everyone is praising Al Gore because he is trying to make this problem public, but has anyone seen an inconvenient truth? It is 90% icebergs and other very minor effects, as though keeping the polar bears alive were the most important issue here. 

It will indeed take a large sacrifice to get global warming under control, but it is not impossible as of yet. Unfortunately, buying a hybrid and switching to energy star appliances will probably only give us a few more years, even if it were done on a massive scale. 

The only way people will be willing to make true sacrifices, the kind of sacrifices we would all gladly make on the outbreak of a global war, is if we were equally scared. However, even a movie with famine, disease, blackouts, war, etc. would probably not strike a chord either. People are afraid to be scared, because they're afraid of being wrong. No one will do anything significant until they actually see the threat unfolding before them.


----------



## Athaulf

TRG said:


> This, unfortunately, is the problem. Lot's of well meaning people have been lead to believe that we can significantly alter the course of GW in this manner. We can't. I know you have heard of the Kyoto Protocols which has been put forward as a first step, if not the final solution, to solving the problem. It will actually take 30 Kyotos or more to get to where we can be certain we have the problem under control. Kyoto doesn't even put a dent in the problem. I would also note that of the countries that have signed on to Kyoto, only a few are meeting the goals and that is generally because they have some unique circumstance or they are exporting the problem to somewhere else. This problem is much more difficult than most politicans are willing to admit.



However, when you observe the situation from a politician's perspective, it all makes very much sense. This is a familiar pattern of events that occurs whenever there is a significant constituency demanding some radical measures that would, alongside their supposed benefits, have a drastic negative effect on some other constituency, or even the whole society. 

In such a situation, the politicians will start debating about some fairly insignificant token measures along those lines, which will rally the loud support of their proponents and at the same time raise the loud voices of the opposition. This way, the public opinion is polarized around these token measures and the whole issue joins the standard repertoire of stereotypical mindless partisan bickerings that are the bread and butter of any serious politician -- and certainly don't disturb the status quo in any serious way.


----------



## Bonjules

TRG,
I  doubt that it will be possible to have
much of a rational discussion about this at this point in time. 'Man was meant to populate the earth' and 
to create 8oo more units of SFH in 3 months in Simi Valley, Calif. is 'progress'.
You will have to fight attitudes that have grown in thousands of years first.
Surely, our ## are the problem, along with how we live. We can't avoid leaving
our little 'presents': You can already find the breakdown products of most medicines (many themselves 'active')in the aquifers and, if you look close enough, in your drinking water. A study of what will happen if everybody swallows all that stached-up Tamiflu when the bird flu finally hits is revealing: Aside from ending up in the water supply, it will for sure render the only (still somewhat)effective virus medicine useless. 
It is much easier to look the other way: We don't see things as they are, but as we want them to be.


----------



## Riccardino

The way to depopulation requires even more industrialization, because rich, highly industialized countries have low birthrates.

In Europe and North America, the only thing that keeps population figures rising is immigration.

Give the third world enough time and help to industrialize, and their birth rates will fall, causing the world's population to eventually decline as people aren't having kids at a high enough rate to maintain a consistent population.


----------



## karuna

TRG said:


> 1. Why isn't depopulation talked about more as a solution to global climate change?


 
There is a book "The Logic of Failure" by Dietrich Dorner where he analyses such well meaning attempts that ultimately end in big disasters. He illustrates it with many real world examples, like Chernobyl,  and through games and scientific experiments. The main idea is that things are more complicated than they look on the surface. The solution that at the first glance seems to be the most effective usually does not consider the factors that may be very devastating in the long term.

On the surface depopulation sounds a good idea (not considering the ethical side) but really it includes many dangers. First of all, in the past the population on the earth was much smaller, yet sufering from wars, diseases, famine was immense. Even 1 billion people on the earth can fight brutishly for available resources. If anything, the pressing ecologic situation could even unite the humanity more than before. 

Second factor is that by sudden depopulation the modern infrastructure would fail. It doesn't matter that we don't need many people to maintain it but the fact that education, training of support personnel and development takes a long time. And if the infrastructure is failing then again we all be suffering.

Third point is to notice that in the well-to-do countries (Europe, Japan, the USA) the population growth is almost non-existant. No special measures would be needed if we can accept the challenge to overcome the poverty in the whole world. 

Forth point is that the use of technology, not the amount of population, is the biggest cause of polution. If the remaining 1/4 of the world's population is using the present technology to the full extent, it wouldn't change anything. 

In short, this is a stupid idea even from the practical considerations.


----------



## CrazyArcher

Well, the European countries have their populations stable, or even going down. The majority of the population growth is contributed by the third world. I think that if the world doesn't get ruined till the end of the century, the world population will stabilize.


----------



## JKHofling

First of all I'd like to ask, how is finding a remedy to "depopulate" the earth easier or more feasible than C02 reduction? With the current decrease that's already taking place in industrialized nations why is this even much of a concern? The LDC's do not emit anywhere near as much pollution as the developed nations do. I vote for continued research in advancements to improve our current situation that is, a decreased dependency on natural fuels. Take a look at what they're doing here in Kansas on biofuels.


----------



## Bonjules

So the problem appear to be this: 
High-tech societies have stable numbers, but pollute the most. 
Low-tech societies pollute much less per capita, but have a big impact by their numbers and want what the high-tech's have.
High- tech' s make no real effort to live more modestly.
Low- techs make no real effort (some do, it is actually a more difficult thing) to control their numbers.
Biofuels is a nice way of self-delusion.
Sounds like a great situation.


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> Frankly, his comments had all the seriousness of the advocacy of an anti-littering campaign.


I don't understand how it is possible for a person to be literate enough to write that sentence and not understand the monumental lack of comprehension of what we are doing at the moment with the way we are littering The Earth.

An Inconvenient Truth is nothing but a *huge anti-littering campaign *trying to stop morons from flushing their waste products downstream and bugger the next users.

Some of your comments bear the hallmarks of a well written Dorothy Dixer.

.,,


----------



## I.C.

I.C. said:


> Besides, man was meant to populate the earth.


Just in case it wasn’t bleeding obvious, I’ll mention that’s not my own perspective. 
But somehow I doubt campaigning for a policy that would limit the amount of children people can have would go down well with everyone. And God is still up there and weather does change. (Not me, either, but James Inhofe.)


----------



## aleCcowaN

What a surprise!

Figures absent as always, categories and categoricals against each other. Personal opinions regarded as the truth while other ones' points needed to be proved. The four horsemen of Apocalypse coming from the cardinal direction of your choice. The inevitability of the unavoidable by definition. Wow!



I.C. said:


> A journey begins with the first step. But obese peoples fear exercise.


My intention is to stole this phrase, without paying any royalties.





I.C. said:


> No sane politician likes to make suggestions that would hinder fund-raising and be or be made so unpopular with his voter base, they'd make re-election unlikely.


Recurring, but still a mouthful.



Riccardino said:


> The way to depopulation requires even more industrialization, because rich, highly industialized countries have low birthrates.
> 
> In Europe and North America, the only thing that keeps population figures rising is immigration.
> 
> Give the third world enough time and help to industrialize, and their birth rates will fall, causing the world's population to eventually decline as people aren't having kids at a high enough rate to maintain a consistent population.


Exactly. The gross fertility rate is used to weight up population trends. Today, Spain, Italy and other European countries have a rate of about 1.2 children by woman, meaning, for example, that nowadays 59 millions inhabitants Italy would have about 500,000 Italians by about 2300, if this trend persists. If this is not self-extinction, I don't know what would be. 

Developed countries save USA are depopulating quickly -native population- with the actual trends. Population in Argentina grew 1% a year in 1960 (excluding inmigration), then 1.6% in 1978, and now 1.2%. Why did this rate raise? because military-catholic groups discouraged people of using birth control methods, and stopped any free distribution of them within the poor. People don't want to have more children than the few they may grew and raise healthy, educated and happy. UN organizations have found in Africa and several regions that women don't want many children, and some pilot projects showed birth cut up to 50% in five years when women were well instructed and supplied. Mankind will reach 9 or 10 billions, but it is surely declining in numbers -not quality of life- in the long run, without any Ebola, massacres nor wars. Would this happen timely to help avoiding GW? I doubt it, but I prefer the approach "bad kids! bad kids! pollute less!" to the approach "bad kids! bad kids! let's hang them!".


----------



## ernest_

karuna said:


> First of all, in the past the population on the earth was much smaller, yet sufering from wars, diseases, famine was immense. Even 1 billion people on the earth can fight brutishly for available resources. If anything, the pressing ecologic situation could even unite the humanity more than before.



This is ridiculous.



> Second factor is that by sudden depopulation the modern infrastructure would fail. It doesn't matter that we don't need many people to maintain it but the fact that education, training of support personnel and development takes a long time. And if the infrastructure is failing then again we all be suffering.


This is a real problem, but it could be sorted with a simple reallocation of resources. We've got an awful lot of manpower that is currently unused. I'm not talking only about the unemployed -- about one half of the population in developed countries doesn't work at all. Should that not be enough, then we could send those who have non-essential jobs, or even undesirable jobs, such as lawyers, the whole advertising industry, etc., to carry out these important tasks that demand attention.



> Third point is to notice that in the well-to-do countries (Europe, Japan, the USA) the population growth is almost non-existant. No special measures would be needed if we can accept the challenge to overcome the poverty in the whole world.


No, zero growth means nothing. What's relevant here is the actual number of inhabitants, which is far too big.



> Forth point is that the use of technology, not the amount of population, is the biggest cause of polution. If the remaining 1/4 of the world's population is using the present technology to the full extent, it wouldn't change anything.


Fewer people allows us to use less resources without lowering our standard of living. That's the whole point of depopulation.


----------



## slare

TRG said:


> I suggest we simply impose birth control on a world wide basis with some forumla that would get the global population down to, say, one billion people in some set period of time, say, a hundred years. So my questions are:
> 
> 1. Why isn't depopulation talked about more as a solution to global climate change?
> 
> 2. Is there anything morally wrong with this approach?


1. As a further step, maybe we could impose birth control on excessively large/tall people... say, anyone over six feet tall (which, although not exactly giant-size in most of North America/Northern Europe, is considerably above average in most other places), because imagine how much less we'd consume if the average height for a human, globally, was 5 feet tall.

2. Why isn't this talked about more as a solution to global climate change?


----------



## karuna

ernest_ said:


> Fewer people allows us to use less resources without lowering our standard of living. That's the whole point of depopulation.



Actually the point was to avoid pollution, especially CO2 emissions that can lead to GW and undesirable consequences. And to think that it can be solved by depopulation is a kind of escapism, a kind of societal suicide. Why not accept the challenge instead and find a way to decrease the pollution by technological means and reevalution of our values. For example, do we all really need big cars to be happy? (I don't.)  These are not simple problems that can be solved in the near future but why we should be afraid to face them?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

I don't think there's any need to prevent people from having babies in order to keep the global warming under control.
There is already a safe, cheap and clean energy source which would be able to supply all the energy we need: Hydrogen.
The problem is that the world economy is oil-based and switching from oil to hydrogen would drastically change the economic and political scenario and needless to say, our politicians don't want that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A2683082

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/


----------



## winklepicker

TRG said:


> I suggest we simply impose birth control on a world wide basis


No need. Global warming will do it for us. If not, the despoliation of land and sea will make feeding the billions impossible. Try catching cod off Cape Cod.


----------



## TRG

winklepicker said:


> No need. Global warming will do it for us. If not, the despoliation of land and sea will make feeding the billions impossible. Try catching cod off Cape Cod.


 
It’s true that a climate catastrophe could wipe out much of life on the planet. This has happened before, but it was most likely due to cooling and not warming. I personally fear cooling more than warming. If we wait for climate change to dictate a change in population growth, this could result in political instability and war on a massive scale, but this may be the way it has to happen.

The human population of the earth cannot increase forever. Something, sometime will limit it. That it could be self-limiting is a possibility because, as someone has already pointed out, in many economically developed countries birth rates have declined to well below the level need to sustain the population. This creates the somewhat counterintuitive argument that population should be controlled through economic growth. It’s possible that this may happen on it’s own, but it’s not likely that we know how to just make it happen. Efforts to eliminate poverty around the world have not been a resounding success. One thing I am confident of is that we cannot achieve economic growth in underdeveloped countries by killing the economies of economically developed countries. This is more or less the unintended promise of Kyoto. The unfortunate problem here and a real dilemma is that the people in economically developed countries that are the ones producing all the GHG’s. So to limit population, you need economic growth and stability, but to do that you will have to accept a big increase in GHG’s. Do we know how to get all this done in a hundred or two hundred years? If you consider the amount of economic growth that has occurred in the past hundred years, I think there is some basis for hope.

Athaulf correctly points out that there is always a credibility gap between public policy and the rhetoric of politicians. Sadly, this is the nature of politicians. However, I would be hard pressed to find an example where the gap has been much wider or deeper than what we seen in the current debate about global warming. In my view, the policy positions of people like Al Gore are completely at odds with the way they describe the problem. And now that Mr. Gore is not seeking political office, or so he says, there is not reason for him not to get more serious. Until he does, I will continue to regard him as just another pontificating polemic.


----------



## Athaulf

TRG said:


> Athaulf correctly points out that there is always a credibility gap between public policy and the rhetoric of politicians. Sadly, this is the nature of politicians. However, I would be hard pressed to find an example where the gap has been much wider or deeper than what we seen in the current debate about global warming. In my view, the policy positions of people like Al Gore are completely at odds with the way they describe the problem. And now that Mr. Gore is not seeking political office, or so he says, there is not reason for him not to get more serious. Until he does, I will continue to regard him as just another pontificating polemic.



Well, in recent years Mr. Gore has moved from the politics business into the celebrity-punditry business. Just like with anyone else practicing either of these trades, I don't see any reason to view his public utterances as anything else but calculated to promote his career -- and in either case, regardless of the ideological basis on which one tries to build such a career, being coherent and logical doesn't make for good rhetorics. Of course, it's not like Gore particularly stands out of the whole bunch in this regard; similar things could be said about pretty much anyone in the same business. (Though I admit that I find it especially annoying to hear sermons about science from a guy who managed to get a D and a C+ from the only two science courses he took at university.)

I also don't think that the gap between the logical consequences of the problem statement and the policies that the politicians are trying to sell for the supposed purpose of solving it is wider than usual in this case. To take just the most drastic contemporary examples, I find no less logical dissonance in the drug war or the "War on Terrorism," even if one agrees 100% with the premises of their advocates. And although of smaller practical importance, the various everyday "culture war" issues generate no less violence against logic and common sense. At the end of the day, it's all just politics as usual. It's the emotional appeal, not logic that the politicians and pundits are living off.


----------



## Athaulf

ernest_ said:


> We've got an awful lot of manpower that is currently unused. I'm not talking only about the unemployed -- about one half of the population in developed countries doesn't work at all. Should that not be enough, then we could send those who have non-essential jobs, or even undesirable jobs, such as lawyers, the whole advertising industry, etc., to carry out these important tasks that demand attention.



Who are "we"?


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Athaulf said:


> (Though I admit that I find it especially annoying to hear sermons about science from a guy who managed to get a D and a C+ from the only two science courses he took at university.)



This is very amusing: Should politicians be allowed to raise issues according to their University career? 
Is that an example of democracy and freedom of speech?
If this was the way it goes, I'm afraid that Mr President and many other of his colleagues would be doomed to shut up..


----------



## Athaulf

Paulfromitaly said:


> _[Commenting on my statement that I find it annoying to be lectured on science by someone who demonstrated an apparent lack of its general understanding while at university: -- A.]_
> This is very amusing: Should politicians be allowed to raise issues according to their University career?
> Is that an example of democracy and freedom of speech?


 Where do you see any mention of "allowing" or "disallowing" anything in my post above? And could you please elaborate on where exactly you see the connection between the issue of me being annoyed and the issue of freedom of speech?


----------



## TRG

Athaulf said:


> Well, in recent years Mr. Gore has moved from the politics business into the celebrity-punditry business. Just like with anyone else practicing either of these trades, I don't see any reason to view his public utterances as anything else but calculated to promote his career -- and in either case, regardless of the ideological basis on which one tries to build such a career, being coherent and logical doesn't make for good rhetorics. Of course, it's not like Gore particularly stands out of the whole bunch in this regard; similar things could be said about pretty much anyone in the same business. (Though I admit that I find it especially annoying to hear sermons about science from a guy who managed to get a D and a C+ from the only two science courses he took at university.)
> 
> I also don't think that the gap between the logical consequences of the problem statement and the policies that the politicians are trying to sell for the supposed purpose of solving it is wider than usual in this case. To take just the most drastic contemporary examples, I find no less logical dissonance in the drug war or the "War on Terrorism," even if one agrees 100% with the premises of their advocates. And although of smaller practical importance, the various everyday "culture war" issues generate no less violence against logic and common sense. At the end of the day, it's all just politics as usual. It's the emotional appeal, not logic that the politicians and pundits are living off.


 
The equivalent of what Al Gore says to do about GW in the war on terror would be telling citizens to go out and buy duct tape..... oh, wait, we did that . Actually, I don't agree, and I think the world agrees with me here, in the war on terror, if anything, we have overracted.


----------



## ernest_

TRG said:


> This creates the somewhat counterintuitive argument that population should be controlled through economic growth.




In the light of the fact that there is a strong correlation between economic development and energy consumption, it's not hard to see that we are basically screwed. As less developed countries, which are also the most populated, begin to grow, so will do their energy consumption per capita and, consequently, the world aggregate, thus increasing the pressure upon the environment -- even if the population stagnates.

To be honest, I can't see how economic growth could solve anything. In fact, economic growth is the last thing we need, in my opinion. What we need is a massive shrinkage, both economic and demographic.


----------



## Athaulf

TRG said:


> The equivalent of what Al Gore says to do about GW in the war on terror would be telling citizens to go out and buy duct tape..... oh, wait, we did that . Actually, I don't agree, and I think the world agrees with me here, in the war on terror, if anything, we have overracted.



But I don't have in mind only the logical dissonance when it comes to the _intensity_ of the response, but also when it comes to the very logical essence of the solutions that are being proposed and implemented by the politicians for various problems, both real and imaginary. My opinion is that the usual level of illogicality and incoherence in politics is more or less the same in other issues as in this one.

The idea that global warming should (or even could!) be combated by constricting the economies of the developed nations is an absurdity, but an absurdity that sells well and generates an issue of exactly that kind on which the mainstream politicians thrive, either by being pro or contra. But I don't find this idea as any more absurd and inconsistent with logic and common sense than, for example, the idea that the drug problem should be combated by repressive prohibition, or that the terrorism problem should be combated by a series of chaotic actions ranging from trivial bureaucratic idiocies to enormous pointless military campaigns lacking any sort of a coherent strategic plan.

