9 ms·

The irony is strong in this one: Not building airports would definitely improve the situation as a whole.

• fooker 4y ago
  Of course, depopulating the earth will also accomplish that.
  • pooper 4y ago
    Don't have to go that far. Choosing to not have children or choosing to have fewer children would be a good start. From what I understand, taking better care of the children we have so they have a better chance to reach healthy adulthood is the best way to suppress child birth rates. I say we because parents don't own their children. The children belong to all of us, the community.
    • Traubenfuchs 4y ago
      That thought is considered sacrilegious for some reason. If we would just start shrinking back to healthy population levels, a lot of problems would disappear. But nooo, an impossible reduction of everyones climate footprint by 10% is offset within 10 years of population growth instead.
      • Accacin 4y ago
        Isn't world population supposed to drop from now on?
        • orwin 4y ago
          If you believe world3 was correct, yes, we're nearing the decade where it happens, but this won't be by choice. Basically our production+pollution seems to strain our renewable ressources more than our technological advances protect them. In most world3 scenarii it means a decrease in food production that lead to a population decrease. It such a simple and interesting model, i find it sad that people tend to link it to 'the population bomb' which wasn't based on anything but gut feelings.
        • dragonwriter 4y ago
          “Supposed” by whom? UN projections are peaking near 11 billion around 2100, IIRC.
      • ztrww 4y ago
        This will cause serious problems and many developed countries and also in China, especially when combined with increasing life expectancies.
      • martopix 4y ago
        It's a mix of 'moral' feeling that you cannot tell people not to have kids, and of actual concern that our economic system is unfortunately founded on constant growth. It's much harder to grow the economy with fewer people.
      • TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago
        One of the reasons that “overpopulation” as a concept faces criticism is that not all humans are created equal so far as resource consumption goes. Less people in the global north would do far more good for the climate than less people in the global south, because the former have a several times higher per capita consumption. Some of the people concerned about “overpopulation” seem to think the problem is the latter group though, and in that context the outcome of “depopulation” would be pleasing to fascists.
        • nicoburns 4y ago
          I live in the UK (and am in my late 20s), and I know quite a few people who are seriously considering not having children of their own (or in other cases reducing the number that thy would otherwise have) on the basis of overpopulation.
  • dontlaugh 4y ago
    Or just building trains instead. Far lower energy consumption per distance travelled per person.
    • b112 4y ago
      Bikes are even better! Yet bikes (with all the environmental cost of the metal mining, forging, production, shipping, plus replacement tires, brakes, and all the cost of air pressurized for the tires), are far worse than walking. So we should all walk, yes? But, I mean, the cost of shoes on the environment. They wear out quite fast, I walk 10 to 15km a day, and my shoes wear out every 3 to 4 months, so it makes more sense to go barefoot. Yet again, the cost of all that food... food production is bad for the environment! Probably, I should not walk, or really go anywhere, and just sit still. Right? Right?! Here is the answer. Don't suggest fewer plane trips. It will never happen, unless you purposefully hurt, and cause tyranny against others to enable your dream. Instead, make a better plane. Make a better blimp. Make people want your dream, instead of fighting your dream. Make them love your solution, not your restrictions. This is the way.
      • dontlaugh 4y ago
        Trains are better than planes already. High speed trains are even exciting. Ultimately, restrictions are necessary too. The frivolous per capita energy consumption in North America and Western Europe needs to be reduced.
        • snapcaster 4y ago
          Let me guess, you're the one that decides "frivolous"? I couldn't disagree more. Everyone needs way more energy. Most poverty is energy poverty and trying to reduce demand seems like a fool's errand. Electricity rules, stop pretending like it doesn't. We can figure out how to make more of it without destroying everything
          • dontlaugh 4y ago
            That sort of thing needs to be democratically decided. Currently it isn’t, most countries have a few rich people dominating media and politics. Most poverty isn’t energy poverty at all, it’s a lack of control over the means of production in general. Energy is merely one aspect. Some energy usage is clearly frivolous, like several ton cars with single occupants or vastly oversized armies. Alternatives that achieve the same goals with vastly lower energy usage already exist and in some places are even widespread. Life can be different without being worse.
• ipqk 4y ago
  Sort of. While increasing global CO2 levels makes it worse, indoor CO2 levels is mostly a function of buildings being made more and more efficient/air-tight. I live in a new LEED-platinum condo building, and in the fall or spring if I don't may my A/C unit on, my bedroom CO2 levels will go from ~500ppm to 1,300 or higher. You can see the drastic drop in CO2 levels when I wake up and open the door to get air flow. actual chart of my room: https://imgur.com/a/zZRNQGX https://imgur.com/a/zZRNQGX