Science/Environment How about blaming NO ONE for the bush fires?

[Seeds]

That suggests that greenhouse gas emissions need to be 10% of what they are currently - unless it's a targeted 90% cull. Is that accurate?

Me: Overpopulation is an issue.
You: The solution to overpopulation is genocide. Are you pro genocide? Are you? Are you? Ha, internet points for me!



It's not some black and white scenario where the options are people reduce their carbon footprints OR we start loading trains and hope the Russians don't find out and tell everyone. Ever heard of the one child policy? China sought to address population growth without resorting to genocide, though they have done a bit of that over the years also.

You can address multiple issues at once, or you can ignore all of them. The population of the Earth is forecast to reach at least 9 billion this century and people just go along with it. 1.5b more people at the absolute lowest end of the CO2 emission scale wipes out anything we do here. Australia's population has gone from 17m in 1990 to 25m now, an increase of 47%. Australia's CO2 emissions increased over the period 1990-2017 by 46%. Shocked to be sitting here. People talk about running out of water and relying on de-sal, having less arable land, infrastructure not keeping up etc. and yet the 2050 population forecast is for 12m more people. Awesome.

About 80 percent cut in emissions is needed to avert temperatures rising above 2 degrees by 2040. Im assuming that without tech change that emissions intensity per person of the surviving 10 percent would keep rising as it has historically thus 90 percent population cut is needed instead of 80 percent.

If you want to use population cuts to solve the climate change problem and not technology then you need 90 percent cuts globally over the next 40 years. You cant do that by stopping children being born. You need genocide as well. Its the only way 90 percent can be achieved.

If you are talking more believable cuts (but still ridculously large) in population then it wil do virtually nothing to climate change. Implement measures to not only slow population growth but reduce global population by 10 percent by 2040 and Global emissions will still keep rising as the emission intensity per person of the remaining 90 percent will rise and offset more than the 10 percent saved from the population cut. We need an eighty percent cut in emissions from todays level by around 2040 to prevent 2 degrees temp changes. If all we do is cut global population by 10 percent relative to todays level and dont switch to clean technologies then global emissions keep rising and dont fall at all.

Population reductions, even really big ones barely put a dent in climate mitigation. They do basically nothing. Its all about clean technology. It is literally the only game in town if we want to cut emissions. This population talk as a climate measure is utter nonsense and dangerous.

 

[Scotland]

If you want to use population cuts to solve the climate change problem and not technology then you need 90 percent cuts globally over the next 40 years. You cant do that by stopping children being born. You need genocide as well. Its the only way 90 percent can be achieved.

Are your eyes painted on?

It's not some black and white scenario where the options are people reduce their carbon footprints OR we start loading trains and hope the Russians don't find out and tell everyone.

People can consume less and they can breed less. Crazy stuff I know.

Population reductions, even really big ones barely put a dent in climate mitigation. They do basically nothing. Its all about clean technology. It is literally the only game in town if we want to cut emissions. This population talk as a climate measure is utter nonsense and dangerous.

I don't know what your obsession with population "cuts" is, but you don't solve overpopulation by populating. Take a deep breath and think about what sustainable means. Humans are resource consumers and there is a trade off between number of people and resources available to consume per person. You can argue that the sustainable population of the Earth should be 1b or 5b or 10b or pick any number you like, but you cannot argue that endless growth is sustainable.

Climate change isn't just coal fired power stations and petrol cars. Give everyone a Tesla and some solar panels and everything is OK? Nope. You can replace fossil fuels with alternate energy sources, but what about land clearing and deforestation? The Murray-Darling isn't ****ed all of a sudden because now it's too hot and it doesn't rain, it's ****ed because humans took all the water out of it and damaged the natural ecosystem. Perth used to get about 100mm more rainfall a year and now all the dams are empty. We also used to have half as many people and hadn't cleared every tree 50km north and south of the city.

Keep adding more and more people and they all need to consume to survive. Most of the growth comes from the developing world who per capita (everyone's favourite term) aren't big consumers. But the poor and desperate also don't really care about climate change either. Making sure you use the right bin isn't a primary concern when you just want clean water for your children. We good folk in the developed world don't want to see little African kiddies on TV with Bob Geldof so send aid and teach them agriculture practices beyond subsistence farming etc. And we want India to industrialise, the Chinese middle class to grow etc. We want everyone to enjoy our standard of living while feeling guilty that the relatively small number of people that do enjoy that standard of living are killing the planet doing so.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Ah see proof you were just using climate change to talk about your real agenda. Population growth. Finally you admit it.