You point out that in one case, the absurdity lies in the contrast between the supposed grave seriousness of the problem and the jokingly superficial "solutions" offered, whereas in the other case there exists, to the contrary, overreaction. But my point is that when one observes the logical connections between the problem statements and the proposed "solutions," the amount of logical dissonance is approximately the same -- and I believe that this level is pretty much the standard one for mainstream politics.


----------



## cuchuflete

Dean Swift provided an interesting solution to overpopulation in A Modest Proposal, in 1729.


----------



## aleCcowaN

The debate has turned a bit neoMalthusian. Economy growth decreases population growth, but population should be reduced in the future to avoid environmental impacts like GW, but economy growth produces more environmental impacts and more GW. It seems a dog biting its tale.

Moved by a surely delirious mania of giving figures in the wrong circumstances, like those where figures are the unique valuable resource, as I see some remarks about developing countries and their financial needs, I would like to offer some data about later developments in the last 5-10 years:

OCDE countries (developed countries) have become net debtors in the world market. Today developing economies are the first source of money in world markets. Oil producers and China, followed by Russia, India and many more countries are financing public debt of developed countries. USA, with an amazing public debt of 12 trillions dollars, owes a net 3.5 trillion to the international markets. France, with a monstrous debt of 3.9 trillion dollars, is another example. Both debts are greater than the GNP of each nation. As a result, many economies lost trust in US dollar and moved to other currencies, as you can see a weak dollar against a strong euro.

Keep this trend in mind when you propose how to pay for development and environmental care. I think too many people like to live as if their national fantasies about reality were true.


----------



## TRG

cuchuflete said:


> Dean Swift provided an interesting solution to overpopulation in A Modest Proposal, in 1729.


 
Yes, I read this in high school. Wonderful satire, but who is Dean Swift?


----------



## Bienvenidos

I don't think the problem is at all with the population; and if Al Gore were the only person on Earth, we would be in big trouble. Al Gore is a hypocrite. A complete hypocrite. He makes this movie and fights for global warming, yet *he serves on the board for Apple, a company that has been scolded by Greenpeace for using non-recyclable toxins in their products.* Plus, he has a *10,000 square foot home *and the electric bill is *$1200 *a month. Why don't we ask Al Gore to stop being a hypocrite, and I would also send that same invitation to the left-wing media members who try to defend him. 

So what's the point of getting rid of the rest of us while the person who's advocating for Global Warming really doesn't care about it at all? That's not very fair; once again, the lower classes are "disposable" to the rich. The democrats dictate and tell everyone what to do and what ends up happening is 1) they don't follow their own guidelines 2) they are satisfied that they *are paying *other people to live the "simple" life for them 3) they see no problem with their agenda.

This coming from a Republican so please expect bias! Global warming is a problem we need to fix *together*, minus Al Gore.


----------



## TRG

Paulfromitaly said:


> I don't think there's any need to prevent people from having babies in order to keep the global warming under control.
> There is already a safe, cheap and clean energy source which would be able to supply all the energy we need: Hydrogen.
> The problem is that the world economy is oil-based and switching from oil to hydrogen would drastically change the economic and political scenario and needless to say, our politicians don't want that.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A2683082
> 
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/


 
Sorry, Paul, but unless you know something the rest of the world does not, hydrogen is not the answer. It is simply a matter of economics. We know how to make it and we know how to transport and use it so it's not a question of technology. There are basically two ways to make hydrogen: chemically by stripping it out of fossil fuels or by electrolysis which requires electricity. If we make it from fossil fuels then we must find someplace to put the CO2, which is a byproduct of the hydrogen production, other than in the atmosphere. This makes the process more inefficient than the way we currently use fossil fuels, so this would actually increase the amount of fossil fuel we would have to produce. We can make it from electricity, but this is mostly produced from fossil fuels also, so we need a way to generate lots of electricity without fossil fuels. (I am including natural gas as a fossil fuel also, but some people probably just think of coal and petroleum.) Fortunately, we have such a technology in the form of nuclear power, but so far very few people in the "lets do something about global warming now camp" have signed on to the idea of building more nuclear power plants. This includes Al Gore who is on record as saying the he believes nuclear power will not play a major role in addressing GW. From strictly an energy standpoint, current cost of hydrogen is several times what it needs to be to complete with the current cost of energy. On top of this, you have to consider that we have zero infrastructure to manufacture, transport, or consume hydrogen. It is an immense problem. It is a great idea, but most of what I hear about it as the answer to our problems is just hype.


----------



## aleCcowaN

TRG said:


> Yes, I read this in high school. Wonderful satire, but who is Dean Swift?


Jonathan Swift, Dean of St. Patrick, Dublin, by 1720's


----------



## TRG

aleCcowaN said:


> The debate has turned a bit neoMalthusian. Economy growth decreases population growth, but population should be reduced in the future to avoid environmental impacts like GW, but economy growth produces more environmental impacts and more GW. It seems a dog biting its tale.
> 
> Moved by a surely delirious mania of giving figures in the wrong circumstances, like those where figures are the unique valuable resource, as I see some remarks about developing countries and their financial needs, I would like to offer some data about later developments in the last 5-10 years:
> 
> OCDE countries (developed countries) have become net debtors in the world market. Today developing economies are the first source of money in world markets. Oil producers and China, followed by Russia, India and many more countries are financing public debt of developed countries. USA, with an amazing public debt of 12 trillions dollars, owes a net 3.5 trillion to the international markets. France, with a monstrous debt of 3.9 trillion dollars, is another example. Both debts are greater than the GNP of each nation. As a result, many economies lost trust in US dollar and moved to other currencies, as you can see a weak dollar against a strong euro.
> 
> Keep this trend in mind when you propose how to pay for development and environmental care. I think too many people like to live as their national fantasies about reality were true.


 
You point to one of the real problems with negative population growth or population decline, if you prefer. Our plans for the future depend on economic growth which is to some extent predicated on population growth. It will become increasing difficult for future generations of pay off all of the debt including actual debt as well as government obligations if the number of workers keeps getting smaller. Maybe the answer is to import them from lesser developed economies, but then you have to get those people to stop having children. That's a tough nut to crack.


----------



## aleCcowaN

TRG said:


> You point to one of the real problems with negative population growth or population decline, if you prefer. Our plans for the future depend on economic growth which is to some extent predicated on population growth. It will become increasing difficult for future generations of pay off all of the debt including actual debt as well as government obligations if the number of workers keeps getting smaller. Maybe the answer is to import them from lesser developed economies, but then you have to get those people to stop having children. That's a tough nut to crack.


I was pointing that governments are indebted to spend money in...... ??? If developed countries need natural resources and markets from the developing countries, and need the labor force migrated from developing countries, and even now need the capital coming from developing countries, I have to conclude their only contribuition is technology, big consuming markets, management and political power, and all this is going to end sooner or later.

Maybe the ...??? could be, for instance, the 700 billion dollars defense budget of USA this year, about 60% of World's expenditures in "defense", and surely one of the main causes of the 12 trillion dollars public debt in the USA. This "defense" maybe is useful to cut off World's population growth, as 0.03% of it was prevented last year in Iraq, and it's better than Dean Swift's proposed baby-eating, as all of us know that primitive cannibals kill people to eat them, while civilization and religion have taught us that we should kill people to bury them.

About GW, I'm getting sick of all these ad hominem arguments on the person of Al Gore. The whole World is used since a few decades to see these presidents of vice, sorry, vice-presidents ranging from I-made-Internet Gore to Potatoe Quayle. No matter how much one wishes a resurrected and winning Adlai Stevenson, or hearing a dozen clones of Oliver Wendell Holmes, the arguments these persons can give about any subject, including global warming, are not false by definition.

The fact is that the Earth is populating now, when it doesn't need it, and it will depopulate in 50 to 300 years, when it won't need it. The bunch of problems mankind is causing to itself and the Planet is to be dealt by examining carefully and dispassionately our acts one by one, not by the theory of kill-the-dog-and-the-danger-of-rabies-is-over.


----------



## .   1

aleCcowaN said:


> I was pointing that governments are indebted to spend money in...... ??? If developed countries need natural resources and markets from the developing countries, and need the labor force migrated from developing countries, and even now need the capital coming from developing countries, I have to conclude their only contribuition is technology, big consuming markets, management and political power, and all this is going to end sooner or later.


I just wanted to break this post up so that I could respond carefully to each paragraph. I could have broken it up sentence by sentence or word by word or even byte by byte and the result would be the same.
This is perfectly stated and I could not improve on the spirit of the author.



aleCcowaN said:


> Maybe the ...??? could be, for instance, the 700 billion dollars defense budget of USA this year, about 60% of World's expenditures in "defense", and surely one of the main causes of the 12 trillion dollars public debt in the USA. This "defense" maybe is useful to cut off World's population growth, as 0.03% of it was prevented last year in Iraq, and it's better than Dean Swift's proposed baby-eating, as all of us know that primitive cannibals kill people to eat them, while civilization and religion have taught us that we should kill people to bury them.


Not only is this wonderfully succinct and straight to the point, it is also devilishly funny in a way that Dean Smith would have approved.



aleCcowaN said:


> About GW, I'm getting sick of all these ad hominem arguments on the person of Al Gore. The whole World is used since a few decades to see these presidents of vice, sorry, vice-presidents ranging from I-made-Internet Gore to Potatoe Quayle. No matter how much one wishes a resurrected and winning Adlai Stevenson, or hearing a dozen clones of Oliver Wendell Holmes, the arguments these persons can give about any subject, including global warming, are not false by definition.


May I add a slight embellishment and hope that I am not gilding refined gold.
For so many years Big Business has attacked any mention of Global Warming as being unproven science employing the same disgusting gutter tactics as Big Tobacco. The problem is now that the science is being verified so Big Oil is now attacking the messenger. Gee, what a novel approach to conflabulate and doscombobulate and sell us more snake-oil.

The difference between Big Tobacco and Big Oil is that Big Tobacco sells poison that kills only a limited number of people.



aleCcowaN said:


> The fact is that the Earth is populating now, when it doesn't need it, and it will depopulate in 50 to 300 years, when it won't need it. The bunch of problems mankind is causing to itself and the Planet is to be dealt by examining carefully and dispassionately our acts one by one, not by the theory of kill-the-dog-and-the-danger-of-rabies-is-over.


I have to wonder about the frame of mind of the person who contemplates such scenarios and how they think that sharing this doomsday message is adding anything to our collective consciousness and if they consider that they are indeed contributing what do they consider that they are contributing?

.,,


----------



## Brioche

TRG said:


> Last night, I watched the Academy Awards while the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" got the award for best documentary feature. Upon receiving the award, Mr. Gore talked briefly about what it would take for us to solve the GW problem.
> 
> 1. Why isn't depopulation talked about more as a solution to global climate change?
> 
> 2. Is there anything morally wrong with this approach?



Big Al is part of the problem. It's a pity he doesn't lead by example:
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367


----------



## heidita

TRG said:


> Last night, I watched the Academy Awards while the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" got the award for best documentary feature. Upon receiving the award, Mr. Gore talked briefly about what it would take for us to solve the GW problem.


 
Why not start himself helping a bit? As many people do, he dictates rules for others which he obviously doesn't deem fit to follow himself.

This was published today in a Spanish daily paper: He spends 20 times more than the average family on electricity (30 000 dollars) using every month more than an average family a year and his lectures lectures are called "hipocresía medioambiental".



> *Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
> 
> *


 
Sorry, Brioche, I didn't see your post. In any case, one might add that his is known now all over. I think this person is certainly not a figure to be immitated.


----------



## ernest_

heidita said:


> Why not start himself helping a bit? As many people do, he dictates rules for others which he obviously doesn't deem fit to follow himself.



As J.R. "Bob" Dobbs once said, I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to 

Now seriously, I find Al Gore to be far more honest than those global warming deniers. I wouldn't say he doesn't lift a finger to solve the problem, at least he tries to make people aware that we've got a problem. That's the first step. When the time comes to implement solutions, then your criticisim will be fair.


----------



## heidita

ernest_ said:


> As J.R. "Bob" Dobbs once said, I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to  seems to be his bible
> 
> Now seriously, I find Al Gore to be far more honest than those global warming deniers. I wouldn't say he doesn't lift a finger to solve the problem, at least he tries to make people aware that we've got a problem. That's the first step. When the time comes to implement solutions, so in the meantime he should continue polluting more than anybody else?? then your criticisim will be fair.


Come on, he is behaving selfishly and with great amount of hypocrisy. I think, personally that's the worst kind.


----------



## TRG

aleCcowaN said:


> I was pointing that governments are indebted to spend money in...... ??? If developed countries need natural resources and markets from the developing countries, and need the labor force migrated from developing countries, and even now need the capital coming from developing countries, I have to conclude their only contribuition is technology, big consuming markets, management and political power, and all this is going to end sooner or later.


 
This is no small thing.


aleCcowaN said:


> Maybe the ...??? could be, for instance, the 700 billion dollars defense budget of USA this year, about 60% of World's expenditures in "defense", and surely one of the main causes of the 12 trillion dollars public debt in the USA. This "defense" maybe is useful to cut off World's population growth, as 0.03% of it was prevented last year in Iraq, and it's better than Dean Swift's proposed baby-eating, as all of us know that primitive cannibals kill people to eat them, while civilization and religion have taught us that we should kill people to bury them.


I agree that we spend too much on defense. Defense spending was cut in half in the 1990's so it can be done. Unfortunately, right now almost no one will consider it.


----------



## .   1

Brioche said:


> Big Al is part of the problem. It's a pity he doesn't lead by example:
> http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367


Al Gore is a former Vice President.
How many people live at the compound being referenced?
How much electricity consumed is for security because of who Al Gore is?
How much of this consumption is hubristic wastefullness and how much relates to his environmental campaining?
Jeeze it's easy to throw mud at people having a go.
Al Gore is independently wealthy and could sit on his arse for the rest of his life and do nothing but burn ivory back scratchers every day of the year and twice on Sunday but he has chosen to place himself at great risk of public storm and ridicule and an obviously heightened risk of physical harm in an attempt to save The Planet.
I do not believe that Al Gore is in any way intentionally profligate in his energy consumption but I could be wrong. Why on Earth would an energy waster be interested in finding ways to cut energy wastage. It just wouldn't occur to such a person.
Why would a logger start join a campain to stop logging?
Why would an alcoholic try to limit booze consumption?
Why would a blind person seek to preserve photographs of rainbows?
It just defies logic.

What screams out as being obvious is Big Oil releasing slanted documents relating to their sale of energy to Mr. Gore and then running it in the media that is owned by the same types of arseholes who own Big Oil.

I didn't realise that the title of the thread could be taken to mean we should start by shooting the messenger who is currently kicking Big Oil in the public forum.

.,,


----------



## aleCcowaN

ernest_ said:


> In the light of the fact that there is a strong correlation between economic development and energy consumption, it's not hard to see that we are basically screwed. As less developed countries, which are also the most populated, begin to grow, so will do their energy consumption per capita and, consequently, the world aggregate, thus increasing the pressure upon the environment -- even if the population stagnates.
> 
> To be honest, I can't see how economic growth could solve anything. In fact, economic growth is the last thing we need, in my opinion. What we need is a massive shrinkage, both economic and demographic.



I said in the global warming thread that Wikipedia charts and data about global warming are a field of mines (those mines which do BOOOM!!!). One of the most noticeable mistakes is comparing emissions (kind a objective value, if you really know it -the "as natural gas equivalent" for USA is very suspicious) with GDP at market and *currency* prices. The proper GDP using purchasing power parity is ignored in that site, giving the misleading idea that production and energy consumption follow a linear trend.



Bienvenidos said:


> I don't think the problem is at all with the population; and if Al Gore were the only person on Earth, we would be in big trouble. Al Gore is a hypocrite. A complete hypocrite. He makes this movie and fights for global warming, yet *he serves on the board for Apple, a company that has been scolded by Greenpeace for using non-recyclable toxins in their products.* Plus, he has a *10,000 square foot home *and the electric bill is *$1200 *a month. Why don't we ask Al Gore to stop being a hypocrite, and I would also send that same invitation to the left-wing media members who try to defend him.





Brioche said:


> Big Al is part of the problem. It's a pity he doesn't lead by example:
> http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367





heidita said:


> Why not start himself helping a bit? As many people do, he dictates rules for others which he obviously doesn't deem fit to follow himself.
> 
> This was published today in a Spanish daily paper: He spends 20 times more than the average family on electricity (30 000 dollars) using every month more than an average family a year and his lectures lectures are called "hipocresía medioambiental".
> 
> Sorry, Brioche, I didn't see your post. In any case, one might add that his is known now all over. I think this person is certainly not a figure to be immitated.


Following the sound argumentation of our fellow *.,,* , I'd like to point these facts:
If this gentleman Gore has a 10,000 sq.ft. house, and being the average household in USA about, 1,500... 2,000 sq.ft?, is he being a mad energy consumer
Reading the surely non biased article of those organizations, why on Earth if he consumes some Kwh monthly, the data are by-monthly?
If he spends 221 Mwh yearly and pay 12,000 usd, he's paying 54 usd/Gwh. Being today the firm-on-peak spot prices of electricity between 55 and 62 usd/Gwh, why on Mars is he paying so little? Does he get a special vice-presidential discount? Is here an "innocent" hand which doubled the figures? Please, "foreros" of the USA, check your electricity bills. How much are you paying by Kwh?
If all this is true, this esquire Gore is still spending a bit more kwh by square feet than his fellow countrypeople do.
How much money spend by year this guy? 1 million, 2 millions, 3 millions? How many taxes does he pay? The ratio between dollars spent and kwh wasted, or dollars payed in taxes and kwh evaporated probably is shorter than the average fellow.
Is this pretty huge house of this political creature, really a house, or is it, as many rich people like, a headquarter, an office, an enterprise.
Do the Secret Service fellow that are taking care of him and his family have their own electric meter, or are they "hung" on their patron's one.
How much is the cost of his house? 5 millions, 7 millions? Would have this Gore person about 100 grands to buy solar panels, batteries and oscilators to produce the electric power he seems to consume? I think he does and will, and probably the people will be talking about him in the near future, a very inexpensive way to get publicity, as the guy seems having chosen the Omarosa-like approach of "speak badly, but speak".

Politics is an animal which eats rotten meat. Please, don't share that dish.

There's only one thing I'm sure. Al Gore is not Mother Theresa. But many people is needing a good dose of Schopenhauer's analysis on social resentment, as here the "hypocrisy" label just seems to cover a millennial envy to the rich.


----------



## Benjy

This thread is not about Al Gore. It is about depopulation as a possible solution to certain environmental problems. If this cannot get back to the beaten track whence it has wondered it shall be chucked in the skip.



> 1. Why isn't depopulation talked about more as a solution to global climate change?
> 
> 2. Is there anything morally wrong with this approach?


