I'm not too worried about whether or not But then there are those who step beyond the pale of rationality. For example, Diane Francis, who suggests that the only way to save the earth is to impose a global one-child policy (following China's example) and to enforce it as ruthlessly as China has.
Or the Optimum Population Trust, which wants to sell contraception in developing nations as a carbon offset.
World population is estimated to reach 7 billion by the end of 2011, having increased by 1 billion in just 12 years - all but 4% percent of this increase will be in the less developed countries (LDCs). [... snip...] In short, one less birth into poverty is not only one less person to suffer poverty and the expected severe impacts of climate change, but also one less to produce more greenhouse gases in (hopefully) escaping poverty. (from OPT's FAQ page)
Or the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) which, in this year's "State of World Population" report, links population growth to climate change in ways that even they themselves admit are less than direct or immediate.
Although population data are generally regarded as among the success stories of social science, their integration with the developing science of climate change and its human dimensions remains poor. This applies ... to the influence of population growth on greenhouse-gas emissions and climate change adaptation....In other words, the disastrous "influence of population growth on ... climate change" is an assumption for which they have no solid evidence. But they're certain enough to push population control measures on the non-pink and non-rich peoples of the world.
The real solution to our environmental problems - to say nothing of our economic and political problems - is to recognize that we Americans, along with much of the "developed" world, have been taking much more than is just or fair in an insatiable quest for greater comfort and convenience.
We need to curb our "standard of living". Landfills will not grow so fast if we are not basing our egos and economics and desires on the newest or latest or most disposable items. CO2 will not build up so quickly if we don't insist on the cheapest gas and food and electricity on the planet so that we can use it as much as we like without realizing the full cost.
To claim that reducing the population is the solution to our woes is simply to place the blame and burden on those not yet conceived. As a good friend of mine says, "Just enough of me, way too many of you."
Posts
5 comboxers:
Well said.
Respectfully, I must disagree with your statement that "the worst thing that could come from paying attention to environmental impact and striving for maximum efficiency is a cleaner and more efficient world to live in". Within the context of the global warming debate, far worse things are being discussed.
For example, President Obama promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. That means on a per-capita basis, carbon emissions in the USA in 2050 will have to equal those in 1875.
You're right that this will require slashing our standard of living. But the fact is, the total resources consumed by the rich are small compared to those consumed by the poor. (On a per capita basis of course that's not true, but taken as a whole it is.) The only way to roll back our emissions 83% is for the poor to get a lot poorer.
And this is true in the Third World even more. America is now so rich that we have the luxury of building windmills. That's because we went through a century and a half of very dirty industrialization. So if you forbid Third World countries from polluting, you condemn them to being permanently behind us in their world economies. That -- and not global warming -- is the real reason that the World Bank and the IMF support Kyoto and Copenhagen.
Of course, we need to move to less polluting energies (wind, solar -- and most importantly nuclear!) as quickly as is feasible. But to do this as rapidly and radically as Copenhagen and Kyoto demand would set back the progress of the world's poor by a century.
We also need to look for technological fixes. For example, Freeman Dyson thinks we could create genetically altered trees that can absorb ten times as much carbon as they currently do. There are a great number of other ways we could technologically pull CO2 out of the atmosphere.
But it seems as if most of the people concerned about global warming -- who always claim to be "pro-science" and accuse their critics of being "anti-science" -- show no interest in scientific or technological solutions to the problem. If my car is leaking oil, my first thought is to have my oil pan sealed better, not to abandon driving entirely. Those who fear all technological solutions seem to be using warming as an excuse to be Luddites, rather than seriously treating it as a problem to be solved.
And for some reason, the Powers That Be -- who claim to be so concerned about global warming -- have no interest in any solutions that don't involve government becoming more powerful at the expense of its citizens.
Rob -
Hey! We've been on vacation. Few more days to go, but checking
First, there is no such thing as global warming because we cannot know such things for sure. I'm not anti-science - in fact I'm pro science, which is why I hate the concept. As a global community we're discussing solutions to problems that don't exist.
I also tend to agree with you and Larry King. Population solutions and carbon emissions limitations reward already developed countries.
From a history standpoint, Europe had a population explosion from 1500 on to the point it was able to colonize several continents beyond it's shores, an explosion which is only now receding relatively speaking.
People who live now feel only the luxury of that population explosion and can look around think about all the "extra" people. We are better fed than our ancestors and in part, it is thanks to that mass of well educated minds. How do poorly fed, declining (or again) populations in 3rd world countries ever get to us?
And again with carbon emissions - it is the poor countries that already recognize themselves to be the losers. It is much cheaper to run old dirty technologies than the new "green" ones. How do they take their place with us if never allowed that interim step with dirty technology?
Strip away the dubious front of global warming, the PTB are only interested in what PTB are always interested in: consolidating and continuing power.
Post a Comment