5 ms·

This is just awful. We have 800 gigatons of CO2 emissions left for having a 66% chance of staying under 2 degrees C of warming. We currently emit 40 billion ton

This is just awful. We have 800 gigatons of CO2 emissions left for having a 66% chance of staying under 2 degrees C of warming. We currently emit 40 billion tons of CO2 per year. We need to cut emissions drastically, starting yesterday. Frequent flyers emit a disproportional amount of green house gases.

gaius 10y ago
Any solution that doesn't involve producing fewer people in the first place is just window dressing.
- kitsune_ 10y ago
  The billions of poor people on this globe have nothing to do with the current crisis. The vast majority of green house gases have been emitted by countries with a relatively stagnant population growth curve. The pareto principle roughly applies here as well. Here is a conundrum for you: Research shows that an increase in quality of life is inversely proportional to a drop in birth rate. Fossil fuels are also the cheapest and easiest way for poor countries to develop their economies. So if you are truly interested in stopping population growth the solution is rather simplistic from a carbon budget perspective. Meaning: rich countries need to drastically reduce their carbon emissions (read: 10% per annum starting now) while developing countries have a window of maybe 10 years where they can still increase their carbon emissions. After that they too have to start reducing emissions (you can think of a scheme where the reduction rate increases each year). Put more bluntly: Whenever you take a long haul flight you directly rob a child in Africa from using fossil fuels to better his or her life.
  - the8472 10y ago
    > Research shows that an increase in quality of life is inversely proportional to a drop in birth rate. Fossil fuels are also the cheapest and easiest way for poor countries to develop their economies. If decreasing carbon footprint is the goal then presumably the "easiest way" (spending more carbon) may not be the preferable option.
  - FrancoDiaz 10y ago
    Put more bluntly: Whenever you take a long haul flight you directly rob a child in Africa from using fossil fuels to better his or her life. Do you really believe this stuff? Or does it just make you feel good because it shows you care?
  - icegreentea 10y ago
    I mean, most of what North Americans do in their every day life is robbing a child in Africa of... all sorts of things.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > Here is a conundrum for you: Research shows that an increase in quality of life is inversely proportional to a drop in birth rate. How does that correspond to the increase in carbon footprint? The huge increase in carbon emissions is due in large part to huge number of the members of BRICs ascending to the middle class and demanding a middle class lifestyle, which causes carbon emissions to rise drastically.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    > Research shows that an increase in quality of life is inversely proportional to a drop in birth rate. This is actually not the case. Wealthy people in the US even have more kids, on average, than the middle classes. > Whenever you take a long haul flight you directly rob a child in Africa from using fossil fuels to better his or her life. Does that mean whenever a millionaire takes his yacht out for a stroll (that gets maybe 1MPG), he's robbing me of my chance to improve my life further as well? I'm unlikely to ever afford retirement or being able to afford children of my own. Does that mean everyone who has children in developed countries are robbing people in Africa of oppurtinites? Adding a new person in a developed country consumes far more CO2 than a couple of long-haul flights.
- 7952 10y ago
  Population trends happen over several decades. CO2 from this will be released immediately.
jimmywanger 10y ago
> Frequent flyers emit a disproportional amount of green house gases. Citation needed. One source says it causes 4-9% of climate change. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/air-travel-and-climate-change/ http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/cli... Define disproportionate and "frequent flyer". If you've ever been on an airplane before, you probably count as a frequent flyer to most of the world's population.

gaius 10y ago

Any solution that doesn't involve producing fewer people in the first place is just window dressing.

kitsune_ 10y ago
The billions of poor people on this globe have nothing to do with the current crisis. The vast majority of green house gases have been emitted by countries with a relatively stagnant population growth curve. The pareto principle roughly applies here as well. Here is a conundrum for you: Research shows that an increase in quality of life is inversely proportional to a drop in birth rate. Fossil fuels are also the cheapest and easiest way for poor countries to develop their economies. So if you are truly interested in stopping population growth the solution is rather simplistic from a carbon budget perspective. Meaning: rich countries need to drastically reduce their carbon emissions (read: 10% per annum starting now) while developing countries have a window of maybe 10 years where they can still increase their carbon emissions. After that they too have to start reducing emissions (you can think of a scheme where the reduction rate increases each year). Put more bluntly: Whenever you take a long haul flight you directly rob a child in Africa from using fossil fuels to better his or her life.
- the8472 10y ago
  > Research shows that an increase in quality of life is inversely proportional to a drop in birth rate. Fossil fuels are also the cheapest and easiest way for poor countries to develop their economies. If decreasing carbon footprint is the goal then presumably the "easiest way" (spending more carbon) may not be the preferable option.
- FrancoDiaz 10y ago
  Put more bluntly: Whenever you take a long haul flight you directly rob a child in Africa from using fossil fuels to better his or her life. Do you really believe this stuff? Or does it just make you feel good because it shows you care?
- icegreentea 10y ago
  I mean, most of what North Americans do in their every day life is robbing a child in Africa of... all sorts of things.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > Here is a conundrum for you: Research shows that an increase in quality of life is inversely proportional to a drop in birth rate. How does that correspond to the increase in carbon footprint? The huge increase in carbon emissions is due in large part to huge number of the members of BRICs ascending to the middle class and demanding a middle class lifestyle, which causes carbon emissions to rise drastically.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  > Research shows that an increase in quality of life is inversely proportional to a drop in birth rate. This is actually not the case. Wealthy people in the US even have more kids, on average, than the middle classes. > Whenever you take a long haul flight you directly rob a child in Africa from using fossil fuels to better his or her life. Does that mean whenever a millionaire takes his yacht out for a stroll (that gets maybe 1MPG), he's robbing me of my chance to improve my life further as well? I'm unlikely to ever afford retirement or being able to afford children of my own. Does that mean everyone who has children in developed countries are robbing people in Africa of oppurtinites? Adding a new person in a developed country consumes far more CO2 than a couple of long-haul flights.
7952 10y ago
Population trends happen over several decades. CO2 from this will be released immediately.

jimmywanger 10y ago

> Frequent flyers emit a disproportional amount of green house gases. Citation needed. One source says it causes 4-9% of climate change. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/air-travel-and-climate-change/ http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/cli... Define disproportionate and "frequent flyer". If you've ever been on an airplane before, you probably count as a frequent flyer to most of the world's population.