----------



## ernest_

aleCcowaN said:


> I said in the global warming thread that Wikipedia charts and data about global warming are a field of mines (those mines which do BOOOM!!!). One of the most noticeable mistakes is comparing emissions (kind a objective value, if you really know it -the "as natural gas equivalent" for USA is very suspicious) with GDP at market and *currency* prices. The proper GDP using purchasing power parity is ignored in that site, giving the misleading idea that production and energy consumption follow a linear trend.



I don't know where you got this idea from, but I guarantee that it's dead wrong. While it may be true that using the GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity could give slightly different results, it would only soften or sharpen the trend; you are dreaming if you think that it would _reverse_ the trend. And regardless of your liking for the Wikipedia, or lack thereof, the same data can be found elsewhere. Check that one out, for instance: http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/paper/energy_development/chapter5.htm#fig1


----------



## aleCcowaN

ernest_ said:


> I don't know where you got this idea from, but I guarantee that it's dead wrong. While it may be true that using the GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity could give slightly different results, it would only soften or sharpen the trend; you are dreaming if you think that it would _reverse_ the trend. And regardless of your liking for the Wikipedia, or lack thereof, the same data can be found elsewhere. Check that one out, for instance: http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/energy/paper/energy_development/chapter5.htm#fig1


I quoted the "strong correlation" part. This is false, unless you taylor what strong correlation is. Not only there isn't a strong correlation in the Wikipedia graphic, but it's even weaker when you use ppps. This is about the previous quote.

About yours, why don't you read my or any other comments carefully before making your remarks?. I said and say "giving the misleading idea that production and energy consumption follow a linear trend". Do you mix up linear with direct trend? If one thinks a trend is not linear, does one think then that the trend is reverse? What a crazy unmathematical idea! Linear direct and reverse trends are just the shaking downstrokes of statistical analysis.

Next time read carefully, understand and avoid any twisting before saying things like "you're dreaming" and any similar to that.

[Any person without interest in mathematics and truth, or without a proper background in statistics, may simply skip the rest of this post, because I've much more to say]

The document you proposed shows and R of 73.4% with a linear model and 75.6% with an exponential model, what are not "strong correlation" at all, at most "good correlation". Using ppps the values will be much lower, roughly 60% (a value of 30% -not 0- usually means lack of correlation). This is not "softening" or "sharpening" any trend. Correlation doesn't measure any softly or sharp trend; it measures how well two variables (or more than two variables) *seem* to be related. Even the dumbest among my students was always able to answer to the statement "there's a high correlation between ice cream sales and swimsuits sales, therefore ice cream sales are the cause of swimsuits sales" with the expected "no, professor, both are caused by summer".

Even if high correlation exists, you are not sure both variables are related by cause-effect. Maybe both are caused by a third variable, maybe the correlation is accidental.

The big holes in the analysis you refer is not only the unit chosen (usd). The matter is what those points stand for, as any country (and circumstance) has its pair of values. Suppose I add to the graphic Nauru, Vatican City, San Marino, Mount Athos and Sikkim, give me some million dollars and I could burn coal and raise per capita consumption without raising per-capita GDP, or I could give the money as a present in exchange to the promise of saving some energy consumption, lowering this value and raising a bit the per-capita GDP. This five new points could modify heavily correlation, as this kind of analysis *must weigth* the size of each economy before making any comparison. You simply can't compare per capita values for countries ranging from Vatican City to China and extract a global trend (a trend for the whole universe of the analysis) neglecting how many "capitas" exist.

There's a lot to comment on statistics to do here, but I have no intention in writing a treatise, much less in English, which is very difficult to me.

But the problem here is the interpretation of the "conclusions" that innumerate people (the vast majority) could do. "A strong correlation" suggests both an increasing GDP produces inevitably a *certain* increasing consumption of energy and you can't avoid economical development without a proportional waste of energy. More absurd is thinking that you only can have a 40,000 usd per capita GDP if you have the per capita energy consumption of the USA. And even more absurd is thinking that developing countries will have in 2020, 2040 or 2065 a USA-2006 per capita GDP with a USA-2006 per capita energy consumption. The epitome of absurdity is concluding that economical development inevitably causes an unstoppable GW in the long term.

This kind of pseudo-mathematical ruminations causes innumerate people to think "in the extremes", proposing, for instance, depopulate the Earth by ebola virus or simply by gun machine, or adopting the opposite point of view, the one of enjoying life and later a Louis XIV-like "aprés de moi, le diluge"

If some provisional conclusion can be extracted from a 60% value of correlation is that, although an increasing consumption of energy is expected when an economy develops, many countries have manage to have similar GDP per capita with different energy per capita consumption. There's a lot to learn from this fact. Besides, energy production and consumption can have varying environmental effects, both globally and locally. Even more, as technology changes we have the opportunity of doing it well.

Linear functions are only the first step to move away from innumeracy. Regretfully, some people think they arrive to the end of the way.


----------



## .   1

aleCcowaN said:


> I quoted the "strong correlation" part. This is false, unless you taylor what strong correlation is. Not only there isn't a strong correlation in the Wikipedia graphic, but it's even weaker when you use ppps. This is about the previous quote.
> 
> About yours, why don't you read my or any other comments carefully before making your remarks?. I said and say "giving the misleading idea that production and energy consumption follow a linear trend". Do you mix up linear with direct trend? If one thinks a trend is not linear, does one think then that the trend is reverse? What a crazy unmathematical idea! Linear direct and reverse trends are just the shaking downstrokes of statistical analysis.
> 
> Next time read carefully, understand and avoid any twisting before saying things like "you're dreaming" and any similar to that.
> 
> [Any person without interest in mathematics and truth, or without a proper background in statistics, may simply skip the rest of this post, because I've much more to say]
> 
> The document you proposed shows and R of 73.4% with a linear model and 75.6% with an exponential model, what are not "strong correlation" at all, at most "good correlation". Using ppps the values will be much lower, roughly 60% (a value of 30% -not 0- usually means lack of correlation). This is not "softening" or "sharpening" any trend. Correlation doesn't measure any softly or sharp trend; it measures how well two variables (or more than two variables) *seem* to be related. Even the dumbest among my students was always able to answer to the statement "there's a high correlation between ice cream sales and swimsuits sales, therefore ice cream sales are the cause of swimsuits sales" with the expected "no, professor, both are caused by summer".
> 
> Even if high correlation exists, you are not sure both variables are related by cause-effect. Maybe both are caused by a third variable, maybe the correlation is accidental.
> 
> The big holes in the analysis you refer is not only the unit chosen (usd). The matter is what those points stand for, as any country (and circumstance) has its pair of values. Suppose I add to the graphic Nauru, Vatican City, San Marino, Mount Athos and Sikkim, give me some million dollars and I could burn coal and raise per capita consumption without raising per-capita GDP, or I could give the money as a present in exchange to the promise of saving some energy consumption, lowering this value and raising a bit the per-capita GDP. This five new points could modify heavily correlation, as this kind of analysis *must weigth* the size of each economy before making any comparison. You simply can't compare per capita values for countries ranging from Vatican City to China and extract a global trend (a trend for the whole universe of the analysis) neglecting how many "capitas" exist.
> 
> There's a lot to comment on statistics to do here, but I have no intention in writing a treatise, much less in English, which is very difficult to me.
> 
> But the problem here is the interpretation of the "conclusions" that innumerate people (the vast majority) could do. "A strong correlation" suggests both an increasing GDP produces inevitably a *certain* increasing consumption of energy and you can't avoid economical development without a proportional waste of energy. More absurd is thinking that you only can have a 40,000 usd per capita GDP if you have the per capita energy consumption of the USA. And even more absurd is thinking that developing countries will have in 2020, 2040 or 2065 a USA-2006 per capita GDP with a USA-2006 per capita energy consumption. The epitome of absurdity is concluding that economical development inevitably causes an unstoppable GW in the long term.
> 
> This kind of pseudo-mathematical ruminations causes innumerate people to think "in the extremes", proposing, for instance, depopulate the Earth by ebola virus or simply by gun machine, or adopting the opposite point of view, the one of enjoying life and later a Louis XIV-like "aprés de moi, le diluge"
> 
> If some provisional conclusion can be extracted from a 60% value of correlation is that, although an increasing consumption of energy is expected when an economy develops, many countries have manage to have similar GDP per capita with different energy per capita consumption. There's a lot to learn from this fact. Besides, energy production and consumption can have varying environmental effects, both globally and locally. Even more, as technology changes we have the opportunity of doing it well.
> 
> Linear functions are only the first step to move away from innumeracy. Regretfully, some people think they arrive to the end of the way.


Yeah.  That's what I reckon.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

TRG said:


> 1. Why isn't depopulation talked about more as a solution to global climate change?
> 
> 2. Is there anything morally wrong with this approach?




1. Possibly because we remember the eugenics movement! (and all that followed from it!)
Who will decide who is to be 'depopulated' whether by outright ('first-generation' depopulation) murder or by ('second-generation' depopulation") enforced sterilization or is some one country just going to go and nuke the Chinese?

You raise an interesting point - but don't give us the thinking behind it. How are we to judge the 'morality' of it if we don't know the mechanics.

I see a long-term solution to depopulation which could be used to urge voluntary childlessness on people in the same way that the Catholic Church encourages celibacy on its priests in that it makes them better people.
A new religion 'could' arise which says that for the sake of the planet we should choose childlessness - that would be unlikely to raise objectors from any moral quarters (except the Catholic Church which sees the 'duty' of a married couple as being to make babies.)


----------



## Kajjo

TRG said:


> 1. Why isn't depopulation talked about more as a solution to global climate change? 2. Is there anything morally wrong with this approach?


To 1: I guess this is because of a) economic considerations, b) political correctness and c) religious beliefs. That is, as long as economists see growth as solution to all problems; as long as no one dares to emphasise that 3rd world countries with little fertile soil are vastly overpopulated as they are; and as long as the catholic church teaches propagation even in those vastly overpopulated countries, discussion about depopulation will only take place in hidden chambers.

To 2: No, I believe it is not. As long as each country is allowed as much population as it can sustain, as long as individuals are free to propagate anyway, as long as it is the free will of the people involved.

I agree that at least stopping the growth would be a reasonable aim for the next years. There is no sense to populate areas with more people than that area can sustain. Many environmental and social problems are caused by overpopulation. However, it appears to be very difficult to promote and execute this idea.

Kajjo


----------



## ernest_

aleCcowaN said:


> I quoted the "strong correlation" part. This is false, unless you taylor what strong correlation is. Not only there isn't a strong correlation in the Wikipedia graphic, but it's even weaker when you use ppps. This is about the previous quote.



When I said "strong correlation" I meant a correlation that is strong enough to draw solid conclusions. In this case, lacking a more in-deep analysis, an R-squared above 60-70% means "strong correlation" to me.



> About yours, why don't you read my or any other comments carefully before making your remarks?. I said and say "giving the misleading idea that production and energy consumption follow a linear trend". Do you mix up linear with direct trend? If one thinks a trend is not linear, does one think then that the trend is reverse? What a crazy unmathematical idea! Linear direct and reverse trends are just the shaking downstrokes of statistical analysis.


That's right. However, if I say that two variables follow an increasing trend, as I did (I didn't explicitly say "increasing" trend, but the graphs did show an increasing trend), and you reply that they don't follow a linear trend, what the hell am I supposed to understand? That they follow a non-linear but still increasing trend? That they do not follow an increasing trend?  That they follow no trend at all? So, don't blame me for misunderstanding your foggy statements.



> The document you proposed shows and R of 73.4% with a linear model and 75.6% with an exponential model, what are not "strong correlation" at all, at most "good correlation".


Sorry, mate, I always thought "good correlation" and "strong correlation" were the same. So, should have I said "there's a good correlation between economic development and energy consumption" instead of "there's a strong correlation between economic development and energy consuption", would have you agreed then?



> Using ppps the values will be much lower, roughly 60% (a value of 30% -not 0- usually means lack of correlation).


Can you back this with actual data, or have you just pulled it out of your hat?



> Even if high correlation exists, you are not sure both variables are related by cause-effect. Maybe both are caused by a third variable, maybe the correlation is accidental.


Did I claim there was a causal relation? I think not, mate.  Read my comment again if you don't believe me, I said there was a correlation between the two. That is to say, generally speaking, the more income an individual has, the more energy they consume. It doesn't matter at all whether there is causation or not. There is correlation and that's enough.



> The big holes in the analysis you refer is not only the unit chosen (usd).


Is it too much to ask what's wrong with this particular unit?



> You simply can't compare per capita values for countries ranging from Vatican City to China and extract a global trend (a trend for the whole universe of the analysis) neglecting how many "capitas" exist.


Yes, you can. That's the point of statistics.



> But the problem here is the interpretation of the "conclusions" that innumerate people (the vast majority) could do. "A strong correlation" suggests both an increasing GDP produces inevitably a *certain* increasing consumption of energy and you can't avoid economical development without a proportional waste of energy. More absurd is thinking that you only can have a 40,000 usd per capita GDP if you have the per capita energy consumption of the USA. And even more absurd is thinking that developing countries will have in 2020, 2040 or 2065 a USA-2006 per capita GDP with a USA-2006 per capita energy consumption. The epitome of absurdity is concluding that economical development inevitably causes an unstoppable GW in the long term.


I don't know what you are talking about.  All these results show is that consumption is positively related to income.  The more money you've got, the more money you spend. It may be linear, non-linear, quadratic, stronger, weaker, whatever, but there is a _positive relationship_, and this applies to energy consumption as well. This is nothing new, it's common sense, everybody've known that for centuries.




> If some provisional conclusion can be extracted from a 60% value of correlation is that, although an increasing consumption of energy is expected when an economy develops, many countries have manage to have similar GDP per capita with different energy per capita consumption.


Not really. There are differences in energy efficiency, but these are minimal. There is no developed country that has managed to keep its per capita energy consumption anywhere near that of non-developed countries. If I'm wrong, show me a real example.


----------



## aleCcowaN

I'll get back to statistics below.

You're answers to Karuna's post:



ernest_ said:


> This is ridiculous.





ernest_ said:


> No, zero growth means nothing. What's relevant here is the actual number of inhabitants, which is far too big.



You're answers to mine:



ernest_ said:


> I don't know where you got this idea from, but I guarantee that it's dead wrong. .... you are dreaming if you think that it would _reverse_ the trend.





ernest_ said:


> Sorry, mate, ...
> 
> ...
> 
> Can you back this with actual data, or have you just pulled it out of your hat?
> 
> ...
> 
> Is it too much to ask what's wrong with this particular unit?



Obviously, you often mistreat people or even scold them -maybe thinking you're being some kind of "sarcastic"- when somebody says something that doesn't fit your mental frame, and you react as you were mistreated before any minimal hint you might be treated so.

Let's start from the beginning. Here your whole post:



ernest_ said:


> In the light of the fact that there is a strong correlation between economic development and energy consumption, it's not hard to see that we are basically screwed. As less developed countries, which are also the most populated, begin to grow, so will do their energy consumption per capita and, consequently, the world aggregate, thus increasing the pressure upon the environment -- even if the population stagnates.
> 
> To be honest, I can't see how economic growth could solve anything. In fact, economic growth is the last thing we need, in my opinion. What we need is a massive shrinkage, both economic and demographic.



By chunks:



ernest_ said:


> In the light of the fact that there is a strong correlation between economic development and energy consumption, it's not hard to see that we are basically screwed.


 In the light of the fact ... we are screwed. The light seems to be red, late at night.

Your "the fact that there is...". You state it there, you then handle the consequences of your assertion


ernest_ said:


> As less developed countries, which are also the most populated, begin to grow, so will do their energy consumption per capita and, consequently, the world aggregate, thus increasing the pressure upon the environment -- even if the population stagnates.


 All OK, including the "even if the population stagnates" part, but the "thus"? You're assuming any source of energy is equally damaging to the environment; locally dangerous Chernobyls alike globally dangerous GHG; noisy and some-birds-chopping wind mills alike massive forests burning (with all the nests in them) alike coal burning, and alike ... and alike.

In the _ceteris paribus_ of your mind there's no room for a country getting 100,000 TJ from charcoal, 130,000TJ from natural gas ten years later, and 200,000TJ from wind another score later. You need all sources being equally damaging to go qwicky and straight to your preformatted and previously existent conclusion: 





ernest_ said:


> To be honest, I can't see how economic growth could solve anything.





ernest_ said:


> In fact, economic growth is the last thing we need, in my opinion.


You seem to ignore that nowadays economical growth is based mainly in technological developments. You seem to think that technology gets the growth but it is also impaired to deal with its consequences. Just for you didn't realize before, this and other similar threads discuss if we should face environmental impacts like GW, or if we are willing to pay for facing them. [Depopulation and all the morally or factually related to it is the "price" discussed here and the issue of this thread]

You then gift us with your message of hopelessness: 





ernest_ said:


> What we need is a massive shrinkage, both economic and demographic.



I only replied to the statistical part of your post (#32) because you took a consolidated science that many people love and are devoted, to give an authoritative look to your argumentation. The rest was up to you, as today each one of us "is entitled to make a cupboard from his/her ass"- the way to saying it when we choose a language level that shows we're not springs of the Belgian Ambassador *too*-. You are entitled an opinion, what doesn't mean you're entitled to the truth. But, anyway...

You didn't get the "ridiculous" for holding this argumentative chain, as you like to "prize" anybody who doesn't fit with what you believe. The same medicine to you, now. 

About the statistical content of your post, and amazing assertions, I will reply them in one or more posts during the next 24 to 48 hours. Just in case, I backed up it below.



ernest_ said:


> When I said "strong correlation" I meant a correlation that is strong enough to draw solid conclusions. In this case, lacking a more in-deep analysis, an R-squared above 60-70% means "strong correlation" to me.
> 
> That's right. However, if I say that two variables follow an increasing trend, as I did (I didn't explicitly say "increasing" trend, but the graphs did show an increasing trend), and you reply that they don't follow a linear trend, what the hell am I supposed to understand? That they follow a non-linear but still increasing trend? That they do not follow an increasing trend? That they follow no trend at all? So, don't blame me for misunderstanding your foggy statements.
> 
> Sorry, mate, I always thought "good correlation" and "strong correlation" were the same. So, should have I said "there's a good correlation between economic development and energy consumption" instead of "there's a strong correlation between economic development and energy consuption", would have you agreed then?
> 
> Can you back this with actual data, or have you just pulled it out of your hat?
> 
> Did I claim there was a causal relation? I think not, mate. Read my comment again if you don't believe me, I said there was a correlation between the two. That is to say, generally speaking, the more income an individual has, the more energy they consume. It doesn't matter at all whether there is causation or not. There is correlation and that's enough.
> 
> Is it too much to ask what's wrong with this particular unit?
> 
> Yes, you can. That's the point of statistics.
> 
> I don't know what you are talking about. All these results show is that consumption is positively related to income. The more money you've got, the more money you spend. It may be linear, non-linear, quadratic, stronger, weaker, whatever, but there is a _positive relationship_, and this applies to energy consumption as well. This is nothing new, it's common sense, everybody've known that for centuries.
> 
> 
> Not really. There are differences in energy efficiency, but these are minimal. There is no developed country that has managed to keep its per capita energy consumption anywhere near that of non-developed countries. If I'm wrong, show me a real example.


