4 ms·

Population control and nuclear power seem to be two things that are both beneficial in and of themselves, and also helpful against CO2 emissions. What else? A

Population control and nuclear power seem to be two things that are both beneficial in and of themselves, and also helpful against CO2 emissions. What else? Are solar panels a net positive yet? But really, population control is the big one, and it's hard to talk about because, what are you going to do? Western birthrates are already very low. But try to convince a Zambian to not have 9 children... The usual solution is education, but that #1 Takes a generation or two, #2 Is a gamble in the first place, and #3 Goes hand-in-hand with expanded industrial production.

henrikschroder 10y ago
There's no need to convince anyone of anything, it turns out that improving the quality of life for everyone, especially by providing education, makes birth rates drop dramatically. It's pretty much only sub-saharan african countries that have a birth-rate above 3. Zambia is at 5.59, and was at 7.41 at the most in 1975.
erik 10y ago
Population is less of a concern than you might think. At least according to Has Rosling: https://vimeo.com/79878808 https://vimeo.com/79878808 (This is long, but worth watching.) World population is starting to plateau, with the number of children no longer growing. What I take from the video is that the primary concerns are reducing extreme poverty and infant mortality in Africa on one hand, which will result in a reduced birth rate. And on the other hand, moving the most wealthy to technology and lifestyles with lower environmental impact (solar power, electric cars, and I'm not sure what else), so that as the developing world adopts a wealthier lifestyle there is not a proportionate increase in environmental damage.
- marcusjt 10y ago
  "moving the most wealthy to technology and lifestyles with lower environmental impact" - that's a strategy that's new to me, and initially sounds smart, as I'd certainly rather that rich people had crazy cool low/zero-environmental-impact toys than gas-guzzling ones! However, isn't the net environmental impact of the 1% actually tiny compared to the activities of the 99%? So surely it's widely penetrating / mass adoption of low/zero-environmental-impact technologies by the 99% that will change the world? And of course as George Monbiot said... “(Population is) an important issue…most greens will not discuss. Is this sensitivity or is it cowardice? Perhaps a bit of both.” “…if we accept the UN’s projection that global population will grow by roughly 50 per cent and then stop. This means it will become 50 per cent harder to stop runaway climate change, 50 per cent harder to feed the world, 50 per cent harder to prevent the overuse of resources.” “Even if there were no environmental pressures caused by population growth, we should still support the measures required to tackle it: universal sex education, universal access to contraceptives, better schooling and opportunities for poor women. Stabilising or even reducing the human population would ameliorate almost all environmental impacts.”
  - erik 10y ago
    "However, isn't the net environmental impact of the 1% actually tiny compared to the activities of the 99%" According to the linked video, the richest billion are responsible for 50% of global carbon emissions. The idea is that we had better have much better technology in place as the next richest 3 billion people start to drive and fly more over the next 50 years.

henrikschroder 10y ago

There's no need to convince anyone of anything, it turns out that improving the quality of life for everyone, especially by providing education, makes birth rates drop dramatically. It's pretty much only sub-saharan african countries that have a birth-rate above 3. Zambia is at 5.59, and was at 7.41 at the most in 1975.

erik 10y ago

Population is less of a concern than you might think. At least according to Has Rosling: https://vimeo.com/79878808 https://vimeo.com/79878808 (This is long, but worth watching.) World population is starting to plateau, with the number of children no longer growing. What I take from the video is that the primary concerns are reducing extreme poverty and infant mortality in Africa on one hand, which will result in a reduced birth rate. And on the other hand, moving the most wealthy to technology and lifestyles with lower environmental impact (solar power, electric cars, and I'm not sure what else), so that as the developing world adopts a wealthier lifestyle there is not a proportionate increase in environmental damage.

marcusjt 10y ago
"moving the most wealthy to technology and lifestyles with lower environmental impact" - that's a strategy that's new to me, and initially sounds smart, as I'd certainly rather that rich people had crazy cool low/zero-environmental-impact toys than gas-guzzling ones! However, isn't the net environmental impact of the 1% actually tiny compared to the activities of the 99%? So surely it's widely penetrating / mass adoption of low/zero-environmental-impact technologies by the 99% that will change the world? And of course as George Monbiot said... “(Population is) an important issue…most greens will not discuss. Is this sensitivity or is it cowardice? Perhaps a bit of both.” “…if we accept the UN’s projection that global population will grow by roughly 50 per cent and then stop. This means it will become 50 per cent harder to stop runaway climate change, 50 per cent harder to feed the world, 50 per cent harder to prevent the overuse of resources.” “Even if there were no environmental pressures caused by population growth, we should still support the measures required to tackle it: universal sex education, universal access to contraceptives, better schooling and opportunities for poor women. Stabilising or even reducing the human population would ameliorate almost all environmental impacts.”
- erik 10y ago
  "However, isn't the net environmental impact of the 1% actually tiny compared to the activities of the 99%" According to the linked video, the richest billion are responsible for 50% of global carbon emissions. The idea is that we had better have much better technology in place as the next richest 3 billion people start to drive and fly more over the next 50 years.