4 ms·
Yes, and so what? 90% less fossil fuel spend in electricity does not equal a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for a person (Humans emit greenhouse gass
by EJTH 10y ago
Yes, and so what? 90% less fossil fuel spend in electricity does not equal a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for a person (Humans emit greenhouse gasses directly and indirectly for alot of other purposes than electricity).
So maybe you can fit 90% more people into the equation if you reduce their emissions sufficiently, but that will be voided by the exponential growth of the human population within generations.
- emodendroket 10y agoIt's less than clear that the human population is going to continue growing at breakneck speed when industrialization is generally associated with much lower birth rates, and even staving off the problem for "generations" would be a success.
- EJTH 10y agocorrelation does not mean causation... China had a birthrate boom during their industrilaization, so did Syria. It is a culture thing, not a socioeconomic thing imo.
- emodendroket 10y ago> Findings from a 2015 government census show that the average Chinese woman has 1.05 children — a legacy of the one-child policy that changed on Jan. 1 to a two-child policy. It is the lowest fertility rate in the world, according to People’s Daily, the main newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/world/asia/china-fertility-birth.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/world/asia/china-fertility... It's logical that people would stop having so many kids once a society has industrialized because the cost of raising and educating them is relatively more expensive while the benefit to having them labor with you is essentially gone.