----------



## werrr

TRG said:


> ...There are basically two ways to make hydrogen: chemically by stripping it out of fossil fuels or...


What's the benefit of this procedure? We can burn the fossil fuels directly.


----------



## cuchuflete

We have had some lessons in and around statistics, and some thoughts on hydrocarbon conversion.  Now might we return to the topic of depopulation?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

How should one go about making this depopulation idea reality?


----------



## TRG

Pedro y La Torre said:


> How should one go about making this depopulation idea reality?


 
The first thing is just to talk about it so people become informed. If you google "top 10 things you can do to reduce global warming" you will find a page at about.com this list the following:

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Use Less Heat and Air Conditioning
Change a Light Bulb
Drive Less and Drive Smart
Buy Energy-Efficient Products
Use Less Hot Water
Use the "Off" Switch
Plant a Tree
Get a Report Card from Your Utility Company
Encourage Others to Conserve
None of these things are bad, but as a remedy for global warming they are just silly. Unfortunately, many people are misinformed and mislead about what it really takes to reduce GHG emissions because public policy makers and politicians are not talking about the things they should be. Changing light blubs is not going to accomplish much, even if it is a step in the right direction.

Population control in developed economies is not that difficult. If families just have one or two children per family then we are on are way, and this is happening almost by itself. China has a one child policy which is probably having some results even though some of the unintended consequences are not so good. Population control in underdeveloped economies is exceedingly difficult. Perhaps the best hope is than in another 50 or 100 years the standard of living in many of these contries will be high enough that population growth will slow down. If GW evolves the people are predicting or worse, then perhaps more governments will persue policies like China and impose limits on the number of children people can have.

My mother came from a family of twelve children. She had four children. I have two children. So far I have no grandchildren, but we are expecting one this year. That's population control.


----------



## aleCcowaN

TRG said:


> The first thing is just to talk about it so people become informed. If you google "top 10 things you can do to reduce global warming" you will find a page at about.com this list the following:
> Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
> Use Less Heat and Air Conditioning
> Change a Light Bulb
> Drive Less and Drive Smart
> Buy Energy-Efficient Products
> Use Less Hot Water
> Use the "Off" Switch
> Plant a Tree
> Get a Report Card from Your Utility Company
> Encourage Others to Conserve
> None of these things are bad, but as a remedy for global warming they are just silly. Unfortunately, many people are misinformed and mislead about what it really takes to reduce GHG emissions because public policy makers and politicians are not talking about the things they should be. Changing light blubs is not going to accomplish much, even if it is a step in the right direction.


I don't think people is misinform or mislead assuming they understand the *you* part of "top 10 things *you* can do to reduce global warming". Individual actions multiplied by hundreds of millions can cut 5, 10 or even 20% of GHG emissions and preserve and promote some carbon sinks. This is not enough, but it has the power to foster public awareness about the problem, and being most of us voters and neighbours, it has also the power of promoting social and political actions, change of values and compromise. Replacing a 100W light bulb for a 25W high performance potentially may reduce GHG emissions enough to light 500W traditional bulbs in the long run. This mathematical inconsistence is pretty normal when you see the whole picture of social and economical processes along decades.

Sometimes I think that people that disparage individual actions and label them as meaningless and naive only want to see the first domino of the line not falling.


TRG said:


> Population control in developed economies is not that difficult. If families just have one or two children per family then we are on are way, and this is happening almost by itself. China has a one child policy which is probably having some results even though some of the unintended consequences are not so good. Population control in underdeveloped economies is exceedingly difficult. Perhaps the best hope is than in another 50 or 100 years the standard of living in many of these contries will be high enough that population growth will slow down. If GW evolves the people are predicting or worse, then perhaps more governments will persue policies like China and impose limits on the number of children people can have.
> 
> My mother came from a family of twelve children. She had four children. I have two children. So far I have no grandchildren, but we are expecting one this year. That's population control.


Calculator on hand, I get we will see -not me, probably-  in 2045-2050 the whole World having an average ppp per capita similar to the one which has USA today. Suppose 10 billion inhabitants by then. The problem would be, will be they(we) releasing as much CO2 as our fellows of the USA release today? This would account about 190 billion metric tons of C02 by year, about 8 times of what we release today; in just one year almost what we expelled the last decade. Save the Ebola hypothesis, there's no population cutting trend which may prevent an environmental catastrophy. Depopulation is not a minor issue, but in an about.com-like list, I don't think it would deserve being in the top five, even in the top ten solutions of the whole problem. 

Economical shrinkage can be a better option. Maybe we might renounce the 2.3 trillion dollars (currency, not ppp) raise expected this year - and the 700 billion dollars taxes associate to them-. Or maybe we can resign nothing and invest just a 10% of those 700 billion in avoiding GHG emission.

Cost of capital is what makes wind mills and solar panels not worldwide competitive enough. Let's invest that 10% in allowances to capital. We'd have then a trillion dollars of environmental friendly electricity investments the first five years, about 700 Gw in power plants, more than the double of all nuclear power plants around the World today, and capable to generate about the same amounts of electricity.

This depopulation issue (a fact that will occur "naturally" sooner than later) sounds to me like speaking of aborting 8-month fetus next year, fine a couple for procreating their second child in three years, execute one neighbour of the block at random in 15 years, and exterminate half of the block in 50 years, just for not bothering in spending some thousand dollars this year plus changing a gross of light bulbs today. This depopulation issue has then become absolutely abstract -legally and morally speaking- to me.


----------



## TRG

aleCcowaN said:


> I don't think people is misinform or mislead assuming they understand the *you* part of "top 10 things *you* can do to reduce global warming". Individual actions multiplied by hundreds of millions can cut 5, 10 or even 20% of GHG emissions and preserve and promote some carbon sinks. This is not enough, but it has the power to foster public awareness about the problem, and being most of us voters and neighbours, it has also the power of promoting social and political actions, change of values and compromise. Replacing a 100W light bulb for a 25W high performance potentially may reduce GHG emissions enough to light 500W traditional bulbs in the long run. This mathematical inconsistence is pretty normal when you see the whole picture of social and economical processes along decades.
> 
> Sometimes I think that people that disparage individual actions and label them as meaningless and naive only want to see the first domino of the line not falling.
> Calculator on hand, I get we will see -not me, probably- in 2045-2050 the whole World having an average ppp per capita similar to the one which has USA today. Suppose 10 billion inhabitants by then. The problem would be, will be they(we) releasing as much CO2 as our fellows of the USA release today? This would account about 190 billion metric tons of C02 by year, about 8 times of what we release today; in just one year almost what we expelled the last decade. Save the Ebola hypothesis, there's no population cutting trend which may prevent an environmental catastrophy. Depopulation is not a minor issue, but in an about.com-like list, I don't think it would deserve being in the top five, even in the top ten solutions of the whole problem.
> 
> Economical shrinkage can be a better option. Maybe we might renounce the 2.3 trillion dollars (currency, not ppp) raise expected this year - and the 700 billion dollars taxes associate to them-. Or maybe we can resign nothing and invest just a 10% of those 700 billion in avoiding GHG emission.
> 
> Cost of capital is what makes wind mills and solar panels not worldwide competitive enough. Let's invest that 10% in allowances to capital. We'd have then a trillion dollars of environmental friendly electricity investments the first five years, about 700 Gw in power plants, more than the double of all nuclear power plants around the World today, and capable to generate about the same amounts of electricity.
> 
> This depopulation issue (a fact that will occur "naturally" sooner than later) sounds to me like speaking of aborting 8-month fetus next year, fine a couple for procreating their second child in three years, execute one neighbour of the block at random in 15 years, and exterminate half of the block in 50 years, just for not bothering in spending some thousand dollars this year plus changing a gross of light bulbs today. This depopulation issue has then become absolutely abstract -legally and morally speaking- to me.


 
I believe that people do not understand the magnitude of the problem of limiting GHG emissions partly because most of what they hear are trivial solutions. In the public's mind it just takes a few technological breakthroughs, some tinkering with tax incentives and there you are... problem solved! We cannot even do 1 Kyoto and it may take 30 Kyotos or more to get GHG's under control. As for actually doing the 10 things, that is just a matter of economics. People aren't really going to do this based on civic mindedness. To get people to do even these small things, the price of energy must go up, way up. Do this, and the economic shrinkage of which you speak will quickly follow. Of course, rasing the cost of energy is the one thing policy makers do not want to do, but it is exactly what they must do. They are probably more likely to pass a one child per family law than they are to tell people to pay more for gasoline.


----------



## aleCcowaN

TRG said:


> I believe that people do not understand the magnitude of the problem of limiting GHG emissions partly because most of what they hear are trivial solutions. In the public's mind it just takes a few technological breakthroughs, some tinkering with tax incentives and there you are... problem solved! We cannot even do 1 Kyoto and it may take 30 Kyotos or more to get GHG's under control.


In my experience people don't understand magnitudes and that's it. Most people can't imagine 6.5 billion inhabitants or 48 trillion dollars GDP currency prices or 22 billion metric tons C02. They have the vague concept of "huge", sometimes pronounced /hjʊʊʊʊ*:**:**:**:**:**:**:*dʒ/. They also can't imagine 15 trillion dollars public budgets, 1.2 trillion dollars spent on "defense". They wouldn't even able to imagine the actual cost of 900 billion to 1.3 trillion to get rid of each and any of the 22 billion metric tons of C02 mankind throws yearly to the atmosphere. 

But one thing that almost all people can perceive is that solving the problem is economically a fraction of what governments manage to spent, and in the same way they know that each of them exists as individual and he or she is a part of the 6.5 billion, and in some way she or he pay a few hundreds or thousands in taxes to make the 15 trillion dollars, so they rightly feel that changing a dozen light bulbs, planting a couple of trees, and so on, contribute to somewhat release the problem. Billions of trifles are not trifle at all, the same way that stealing half cents from millions bank accounts is not a trifle but 5 to 15 years imprisoned.

One of the most perverse biases I see in this field is the "I can manage magnitudes but who don't think like me are lost in trifles". Nobody who change a light bulb feels to be the "anonymous" Private Ryan of the war against global warming. From individual actions to global actions the problem  should be regarded in the proper perspective if the discussion goes in good faith.


TRG said:


> As for actually doing the 10 things, that is just a matter of economics. People aren't really going to do this based on civic mindedness. To get people to do even these small things, the price of energy must go up, way up. Do this, and the economic shrinkage of which you speak will quickly follow. Of course, rasing the cost of energy is the one thing policy makers do not want to do, but it is exactly what they must do. They are probably more likely to pass a one child per family law than they are to tell people to pay more for gasoline.


The amazing ability of the American culture to live in navel-gazing (the very American adjective is a sign of it) not surprisingly contaminates the about.com top ten list, where is absent "use public transportation" or "use driving pools as much as you can" (the "drive less and drive smart" is strikingly self-indulgent). C'mon! Let the trees reproduce by themselves and take the bus -previously bother in claiming there is a bus to take-. Worry about TV programs like Extreme Makeover building amazingly environmental oriented houses, not houses with cardboard walls and 500 gallons bathtubs provided by a Fontana di Trevi of hot water, just to prize a fellow who was such amazingly socially responsive in donating a kidney. Try to be consistent!

The summary you wrote in the paragraph I quoted is about United States, not the World. Here in Argentina we used to have a policy of heavy taxes on gasoline, like Brazil, Europe and Japan, and probably China and India. Now in the effort of hiding inflation the government almost subsidies gasoline, by dropping taxes and punishing oil producers (we are an oil exporter) "robbing" an additional 22% of international price of oil to force them to offer cheap fuel. This absurd, shameful and short-termed policy we have has fostered oil consumption and we are close to an energy crisis. With all of these gasoline incentives and fun *we have to pay yet 3.30 US dollars a gallon*. How much do you pay in the States? 2.60? 2.80? C'mon! Have we to depopulate to solve the problem? What is going to be the depopulation method? Being us sacrificed in the altar of Lord of American Big Oil? A few weeks ago some journalists commented that happily  a Gallup research has measured World's total distrust on USA has dropped from 56% to 49%. Think about your behave on global warming and many issues, as he who wants fundamental changes, must overhaul firstly his fundamentals.


----------



## TRG

aleCcowaN said:


> In my experience people don't understand magnitudes and that's it. Most people can't imagine 6.5 billion inhabitants or 48 trillion dollars GDP currency prices or 22 billion metric tons C02. They have the vague concept of "huge", sometimes pronounced /hjʊʊʊʊ*:**:**:**:**:**:**:*dʒ/. They also can't imagine 15 trillion dollars public budgets, 1.2 trillion dollars spent on "defense". They wouldn't even able to imagine the actual cost of 900 billion to 1.3 trillion to get rid of each and any of the 22 billion metric tons of C02 mankind throws yearly to the atmosphere.
> 
> But one thing that almost all people can perceive is that solving the problem is economically a fraction of what governments manage to spent, and in the same way they know that each of them exists as individual and he or she is a part of the 6.5 billion, and in some way she or he pay a few hundreds or thousands in taxes to make the 15 trillion dollars, so they rightly feel that changing a dozen light bulbs, planting a couple of trees, and so on, contribute to somewhat release the problem. Billions of trifles are not trifle at all, the same way that stealing half cents from millions bank accounts is not a trifle but 5 to 15 years imprisoned.
> 
> One of the most perverse biases I see in this field is the "I can manage magnitudes but who don't think like me are lost in trifles". Nobody who change a light bulb feels to be the "anonymous" Private Ryan of the war against global warming. From individual actions to global actions the problem should be regarded in the proper perspective if the discussion goes in good faith.
> The amazing ability of the American culture to live in navel-gazing (the very American adjective is a sign of it) not surprisingly contaminates the about.com top ten list, where is absent "use public transportation" or "use driving pools as much as you can" (the "drive less and drive smart" is strikingly self-indulgent). C'mon! Let the trees reproduce by themselves and take the bus -previously bother in claiming there is a bus to take-. Worry about TV programs like Extreme Makeover building amazingly environmental oriented houses, not houses with cardboard walls and 500 gallons bathtubs provided by a Fontana di Trevi of hot water, just to prize a fellow who was such amazingly socially responsive in donating a kidney. Try to be consistent!
> 
> The summary you wrote in the paragraph I quoted is about United States, not the World. Here in Argentina we used to have a policy of heavy taxes on gasoline, like Brazil, Europe and Japan, and probably China and India. Now in the effort of hiding inflation the government almost subsidies gasoline, by dropping taxes and punishing oil producers (we are an oil exporter) "robbing" an additional 22% of international price of oil to force them to offer cheap fuel. This absurd, shameful and short-termed policy we have has fostered oil consumption and we are close to an energy crisis. With all of these gasoline incentives and fun *we have to pay yet 3.30 US dollars a gallon*. How much do you pay in the States? 2.60? 2.80? C'mon! Have we to depopulate to solve the problem? What is going to be the depopulation method? Being us sacrificed in the altar of Lord of American Big Oil? A few weeks ago some journalists commented that happily a Gallup research has measured World's total distrust on USA has dropped from 56% to 49%. Think about your behave on global warming and many issues, as he who wants fundamental changes, must overhaul firstly his fundamentals.


 
Raising social consciousness is all to the good and I understand the many small acts can add up to something positive. The problem, in my view, is that many people are left thinking that these things alone are sufficient. They are not. We have had a trememdously effective campaign, IMO, to get people to stop smoking. People have become educated and informed and now we have far fewer smokers. Yet, many people still smoke even when they don't have to. People have to use energy and they will to the extent that they want to and can afford it. 

I'm not sure I understand your point in the last paragraph. Is it that the U.S. is not doing enough? To the extent that our public policy and political utterances are at odds with each other, I agree. I'm not sure what big American Oil has to do with anything any more than big British Oil or Big Fench Oil or Big Venezuelan Oil or Big Saudi Oil. The U.S. is somewhat unique in the word in that our economy has evolved around oil and the automobile so the problem of reducing oil consumption is more difficult here than anywhere else. Perhaps that is why there is, to borrow Athaulf's term, more "logical dissonance" in our political rhetoric. I can't say because I'm not well informed about what politicians in other countries are saying about how to solve GW, except that they have the luxury of blaming it on the U.S. A little more "logical dissonance" there I suspect. 

I would again reinforce what I said earlier that if we want people to change their behavior, then we should impose taxes on that behavior until we get results. Do you agree with this? It has occurred to me since my last post, that we might also apply this concept the population control and tax people based on the number of children they have. Right now, U.S. tax policy favors having more children because you get more deductions the more children you have. Perhaps it's time to change the tax benefits of having children. Do you agree?


----------



## karuna

TRG said:


> I would again reinforce what I said earlier that if we want people to change their behavior, then we should impose taxes on that behavior until we get results. Do you agree with this? It has occurred to me since my last post, that we might also apply this concept the population control and tax people based on the number of children they have. Right now, U.S. tax policy favors having more children because you get more deductions the more children you have. Perhaps it's time to change the tax benefits of having children. Do you agree?



I don't understand. The US birth rate is not that spectacular and in Canada it is so low that they have to depend on immigration to grow their numbers. What would be the use to limit children there? I could understand if you were speaking about India or African countries.


----------



## TRG

karuna said:


> I don't understand. The US birth rate is not that spectacular and in Canada it is so low that they have to depend on immigration to grow their numbers. What would be the use to limit children there? I could understand if you were speaking about India or African countries.


 
My point was more general in that tax policy should be aligned with other policy objectives and they frequently are not. Why is it necessary to grow the numbers? And besides, transferring people from underdeveloped economies to developed ones (immigration) is another good way to slow birth rates. Clearly, India and Africa need fewer people not more, but I have no idea if tax policy would be of any use. I suspect not.


----------



## karuna

TRG said:


> My point was more general in that tax policy should be aligned with other policy objectives and they frequently are not. Why is it necessary to grow the numbers? And besides, transferring people from underdeveloped economies to developed ones (immigration) is another good way to slow birth rates. Clearly, India and Africa need fewer people not more, but I have no idea if tax policy would be of any use. I suspect not.



Because more people are more fun. I suspect that behind this depopulation idea is simply hate of humans. In India people are very poor yet they are full of joy and always smiling and friendly. Whereas in China where they indeed have taxes for a second child, people are very rude and do not respect each other.


----------



## .   1

karuna said:


> Because more people are more fun. I suspect that behind this depopulation idea is simply hate of humans. In India people are very poor yet they are full of joy and always smiling and friendly. Whereas in China where they indeed have taxes for a second child, people are very rude and do not respect each other.


There simply must be a word to describe the linkage of two disparate items by using fuzzy logic.

