3 ms·

Such data can't be observed independently. The person's carbon footprint can be orders of magnitude higher when the complete extent of his activity is considere

by acqq 8y ago

Such data can't be observed independently. The person's carbon footprint can be orders of magnitude higher when the complete extent of his activity is considered. E.g. if the products used by citizens of the country X are produced in the country Y, you can't say that the citizens of the country X have low carbon footprint even if it's not directly visible in the single data item (e.g. which measures what's only produced in X). In short, the countries "on the top" are actually responsible for a lot of emissions produced in the countries "at the bottom."

nl 8y ago
I agree it's extremely complicated. Even the countries "on the top" are actually responsible for a lot of emissions produced in the countries "at the bottom." statement isn't super accurate, because US emissions are primarily domestic (while Chinese are much more mixed). Either way, it's inaccurate to try to simplify it to "overpopulation" or even to draw to much of a link between population and emissions.
- acqq 8y ago
  > it's inaccurate ... even to draw to much of a link between population and emissions I agree only if the data about the countries are observed independently. That is, if somebody says "the country X is so and so because overpopulation." But once we speak about the world: Once one accepts that there's only one planet and the humans on it, it's much more obvious: the critics are always ready to say that the humans as the whole starve less as we reached this number of billions. But the analysis of how it was possible gives a simple answer: we have pushed the previous limits by simply using more resources and more energy. Both of which are much more limited than a lot of humans are willing to know: the heavier elements (and even as light as helium) are produced in the stars, so once we don't have enough available on the earth's crust, we'll have big problems. The arable land is also limited, we're already mostly using everything usable, and pushing the limits there affects everything else. Finally, we managed to use half of easily reachable oil, only to discover a new way to exact it, giving us approximately a few times more than before. But by burning the hydrocarbons we're making very big problems for everything on the planet, including us. Look at these graphs, soon you will not be able, thanks to the administration which doesn't like such details to be even read about: http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/glo_2014.html http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/glo_2014.html especially "Global Per Capita Carbon Emission Estimates." Note that in the same time period the number of capita of the world steadily increases. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/World-Population-1800-2050-6_fig1_321996838 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/World-Population-1800-20... At 2000 we were at 6 billion. Now we're at 7.7 billion. We do continuously use at least the same energy per every human on the planet, not less (in fact we used mostly always more and more). And given that a lot of people in the "second and third world" produce the stuff for the people in the first, the "first world" just enjoys the benefits of the cheap labor and new consumers being steadily born in new quantities and the use of more energy for everything, but all at the cost of... the whole future. So yes, in such a context overpopulation of the planet is one of the topics that are so inconvenient that most are not even ready to think about it.

by acqq 8y ago

nl 8y ago

I agree it's extremely complicated. Even the countries "on the top" are actually responsible for a lot of emissions produced in the countries "at the bottom." statement isn't super accurate, because US emissions are primarily domestic (while Chinese are much more mixed). Either way, it's inaccurate to try to simplify it to "overpopulation" or even to draw to much of a link between population and emissions.

acqq 8y ago
> it's inaccurate ... even to draw to much of a link between population and emissions I agree only if the data about the countries are observed independently. That is, if somebody says "the country X is so and so because overpopulation." But once we speak about the world: Once one accepts that there's only one planet and the humans on it, it's much more obvious: the critics are always ready to say that the humans as the whole starve less as we reached this number of billions. But the analysis of how it was possible gives a simple answer: we have pushed the previous limits by simply using more resources and more energy. Both of which are much more limited than a lot of humans are willing to know: the heavier elements (and even as light as helium) are produced in the stars, so once we don't have enough available on the earth's crust, we'll have big problems. The arable land is also limited, we're already mostly using everything usable, and pushing the limits there affects everything else. Finally, we managed to use half of easily reachable oil, only to discover a new way to exact it, giving us approximately a few times more than before. But by burning the hydrocarbons we're making very big problems for everything on the planet, including us. Look at these graphs, soon you will not be able, thanks to the administration which doesn't like such details to be even read about: http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/glo_2014.html http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/glo_2014.html especially "Global Per Capita Carbon Emission Estimates." Note that in the same time period the number of capita of the world steadily increases. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/World-Population-1800-2050-6_fig1_321996838 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/World-Population-1800-20... At 2000 we were at 6 billion. Now we're at 7.7 billion. We do continuously use at least the same energy per every human on the planet, not less (in fact we used mostly always more and more). And given that a lot of people in the "second and third world" produce the stuff for the people in the first, the "first world" just enjoys the benefits of the cheap labor and new consumers being steadily born in new quantities and the use of more energy for everything, but all at the cost of... the whole future. So yes, in such a context overpopulation of the planet is one of the topics that are so inconvenient that most are not even ready to think about it.