The same as if impacts per person were reduced by 90%, which is a more realistic aim, given the inefficiencies of animal agriculture, fossil-fuel private transport, and capitalist overconsumption in general
Are you sure it is a more realistic aim, especially as you point out the reliance on capitalist overconsumption?
I reckon most people can probably manage better with one or no children than they would manage without their current level of consumer goods.
"Either we limit our population growth, or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now."
- David Attenborough
https://futurism.com/david-attenborough-if-we-dont-limit-our-population-growth-the-natural-world-will
Second homes are damaging many communities. We have an inherited static caravan, but that's come to the end of what the site owners want on site (age), despite it being perfectly good, all working, still looks smart. The site is forcing people off or to buy new, a complete waste of money and wasteful of resources. We'll probably leave and give it up, and holiday elsewhere in the UK.
Cars, many people see the need to keep changing them. We buy and hold onto the car until such a point it's getting un-reliable. My wife moans that my car is 22 years old - it's in superb condition, works, no warning lights, but only moves 3000 miles a year, and only at weekends. Why the hell would I spend £20k plus on another car that goes no-where. If it breaks I'll either go without, or possibly look into a used EV for that to replace local journeys/MrsF's commutes (I cycle commute), and keep the other ICE for long distance.
Are you sure it is a more realistic aim, especially as you point out the reliance on capitalist overconsumption?
I reckon most people can probably manage better with one or no children than they would manage without their current level of consumer goods.
To be clear, I'm all for having less or no children, and I don't dispute that a larger population has much larger environmental impacts, all else equal. I'd actually consider myself an antinatalist and consider having kids unethical, but that's not for environmental reasons (I've been convinced by David Benatar, and my own experience of depression).
My point is simply that we have only a couple of decades to avert really serious ecological breakdown, and on that timescale population-mitigation could play a trivial role at best.
Even with a global zero-child policy, the population in 2050 would have only reduced by a third (still nearly 6 billion).
So if we wanted to reduce population as a 'lever' to avoid climate breakdown, we'd have to not just stop people having kids but actively kill billions.
As unlikely as it seems, overthrowing capitalism is actually more feasible.
They’re morally indefensible on a number of levels although I’m not sure climate change is a major one. Someone going to their holiday home in the Lakes isn’t flying out for a weekend in Tenerife. Doesn’t make them justifiable though.
In fact, by dint of the fact that second homes force young people to live in shared houses for longer, heating and lighting only their own bedrooms, rather than an entire house, perhaps the hoarding of empty houses by the rich is actually a net positive for the environment?!
So if we wanted to reduce population as a ‘lever’ to avoid climate breakdown, we’d have to not just stop people having kids but actively kill billions.
We don't need to do anything to kill billions. climate change will do that. Gaia reset
Even with a global zero-child policy, the population in 2050 would have only reduced by a third (still nearly 6 billion).
So if we wanted to reduce population as a ‘lever’ to avoid climate breakdown, we’d have to not just stop people having kids but actively kill billions.
As I've said before, reducing population is a red herring that distracts from the real things we have to do to avert >2C warming and all the horrors that will invovle. Anyone suggesting we need to depopulate either by not having kids or allowing existing people to die earlier is simply making an excuse so they can carry on with their lives exactly as they are. The only things worth doing are making big changes yourself (not eating meat and not flying are the only impactful ones TBH) and/or encouraging and supporting the changes we need to be forced upon us by governments. Stop looking for easy ways out, there are none.
As I’ve said before, reducing population is a red herring that distracts from the real things we have to do to avert >2C warming and all the horrors that will invovle. Anyone suggesting we need to depopulate either by not having kids or allowing existing people to die earlier is simply making an excuse so they can carry on with their lives exactly as they are. The only things worth doing are making big changes yourself (not eating meat and not flying are the only impactful ones TBH) and/or encouraging and supporting the changes we need to be forced upon us by governments. Stop looking for easy ways out, there are none.