.,,


----------



## Athaulf

aleCcowaN said:


> But one thing that almost all people can perceive is that solving the problem is economically a fraction of what governments manage to spent, and in the same way they know that each of them exists as individual and he or she is a part of the 6.5 billion, and in some way she or he pay a few hundreds or thousands in taxes to make the 15 trillion dollars, so they rightly feel that changing a dozen light bulbs, planting a couple of trees, and so on, contribute to somewhat release the problem.



Could you please elaborate on what exactly is the basis for your claim that "solving the problem is economically a fraction of what governments manage to spend"? It doesn't seem that way to me at all. 

When I observe how much economic activity is necessary to merely feed and clothe billions of people who are not living the lifestyle of subsistence agriculture, it seems to me like a vast level of GHG emissions is absolutely necessary to sustain that activity with today's technology -- the only feasible alternative being a massive radical switch to nuclear energy. Sure, lowering the general standard of living and forcing people to give up various luxuries can lower the level of emissions, but I don't think such measures can lower it below its present order of magnitude. And since the problem is caused by the cumulative emissions, rather than emission rates, this obviously isn't a solution.



> The summary you wrote in the paragraph I quoted is about United States, not the World. Here in Argentina we used to have a policy of heavy taxes on gasoline, like Brazil, Europe and Japan, and probably China and India. Now in the effort of hiding inflation the government almost subsidies gasoline, by dropping taxes and punishing oil producers (we are an oil exporter) "robbing" an additional 22% of international price of oil to force them to offer cheap fuel. This absurd, shameful and short-termed policy we have has fostered oil consumption and we are close to an energy crisis. With all of these gasoline incentives and fun *we have to pay yet 3.30 US dollars a gallon*. How much do you pay in the States? 2.60? 2.80? C'mon!


However, the problem is that in the greatest part of the U.S. and Canada, living without massive car use is absolutely impossible. Outside of a handful of large city centers, in which less than 10% of North Americans live, the population density is very low and the average distances to the workplace and all essential services are vast. In recent years, gas prices in the U.S. and Canada have gone up drastically, and yet people have found it impossible to substantially reduce their car use. The idea that their GHG emissions could be drastically reduced by persuading or forcing them to use their cars less doesn't seem feasible to me at all.


----------



## karuna

Athaulf said:


> However, the problem is that in the greatest part of the U.S. and Canada, living without massive car use is absolutely impossible. Outside of a handful of large city centers, in which less than 10% of North Americans live, the population density is very low and the average distances to the workplace and all essential services are vast.



Actually the low population density in the USA is a myth. It may be true in a few places but I just looked at the data and was really surprised to learn that the USA average is just a little lower than in Latvia (31 p/km2 vs 36 p/km2). If we take away mountains and deserts that Latvia doesn't have, it might be even higher. And yet public transportation used to be very good in Latvia, there was no place I couldn't go by public bus or train. 



> The idea that their GHG emissions could be drastically reduced by persuading or forcing them to use their cars less doesn't seem feasible to me at all.



Probably not, because of American freedom loving culture, yet if gas prices were to skyrocket they would have to live poor lives just to be able to continue to drive their cars.


----------



## Athaulf

karuna said:


> Actually the low population density in the USA is a myth. It may be true in a few places but I just looked at the data and was really surprised to learn that the USA average is just a little lower than in Latvia (31 p/km2 vs 36 p/km2). If we take away mountains and deserts that Latvia doesn't have, it might be even higher. And yet public transportation used to be very good in Latvia, there was no place I couldn't go by public bus or train.



However, the issue is not the overall population density in the country, but the lack of local concentration in cities and towns. There are very few places in North America that would count as urban by European standards. Except for a handful of places like New York, even in relatively densely populated areas of the U.S., the costs of covering a whole area by public transit would be beyond reason.



> Probably not, because of American freedom loving culture, yet if gas prices were to skyrocket they would have to live poor lives just to be able to continue to drive their cars.


But that's exactly what they would have to do! In fact, one of the main burdens on the (relatively) poor Americans is that they are forced to own and maintain cars, because life without them is absolutely impossible.  Before I visited the U.S., I found it hard to believe that a car was such an essential necessity there, but it really is. Being without a car in a typical environment there is comparable to having a serious physical disability in its limiting effects on one's life.


----------



## karuna

Athaulf said:


> However, the issue is not the overall population density in the country, but the lack of local concentration in cities and towns. There are very few places in North America that would count as urban by European standards. Except for a handful of places like New York, even in relatively densely populated areas of the U.S., the costs of covering a whole area by public transit would be beyond reason.



I am not sure what technical difficulties could be there? Latvians are not exactly city loving people either. In fact we even don't have any real villages but live in so-called _viensētas _(individual country farms). The distance to my nearest neighbor was 1 km, bus stop was 3 km, post office, library and grocery shop – 5 km and my primary school was 12 km away. 

Of course it all depends how you plan places and in America they probably assume that everybody owns a car and it may be difficult to change the current patterns. But theoretically I don't see a problem why they couldn't cover whole area with buses or trains, if, for example, oil reserves suddenly disappeared.


----------



## Athaulf

karuna said:


> I am not sure what technical difficulties could be there? Latvians are not exactly city loving people either. In fact we even don't have any real villages but live in so-called _viensētas _(individual country farms). The distance to my nearest neighbor was 1 km, bus stop was 3 km, post office, library and grocery shop – 5 km and my primary school was 12 km away.



Except for the distance to the nearest neighbor, this sounds pretty much like typical North American suburban distances. The problem is of course that with the system you describe, people would have to walk 3km twice a day to the bus stop. Even if we ignore the fact that such an idea would utterly baffle a typical American or Canadian with their present mentality, there is also the problem of not very human-friendly climate in the most of North America. Imagine walking 5-6km a day in Texas during the summer or in the Upper Midwest or Canada during the Winter. (Come to think of it, I've actually done the latter for two years, but don't expect the idea to be popularly accepted, and those two winters were unusually mild anyway.)



> Of course it all depends how you plan places and in America they probably assume that everybody owns a car and it may be difficult to change the current patterns. But theoretically I don't see a problem why they couldn't cover whole area with buses or trains, if, for example, oil reserves suddenly disappeared.


The current patterns are certainly another huge problem; everything is indeed organized under the assumption that everyone goes around in cars. Many places in the U.S. are organized so that it's basically impossible to get out of one's street (and sometimes even out of one's yard!) except by a car.


----------



## aleCcowaN

TRG said:


> Raising social consciousness is all to the good and I understand the many small acts can add up to something positive. The problem, in my view, is that many people are left thinking that these things alone are sufficient. They are not. We have had a trememdously effective campaign, IMO, to get people to stop smoking. People have become educated and informed and now we have far fewer smokers. Yet, many people still smoke even when they don't have to. People have to use energy and they will to the extent that they want to and can afford it.


But there's a peril of people thinking that the little they can do is not worth at all. Let's compromise to promote people doing this *and* commited with taxation and institutional changes.


TRG said:


> I'm not sure I understand your point in the last paragraph. Is it that the U.S. is not doing enough? To the extent that our public policy and political utterances are at odds with each other, I agree. I'm not sure what big American Oil has to do with anything any more than big British Oil or Big Fench Oil or Big Venezuelan Oil or Big Saudi Oil. The U.S. is somewhat unique in the word in that our economy has evolved around oil and the automobile so the problem of reducing oil consumption is more difficult here than anywhere else. Perhaps that is why there is, to borrow Athaulf's term, more "logical dissonance" in our political rhetoric. I can't say because I'm not well informed about what politicians in other countries are saying about how to solve GW, except that they have the luxury of blaming it on the U.S. A little more "logical dissonance" there I suspect.


Blaming the USA about global warming is not an invention of former KGB just to get malicious control of the World. USA is accountable for about 28-30% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions since Industrial Revolution, some years peaking 37%, now "officially" 23% -using the suspicious "natural gas equivalent" in UN statistics, only applied to US data- or 27 to 30% as other governmental and organizational US' sites say. All this having had the USA about 4.5% of World's population throughout the last century. Even not speaking about the "moral" differences between GHG thrown to produce food or pumping fresh water to households in the Third World, and GHG thrown by a sole person to drive a fashionable ATV through well paved Main Street in Springfield, USA is still accountable for 28-30% of GW, then having some sort of 30% of the Global Blame. But the navelish self contemplation doesn't end in a marked USA-morphism of life. Even the rest of the World seems to be the counterpart of USA, and this imaginary country Restoftheworldland, concept worth of Disney, is accountable of 70% of GHG emissions and even they don't agree in holding an unified opinion. How they dare to blame Holly USA!

"Logical dissonance" is a concept not worthy to be applied to this vision. "Logical dissonance" is too much a profound, fine and delicate concept. There is a pretty primitive, thicker and coarse undercurrent of national mental frame here. The frame that looks to sunny California, misty Seattle, jazzy New Orleans, and windy Chicago and says, based on this "variety", the things this guy is talking about simply doesn't exist, he must be jealous.

About if I think that USA is doing little about this problem, I think that what USA is doing is "one small step for country, one giant leap on the dark for mankind".


TRG said:


> I would again reinforce what I said earlier that if we want people to change their behavior, then we should impose taxes on that behavior until we get results. Do you agree with this? It has occurred to me since my last post, that we might also apply this concept the population control and tax people based on the number of children they have. Right now, U.S. tax policy favors having more children because you get more deductions the more children you have. Perhaps it's time to change the tax benefits of having children. Do you agree?


My answer is *YES* and *yes*.

I was checking yesterday night the total fertility rates for 2000 and 2006 by country, and I found nice trends about depopulation by spontaneous causes. I commented in a previous post of this thread the action of military-catholic groups to promote births in Argentina. Now, I'm glad to say we have a total fertility rate of 2.09 (USA and France have 2.01). We are now 40 million, and we could have being 32 millions by today, wealthier and more educated, if this groups had not existed, but by now, all is under control. Our neighbours Chile and Uruguay have less TFR, even our gigantic neighbour Brazil has less TFR than USA. Two thirds of South America is doing well now in the population side.

About taxation, you know my opinion for previous threads on GW. Gradually, heavier taxes to whom produces the problem, soft benefits and capital contribution to whom solves the problem. Finally, in the long run, taxation base on GHG emissions, including farmers who deteriorate their land in order to get more value in crops, as they think they own the land, and they simply own the exclusive right of using it. The World is all upside down when you can't build an over-roof in your house to avoid heat gaining and heat losses, because it surpasses the max height City Code allows, and they can fine you and demolish your over-roof, while any farmer, land owner, or oil tycoon can do whatever he wants with his land.


----------



## aleCcowaN

. said:


> There simply must be a word to describe the linkage of two disparate items by using fuzzy logic.
> 
> .,,


I have no words (I'm still laughing). We have a word to describe the person who expresses the ideas this way: ¡Brillante!


----------



## karuna

Athaulf said:


> Imagine walking 5-6km a day in Texas during the summer or in the Upper Midwest or Canada during the Winter.



Actually it is not too bad when you get used to it. I used to ski to school in winter and it was such a fun. And when it was too cold (below -20 C) the school and most work places were closed. Besides most of those obese Americans would benefit greatly from walking 5 km a day. Why pay money to exercise at gym when you can do it for free as a matter of course. 

But even if this all is too complicated, Americans could build at least proper sidewalks. I don't think that it would increase the cost of roads significantly.


----------



## Fernando

I have some tiny and humble proposals to solve all environmental problems:

1) Nuke African cities.

That way you will reduce the population, increase world GDP per capita and trigger a global nuclear winter to set off GHG.

2) Force abortion in all underdeveloped countries.

We will have a smaller, wealthier, smarter, better educated, less polluter generation.

3) Subsidies for suicide.

With a subsidy for, say, commitment for suicide (assisted if necessary) within five-year we will have a big reduction, specially in poor population (more willing to take the money). It should be applied for pre-teens. Otherwise they could produce more GHG-factories before dying.

4) Shoot drivers. 

I think this proposal is self-explanatory.

5) Mankind extermination. 

If 1-4 fails, you always have this. If you are a pro-diversity fan, you could maintain a couple of humans. They will be (for sure) rich and educated.

I recommend you a nice Spanish song by Siniestro Total, which nicely conveys the beauty of this solution.
-------------------------------------------------

Now seriously:

- If we waste 8 times faster our oil resources we will finish them off 8 times faster and we will pollute no more 8 times faster. For sure we will not be producing GHG by 2100.

- Poor countries are also heavy polluters. Lead pollution is far greater in Nepal than in Europe (lead petrol is forbidden). 

- So, growth is a solution, not a problem. Maybe they will produce more GHG at the moment, but do not ask me to convince a starving African of not cooking his food with oil (or wood).

- Taxes are an obvious solution: people who pollute more should pay more. I prefer the criminal code: the heavy polluters should be punished.

- I do not want to live in a non-children society. The heavy (?) incentives for birth rate are to spur dying societies, rather than aiming for a baby-boom. Nowadays the incentives for NOT having children are so heavy that a little state incentives in the opposite direction are not so bad.

For the record, I have no children. By 2060 or so I will produce my last atoms of GHG through the combination of air oxygen with my carbon particles.

Or, bury me rather than incineration. i will be good oil in 5,000 years.


----------



## maxiogee

aleCcowaN said:


> But there's a peril of people thinking that the little they can do is not worth at all.



Indeed. Here we all stand facing an ever-nearing, ever-growing tidal wave and we all appear to have only a spoon with which to make a difference.


----------



## cuchuflete

karuna said:


> But even if this all is too complicated, Americans could build at least proper sidewalks. I don't think that it would increase the cost of roads significantly.


 Ignorance is bliss.  Have you not read the many posts that discuss the lack of population density outside of major metropolitan areas?

Perhaps you have some new technology to offer that allows for the building of sidewalks without burning hydrocarbons?  Skiing to school may do wonders for the body, but it apparently doesn't help clear thinking.

When the snow stops, I can take a healthy 10km walk to the nearest bus stop.  The buses stop twice a day, and go to the nearest big city, about a four hour trip.  How will that help people in a rural farming area buy groceries?  Oh yes, we should just give up on fresh food, or return to the rustic practices of the 19th century when, coincidentally, the population was about 15% of what it is today.  May as well just declare third world countries the ideal to strive for...


----------



## aleCcowaN

Athaulf said:


> Could you please elaborate on what exactly is the basis for your claim that "solving the problem is economically a fraction of what governments manage to spend"? It doesn't seem that way to me at all.
> 
> When I observe how much economic activity is necessary to merely feed and clothe billions of people who are not living the lifestyle of subsistence agriculture, it seems to me like a vast level of GHG emissions is absolutely necessary to sustain that activity with today's technology -- the only feasible alternative being a massive radical switch to nuclear energy. Sure, lowering the general standard of living and forcing people to give up various luxuries can lower the level of emissions, but I don't think such measures can lower it below its present order of magnitude. And since the problem is caused by the cumulative emissions, rather than emission rates, this obviously isn't a solution.


I've spreaded lots of information about this in many posts about global warming in this forum. To make it simple, see carbon sequestration as a business: you spend now 720 us dollars by each ton of gas to feed your ATV, but you have to pay for sequestrating 3 tons of CO2 you throw through the exhaust. How much is it? At most 240 us dollars (see other figures in global warming threads). Then put a tax on gas to pay this. The gallon will cost 3.20 us dollars, wow! almost the same it cost some month ago. You may give the money for carbon sequestration to the poor in the Third World. They would produce bamboo and keep it. They even can bury it, isolate it, and cover it with soil. You may tax gas and give the money poor countries to do the work, or you can keep it and promote research, windmills and finance hybrid cars, then you can keep using your ATV as much as you like -or can pay-. Or you simply can pay 3.20 us dollars to an oil company because some tropical Mussolini and some Hitler with turban decided to manipulate the oil market. An estimation of the costs of getting rid of about 70% of GHG emissions could be about 15 to 20% of total costs of poluting energy, cement and agriculture. The other 30% may be more expensive. That's a fraction of 15 trillion of us dollars governments manage to spend this year. I think everybody is concluding that nothing is done because it's impossible to do. You better think about why are we not doing it, and you will discover what's really behind the scene, something called "the world as it is".


Athaulf said:


> However, the problem is that in the greatest part of the U.S. and Canada, living without massive car use is absolutely impossible. Outside of a handful of large city centers, in which less than 10% of North Americans live, the population density is very low and the average distances to the workplace and all essential services are vast. In recent years, gas prices in the U.S. and Canada have gone up drastically, and yet people have found it impossible to substantially reduce their car use. The idea that their GHG emissions could be drastically reduced by persuading or forcing them to use their cars less doesn't seem feasible to me at all.


Your numbers are a little deflected. In USA they call a city a political and administrative division, not a real city. If you take the first 20 urban conglomerates alone in USA, they account about 20%-25% of total population.And I'm not speaking of New York + Jersey City + Yonkers + etc. (they are out of this conglomerates). I lived the trouble of going from Los Angeles County to Orange County (Beverly Hills to Anheim) using public transport: a total mess. If you take public transport in USA and you are not a newyorker, either you are a child or old or illegal immigrant or car-banned-drunkard or poor or stupid or regarded-as-stupid. Public transport is not fashionable in the USA. USA can have an extended system to collect children from their homes and take them to the school and reversely, but can't have a system to other people...oh! I got it! They have cars!

The USA has dismantled its public transportation system to nourish car fever. Having social developments occurred ten years later and Miss Rosa Parks maybe had lived an anonymous life. About 60% of USA population live in cities -conglomerates- similar to those around the World, well or badly served by public transportation. One of the causes is what I said and perhaps you didn't catch. Gas is very cheap in USA because is almost untaxed. We pay in Argentina a now cheap price of 3.30 us dollars a gallon, having us a per capita income about one seventh of the USA's. Or if you prefer, we pay 11 ppp dollars a gallon when in the States is paid 2.40 ppp dollars a gallon (our per capita income is 34% of USA's in ppp, but with this unit it doesn't matter). Have the price reached from 1.20 to 2.40 in several years and consumption didn't fall?, what a surprise! they have the cheapest gas, now they have just cheap gas.


----------



## I.C.

Fernando said:


> I have some tiny and humble proposals to solve all environmental problems:
> (…)
> 
> 2) Force abortion in all underdeveloped countries.
> 
> We will have a smaller, wealthier, smarter, better educated, less polluter generation.



Firstly, in terms of “smarter” and “better educated” that solution looks like it still can be improved. Secondly, but going along the same lines, such practice as above would constitute discrimination on the basis of ethnicity – something that no longer should have a place in any modern society that wants to call itself civilised. We must never discriminate based on race or ethnicity. 

I therefore propose setting a strict world-wide yearly birth quota and auctioning off breeding privileges to the highest bidders. That way we will insure it will truly be the worthy who breed. 
(Of course, individuals and groups will be free to purchase breeding privileges and give them away. As employment benefits, say, or some philanthropists and churches might wish to set up private foundations which will give them away based on principles they may set as they wish. Also, people may wish to draw up contracts that will let someone give birth such that this person's offspring can become an indentured nanny for own grandchildren. There simply will have to be a serving caste.)


