5 ms·

If you are serious about fighting climate change, what is the single most effective place to spend money? My guess is: education for girls in Africa. Why? Ca

by dzdt 9y ago

If you are serious about fighting climate change, what is the single most effective place to spend money? My guess is: education for girls in Africa. Why? Carbon emmissions per year come down to (energy use per person per year)(carbon emitted per unit energy)(number of people). In developed nations, all of these terms are stable or declining. In many developing nations, and Africa in particular, population growth is still exponential. Relatively small changes in the exponent of that growth have huge impacts on future carbon emission. The pattern of decreasing fertility rate as modern societies develop is called "demographic transition". One of the biggest factors driving demographic transition is increased education levels for girls. So to get the biggest multiplier on future carbon emmissions, look for the fastest growing term of the equation (population); look where it is growing the fastest (sub-saharan Africa), and look for the best way to reduce that growth (education for girls.) [1] https://www.wu.ac.at/en/press/press-releases/press-releases-details/detail/from-an-aging-to-an-exploding-population-education-will-decide-humanitys-future/ https://www.wu.ac.at/en/press/press-releases/press-releases-...

trumbitta2 9y ago
I can't even begin to grasp how racist and/or privileged this comment is.
- the_gastropod 9y ago
  Yes.. Suggesting one should contribute to organizations funding education for women in poverty-stricken African countries is super racist... /s
  - trumbitta2 9y ago
    Sure, go ahead and pretend not to have read that the main point of the comment is decreasing fertility rate in sub-saharian Africa. Let's focus on the single decent point (education) in the whole post and shame on me. It's fun.
everybodyknows 9y ago
Exactly. Education empowers girls to select better husbands, start their own businesses, and then push for better education for their own, fewer children. A virtuous circle. And the same that's at work in all more-developed countries.
jimrandomh 9y ago
This depends heavily on technological forecasting. There's a decent chance that, by the time those countries reach the level of development where their carbon footprint is a serious concern, they'll have skipped over fossil fuels and gone to solar, similar to how they skipped wired telephony and went to cell phones. (Of course, education in poor countries is beneficial and worthwhile regardless. But if you have to decide between investments in education or public health in a poor country, I've gotten the impression there's lower-hanging fruit in public health.)
- Apes 9y ago
  A country with a 3-4% growth rate is doubling its population about every 20 years. For that country's carbon footprint to just remain stable, they will have to halve the amount of carbon emissions per person every 20 years. This means that these countries will need to completely replace their infrastructure with technology and processes that are twice as efficient every 20 years, just to keep their carbon emissions stable. I just don't see any way for technology and infrastructure to outpace population growth that fast. Most realistically with population growth this high, there is probably going to be an explosion of carbon emissions regardless of how much green technology is rolled out in parallel.
jamez1 9y ago
It's a great theory but how do you know that education causes lower fertility, and isn't just correlated to lower fertility? I'd wager getting out poverty causes both education and fertility to improve and that is the real driver in this study.
trumbitta2 9y ago
Is everyone seriously discussing how to lower the fertility rate in african girls as a way to fight climate change? I previously wrote "racist". This is worse. I don't know the word for what this is.
- StavrosK 9y ago
  Is telling someone "hey don't have so many kids, it's bad for the environment" bad? I think you're mistakenly throwing a hidden "by force" in there. Nobody is forcing African girls to have fewer children. If you'd like to discuss, I'd love to hear your argument on why you think that giving African girls more choices than "bear four kids by the time you're eighteen" is bad.
conanbatt 9y ago
Malthus lives on. What a tragedy.
- fractallyte 9y ago
  It's not all about population and food supply. Ecological collapse will impact humanity just as effectively - and that is linked to population growth.
petre 9y ago
Africa, really? The place that always gets screwed over. Slavery, colonialism and now artificially limiting population growth? I think tropical diseases like malaria and ebola already already limit population growth in Africa rather too well. Africa does the least per capita CO2. They transport trees by bicycle. They don't burn heating fuel because they don't have to.
- dingaling 9y ago
  > I think tropical diseases like malaria and ebola already already limit population growth in Africa rather too well. No, population growth across Africa as a whole is accelerating: In the past year the population of the African continent grew by 30 million. By the year 2050, annual increases will exceed 42 million people per year and total population will have doubled to 2.4 billion, according to the UN. https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/ https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/
croon 9y ago
"Don't mind us, those over there are much worse!" Even if your assumption is true, it doesn't negate the fact that [some people] in the western world need to stop spewing/believing inane lies about global warming, so we can all start doing our part, as a society and as a system.
flukus 9y ago
> If you are serious about fighting climate change, what is the single most effective place to spend money? No where, to fight climate change the single best thing to do is curb your consumption and save money. Don't buy new gadgets every year, don't go on holidays far away, don't buy expensive meat, take public transport if possible, don't buy a huge house, don't use air-con. Do all that and you've prevented more carbon emissions than a small African village will ever produce and you'll save money.

