^ 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.
I'm happy to start with dumb americans first. Then dumb everyone else. That should leave about 0.5 billion.Population is a secondary concern. It’s about people’s individual footprints.
Most first worlders consume magnitudes more than the others.
Which part of the world’s population do you want to tackle first? Those causing the least problem?
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.Population is a secondary concern. It’s about people’s individual footprints.
Most first worlders consume magnitudes more than the others.
Which part of the world’s population do you want to tackle first? Those causing the least problem?
You going to answer my question? Who has to give up their kids first???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.
Huh?Ned ?
Yes and no...Population is a secondary concern. It’s about people’s individual footprints.
Most first worlders consume magnitudes more than the others.
Which part of the world’s population do you want to tackle first? Those causing the least problem?
Everyone. Still think our only hope is a global pandemic that sterilises 95% of the population...Who has to give up their kids first???
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.ourworldindata.org
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.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.
[edit] Oh - and there is pretty good evidence that a 2 degree world will barely be governable. Let alone a 3 degree world:
That's because they refuse to acknowledge population interventions.[edit] Oh - and there is pretty good evidence that a 2 degree world will barely be governable. Let alone a 3 degree world:
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.Jesus, you guys can't see this from anyone else's perspective than your own!
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.Jesus, you guys can't see this from anyone else's perspective than your own!
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.How about the developed world enacts meaningful change before we ask the developing world to come along for the ride?
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.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.
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.Population is a secondary concern. It’s about people’s individual footprints.
Most first worlders consume magnitudes more than the others.
Which part of the world’s population do you want to tackle first? Those causing the least problem?
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.