> 3) Subsidies for suicide.
> 
> 4) Shoot drivers.


 This kind of thinking is so typical for authority-whipped socialist Europeans. Why not let the market settle that? Finish privatising all security and let communities sell headhunting licences. Reintroduce the exciting sport of man-hunting. Man, the noblest game. 
I’m sure there’ll be more than enough people willing to pay for the privilege. This not only will rid communities of unproductive elements by either giving them work or removing them from the gene pool entirely, it will also create revenue for communities and boost local economy at the same time.


> Now seriously:
> (...)
> Taxes are an obvious solution: people who pollute more should pay more. I prefer the criminal code: the heavy polluters should be punished.


There has been talk about a carbon tax on goods from countries that will not sign the Kyoto protocol or future agreements.


> Or, bury me rather than incineration. i will be good oil in 5,000 years.


Such a long wait may not be necessary. Coal from biomass: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2071791,00.html


----------



## karuna

cuchuflete said:


> Ignorance is bliss.  Have you not read the many posts that discuss the lack of population density outside of major metropolitan areas?



I already proved that it is a myth that people want to be deluded of. The US has quite a high population density. Most people live in such high density pockets. I am not speaking about people living in remote places but about the suburbs where sidewalks or bus routes are not planned because it is assumed that everybody should have a car. That makes it a circular problem. Because everybody has a car, few people take bus that in turn makes it unprofitable to run buses more often. 

I have a friend who lives in such suburban house in Illinois. He cannot get a DSL because, you know, the same excuse: population density is too low. In fact it is a very populated place with big shopping mall near to his house and there are hundred of houses lined in all directions. I went to visit him one day and the bus stop was about 1 km from his house yet there was no decent sidewalk despite that it looked completely urbanized place.

I was given an explanation that local municipality is actually against increasing public transportation in this village because then black people would move there. 



> Perhaps you have some new technology to offer that allows for the building of sidewalks without burning hydrocarbons?


I can imagine that even in cases when people could easily walk they don't do it because walking on the road is dangerous. The extra CO2 emmissions could be saved many times from less car use.


----------



## aleCcowaN

Fernando said:


> ....
> 1) Nuke African cities.
> 
> That way you will reduce the population, increase world GDP per capita and trigger a global nuclear winter to set off GHG.


We could add to the bombs a label with "nothing personal" written on them, to avoid any implication on racism. But if such suspicion persists, we could make a raffle to choose around the Earth the cities to be nuked (no microwaves implied). The most important is clearly state that nobody hates black people specially, we just hate the whole human species.


Fernando said:


> Now seriously:
> 
> 1) If we waste 8 times faster our oil resources we will finish them off 8 times faster and we will pollute no more 8 times faster. For sure we will not be producing GHG by 2100.
> 
> 2) Poor countries are also heavy polluters. Lead pollution is far greater in Nepal than in Europe (lead petrol is forbidden).
> 
> 3) So, growth is a solution, not a problem. Maybe they will produce more GHG at the moment, but do not ask me to convince a starving African of not cooking his food with oil (or wood).
> 
> 4) Taxes are an obvious solution: people who pollute more should pay more. I prefer the criminal code: the heavy polluters should be punished.
> 
> 5) I do not want to live in a non-children society. The heavy (?) incentives for birth rate are to spur dying societies, rather than aiming for a baby-boom. Nowadays the incentives for NOT having children are so heavy that a little state incentives in the opposite direction are not so bad.
> 
> For the record, I have no children. By 2060 or so I will produce my last atoms of GHG through the combination of air oxygen with my carbon particles.
> 
> Or, bury me rather than incineration. i will be good oil in 5,000 years.


1) The problem is that there are 3 to 4 trillion tons of coal proved and reasonably predicted. We can burn fossil fuel for centuries.

2) Though GHG are some kind of pollution, GW is the main issue. Nepal will surely stop using leaded gas in the future, probably polluting less with lead than what Spain did in past years. Besides developed countries are moving industries to the Third World in order to keep going some polluting technologies EC and Japan regulations don't allow.

3) Growth is a solution. How much growth should we have? That's another question. Max speed growth almost never is the best growth. In nature, max speed growth is called cancer. 

4) I completely agree. I add the idea of an international organization like the each year more useless IMF. This institution is probably to be totally useless in one or two decades. We could get the 300 billion dollars plus interest plus future country contributions to developed a sort of World Bank to finance environmentally concerned energy projects like Grand Inga.

5) I agree too. France managed to raise its total fertility rate from about 1.5 to the actual 2.01 promoting the second and third child. I think the 1.28 value for Spain and Italy is too low (some countries has 1.12, accelerated extintion). A value of 1.7 is OK to keep societies working and plenty of people of all ages while the planet depopulates slowly, about 20-25% by century. If you see the values of TFR for some African countries, some of them manage to reduce the value from 6 to 4 in six years, just promoting education about birth control and giving the elements to do it. I like the Argentinian theory of "Two children are children, three or four are a school. You shouldn't have more children than you can guide by hand in the streets"



I.C. said:


> Such a long wait may not be necessary. Coal from biomass: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2071791,00.html


I can't imagine our friend Fernando inside an autoclave with water and citric acid  (and a little mezquite added) changed in briquettes. Fernando will live for ever! (as 10% of all the human beings that ever existed are alive today, it's not proved that some humans can't be immortal ----> this reasoning is more logical that many I've seen in this forum)

Bromas aparte, this is the link to the project (with a link to a German version) : http://www.enerchem.de/projekte/hydrothermal-synthesis-of-carbon-from-biomass/?c=en
It is very interesting, as it is thought as a renewable source of energy or a carbon sink, then I drop my bamboo burying initiative for this carbon from bamboo burying initiative (better I'll make some research first).


karuna said:


> I already proved that it is a myth that people want to be deluded of. The US has quite a high population density. Most people live in such high density pockets. I am not speaking about people living in remote places but about the suburbs where sidewalks or bus routes are not planned because it is assumed that everybody should have a car. That makes it a circular problem. Because everybody has a car, few people take bus that in turn makes it unprofitable to run buses more often.
> 
> I have a friend who lives in such suburban house in Illinois. He cannot get a DSL because, you know, the same excuse: population density is too low. In fact it is a very populated place with big shopping mall near to his house and there are hundred of houses lined in all directions. I went to visit him one day and the bus stop was about 1 km from his house yet there was no decent sidewalk despite that it looked completely urbanized place.
> 
> I was given an explanation that local municipality is actually against increasing public transportation in this village because then black people would move there.
> 
> I can imagine that even in cases when people could easily walk they don't do it because walking on the road is dangerous. The extra CO2 emmissions could be saved many times from less car use.


I read your depictions of US society, and you make me remember the feelings and perceptions I had when I was there visiting their country. Blind spots about themselves are so many that they seem sometimes to have retinal detachment. I'm tempted to say about our American fellows the same Jorge Luis Borges said about Peronists: "They are not bad [at all], they're simply [somewhat] incorrigible"


----------



## cuchuflete

karuna said:


> I already proved that it is a myth that people want to be deluded of. The US has quite a high population density. Most people live in such high density pockets. I am not speaking about people living in remote places but about the suburbs where sidewalks or bus routes are not planned because it is assumed that everybody should have a car.



You have already proved what?  To whom?  You may have convinced yourself, but that is a limited audience.

I have lived in and visited most of the large cities in my country.  They have sidewalks--good ones, quite wide, and well trafficked by pedestrians.  I have also visited and lived in rural areas, where sidewalks are senseless, and exist in all towns, but generally not in between towns and villages, where they would make no sense, in terms of emissions, capital investment, or even promotion of pedestrian traffic.

Your argument is based exclusively on some, and far from all, suburbs.  If you would like to try to prove that most citizens live in such suburbs, that will be fascinating reading.  I do enjoy good fiction.  

Persons per square mile:

England~976
France~293
Latvia~93
USA~80
Brasil~53

------

Maine-  33,414 square miles
Population~1,275,000
Population Density ~41 persons/square mile
Sidewalks are plentiful in all cities and suburbs.

Latvia- 24,937 square miles
Population~2,307,000
Population Density ~93/square mile


----------



## karuna

cuchuflete said:


> Your argument is based exclusively on some, and far from all, suburbs.  If you would like to try to prove that most citizens live in such suburbs, that will be fascinating reading.  I do enjoy good fiction.



I am glad that you enjoy my writing but why such irony? I just told my personal experience of Illinois comparing with Latvia. And yes, most Illini live in Chicago metro area. Chicago CTA and Metra is actually a very good public transportation system. Much better than whatever we have in Latvia. But as soon as you step out of Chicago proper, going anywhere without a car becomes very dangerous experience. Even if you can take a PACE bus to some places, you have to share the last mile on road with cars, for example, access to the Chicago Botanic Garden. It may look normal to Americans because they are used to it but from Latvian perspective it is simply unacceptable.


----------



## aleCcowaN

cuchuflete said:


> Persons per square mile:
> 
> England~976
> France~293
> Latvia~93
> USA~80
> Brasil~53
> 
> ------
> 
> Maine-  33,414 square miles
> Population~1,275,000
> Population Density ~41 persons/square mile
> Sidewalks are plentiful in all cities and suburbs.


USA = 83.9 (July 1, 2005 - US Census Bureau )

It's good to have Alaska when you need it.

USA (without Alaska - 0.23% of US population - 16.18% of US Area) = 99.9 (calculations on this US Census Bureau spreadsheet - the same for the rest of data)

Counties with more than 976 inhabitants by square mile (more than England's average):

Total: 174
Total area: 59,274 square miles (a little more than England)
Total population: 118,280,904 (a little more than two Englands)
Average density: 1995 inhabitants by square mile

States that exceeds 976 inhabitants by square mile: Puerto Rico, New Jersey and Rhode Island.

Counties with more than 293 inhabitants by square mile (more than France's average)

Total: 450
Total area: 208,044 square miles (a little more than France)
Total population: 192,054,403 (a little more than three Frances, almost four Englands)
Average density: 957 inhabitants by square mile (about England's)

States that exceeds 293 inhabitants by square mile: Puerto Rico, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Florida.

Counties which average equals 500 inhabitants by square mile.

Total: 882
 Total area: 482,589 square miles(a little more than England, France and Spain together)
 Total population: 241,500,162 (60% above England, France and Spain together) 81.5% of total USA population.
 Average density: 500.4 inhabitants by square mile
Lowest county density: 106.5 inhabitants by square mile.

Yeah! USA is a low density country

Low Density Counties of America (places where public transportation systems might be difficult)

 Total area: 3,052,043 square miles (including Alaska, without Alaska a bit over two Argentinas)
  Total population: 54,910,242 (about two Argentinas excluding Buenos Aires, with an existent and not pretty bad public transportation system) 
  Average density: 18 inhabitants by square mile, 22 excluding Alaska (about Argentina excluding Buenos Aires)

Yes, figures prove it, not only USA is a low density country with people scattered miles away each other, but they need to buy huge cars (ATV because of the lack of paved roads) and burn fuel madly, not because of some car-loving culture, but because of the real need of them. Don't forget USA is also a poor country, and they can't afford a public transportation system.


----------



## cuchuflete

> I am glad that you enjoy my writing but why such irony?


 I have no cause to dispute what you have experienced.  I find it absurd for you to extrapolate from that limited experience to an entire country.  

Back to the thread topic, I believe that a reduction in potential sidewalk perambulators will do more good, more quickly, than lower wattage light bulbs.


----------



## cuchuflete

Very amusing AlecCowan.  I see that you too are masterful at playing with numbers to prove your point, ignoring the numbers that are inconvenient.  According to the data you presented, some 55 million people live in what you choose to call low density areas.  Please ignore those.

Have you data for the other 250 million that would indicate the number of linear feet of sidewalk per inhabitant?  I know it's easier to generalize.

Do Americans make needless and excessive use of cars?  Yes, obviously.  Why not leave it at that obvious truth, and spare us your statistical brilliance?  During the decades I lived in some of the larger cities in the country, including Philadelphia and New York, most people I knew did not own cars, and walked on sidewalks and used buses and subways.  How many tens of millions of people are those?  In San Diego and Los Angeles, I was thought to be demented for suggesting use of public transport or was given astonished looks for proposing walking.   Note that those are two different behavior and thought patterns.  Why don't you simplify it into one, for the sake of a pungent polemic?  Pick the one you like.  One can distort _both_ numbers _and_ words, so why stop with numerical distortions? 

I'll campaign for a lower birth rate, while you change the light bulbs.  We both have a similar objective in mind.


----------



## karuna

cuchuflete said:


> I have no cause to dispute what you have experienced.  I find it absurd for you to extrapolate from that limited experience to an entire country.



I never did that.



> Back to the thread topic, I believe that a reduction in potential sidewalk perambulators will do more good, more quickly, than lower wattage light bulbs.


Actually we have different understanding of what is good. Let's say, if the population growth rate becomes negative it impacts the whole social structure. In my old age I definitely wouldn't like to be alone but be surrounded by my children and grandchildren as my parents today are. And one child in a family must also be feeling lonely. But never mind, many people can fulfill these needs simply by keeping a pet.


----------



## Athaulf

aleCcowaN said:


> To make it simple, see carbon sequestration as a business: you spend now 720 us dollars by each ton of gas to feed your ATV, but you have to pay for sequestrating 3 tons of CO2 you throw through the exhaust. How much is it? At most 240 us dollars (see other figures in global warming threads). Then put a tax on gas to pay this. The gallon will cost 3.20 us dollars, wow! almost the same it cost some month ago.



Which raises two important questions. 

First, what percentage of total GHG emissions comes from transportation? Apparently, in the U.S. it's about a third -- and that's _all _transportation, not just personal. Elsewhere it's much lower -- for example, 13% in Australia, or a quarter in Canada; I haven't been able to find any global figures. So it doesn't seem to me like there's much room for cutting the overall emissions here. Sure, significant cuts are possible, but nothing approaching a whole order of magnitude (which is the only thing that would actually have a significant effect on the problem).

Second, you're citing figures about the cost of carbon sequestration per unit of CO_2. However, if I understand correctly, this is the _marginal_ cost in the present situation. A massive increase in such activities on a global scale would surely increase the price of sequestration per unit of CO_2, most likely significantly. So to propose a valid argument along these lines, you need to come up with a model that takes this into account.



> You may give the money for carbon sequestration to the poor in the Third World. They would produce bamboo and keep it. They even can bury it, isolate it, and cover it with soil. You may tax gas and give the money poor countries to do the work, or you can keep it and promote research, windmills and finance hybrid cars, then you can keep using your ATV as much as you like -or can pay-. Or you simply can pay 3.20 us dollars to an oil company because some tropical Mussolini and some Hitler with turban decided to manipulate the oil market. An estimation of the costs of getting rid of about 70% of GHG emissions could be about 15 to 20% of total costs of poluting energy, cement and agriculture. The other 30% may be more expensive. That's a fraction of 15 trillion of us dollars governments manage to spend this year. I think everybody is concluding that nothing is done because it's impossible to do. You better think about why are we not doing it, and you will discover what's really behind the scene, something called "the world as it is".


But even if I fully agree with your conclusions here (despite the problems above), that's just transport. What remains are the energy needs of the rest of the economy -- industry, agriculture, and households. You can propose cuts here and there but I really don't see any ways to achieve such a radical cut that it would have significant consequences in the long run -- except for a massive switch to the nuclear energy, which is of course politically impossible. Remember, the problem is cumulative, not proportional to the level of emissions at any given moment.


----------



## aleCcowaN

Global warming 1
Global warming 2

Athaulf, if you read these threads you will find some data and many assertions about what you are saying here.


Athaulf said:


> Which raises two important questions.
> 
> First, what percentage of total GHG emissions comes from transportation? Apparently, in the U.S. it's about a third -- and that's _all _transportation, not just personal. Elsewhere it's much lower -- for example, 13% in Australia, or a quarter in Canada; I haven't been able to find any global figures. So it doesn't seem to me like there's much room for cutting the overall emissions here. Sure, significant cuts are possible, but nothing approaching a whole order of magnitude (which is the only thing that would actually have a significant effect on the problem).


Cement manufacture doesn't account much too, let them throw up to 1.3 ton CO2 per portland cement ton, nor forest burnings alone, nor.... We can also disaggregate transportation data, even to the level of accounting how much warm families of 5 living in cool temperate climates between 15 and 30 miles away from downtown. We call this "defender la quintita", meaning something like "my egoist interests and privileges are nothing in comparison with the whole society, then let me enjoy them alone as I have the right because they are mine". This mental scheme regards tolerantly a fellow who lowers his light bulbs wattage, up to the point this starts to be somewhat important and the "quintita" is on risk. Then changing light bulbs becomes meaningless and useless, later it becomes stupid. If the "quintita" holder starts to feel he is in risk of "paying more for electricity", the causes becomes absurd, everybody become wrong, the rights of the "quintita" holder become abused, and even he might start thinking Tim McVeigh was right. The summing up of all the "quintitas" in one society is called _status quo_.

Summarizing, anyone among a thousand causes of GW is individually not efficient to cause GW, then, why are we going to bother about it? Cutting up a part of what is 33% of emissions of the country which is accountable for 23 to 30% global emissions is nonsense -when globally 16 to 18% of GHG emissions are due to transportation-. Then, the whole issue is nonsense. Even everybody is wrong and we are in the dawn of an Ice Age, and oil burners are saving the planet.

Better, as you can't shout nonsense all the time without people discovering at last what is behind, you may say "yes, it looks important but being it not so important in the bulk, let's take time to think well about it, because they are many reasonable interests affected and we may proceed prudently". These are the kind of arguments that promotes a lasting status quo. It's all they need, as many people in good faith will repeat those arguments without understanding what is behind and what is at stake.


Athaulf said:


> Second, you're citing figures about the cost of carbon sequestration per unit of CO_2. However, if I understand correctly, this is the _marginal_ cost in the present situation. A massive increase in such activities on a global scale would surely increase the price of sequestration per unit of CO_2, most likely significantly. So to propose a valid argument along these lines, you need to come up with a model that takes this into account.


This follows the same pattern the previous argument did. You ignore my "at most" as my own calculation based on info published by the people who studied the bamboo solution gives about 120usd per 3 tons in Argentina. I gave the 240usd value to get covered all marginal costs and prices of a huge scale operation, but I didn't state it clearly to save myself the pain of writing in English, what takes to me some two minutes by line, as I use English just in self defense, not because I like it much -or any other language including mine- being I not especially gifted at languages at all.


Athaulf said:


> But even if I fully agree with your conclusions here (despite the problems above), that's just transport. What remains are the energy needs of the rest of the economy -- industry, agriculture, and households. You can propose cuts here and there but I really don't see any ways to achieve such a radical cut that it would have significant consequences in the long run -- except for a massive switch to the nuclear energy, which is of course politically impossible. Remember, the problem is cumulative, not proportional to the level of emissions at any given moment.