Population growth is not a problem at all. Not that you have to worry about it. World population will peak and start falling within a century.

Reason: Condoms.

Solution to something not really a problem is solved (not that it neededto be).

False. Population growth slows with economic development. People tend to have only one or two kids when they know they have a good chance of surviving into adulthood.

 

[Seeds]

False. Population growth slows with economic development. People tend to have only one or two kids when they know they have a good chance of surviving into adulthood.

Good point. It doesnt dismiss the role that condoms have played though as it doesnt explain why population growth slows. It just explains why fertility rates have slowed. Ie. Lower child mortality rates have enabled lower fertility. But the two offset each other in terms of impacts on population growth.

 

[Seeds]

Are your eyes painted on?



People can consume less and they can breed less. Crazy stuff I know.



I don't know what your obsession with population "cuts" is, but you don't solve overpopulation by populating. Take a deep breath and think about what sustainable means. Humans are resource consumers and there is a trade off between number of people and resources available to consume per person. You can argue that the sustainable population of the Earth should be 1b or 5b or 10b or pick any number you like, but you cannot argue that endless growth is sustainable.

Climate change isn't just coal fired power stations and petrol cars. Give everyone a Tesla and some solar panels and everything is OK? Nope. You can replace fossil fuels with alternate energy sources, but what about land clearing and deforestation? The Murray-Darling isn't f’ed all of a sudden because now it's too hot and it doesn't rain, it's f’ed because humans took all the water out of it and damaged the natural ecosystem. Perth used to get about 100mm more rainfall a year and now all the dams are empty. We also used to have half as many people and hadn't cleared every tree 50km north and south of the city.

Keep adding more and more people and they all need to consume to survive. Most of the growth comes from the developing world who per capita (everyone's favourite term) aren't big consumers. But the poor and desperate also don't really care about climate change either. Making sure you use the right bin isn't a primary concern when you just want clean water for your children. We good folk in the developed world don't want to see little African kiddies on TV with Bob Geldof so send aid and teach them agriculture practices beyond subsistence farming etc. And we want India to industrialise, the Chinese middle class to grow etc. We want everyone to enjoy our standard of living while feeling guilty that the relatively small number of people that do enjoy that standard of living are killing the planet doing so.

I dont feel guilty. Resource use isnt a problem. Sure we humans change waterways and impact the land. We have for 20 thousand years. But we arent running out of resources to fund our ambitions. Energy security will soon be a thing of the past with clean unlimited fuel supplies taking over. We arent all that far away from unlimited food supplies either. At that point forests will come back in greater numbers and reclaim lands we previously tortured to feed live stock and grow crops. Iron ore isnt running out anytime soon. Either is copper or aluminium. Wood is renewable. We arent exactly short of land either. There is no resource and no population problem. In fact resource availability has never been more plentiful.

 

[Visions]

So Australia has the 2nd highest emissions in terms of per capita.

Where does it stand in terms of emissions for land mass percentage? Why wouldn’t that be a more pertinent measure?

 

[Evolved1]

So Australia has the 2nd highest emissions in terms of per capita.

Where does it stand in terms of emissions for land mass percentage? Why wouldn’t that be a more pertinent measure?

Why would it be? Make your case.

 

[Visions]

Why would it be? Make your case.

Emissions are released throughout the whole country, which accounts for approx 5% of the worlds lands mass. These emissions don’t stay localised, they spread. So if Australia (just like every country) is to be responsible for its own targets, shouldn’t it be based on how much territory it can control the release of emissions over, ala land mass?

Hence why the emissions per square km might be a more realistic measure.

 

[Evolved1]

Emissions are released throughout the whole country, which accounts for approx 5% of the worlds lands mass. These emissions don’t stay localised, they spread. So if Australia (just like every country) is to be responsible for its own targets, shouldn’t it be based on how much territory it can control the release of emissions over, ala land mass?

Hence why the emissions per square km might be a more realistic measure.

I appreciate the explanation. How we best compare and control emissions between nations and people has a lot of subjectivity, as you can see from the responses here.

I personally think per capita targets are the most fair and balanced means of comparison.