Just to be clear @dazh, you do realise that was my point, right?
The only things worth doing are making big changes yourself (not eating meat and not flying are the only impactful ones TBH)
Plus not having a car and not having pets. Both hugely impactful
Also moving where you bank, keep your pension and how you vote
Just to be clear @dazh, you do realise that was my point, right?
Yes wasn't disagreeing with you, more repeating the point to the people on here who seem to think not having kids is a useful solution.
I didn't have kids 40 years ago. Thats saved more CO2 than anything else I could have done those 40 years although I also took the rest of the reasonable steps. Its not an either / or situation.
Thats saved more CO2 than anything else I could have done those 40 years although I also took the rest of the reasonable steps.
TJ you're a special case as you also do the other things and would accept changes being forced upon you by govt if that ever happens. However there are lots of other people, and many on this thread, who repeat this lazy view that not having children is the only serious contribution they need to make. Funny isn't it that not having kids conveniently provides them with lots of free time to fly around the world on fancy holidays 🤔.
That is a bigger issue than kids. Greed, greed is what will **** us all
The only things worth doing are making big changes yourself (not eating meat and not flying are the only impactful ones TBH) and/or encouraging and supporting the changes we need to be forced upon us by governments. Stop looking for easy ways out, there are none.
It sounds to me that you are looking for an easy way out. The idea that we can yet again double the world's population because what really counts is not eating meat and not flying is obviously daft.
Ultimately as David Attenborough points out we must limit population growth ourselves otherwise the natural world will do it for us.
The human population has been growing for thousands of years, and rather than slowing down and stabilising it is actually currently accelerating at an alarming rate.
That is the central issue. We could all keep warm by burning coal and we could all drive internal combustion powered vehicles without it having any effect on the planet's climate if we were sufficiently small in numbers.
I am not suggesting depopulating the planet, I am suggesting not ignoring the root cause and pretending that the human population can continue to double indefinitely.
I am not suggesting depopulating the planet, I am suggesting not ignoring the root cause and pretending that the human population can continue to double indefinitely.
No one in their right mind is suggesting that.
Population growth peaks this century in all but one IPCC scenario, and if family planning and gender equality initiatives grew sufficienly fast we'd be on the lower of the curves with population peaking mid-century.
We could, theoretically, support decent living standards for 10 billion-ish with appropriate tech, more reasonable consumption patterns, and much less inequality (I studied this for years) with far less human ecological damage than today. We could perhaps support a much higher population if fusion and lab grown food and asteroid mining etc. all kicked off in 50 years or so.
I'm not saying that it would be easy. And I'm not some anthropocentic Elon-Musk-type that thinks the universe would be better the more humans are alive (I think quite the opposite). Nor am I disagreeing with you that a lower population would make avoiding ecological collapse a hell of a lot easier. But I do think the idea that population numbers are the root cause of environmental impacts is flawed and itself the easier way out.
Basically, environmental damage == population size x impact per person. Both are equally important (and perhaps inequality, too).
We could all keep warm by burning coal and we could all drive internal combustion powered vehicles without it having any effect on the planet’s climate if we were sufficiently small in numbers.
Basically, environmental damage == population size x impact per person.
Presumably you feel that you are disagreeing with me over something but I have no idea what. Still, no worries 😃
@ernielynch, I just disagree with the idea that 'population is the root cause'
I disagree with the word 'the' in the middle of that
That said, I think we agree on much of all this so, I agree with you on the no worries 🙂
Inequality is a far bigger issue than population, reducing the per capita emissions of the richest 10 percent to the EU average would cut annual emissions by over a quarter.
I just disagree with the idea that ‘population is the root cause’
Strange, if there was no human population there obviously wouldn't be any anthropogenic climate issues, if there were a million humans, even if they didn't care about how much carbon they released, there wouldn't be any serious anthropogenic climate issues, and so on until you get to a point where the population is so large that it becomes an issue.