by dzdt 9y ago

trumbitta2 9y ago

I can't even begin to grasp how racist and/or privileged this comment is.

the_gastropod 9y ago
Yes.. Suggesting one should contribute to organizations funding education for women in poverty-stricken African countries is super racist... /s
- trumbitta2 9y ago
  Sure, go ahead and pretend not to have read that the main point of the comment is decreasing fertility rate in sub-saharian Africa. Let's focus on the single decent point (education) in the whole post and shame on me. It's fun.

everybodyknows 9y ago

Exactly. Education empowers girls to select better husbands, start their own businesses, and then push for better education for their own, fewer children. A virtuous circle. And the same that's at work in all more-developed countries.

jimrandomh 9y ago

This depends heavily on technological forecasting. There's a decent chance that, by the time those countries reach the level of development where their carbon footprint is a serious concern, they'll have skipped over fossil fuels and gone to solar, similar to how they skipped wired telephony and went to cell phones. (Of course, education in poor countries is beneficial and worthwhile regardless. But if you have to decide between investments in education or public health in a poor country, I've gotten the impression there's lower-hanging fruit in public health.)

Apes 9y ago
A country with a 3-4% growth rate is doubling its population about every 20 years. For that country's carbon footprint to just remain stable, they will have to halve the amount of carbon emissions per person every 20 years. This means that these countries will need to completely replace their infrastructure with technology and processes that are twice as efficient every 20 years, just to keep their carbon emissions stable. I just don't see any way for technology and infrastructure to outpace population growth that fast. Most realistically with population growth this high, there is probably going to be an explosion of carbon emissions regardless of how much green technology is rolled out in parallel.

jamez1 9y ago

It's a great theory but how do you know that education causes lower fertility, and isn't just correlated to lower fertility? I'd wager getting out poverty causes both education and fertility to improve and that is the real driver in this study.

trumbitta2 9y ago

Is everyone seriously discussing how to lower the fertility rate in african girls as a way to fight climate change? I previously wrote "racist". This is worse. I don't know the word for what this is.

StavrosK 9y ago
Is telling someone "hey don't have so many kids, it's bad for the environment" bad? I think you're mistakenly throwing a hidden "by force" in there. Nobody is forcing African girls to have fewer children. If you'd like to discuss, I'd love to hear your argument on why you think that giving African girls more choices than "bear four kids by the time you're eighteen" is bad.

conanbatt 9y ago

Malthus lives on. What a tragedy.

fractallyte 9y ago
It's not all about population and food supply. Ecological collapse will impact humanity just as effectively - and that is linked to population growth.

petre 9y ago

Africa, really? The place that always gets screwed over. Slavery, colonialism and now artificially limiting population growth? I think tropical diseases like malaria and ebola already already limit population growth in Africa rather too well. Africa does the least per capita CO2. They transport trees by bicycle. They don't burn heating fuel because they don't have to.

dingaling 9y ago
> I think tropical diseases like malaria and ebola already already limit population growth in Africa rather too well. No, population growth across Africa as a whole is accelerating: In the past year the population of the African continent grew by 30 million. By the year 2050, annual increases will exceed 42 million people per year and total population will have doubled to 2.4 billion, according to the UN. https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/ https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/

croon 9y ago

"Don't mind us, those over there are much worse!" Even if your assumption is true, it doesn't negate the fact that [some people] in the western world need to stop spewing/believing inane lies about global warming, so we can all start doing our part, as a society and as a system.

flukus 9y ago

> If you are serious about fighting climate change, what is the single most effective place to spend money? No where, to fight climate change the single best thing to do is curb your consumption and save money. Don't buy new gadgets every year, don't go on holidays far away, don't buy expensive meat, take public transport if possible, don't buy a huge house, don't use air-con. Do all that and you've prevented more carbon emissions than a small African village will ever produce and you'll save money.