^ this x 1,000,000.
Big difference in consumption attitudes and that impacts on the numbers.
Big difference in consumption attitudes and that impacts on the numbers.
Plastic bags, climate change, renewable energy,
- Thread starter John U
- Start date
Oddjob
Merry fucking Xmas to you assholes
I'm happy to start with dumb americans first. Then dumb everyone else. That should leave about 0.5 billion.
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Calvin27
Eats Squid
It's not that simple. The developing wold wants to get up to first world standards and in doing so creates the problem. You could put a damper on the first world consumption, but even if you halved it (which would be difficult) a rising developing country population with huge birth rates will take a much bigger slice of the pie by a long shot. There was a research piece a while ago and their number 1 thing to save he planet was have one less kid.
Have a look at "Factfullness" interesting how our perceptions of developed and developing differ.
hifiandmtb
Sphincter beanie
You going to answer my question? Who has to give up their kids first???
Fuck those second& third-world countries - they need to carry the goddam load!
This graph shows who got us in the shit to start with:
Click on this link & use the slider to decide who needs to carry the load now...
CO₂ emissions per capita vs GDP per capita
This measures CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels and industry only – land use change is not included.
ourworldindata.org
Last edited:
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
Yes and no...
Yes. Also has more resources to throw at the problem (i'm looking at you right wing areshats banging on about our 2% of emissions...).
I would attack the proportion of the world's population that does not yet exist - stop breeding ffs!!
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
Everyone. Still think our only hope is a global pandemic that sterilises 95% of the population...
hifiandmtb
Sphincter beanie
Really? We all get to be treated equally in this shit storm that’s not caused by most of the world’s population?
I’d argue the first world countries need to bear the major burden. Waaaaay the major burden.
But we like planes & cars & shit & get fucked.
[edit] Oh - and there is pretty good evidence that a 2 degree world will barely be governable. Let alone a 3 degree world:
There is no smooth transition to these outcomes...
I’d argue the first world countries need to bear the major burden. Waaaaay the major burden.
But we like planes & cars & shit & get fucked.
[edit] Oh - and there is pretty good evidence that a 2 degree world will barely be governable. Let alone a 3 degree world:
There is no smooth transition to these outcomes...
Last edited:
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
Nope, everyone has to wear it. Morals be damned, shit luck for them. But letting the developing countries breed and consume to our “standard” of living screws us all.
The developing world has the opportunity to do it better, and we have the obligation to help them and set an example. But they don’t get to do what we did.
The developing world has the opportunity to do it better, and we have the obligation to help them and set an example. But they don’t get to do what we did.
Calvin27
Eats Squid
That slider actually articulates my point very well. See all the countries shift to the top right. The smaller the circle the better.Click on this link & use the slider to decide who needs to carry the load now...
CO₂ emissions per capita vs GDP per capita
This measures CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels and industry only – land use change is not included.
I completely agree with you from a moral perspective - the developed world created the mess, it should fix it. However that doesn't mean it's even going to be remotely effective in addressing 2 degree targets.
That's because they refuse to acknowledge population interventions.
hifiandmtb
Sphincter beanie
Jesus, you guys can't see this from anyone else's perspective than your own!
Calvin27
Eats Squid
Look man, I can 100% see the unfairness in the whole developed country vs developing country thing. I really get it. But my observation is that it any meaningful emission cuts is simply not possible if the developing world continues to have the high birth rates and move towards a developed world standard of living. The numbers simply do not add up. This infographic is a good one to demonstrate what I mean.
Now if you want to talk equality, then yeah the developed world needs to do almost all the lifting but unfortunately population growth is not a luxury anyone can afford at this stage. Unfortunately the developing world must choose between high birth rates or lifting their standard of living, not both for this to even have a slim chance of working. Even under aggressive scenarios where developed economies drop already low birth rates and cut emissions.
I don't want to come across as one sided though - so I'll chuck the question back to you - how do you think it is possible to hit a 2 or 3 degree scenario with a high birth rate in developing countries?
Last edited:
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
No, I can totally see it from the perspective of someone in a developing country. I'd be really shitty about it too if I were in their shoes.
Doesn't change the situation though. Life isn't fair, western countries have fucked it for everyone and the path to a better life for developing countries cannot involve the path taken to date by western countries. Its a shit situation to be sure, but I think its an opportunity too.
hifiandmtb
Sphincter beanie
How about the developed world enacts meaningful change before we ask the developing world to come along for the ride?
Maybe we can fix our shit up first & then bomb the fuck out of them if they don't agree with us. We are good at that.
Maybe we can fix our shit up first & then bomb the fuck out of them if they don't agree with us. We are good at that.
Calvin27
Eats Squid
I'd agree with that. That was my initial premise. That we massively slow immigration rates until we sort our shit out instead of bringing a low emitting person to come sample the fruits of a high emitting lifestyle.
I think you misunderstood, I wasn't saying the developing countries should not raise their standard or even shoulder the brunt of emissions reduction. I'm saying we shouldn't keep adding more people to australia when our per capita emissions hasn't moved significantly.
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
Yep. Add to that though that western countries with the resources and means (including us) should get onto assisting developing countries develop sustainably now as well - i'd argue we can do both at once.
Mind you, most are developing in a more sustainable manner anyway just by virtue of clean energy being cheaper in most situations. But population control is a problem... Ban all fucking religions and educate women and you'd have the problem sorted.
The best bang for buck emissions mitigation measure western countries can do for developing countries is education and contraception for women. But of course fucktards using sky fairies to hold onto the power their tiny dicks need to feel complete wont let that happen. In short, we're fucked.
droenn
Fat Man's XC President
Population is the elephant in the room that is so hard to discuss rationally. My view is that while climate change is the biggest stressor, you can't ignore the loss of biodiversity through processes like increased plastics in the ocean, the overuse of chemicals in agricultural production (and runoff) and rates of deforestation - just to name a few that for some species and ecosystems will destroy them well before climate change gets a chance to. All of these are somewhat linked to population, and not just the overall increase in population but the shifting of ratios towards a growing 'middle class'. This is exemplified in things like car ownership, eating more imported foods and products, and increased demand for air travel in countries like China, India, Indonesia and Brazil. All of those of course add to resource consumption and emissions, greatly, and at the moment the demand for them is outstripping innovations to reduce their impact. So yeah, people making more people is screwing us too.
The only bit of good news is that some models see us capping out around 11 billion later this century, and then perhaps even declining as less people are in poverty, and rates of education for women globally are increased. But we can do a lot of damage before then.