If you read my posts in the couple of threads I suggested, you will see that 40% of GHG emissions comes from a limited number of "chimneys". Pumping GHG to old oil and natural gas wheels is being considered now. The costs I roughly estimated this week while making some research on the issue are about 30 to 40 usd by ton for the main four electricity power plant at Buenos Aires to Patagonia (1500 miles away). The cost of it is proposterous thinking in what we pay for electricity and natural gas -an absurd price similar to the absurd cost of gas gallon in the USA, so absurd that Mr. Gore would pay about 5000 usd a year instead of 30000 if his house were in Buenos Aires-. But this measure promotes secondary recovery of oil from old wheels, and if you get a barrel of oil for any ton of C02 you inject the cost is not so high, and the new barrel produces half CO2 of what is injected.

They also studied pumping exhaust gases to deep water, but acidification of waters are an issue which consequences are not well known yet.

There's a whole economy of avoiding GW. You can sequestrate (forestation, soil conservation, GHG saving in old wheels, GHG saving in salt waters -both underground and seas-, coal from biomass, etc.), you can replace sources (nukes, wind, geothermal, solar, tides, etc.), you can replace technology (biofuels, light bulbs, thermal isolation, hybrid cars, hydrogen cells, combined cycles in electricity generation, electricity and methane from garbage, etc.) you can modify uses (public transportation, household quality and distribution, etc) you even can modify culture and values (people with a ATV regarded as ill-polluters non fashionable, people with a dozen children regarded as irresponsible not fertile, etc.). Disaggregations are made in order to analyze the problem, not to provide many targets and spoil the analysis. The fact that many solutions sterilizes part of the relief provided by other solutions is to be considered in the whole picture, not to not drawing it. The fact that many solutions has their own environmental challenges, must make us carefully weight impacts, not shout "dangerous, absurd and nonsense".


----------



## Kajjo

This discussion has gone astray. The topic is about depopulation as a means to reduce the main source of the anthropogenic contribution to global warming: people.



			
				TRG / POST #1 said:
			
		

> 1. Why isn't depopulation talked about more as a solution to global climate change?
> 2. Is there anything morally wrong with this approach?


This discussion is not again about the variety of options to reduce global warming or to discuss whether global warming is that bad or is really caused by our civilisation.

Anyway, since the number crunchers are dominating this discussion, let me add my thoughts: Yes, it might raise awareness of the global warming issue to follow all the energy-saving options. However, the overall effect will be small. Cars are a politically motivated enemy, not the predominant contributors to CO2 emissions on a world-wide scale.

Kajjo


----------



## aleCcowaN

Sorry pals, I have to reply this in Spanish in order to do it quick and precise. 





cuchuflete said:


> Very amusing AlecCowan.  I see that you too are masterful at playing with numbers to prove your point, ignoring the numbers that are inconvenient.  According to the data you presented, some 55 million people live in what you choose to call low density areas.  Please ignore those.


Sabes bien que no los estoy ignorando, por eso hice la comparación con toda la Argentina exceptuando Buenos Aires. Nosotros tenemos un sistema general de transporte público tipo Tercer Mundo, pero que cubre bastante bien nuestras necesidades. Todo el país cuenta con casi 9 millones de vehículos (3,5 millones en Buenos Aires), y esos vehículos consumen menos de la mitad del combustible al año de lo que hacen los vehículos estadounidenses. Además sabes bien que las necesidades especiales de estos 55 millones de personas no justifican que los 300 millones tengan los mismos "derechos" sea por el lado moral o por el del sentido común.


cuchuflete said:


> Have you data for the other 250 million that would indicate the number of linear feet of sidewalk per inhabitant?  I know it's easier to generalize.


Aquí viene de nuevo lo que yo llamo los puntos ciegos del pensamiento estadounidense. Pareciera que estudiar cuatro idiomas en lugar de sensibilizarte a los diversos modos de ver el mundo, te sensibilizara a las diversas formas del ser estadounidense. Esto no es un ataque a tu persona ni una desvalorización del pueblo estadounidense. Lo hago con toda la intención de disparar la reflexión en vuestras tierras y cabezas. Los estadounidenses son buena gente y buenos aliados; tienen muchas virtudes que imitar, pero en el tema del calentamiento global se están portando muy mal. Y no es un tema de algún defectito que uno perfectamente tolera en un amigo querido. Estamos hablando del país que más ha contribuido y más contribuye al calentamiento global, un problema cuya magnitud puede tener efectos deletéreos permanentes sobre todo el planeta. Mis "números" tan "divertidos" y aparentemente tan "dialécticamente" usados, mostraban en otro hilo que sin unos Estados Unidos el estado de situación de los gases de invernadero volvería en el planeta a los setentas; mientras que sin el resto del mundo, los Estados Unidos solos llevarían la situación a los cincuentas. Eso significaría que los Estados Unidos solos son capaces de producir el calentamiento global por sí mismos, o al menos que necesitarían de toda o gran parte de la capacidad de homeostasis del planeta para poder seguir haciendo su vida a su gusto.

Hablando del statu quo de mi post anterior, la falta o presencia de aceras y veredas parece ser claramente la consecuencia de una cultura, no su causa. Y no importa lo irónico que te pongas, los números representan las cosas mensurables mejor que las palabras, y el hecho de que no los comprendas o te cueste argumentar en términos de números simplemente debiera hacerte sensible a comprender cómo quienes entendemos de números nos sentimos ante quienes basados en una capacidad lingüística notable, caen en más silogismos y falacias, y llegan a conclusiones que sólo se sostienen mientras no se contrasten con las cifras. Yo no llamo a esta gente "maestros de la dialéctica", aunque por aquí haya algunos opinónologos seriales mono-idiomáticos que se merezcan tal término. Simplemente cada quien viene dotado de la capacidad que tiene. Eso define lo que puede llegar a hacer. Y cada quien viene desprovisto de muchas capacidades. La forma en que las trata y especialmente como trata a quienes las tienen definen lo que pueden llegar a ser. Si mi inglés medio limitadote no me ha impedido entender bien, tú consideraste que mi análisis estadístico era antojadizo y de sastrería fuertemente sesgado por una anteojera personal obtusa, y poco pertinente a un análisis desapasionado de la cuestión dada la diversidad de los EEUU.

Simplemente me niego a seguir el juego de desagregar los Estados Unidos en estados con peculiaridades como si se trataran del Mundo en sí, mientras Restodelmundolandia permanece equivocado frente a los estadounidenses orgullosos de su diversidad. Qué sentido hay en que mañana habrá más estadounidenses en sus iglesias que europeos y latinoamericanos todos juntos en las suyas si no se cultiva un poco de humildad.


cuchuflete said:


> Do Americans make needless and excessive use of cars?  Yes, obviously.  Why not leave it at that obvious truth, and spare us your statistical brilliance?  During the decades I lived in some of the larger cities in the country, including Philadelphia and New York, most people I knew did not own cars, and walked on sidewalks and used buses and subways.  How many tens of millions of people are those?  In San Diego and Los Angeles, I was thought to be demented for suggesting use of public transport or was given astonished looks for proposing walking.   Note that those are two different behavior and thought patterns.  Why don't you simplify it into one, for the sake of a pungent polemic?  Pick the one you like.  One can distort _both_ numbers _and_ words, so why stop with numerical distortions?
> 
> I'll campaign for a lower birth rate, while you change the light bulbs.  We both have a similar objective in mind.


Nuevamente, la cuestión reside en un aspectos fácticos: Los Estados Unidos no es un país con una densidad baja de población. El 80% de los Estados Unidos (en población y actividad) se corresponde con estructuras económicas y poblacionales similares a las de la Europa Occidental, y la falta de medios de transporte públicos parece ser más un problema cultural que de factibilidad. Luego permíteme no quedarme en las consecuencias de "los estadounidenses hacen un excesivo e innecesario uso de los automóviles" y estudiar las causas y proponer soluciones. La causa de la densidad de población me resultó absurda, y mi análisis estadístico, que podemos discutir en su premisas y corrección cuanto tú desees, fue el que me dio el resultado que ahora digo, no el que hice para que la cosa resultara así. Si bien la objetividad absoluta es un espejismo, por lo menos esperé a sacar una conclusión antes de "cerrar" mi estado mental sobre el tema.

Lo que creo es que el sistema que permite que millones de personas vayan a trabajar diariamente a 100 kilómetros de su casa es bastante absurdo (una amiga mía vivía en Tacoma e iba diariamente a trabajar en Seattle, Chaska hace lo mismo en Canadá según ella aportó en este foro). Tal sistema creo que hace ver a muchos estadounidense que su densidad geográfica de intereses es muy baja, y luego concluir que el país tiene baja densidad de población y por ello está condenado, y luego disculpado de gastar tanto combustible como guste, y éste debe ser barato para sostener esa vida sin cambio alguno. De no hacerlo así un montón de negocios petroleros e inmobiliarios se caerían en pedazos y los políticos no obtendrían los votos de tanta persona que vive allí mirando sólo su propio ombligo.

Con respecto a los localismos, veo exactamente lo mismo que describió Karuna, y lo que viste tú. Comparar la vida en Los Ángeles y Nueva York con un día de diferencia fue muy instructivo para mí. En Los Ángeles estuve 10 días y tomé el autobús sólo 4 veces (el metro no existía aún). Caminé hasta 27 kilómetros por día para conocer la ciudad y mis pies quedaron reventados. Para acortar distancias tomé las rutas más cortas en el plano, y tuve que caminar constantemente por las calzadas porque no había aceras en más de la mitad de la superficie de un conglomerado urbano que tiene casi 10 millones de habitantes. Varias veces tuve que subirme al césped de la supuesta acera para salirme del paso de un auto, porque estos se detienen gentilmente si un peatón está a menos de 5 menos de su costado . Una vez una agente de tránsito en uno de esos carritos como de golf que usan me hizo señas y gritó cosas ininteligibles para mí hasta que me subí a la acera de césped. Otra vez me subí a una acera de césped porque venía un automóvil y la dueña de casa me gritó porque recién había plantado los panes de césped. En Santa Mónica Blv. me tenía que enfrentar con hasta 4 vagabundos por cuadra que me pedían cosas simplemente porque no hay peatones. Me fui caminando 12 Km desde La Cienaga Blv. hasta el Museo Getty de Malibú y me echaron porque no se permitía entrar si no venía con un vehículo o tenía el boleto de autobús, todo porque los vecinos se quejan que los visitantes del Museo les estacionan sus autos en su cuidado vecindario. Como era tarde tuve que volver el día siguiente, caminé hasta Santa Mónica y tomé un autobús que me daba un comprobante de que yo no usaba auto y luego me dejaron entrar al Museo. Cuando me veía obligado a secar la ropa en la lavandería miraba el desperdicio inmoral de energía porque no había en el edificio un tendedero donde colgarla, habiendo 27° con un 12% de humedad y viento. Se comportaban simplemente como unos chiflados desde mi punto de vista. El ir luego a DC y NY y gozar de un bien planificado sistema de transporte público sólo es prueba de que se puede hacerlo, no de que no se puede hacerlo. Las percepciones de Karuna y las mías se limitan a nuestra experiencia. Cuántos de nosotros necesitas para ver que no son hechos aislados. Estados Unidos es el principal receptor turístico y migratorio del planeta ¿crees acaso que no es bien conocido de primera mano por el Mundo entero?

[Aahh! How nice is express oneself without the limitation of languages!]


----------



## cuchuflete

AlecCowan-  If I have time later I'll address your specific points, most of which simply restate at greater length
the ones I had stated.   There are too many vehichles in the US, and they are used beyond any level of genuine need.

Now please consider that when I was born, back in the dark ages, the US population was less than half what it is today.  When I was a college student, it had yet to reach 200 million.  Now it exceeds 300 million.
My conclusions are two-fold:

1. The average (yes, averages can be useful, without disaggregation) US resident uses a disproportionate share of energy resources, and this is problematical. 

2.  The problem noted in item #1 is magnified by population.

Behavior modification of the members of any culture can be achieved, but generally not quickly.
Fewer people consuming resources, whether excessively as is so frequently the case in the US, or at whatever level you may deem desireable, will have a direct and substantial impact.


----------



## aleCcowaN

Kajjo said:


> This discussion has gone astray. The topic is about depopulation as a means to reduce the main source of the anthropogenic contribution to global warming: people.
> 
> 
> 
> Originalmente publicado por *TRG / POST #1*
> 1. Why isn't depopulation talked about more as a solution to global climate change?
> 2. Is there anything morally wrong with this approach?
> 
> 
> 
> This discussion is not again about the variety of options to reduce global warming or to discuss whether global warming is that bad or is really caused by our civilisation.
> 
> Anyway, since the number crunchers are dominating this discussion, let me add my thoughts: Yes, it might raise awareness of the global warming issue to follow all the energy-saving options. However, the overall effect will be small. Cars are a politically motivated enemy, not the predominant contributors to CO2 emissions on a world-wide scale.
> 
> Kajjo
Click to expand...

This number cruncher has something non-numeric to say:

If mankind was an individual and it would be charged with destroying the Planet and proposed to pay for its nasty crime by amputating a leg -drastic depopulation- or getting skinnier and skinnier by starvation -slow depopulation-, wouldn't it have the right to an attorney (or several)? wouldn't those attorneys have the right and obligation of offering alternative theories about the crime and asking a fair sentence other than the one the prosecutor proposed? must such a Draconian code be applied by force here, including capital punishment -extinction-? Sticking to the subject proposed, is not considering in the trial just what the prosecutor proposed? is it fair? is it proper? Yeah, it follows the forum rules but, is it worth and well traced? isn't this McCarthysm in some way?

I've my own opinion: I said slow depopulation is going to start by natural causes -if man is a being of nature- sooner than later, and I add now it is morally wrong the approach of drastic depopulation having us many other means to manage the problem. But it seems we can't talk here of "the other means". The field of this sport -which is not chess- has been reduced to tile size, and anybody that has an umpire or referee feeling shouts "Ouuut!!"


----------



## cuchuflete

aleCcowaN said:


> If mankind was an individual and it would be charged with destroying the Planet and proposed to pay for its nasty crime by amputating a leg -drastic depopulation- or getting skinnier and skinnier by starvation -slow depopulation-, wouldn't it have the right to an attorney (or several)? wouldn't those attorneys have the right and obligation of offering alternative theories about the crime and asking a fair sentence other than the one the prosecutor proposed? must such a Draconian code be applied by force here, including capital punishment -extinction-? Sticking to the subject proposed, is not considering in the trial just what the prosecutor proposed? is it fair? is it proper? Yeah, it follows the forum rules but, is it worth and well traced? isn't this McCarthysm in some way?
> 
> I've my own opinion: I said slow depopulation is going to start by natural causes -if man is a being of nature- sooner than later, and I add now it is morally wrong the approach of drastic depopulation having us many other means to manage the problem. But it seems we can't talk here of "the other means". The field of this sport -which is not chess- has been reduced to tile size, and anybody that has an umpire or referee feeling shouts "Ouuut!!"



You prefer to ignore the thread topic, and gallop around on a favorite old horse.  That's fine.
Have a nice ride.  You have opened other threads to exercise that steed, and they are interesting.

If you truly believe that you can adjust/modify/squeeze/coerce human behavior by whatever you consider to be a reasonable degree in a reasonable time frame, I'm sure we would find your specific, realistic propositions interesting reading.   In the meantime, another person has asked about population reduction as a means to the same end you seem to have in mind.

Is it not discourteous to ignore that question, using it as a pretext to discuss your own preferred 
problem definitions and proposed solutions?   

The amputation metaphors are just melodramatic posturing.  There are many ways to reduce population that do not involve draconian measures.  Those who preach conservation have done a pretty lamentable job at demonstrating self-interest for those they would have practice it.
Many cultures have gravitated to smaller family size because they perceive, on their own, some substantial benefits.  Why not follow the course of least resistance?


----------



## Athaulf

aleCcowaN said:


> Global warming 1
> Global warming 2
> 
> Athaulf, if you read these threads you will find some data and many assertions about what you are saying here.



I've skimmed through those threads, but none of the posts there address the central, fundamental, very simple issue. In order to keep billions of people -- far more than subsistence agriculture could support -- merely fed, clothed, and sheltered, vast amounts of energy are necessary. There is no way around it. 

Logically, there are only three ways to reduce CO_2 emissions drastically: (1) reduce the population; (2) reduce the energy use per capita; and (3) find alternative sources of energy that don't generate CO_2. This thread has addressed the option (1), and the obvious conclusion is that it's certainly not feasible in the short to medium (and perhaps not even long) run. You're claiming that (2) is a feasible option, but nothing I've seen so far indicates so. Sure, you've given many examples of how this or that particular source of CO_2 emissions could be reduced, but again I have to point out the cumulative nature of the problem, because of which anything less than a cut by an order of magnitude can just somewhat delay the consequences. In practice, even the ridiculously small reductions mandated by Kyoto have turned out to be infeasible without drastic shattering of the world's economies. 

As for the option (3), the only feasible alternative for mass energy production with the technology that is likely to be available for the foreseeable future is nuclear energy. (And even the nuclear option would require a vast cost of adjustment, of course.) But that's not going to happen, since among people in practice there exists a large positive correlation between the level of concern about global warming and the opposition to nuclear power. 

So it seems to me that whatever the consequences of global warming will be in the following decades, we'll just have to adjust to them. Which isn't so bad when you take into account the fact that sooner or later, and entirely unpredictably, humanity will be faced with non-anthropogenic climate changes on a far greater scale than anything the human-caused global warming can bring.



> We call this "defender la quintita", meaning something like "my egoist interests and privileges are nothing in comparison with the whole society, then let me enjoy them alone as I have the right because they are mine". This mental scheme regards tolerantly a fellow who lowers his light bulbs wattage, up to the point this starts to be somewhat important and the "quintita" is on risk. Then changing light bulbs becomes meaningless and useless, later it becomes stupid. If the "quintita" holder starts to feel he is in risk of "paying more for electricity", the causes becomes absurd, everybody become wrong, the rights of the "quintita" holder become abused, and even he might start thinking Tim McVeigh was right. The summing up of all the "quintitas" in one society is called _status quo_.


What you complain about is a fundamental and unchangeable part of the human nature. People will always behave by and large according to their personal interest; that behavior cannot be changed except by forcing them to do otherwise (which merely means that when the threat of punishment is also taken into account, the new best personal interest becomes different). 

The idea that people will substantially change their behavior for some general good, without any benefits to themselves that directly depend on their _particular personal_ action, is pure illusion. At best, the most enthusiastic people will adopt some (mostly token) measures for the purpose of feeling good about themselves, but even they won't let go of things that really matter to them personally. (Someone gave an interesting personal account along these lines in this forum recently.) 

