Climate change and human responsibility

[Fuzz]

It is if they all want to live like we do(and there is no reason they shouldn't). The planet doesn't have the resources for that.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It is if they all want to live like we do(and there is no reason they shouldn't). The planet doesn't have the resources for that.

What are your sources for this statement?

[Fuzz]

"It is not the number of people on the planet that is the issue – but the number of consumers and the scale and nature of their consumption," says David Satterthwaite, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development in London. He quotes Gandhi: "The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed."


...Satterthwaite goes on to say that if we look at an individual's lifestyle, the differences between wealthy and non-wealthy groups are even more dramatic. There are many low-income urban dwellers whose consumption is so low that they contribute almost nothing to greenhouse gas emissions.

So a world with a human population of 11 billion might put comparatively little extra strain on our planet's resources. But the world is changing. Low-income urban centres may not continue on low-carbon development trajectories.
The real concern would be if the people living in these areas decided to demand the lifestyles and consumption rates currently considered normal in high-income nations; something many would argue is only fair. If they do, the impact of urban population growth could be much larger.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160...really-support

It would also mean the majority of the population going from 1-2 MT CO2 to our level of 15-20MT. Which obviously would be an issue.

From what I have read there isn't enough cobalt to support every vehicle currently switching from gas to battery, let alone all the new ones the 3rd world would add.

[Flamenspiel]

Dp

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160...really-support

It would also mean the majority of the population going from 1-2 MT CO2 to our level of 15-20MT. Which obviously would be an issue.

From what I have read there isn't enough cobalt to support every vehicle currently switching from gas to battery, let alone all the new ones the 3rd world would add.

From the link:

The real concern would be if the people living in these areas decided to demand the lifestyles and consumption rates currently considered normal in high-income nations; something many would argue is only fair. If they do, the impact of urban population growth could be much larger.

Even if those changes occur, it seems unlikely that our planet could really sustain a population of 11 billion. So Steffen suggests that we should stabilise the global population, hopefully at around nine billion, and then begin a long, slow trend of decreasing population. That means reducing fertility rates.

What is urgently needed, then, is ways to speed up the decline in fertility rates.



So basically if poor nations and poverty stricken people are kept poor and poverty stricken, their consumption and emissions are nice and low. But if they want out of poverty then overpopulation is absolutely a concern.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by chemgear

So basically if poor nations and poverty stricken people are kept poor and poverty stricken, their consumption and emissions are nice and low. But if they want out of poverty then overpopulation is absolutely a concern.

http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions

I just found this. Seems to line up with other data sources. If you set it to t cO2 per person, you'll see we're (Canada) pretty bad . Third world countries are very environmental by this measure.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Ark2

What are your sources for this statement?

Okay, generally people agree that current levels aren't good correct?

So 2017 World Total Emissions - 36,153 MtCO2

Canada and US standard of living: ~ 16t/person

Now ONLY take India: Population of 1.3 billion(ish) Current levels of 1.8t/person. Give them the same standard of living as Canada/US and the increase in total MtCO2 is 19,000 MtCO2. That's adding more than half of the entire world right now.

China would add another 13,000 MtCO2 on top of that.

EDIT: The 1st world moving to things like electric cars and such are a good move. But the effect is all going to be just a tiny measurement error compared the the sheer mass and momentum of people and overpopulation.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by chemgear

From the link:

So basically if poor nations and poverty stricken people are kept poor and poverty stricken, their consumption and emissions are nice and low. But if they want out of poverty then overpopulation is absolutely a concern.

There was only one catch and that was Catch-Global Warming, which specified that a concern for one's own family in the face of poverty that was real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. The Developing World was crazy and could be brought out of poverty. All they had had to do was keep hiking emissions; and as soon as they did, they would no longer be poverty-stricken and would face drought, fires, and famine from global warming. They would be crazy to not develop further and sane if they didn't, but if they didn't develop, they'd be stuck in poverty. If they developed, they were crazy and shouldn't; but if they didn't, they were sane and poor. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-Global Warming and let out a respectful whistle.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Don't you have kids? Do you not worry about the planet you're leaving behind for them?

I have kids but if I didn’t I doubt that my desire to leave a clean world would be any less.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I have kids but if I didn’t I doubt that my desire to leave a clean world would be any less.

You dirty, dirty polluter! /s

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I have kids but if I didn’t I doubt that my desire to leave a clean world would be any less.

I don't and won't have kids and I still want to leave the planet in good condition for the next generations, so I agree.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Is over population really a problem?





https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2.../#4148f9b5216a

That Forbes article seems pretty optimistic. The UN predicts over 11B people by 2100 and still growing.

https://population.un.org/wpp/Public...eyFindings.pdf

[GGG]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

That Forbes article seems pretty optimistic. The UN predicts over 11B people by 2100 and still growing.

https://population.un.org/wpp/Public...eyFindings.pdf

Depends on how well you think we do on eliminating poverty and improve access to education and birth control

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by GGG

Depends on how well you think we do on eliminating poverty and improve access to education and birth control

I’m no expert, but if I was betting I would expect we’ll do somewhere between mediocre and terrible on all three.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Okay, generally people agree that current levels aren't good correct?

