3 ms·
These conversations inevitably turn towards population control. Here's the thing: we started this process of global warming when we had a lot less people on the
by gdubs 8y ago
These conversations inevitably turn towards population control. Here's the thing: we started this process of global warming when we had a lot less people on the planet, and it would continue even if we cut the population in half. If the science is correct – and I personally think it is – we have something like a decade to get onto a different trajectory. While reaching sustainable population levels in the long term is in vital, population control is not going to address the crisis in the next ten years. Even if we cut the population in half. And, how on earth would you even do that without throwing the world into turmoil?
There's no escaping the fact that the developed world emits more carbon per capita than the rest of the world. To me, it's obvious: the developed world needs to become drastically more efficient with carbon, and it needs to do it yesterday. We need to lead the way, and we need to pay for it. It makes no sense to put this on the backs of the developing world – who are already suffering the consequences of our emissions.
If I had to put it on a bumper sticker, it would be: "It's Agriculture, stupid." Conventional agriculture damages topsoil, and destroys forests, which are two of the most effective carbon sinks we have. When you combine that with the amount of petrochemicals involved in conventional farming, along with fuel burned freighting food halfway across the world on a daily basis (how are those out-of-season cherries?), we're just beginning to come to terms with just how big of a contributor our food system is to global warming.
Here's my list of what we should be doing:
1) Carbon tax
2) Eating less meat, and less out-of-season produce
3) Repairing soil and forests through conservation and more sustainable farming
4) Letting people work remotely to cut down on car and air travel
5) Massive public and private investment in infrastructure
6) Universal access to family planning
- robomartin 8y agoNo, sadly, no. None of the above. Here’s an uncomfortable fact few know about and even fewer are talking about: If humanity, and all we have ever created, evaporated from the planet tomorrow, it would take 50,000 to 75,000 years for atmospheric CO2 concentration to come down by 100 ppm. Source: Ice core data going back 800,000 years. Look it up and see for yourself (sorry can’t link right now).
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gdubs 8y agoI initially misread your comment and thought you were arguing something entirely different. If what you’re saying is that simply removing humans from the equation wouldn’t change atmospheric CO2 for a long time, I think we’re actually in agreement there. It supports my point that population control isn’t how we’re going to get on a different trajectory in the decade or so we have. But I don’t think it addresses the ideas of effective carbon capture. Soil carbon capture, for one, is incredibly promising. Reforestation is another.