Yes you can take measures to mitigate the effects of a large otherwise unsustainable human population but I'm with David Attenborough on this, not the Pope 😉
But the logic works exactly the same the other way around
You could have 20 billion living in an ecologically benign society, with access to all the tech and sufficiency that entails, then increase impacts per person and at some point you are no longer sustainable
Or, to capture greentricky's point
You could have a world of 10 billion living sustainably as a whole, then the top 10% get progressively richer until the society is unsustainable, to which the top 10% say 'well there are just too many people'
Enjoyed this conversation with Kevin Anderson
So, for those of you wondering if we're on a slow death spiral or whether we're going to hit a series of points where we accelerate - look at the gap in the graph in this article and try not to be alarmed*:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66387537
We have take-off.
Additonally, the throwaway comment about Florida's sea surface temperature being 38.44 degrees - that's not a liveable temperature. It's nice in a hot tub (don't want much hotter or your heart starts racing as your body tries to pump blood to the bits of you that aren't in the water in an effort to cool you down before you die of the heat) but it ain't no good in the sea.
*(If you're not alarmed, you can't read graphs btw).
You could have a world of 10 billion living sustainably as a whole, then the top 10% get progressively richer until the society is unsustainable, to which the top 10% say ‘well there are just too many people’
This. The population reduction argument is simply a justification for maintaining the unsustainable lifestyles of the rich minority (and yes I include myself in that). We need to take radical action to change our economies and lifestyles so we can live sustainably, and that action needs to start at the top and target the rich first.
We need to take radical action to change our economies and lifestyles so we can live sustainably, and that action needs to start at the top and target the rich first.
You can see why that won't work though can't you, i.e. the rich are those running the world and they don't want to get poorer to ensure a better world for people in the future - not really their style.
In that are you allowing for development in developing nations? Currently their CO2 footprint is a lot less than ours (I think - can't be arsed to look it up). Development will inevitably cause a rise in emissions for them even with the cleanest of tech as development requires more energy usage and more raw materials usage
Which means those of us in developed nations need to make even huger cuts to our emissions
to feed 10 billion we need intensive agriculture especially considering crop growing land will reduce in area and yield as temps rise. Are these 10 billion all going to be veggie? going to give up their cars, stop having pets, stop flying abroad, stop importing stuff?
Again this is the dark green / light green split. I simply believe that current population levels are simply unsustainable. I live a relatively low emissions lifestyle for a westerner. If everyone on the planet had my lifestyle then its still unsustainable and look at the flak I get for even hinting folk could go down that road
not really their style.
It's already happening. This is why western countries have committed themselves to net zero. It's why the UK reducing its carbon emissions is important even though we're only 2% of the global carbon load. It's obviously not enough and too slow at this point in time, but it will accelerate, especially now that China and the US are taking more action.
I simply believe that current population levels are simply unsustainable.
Of course they're not sustainable, but trying to do something about population will not help for all the reasons already explained. It's easier and more effective to make lifestyles of the global rich minority sustainable than it is to reduce the global population.
Of course they’re not sustainable,
In which case its back to " we are all doomed"
The human population has been growing for thousands of years, and rather than slowing down and stabilising it is actually currently accelerating at an alarming rate.
No it's not. Where did you get that idea from?
It’s already happening. This is why western countries have committed themselves to net zero.
DOn't know what other countries commitment are but the UK is 2050 isn't it. That is 27 years time, do you really think that will stay at 2050 after another 7 or 8 governments have had a go at it.
I would bet money on the 2030 no new petrol/diesel cars getting kicked down the road so that will be a good indicator when we get closer to it.
People really don't care/can't get their heads around something that is planned for 27 years time.
In which case its back to ” we are all doomed”
Only if we give up and do nothing. I appreciate you're not suggesting that but many on this thread and more widely across society have moved directly from being in denial to being fatalistic. It's just another excuse to do nothing.