So 2017 World Total Emissions - 36,153 MtCO2

Canada and US standard of living: ~ 16t/person

Now ONLY take India: Population of 1.3 billion(ish) Current levels of 1.8t/person. Give them the same standard of living as Canada/US and the increase in total MtCO2 is 19,000 MtCO2. That's adding more than half of the entire world right now.

China would add another 13,000 MtCO2 on top of that.

EDIT: The 1st world moving to things like electric cars and such are a good move. But the effect is all going to be just a tiny measurement error compared the the sheer mass and momentum of people and overpopulation.

It's not really accurate to link emissions to standard of living; simply because our emissions are around 16t/person doesn't mean that our standard of living requires that. We've essentially taken the cheapest, easiest possible path to this point. The EU has been reducing their per-capita and overall emissions significantly, but this has not resulted in a significant decrease in the standard of living there.
China should plateau their emissions within about 10-15 years if not sooner. India has effectively slowed their rate of emission increase to below their already ambitious goals (one of the only countries in the world with climate policies compatible with a 2C rise in temperature), yet continues to rapidly improve the standard of living. They'll never come anywhere close to the per-capita emissions that we currently have.

There's definitely a cost here: providing a high standard of living on a lower carbon footprint is more expensive in the short-term (although a better investment longterm even without the environmental implications, given the limited supply of fuel).

[chemgear]

You’re saying that people with more wealth and a better standard of living don’t emit more? Don’t travel more, don’t eat a more diverse diet, don't eat more meat, don’t buy more things, don’t vacation more, etc. Or just semantics in a theoretical “Well, gee maybe they don’t HAVE to emit more.”

Marginal reductions in places like Europe (less than 2%) are overwhelmed by the 3rd and developing world. Don't get me wrong, they're good but they are simply not material enough in the scope of the world.

India’s emissions according that the link above (not mine) have been going at a steady 7-10% increase every year since the turn of century and they’re still firmly entrenched in the 3rd world with some of the worst possible cities to live in.

Since 2000, the minor reduction by Europe has been wiped out by India which more than increased their emissions by two-fold of the decrease by ALL of Europe. China increased by more than 10 times that small reduction! Nevermind the billions of other people in the rest of the developing and third world.



https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...climate-change

Wealthier people produce more carbon pollution — even the “green” ones Good environmental intentions are swamped by the effects of money.

Ecological footprint is mostly determined by wealth

The study was published in the June 2017 edition of the journal Environment and Behavior with a title that gives you some idea of what to expect: “Good Intents, but Low Impacts.”

Spoiler: “Our results show that individuals with high pro-environmental self-identity intend to behave in an ecologically responsible way, but they typically emphasize actions that have relatively small ecological benefits.”

“Impact-oriented” research, however, tells a different story. Study after study finds that the primary determinant of a person’s actual ecological footprint is income. After that is geography (rural versus urban), various socioeconomic indicators (age, education level, etc.), and household size. Self-identification as “green” is toward the bottom of the list, with mostly marginal effects.




How can you NOT link emissions with wealth and the standard of living?

[The Fonz]

I wish there were websites dedicated to tracking the carbon footprints of "environmentalists" like Leonardo DiCaprio, David Suzuki, Al Gore, and others.

There is no doubt in my mind that they have well over 100x the carbon footprint of the average Canadian/American.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I wish there were websites dedicated to tracking the carbon footprints of "environmentalists" like Leonardo DiCaprio, David Suzuki, Al Gore, and others.

What purpose would that serve?

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by rubecube

What purpose would that serve?

If the ultimately goal is to reduce emissions, then the public needs genuine leaders to look to for inspiration - people who are actually practicing what they preach, and genuinely exploring solutions.

Removing these huckster celebrities from the forefront of the environmental movement would go a long way in getting the skeptics and fence-sitters to take the issue seriously.

[octothorp]

You’re saying that people with more wealth and a better standard of living don’t emit more? Don’t travel more, don’t eat a more diverse diet, don't eat more meat, don’t buy more things, don’t vacation more, etc. Or just semantics in a theoretical “Well, gee maybe they don’t HAVE to emit more.”

No, that's not what I'm arguing at all. The article that you cited is correct: as well-meaning as the individual efforts we make are, they are largely immaterial to carbon output, and it's not going to be individual consumer choices that result in change. Anything meaningful needs to be done at the government/regulatory/industrial level. There is nothing I can do as an individual that will come close to my utility company switching the source of my own power from coal to NG to renewable, or increasing regulations on industrial polluters. Countries that are targeting net-neutral emissions status aren't counting primarily on individuals changing behaviors to do so, they're planning to do it through changes to their power generation and electrical grids, plus regulations primarily on industrial and commercial emitters. The question isn't whether it's possible for nations to achieve near net neutral carbon emissions while maintaining a modern quality of life. The only question is how long it takes and how expensive it is.