However vigorously one might morally condemn such an attitude, that's just the way people are. Sure, you'll find  an occasional exception, but that's an entirely minuscule minority. If people will really have to make personal sacrifices _en masse_ to avert disaster, even fairly mild ones, they will have to be coerced to do so by the state.


----------



## karuna

Athaulf said:


> I've skimmed through those threads, but none of the posts there address the central, fundamental, very simple issue. In order to keep billions of people -- far more than subsistence agriculture could support -- merely fed, clothed, and sheltered, vast amounts of energy are necessary. There is no way around it.



These fundamental things like food, clothing and in colder climates also heating actually don't require very much energy. I don't know exactly but maybe 10% or 20% of the total energy we use. Things are so interlinked that it would be difficult to calculate precisely but if we are speaking only about these basic things then it is not an issue. It is the lifestyle that is at stake.



> What you complain about is a fundamental and unchangeable part of the human nature. People will always behave by and large according to their personal interest; that behavior cannot be changed except by forcing them to do otherwise (which merely means that when the threat of punishment is also taken into account, the new best personal interest becomes different).



People are always looking towards enjoyment. But it is not so hard for them to delay enjoyment to increase it later. People are able spend many years of hard study to be able to earn more money later. The problem with the GW is that it all is hypothetical. Although we know that something is going to change, no one is able to say for sure what expects us. It is the same as saying that smoking increasing the possibility of lung cancer. People still smoke because only relatively small portion of smokers actually die from lung cancer. And ultimately we all die: smokers and non-smokers alike. For this reason the whole discussion about reducing population numbers to avoid the consequences of the GW is quite meaningless. What consequences? And how they will different if there are less people?


----------



## Athaulf

karuna said:


> These fundamental things like food, clothing and in colder climates also heating actually don't require very much energy. I don't know exactly but maybe 10% or 20% of the total energy we use. Things are so interlinked that it would be difficult to calculate precisely but if we are speaking only about these basic things then it is not an issue. It is the lifestyle that is at stake.



Now we get to the issue of what constitutes "lifestyle." In many parts of the world, like Western Europe, the mere population density implies a "high lifestyle," in the sense that an enormous amount of economic activity must take place just to ensure the basic subsistence of so many people on so little land; without a complex and intensive economy swallowing plenty of energy, the upper limit is probably somewhere in the 18th century population densities.

Furthermore, even if it turns out that it's technologically possible for today's population to subsist, however miserably, with a much reduced world economy generating much less GHG, the question is -- what kind of an economic system would this have to be? Who would have the vast power necessary to ensure that the economy doesn't grow back? Could a market system of any kind ever be constricted in such a way? And would people ever democratically choose a radical curtailment of their lifestyle? I'm afraid the answers to these last two questions are obviously negative.



> People are always looking towards enjoyment. But it is not so hard for them to delay enjoyment to increase it later. People are able spend many years of hard study to be able to earn more money later. The problem with the GW is that it all is hypothetical. Although we know that something is going to change, no one is able to say for sure what expects us.


The problem is more fundamental. Even if it were proven exactly and beyond doubt when and how the disaster will strike unless everyone undertakes certain efforts and sacrifices, this would still not motivate people to actually undertake those steps. It's the same old public good/tragedy of the commons problem -- an individual has no rational incentive to behave in the way necessary to avert the collective disaster, because the overall ultimate outcome is not influenced in any measurable way by his particular actions. 

Sure, some people will take some symbolic action for the purpose of feeling good or showing off their virtuousness, but such responses will always fall short of what's necessary in situations like this. Unless the individual incentives are changed by imposing penalties for improper behavior, of course.


----------



## aleCcowaN

karuna said:


> People are always looking towards enjoyment. But it is not so hard for them to delay enjoyment to increase it later. People are able spend many years of hard study to be able to earn more money later. The problem with the GW is that it all is hypothetical. Although we know that something is going to change, no one is able to say for sure what expects us. It is the same as saying that smoking increasing the possibility of lung cancer. People still smoke because only relatively small portion of smokers actually die from lung cancer. And ultimately we all die: smokers and non-smokers alike. For this reason the whole discussion about reducing population numbers to avoid the consequences of the GW is quite meaningless. What consequences? And how they will different if there are less people?


All this is the core of the question. In fact many smokers die from lung cancer, emphysema, and other tobacco driven or aid illnesses. But smoking shares the dynamics of any addiction: "enjoy now, pay later". Passive smokers are slowly winning their battle for clean air. The "globally warmed" seem to be losing ours, maybe because we're some kind of "melodramatic", or maybe because we're dealing with attitudes that not only focus in enjoyment and comfort but make a living from environmental neglectfulness.

People are reluctant to change their behavior, what a novelty!. They even could say that they are aging -and it's late for them to change much-, there's little they can do about the issue, they have no children, or just one child, or maybe two -but there is a persistent tendency in their family to have less children-, then there is going to be less people like them in the future, and this is a valid way to deal with the problem. This approach makes me remember the film "Out of Africa", the scene where the tribal chief allows the Danish Lady to literate children not taller than some height, because such kids only would be educated adults in a time when the chief will be dead, late for a power competition arising with the guy. The cheer-ourselves-go-you attitude that also is in human nature, and fundamental to status quo.

I'm not sure if this is a moral derivative to the depopulation approach itself, but certainly it stands behind it. But, getting back to the point:



TRG said:


> Last night, I watched the Academy Awards while the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" got the award for best documentary feature. Upon receiving the award, *Mr. Gore talked briefly about what it would take for us to solve the GW problem. Frankly, his comments had all the seriousness of the advocacy of an anti-littering campaign. He gives people the impression that we can fix this with just a bit of tweaking of our energy supplies and a small dose of moral commitment to changing our profligate ways.* I beg to differ. We really don't have a good way to put the brakes on CO2 emissions, but one thing is sure, if we had a lot fewer people there would be much less GHG emissions. In a hundred years, almost everyone now living will be dead. If we stop reproducing then the problem just keeps getting smaller and smaller. Why doesn't anyone propose this you might ask. *Well, some have such as this guy here. If he sounds a bit harsh then why not something more moderate?* *I suggest we simply impose birth control on a world wide basis with some forumla that would get the global population down to, say, one billion people in some set period of time, say, a hundred years. *So my questions are:
> 
> * 1. Why isn't depopulation talked about more as a solution to global climate change?
> 
> 2. Is there anything morally wrong with this approach?*


2- There's nothing morally wrong with this approach until you come to a point you propose specific measures to achieve it. Then moral jumps to the scene.

You proposed this. Using this java simulation, using controls provided as much they let (many problems, mainly the departure is a population pyramid obtained by a high total fertility rate society), I used a TFR of 1 -the minor value available- and without promoting additional deaths I got population being more than 2 billions in a century, and mainly population still raising during the next 20 years, and being 6.5 billion (the actual one) again in 50 years.

1- And this lead us to this point, no matter what approach you chose that act over the not yet born -unless you get an instantly stop in 75% of conceptions, then population starting to fall about a mid-term-meaningless 0.2% yearly- , the World's population still raises during some years and starts to fall outside the scope of practical aid on actual GW. To achieve results on actual GW departing exclusively from depopulation, you have to depart from killing people that are now alive. Any mental experiment you may propose on this (and its moral consequences) may consider all the other variables constant (ceteris paribus) but I don't see how you may propose killing 1% of mankind without a tremendous social crisis that control GW by the economical shrinkage aroused by disturbances, keeping GW a problem to be solved by other means than depopulation. Perhaps you may kill no-one and just focus in promoting disturbances. Besides, such insignificant effect (disposing of 1% of world consumers ceteribus paribus) may be achieved by summing up trifles like changing lightbulbs.

I'm not saying that depopulation isn't worth -slowly freeing portions of the planet like 4% of emerging lands covered by tropical wet forest which hosts half of animal species seems to be very important-. I'm saying that population-depopulation isn't the "forgotten variable" of GW; it aids almost nothing in the time of one human generation, and if you want it to do, you quickly bump into the major factors behind GW that really seem to do (the sources of our energy, the level of economical activity and technology mainly).

But what really is behind of GW seems to be out of the scope of this thread. The proper techniques to analyze it, too. The issue *seems to be* discussing depopulation in the scope of GW, but it seems that amazing linguistic capabilities, sarcasm, and the concerns of an ancient Rome senator, are not the proper instrument to dig it, as sharp-edge tongues like scalpels seem to cut nothing here but messengers.


----------



## cuchuflete

It's interesting to note that the lower wattage advocate dismisses population reduction as not feasible in sufficient measure in a short enough time frame.  It may be—in fact—very difficult to achieve a substantial reduction in population in a relatively short time span of, say, fifty years.  

It would require one or more of the following, at very least:

-education
-tax consequences, broadly applied
-cheap and convenient availability of all known forms of contraception

_Other measures would also likely have to be employed, including punitive legal and economic consequences for
'excessive' *child bearing.*_  See China for some examples of these.

Our more numerate contributors might calculate, at current weighted average consumption rates, the total per capita energy consumption, worldwide, derived from all sources contributing to global warming.  Total accuracy in such a calculation is not possible, but it might be interesting to see a working generality.  By applying the result to populations at current and projected (at current fertility rates) levels, one could see the broad scope of the issue.  Adjustments in projected populations would show the general effects of changes in fertility rates.

Then take the alternative approach to behaviour modification, letting people continue to procreate as they wish.

What will be necessary, at a minimum, to achieve equivalent reductions in the same kinds of energy consumption over the same time frames?

The same culprits appear:

-education
-tax consequences, broadly applied

_ Other measures would also likely have to be employed, including punitive legal and economic consequences for
'excessive' *energy consumption*.  


_The next logical step is to ponder which form of behavior modification is most likely to succeed, and at what
economic and other social costs.

Neither would be easy.  Humans are resistant to change.  If one perceives that such changes are necessary, even critical, it is worth giving serious consideration to all manners of achieving it, and not off-handedly dismissing one or the other as unrealistic.


----------



## John-Paul

cuchuflete said:


> Humans are resistant to change.



What nonsense. We humans like change as long as it benefits us. We liked it when we were able to use wheels. That was a great change. As was the automobile and the refrigerator and the TV and the internet. The problem is that we never thought about the negative consequences of these changes. What we don't like is making sacrifices.

As of now we're still fungi - now we need to evolve into something more deserving of our environment.


----------



## cuchuflete

John-Paul said:


> As of now we're still fungi - now we need to evolve into something more deserving of our environment.


 Or promote the evolution of our environment into something more deserving of us!


----------



## maxiogee

TRG said:


> 1. Why isn't depopulation talked about more as a solution to global climate change?



Could it be that there is an apparant element of compulsion about the concept of "let's…"?
We humans don't react well to compulsion.


----------



## Kajjo

maxiogee said:


> Could it be that there is an apparant element of compulsion about the concept of "let's…"? We humans don't react well to compulsion.


No, I don't think so. I believe it is just for religious, economic and social reasons that politicians favor population growth rather than depopulation.

Reducing population gradually does not necessarily mean to _prohibit_ propagation, but to do without incentives for bearing children. Germany, for example, actively promotes bearing children by social and economic benefits as do many other countries. Further, many people in socially less satisfying regions of the world would probably gladly accept free contraception if there were not the catholic church preaching that propagation is really good no matter how many children starve later on. In some of those regions having one, two or three children instead of more would be a success. Again, it is not necessarily about denying people the right to have children, it could be about offering contraception and incentives when having maximal two children.

Kajjo


----------



## aleCcowaN

Previously to the point of starting an analysis like that proposed by Cuchuflete, I'd like to make some brief analysis on Earth depopulation.

Imagine we are in March 2006 and a mad scientist, the "modern" stereotype of the atavistic fear to science, disseminates a contraceptive substance in air and water and everybody becomes sterile instantly, an effect that is going to last 10 years and then it will suddenly disappear. By last New Year's Eve the last new human in a decade would had been born. Population would had reached 6567 millions. Having then no newborn, we only have human death, an expected 55.5 millions that we should revise as it contains baby deaths that we don't have because we have no babies (allow some months to match the figures). Death figure then drops to about 51 millions, and we will have by 31th Dec 2007 only 6516 million inhabitants (a yearly 0.78% drop). I haven't manage to get info about the trend of deaths [by the way, you have interesting information here: PDF 3.2Mby]. For the sake of the analysis I'll take a 1.8% increase in deaths based on world's population pyramid, birth rates 60 years ago and raising life expectancy. There would be 60 million deaths in 2016. Then the World would have 6019 millions inhabitants by 31th Dec 2016, and suddenly everybody in age would suddenly start to produce gametes again. But the population shrinkage would had been about 8.3%.

Suppose, no matter how ridiculous it is, that people takes this fact with resignation and follow their normal lives. Forget also the toy and diaper manufacturers committing suicide and other trifles. Does economy stop growing because of this? It shouldn't. There are no babies, and some strains in economy may arise because of it. But the mass of capital, technology, and mainly *the labour force* will continue to grow. No baby works and as far as I know, babies are not very expense demanding, at least the same demands of an adult -everybody tells babies are not quite expensive, but things change as they grow and  become teenagers-. Probably, the per capita income will raise, not fall, as we have more and more productive adults. The money they thought spending in babies will probably go to other expenses like vacations or pets -I know people who keep the air conditioning on when they leave to work because they have pets, but if they had babies they would take them to caring centers where many babies share the same air conditioning-. The economy is growing about 4.2% a year now, about 51% a decade. Suppose a 8.3% drop in population driven a 8.3% in the expected economy (I think not), the growing would be still 38.5% in a decade. Suppose all the other things constant: we'd have 31% more GHG instead of 41% more (I'm now going linear, the worst scenario). The now failing Kyoto Protocol reduces much more -even failing badly-. You may replace this 7% tops GHG reduction by changing some sources of energy (allowing nukes again and promoting some hydroelectric projects). Maybe you can combine many measures, including changing light bulbs, dimming light in cities at 3a.m., planting more trees.

And we are at the departure line again: changing light bulbs is a trifle, but a trifle that compares -though with a difference of one whole order of magnitude- with suppressing half a generation of humans. Do you perceive how many orders of magnitude -morally speaking, logically speaking- there are between changing light bulbs and suppressing half a generation?

My previous conviction -rational and intuitive- that depopulation is worth for many reasons but it isn't for GW is now stronger -less intuitive, more rational-. Maybe I would better make an analysis of the problem and informally publish it on-line, out of the scope and limitations of this forum.

I see some problems with Joe and Jane College, as they seem to think that supposing  mankind doesn't throw more GHG the problem would be still here. The lack of understanding of the mechanisms that Earth has to deal with unbalances is almost total. The debate becomes always anthropocentric: we do this and we do that and we might do many things including stop reproducing ourselves -a worthy point, used with moderation-. GW is not that simple and its not that impossible to fight against, it's simply hard.

[Maybe in the future I will open a thread to debate the dos and don't of the responsible GW aware person, departing from about.com list cited in this thread, as it would be interesting as equals all of us as persons, and send countries' virtues and vices to the junk room]


----------



## cuchuflete

You have told us what would happen if reproduction were to cease for a decade.  Have you considered what would happen in terms of energy consuming population if it were to continue unabated?

Suppose we were to reduce our light bulb wattage by 50% for a decade, and then go back to the prior "normal" level?  


Please help me understand what you mean by this:  "The now failing Kyoto Protocol reduces much more..."
Is that in theory, or in current reality, or by some other measure?


----------



## aleCcowaN

cuchuflete said:


> You have told us what would happen if reproduction were to cease for a decade.  Have you considered what would happen in terms of energy consuming population if it were to continue unabated?


I made the comparison there and the 7% came from it - I even don't believe the comparison as I can't see consequences in economic growth before the no born would had became working adults- I take the extreme position available as ceasing reproduction were possible and it made something for GHG reduction, even I equaled a baby with and adult to do so-. But there always are problems with these analysis when you move sharply a variable and keep the rest constant. It is called sensibility analysis  (not sure about the name in English, maybe I should ask in the forums ). It is useful when you compare one variable with another. In my analysis, suppose you keep people reproducing and dim the economic growth from 4.2 to 3.4% (a big economic scare like last Tuesday's could do it itself for this year), the outcome would be the same -7% emissions (I think rule-of-thumb it would be -1%, but I prefer being on the side of the depopulation promoters and avoiding to myself a lot of mathematics, translation from mathematics to intelligible, and then to English)


cuchuflete said:


> Suppose we were to reduce our light bulb wattage by 50% for a decade, and then go back to the prior "normal" level?


Why will we do that? (expected answer) It's the same as we will recovered the time lost and had a baby boom once the malicious contraceptive substance effect would had disappeared [I've the sensation I'm "destroying" many English verbal tenses - feel free in warning me about this]. Depopulation is a derivative, and has the effect of changing things permanently in the long term. Population (totals) is a stock variable that changes very slowly. Bulb changing is a contingent measure to be quickly taken to change a stock variable -the total wattage used-. Changing sources of energy is permanent. Why anybody is going to build windmills and then have them torn down? One dims ones light bulbs until some safer energy source is available.

[I think everybody is getting dizzy or even sick with such dance of variables. Be sure I'm getting dizzier and sicker choosing planes to get a 2D image of a multidimensional problem. I'm feeling like a physician putting some guy in a SPEC scanner in funny positions. Even forget discussing some epistemology of system dynamics. Too much]


cuchuflete said:


> Please help me understand what you mean by this:  "The now failing Kyoto Protocol reduces much more..."
> Is that in theory, or in current reality, or by some other measure?


Kyoto Protocol states that our GHG emissions should be in 2012 about 95% of the total produced in 1990, an average reduction of 5%, no matter your country's economic and population growth. Now we have countries that show, at least, 15% of increment on the 1990's values, 15 years later, and few years to accomplish the task, a total failure in spite of the fact their economies have risen some 35 to 40% in that time span, but against the 31-41% of my analysis over a decade, its not much (but I followed a linear trend as it was suggested a connexion between growth and GHG, using the 0.8 slope in the correlation study suggested by ernest_). [By the way, the 15% increment includes many light bulbs changed, if not, it would be 16%? 17%?...?]

Discussing depopulation and its effects on global warming without discussing global warming itself is like discussing about bicycles and their effects on transportation without discussing transportation itself. It leans in what you really like or need. Do we need to arrive or do we need to pedal? Do we need to avoid global warming? or, do we need to depopulate? Are strikingly different needs.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

aleCcowaN said:


> Lo que creo es que el sistema que permite que millones de personas vayan a trabajar diariamente a 100 kilómetros de su casa es bastante absurdo (una amiga mía vivía en Tacoma e iba diariamente a trabajar en Seattle, Chaska hace lo mismo en Canadá según ella aportó en este foro).



Pero por fin fue posible a cambiar mi trabajo - ahora trabajo 3 km de la casa y puedo caminar.

Bueno, estoy muy de acuerdo - es absurdo y no sostenible, teniendo un sistema completamente dependente de un carro por cada persona.


----------