But that is what you are agreeing. All the steps you consider acceptable added together will make no difference. radical action is needed which seems to be unacceptable
The Kaya Identity is relevant to this discussion, you can replace GHG emissions with overall environmental impact if you want:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity
The Kaya identity is a mathematical identity stating that the total emission level of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide can be expressed as the product of four factors: human population, GDP per capita, energy intensity (per unit of GDP), and carbon intensity (emissions per unit of energy consumed)
Arguing over whether A, B, C or D "matters more" to the value of AxBxCxD is a fairly fruitless endeavour. Some may be easier to change than others though.
radical action is needed which seems to be unacceptable
I've never said radical action isn't required. Of course it is, but it's not going to happen before we do the non-radical stuff. This is why I've said that the most effective thing people need to do themselves is to vote and influence politicians to take the actions that are required and then support and accept them when they do.
I agree that doomism and fatalism isn't helpful. This problem isn't a binary question, do we survive or do we die? (Newsflash: yes you're going to die. Grow up and get over it.) It's a question of how to reduce and minimise our harmful impacts on the environment, as quickly as is practicable. Arguing that action X is pointless because it doesn't (on its own) solve the entire problem is just making up excuses to do nothing, because there is no action X that will on its own solve the entire problem, and never will be such an X.
We need to be concerned and motivated, not scared and fatalistic. Some environmental communication leans too much towards the latter in my opinion (which I believe is supported by the scientific literature on both climate and communication).
No it’s not. Where did you get that idea from?
Because that's what has been happening? The graph in your link shows it, everything after 2022 on the graph is a prediction : "such milestones could top out by the end of the century"
It might well be a perfectly reasonable prediction, after all many people argue that immigration is necessary to plug the gap in reduced population growth in wealthy countries. The prediction doesn't however prove that indefinite population growth is sustainable, it isn't, which was very obviously my point.
"We can't go on increasing at the rate human beings are increasing forever, because Earth is finite and you can't put infinity into something that is finite"
- David Attenborough
This is why western countries have committed themselves to net zero
Net zero is the lie.
As close to actual zero as possible is required with efforts to reverse the damage we've done. We can't make actual zero of course, but the net zero greenwashing allows us to be massively polluting whilst we point to "gains" we're making elsewhere (bearing in mind every time we look at the 'offsetting' thing it turns out to be bullshit).
Cognitive dissonance.
People really don’t care/can’t get their heads around something that is planned for 27 years time.
Pensions, mortgages, dams?
Humans can and do plan for the long-term. It's only because of that ability we have come so far.
The problem is capitalism here which has short-termism coded into its DNA.
Companies and governments are based on quarterly results and election cycles.
Perhaps consumerism plays a role too insofar as we, as consumers, are encouraged to think short-term because the product life cycles of the things we buy are generally measured in two- or three-year periods.
Our economic system has brought uninmaginable wealth and comfort, but it now no longer seems fit for purpose.
This is why I’ve said that the most effective thing people need to do themselves is to vote and influence politicians to take the actions that are required and then support and accept them when they do.
And then get on with drivng a stinking car everwhere, turning up the gas central heating, flying around the planet, buying tat from the other side of the world etc. One vote changes nothing and never has, however, one person such as you, dazh, can use alternative transport (or buy an EV in needs must a car), insulate and fit a heat pump, take less polluting holidays and change your habits of consumption.
You're one of the few "do nothings" on these threads, most of the people in here are doing something.
There are petrolhead threads with the couldn't give a ****s, and eco threads with the do somethings. That's a reflection of society in general. Look at member pseudos on the Volvo thread , or the small 4x4 thread, and search for members also posting in here. You're in here, Dazh, and someone said "**** SUVs" on the 4x4 thread.
Voting won't change anything when the Volvo/4x4 fans outnumber the people on this thread. So do something yourself to reduce your carbon footproint, it's all you can do short of gluing yourself to a road
My "just stop flying" jibe on a thread thread really touched a nerve with someone really into EVs, solar panels, batteries etc who works in aerospace - it's only 2-3% on world emissions he says, but the lowest hanging fruit on the tree. Now have look at the return from holiday thread. One person dragged his bike and trailer up 104 steps, I walked home from the bus station and the vast majority flew or drove a huge distance home.
20 years back these forums were full of climatic change deniers. Now realising that to further deny makes them look foolish they just ignore the issue and in some cases take pride in the most CO2 productive activities possible.
radical action is needed which seems to be unacceptable
I’ve never said radical action isn’t required. Of course it is, but it’s not going to happen before we do the non-radical stuff.
that's me on the SKS thread 🙂
Also - halving the world's population? Over what time period and what's your strategy? It'll take a few generations unless genocide is an option. And the global population is topping out anyway. It's not part of the solution, it's not even the main problem starting from where we actually are. So why bother talking about it? I'll stop.
Over what time period and what’s your strategy?
Make me world dictator. Rightwingers, covid deniers, climate chage deniers. all on my list 🙂 I'd sort the problem in a decade.
In all seriousness poulation growth is a huge part of the problem. the crisis is so bad that it needs everything done not just the low hanging fruit
You’re one of the few “do nothings” on these threads, most of the people in here are doing something.
Where the hell have you got that from? I've been vegan for 30 years, cycle everywhere, take very few foreign holidays, consume as little as possible (apart from bikes of course) and spent a good part of my youth as an eco-activist warning about this stuff 20 years before everyone else even knew it was a problem.
I don't have an electric car because I can't afford one. Same goes for heatpumps and solar PV etc. If someone wants to give me 50 grand I can be energy and fuel carbon neutral in a matter of months.
It’s not part of the solution, it’s not even the main problem starting from where we actually are. So why bother talking about it? I’ll stop.
Because it is widely seen as a very important issue?
Where the hell have you got that from?
You contributions to heating and motoring threads. You have consitently argued against insulate and heat pump claiming it's not practival and too expensive. It's really easy to DIY insulating walls on the inside and the return on investment is so fast in both money and CO2 it's illogical to argue against it. Once insulated a house can be heated with a heat pump very economically, you argue against this.
On another thread there was a link to an advert for £13 500 second-hand Zoé 52kWh. I don't care what ICE you drive, it won't be cheaper over the next 10 years than that Zoé.
You argue against the ways you could reduce your carbon footprint the most.
You don't need 50 grand to make a start by insulating the rooms you spend most time in from the inside. But you argue against.
As for reducing population being a "red herring" and arguing against... .
You have consitently argued against insulate and heat pump claiming it’s not practival and too expensive.
Think you must be hallucinating because I can't even remember posting on any threads about motoring or heating.
You argue against the ways you could reduce your carbon footprint the most.
Go and find me posts I've made which argue against people reducing their carbon footprint. You're talking absolute bollocks.
And BTW my entire house is already insulated. I have no idea why or where you got the idea that it isn't.
Over what time period and what’s your strategy?
Make me world dictator. Rightwingers, covid deniers, climate chage deniers. all on my list 🙂 I’d sort the problem in a decade.
In all seriousness poulation growth is a huge part of the problem. the crisis is so bad that it needs everything done not just the low hanging fruit
Are you really proposing killing people on an industrial scale? That is indeed radical. If you're just talking about reducing number of babies born, that's happening anyway, accelerating this trend is great but will take decades for impact and we don't have that much time.
Because we can't act on it the population stuff is one of the parameters, it's like saying the problem is that the sun is too hot. Okay - what are you going to do?
And there's loads of knowledge and evidence on population dynamics. The gapminder.org website is brilliant on this stuff. You can use it to do your own modelling, or check the short and very clear vids. Here's one on falling birthrates
https://www.gapminder.org/answers/how-did-babies-per-woman-change-in-different-regions/