 

[medusala]

FFS look at per capita. Let's Break Australia down to states and we are even less emitters.

Tassie will love that. Usually 100% hydro. Job done.

No carbon tax for Tassie. In fact should get paid by the polluting states and bring in negative income tax.

And those climate deniers at AFL HQ should wake up and give them a team for being world leaders. They spoke out on gay marriage so why dodge the issue of climate change? Pathetic.

 

[medusala]

If someone wants to live in the Australian bush and not fire plan/insure, then they're an idiot.

Doubt very few if any farmers insure against it. Not sure if its even available but am sure it would be prohibitively expensive.

 

[Demontim275]

I wasn't aware of that study, do you have a link to that?

Nonetheless, as per my earlier post, I am not against alternative energy sources, we just have to be careful about how we introduce and transition to them, taking into account the ability of our population to cover the increase in costs associated with them.

I would be interested to see how they modeled the scenarios.

Have you read a book called 'The 100 Year Life' by Gratton and Scott? Great read. The basis of the book is that we no longer have a 3 stage life - Childhood (0-18), Adulthood/Working life (18 - 65), Retirement (65 plus). With the life expectancy increasing across all countries as a result of the improved standards of living, etc. we have to do things differently. Retirement age is no longer 65, simply because we can't afford 30 to 40 years of retirement whilst still living a reasonably quality of life. So what we now have is Childhood (0 - 18); Young Adulthood (18 - 30, where you do a lot of travelling, work out what you want to do for the rest of your life, not yet tie yourself down with family, mortgage, etc.); Working (30 - 85, now this is a case by case basis. I know a lot of 80 plus year olds who could still offer a lot to the workforce, and also know a lot of 70 year olds who are well passed it); and finally retirement (starting at 70, though with a majority work for many years to come). Obviously part of this will be a number of career changes to fit in with the changing roles with the times.

So basically what I'm saying is that higher birth rates do not necessarily need to be the answer, because all this comes back to population growth, which is the single biggest issue this planet is facing.

So why do you have kids?

 

[Fadge]

So why do you have kids?

What a friggin stupid question.

How did you come up with that from my post?

 

[Demontim275]

What a friggin stupid question.

How did you come up with that from my post?

You said ‘population growth, which is the single biggest issue facing this planet’

Why would someone who claims population growth is an issue have children?

 

[Fadge]

You said ‘population growth, which is the single biggest issue facing this planet’

Why would someone who claims population growth is an issue have children?

It is honestly difficult for me to know if you really are that stupid, or you're just having a laugh...

 

[Demontim275]

It is honestly difficult for me to know if you really are that stupid, or you're just having a laugh...

So you don’t think overpopulation is an issue then.

It seems a common theme with you. It’s only bad if others do it

“Population growth is the biggest issue in the world”
Says the random bigfooty user to his two children.

There’s a reason you ran away from your “poor people shouldn’t ask for payrises. Only well paid people can ask for that and I DONT KNOW WHY”

 

[Fadge]

So you don’t think overpopulation is an issue then.

It seems a common theme with you. It’s only bad if others do it

“Population growth is the biggest issue in the world”
Says the random bigfooty user to his two children.

There’s a reason you ran away from your “poor people shouldn’t ask for payrises. Only well paid people can ask for that and I DONT KNOW WHY”

1. In what way are people's salaries related to climate change?
2. I explained my logic in the appropriate thread. Honestly not my problem if the explanation was beyond you.
3. Thanks for reminding me, you really are extremely simple.

 

[Demontim275]

1. In what way are people's salaries related to climate change?
2. I explained my logic in the appropriate thread. Honestly not my problem if the explanation was beyond you.
3. Thanks for reminding me, you really are extremely simple.

So you can’t explain why you find population growth the biggest issue but also have children. Seems like a contradiction there. Why would someone so worried about population growth have TWO children? You don’t even need to have one.

Just like your reason for poor people not being allowed to ask for more money was the vibe and that only well paid people can.

You’ve yet to actually answer anything. It’s just “omg ur sah dumb. I smart. I’m not responding” over and over. Thread after thread.

 

[Fadge]

So you can’t explain why you find population growth the biggest issue but also have children. Seems like a contradiction there. Why would someone so worried about population growth have TWO children? You don’t even need to have one.

Just like your reason for poor people not being allowed to ask for more money was the vibe and that only well paid people can.

You’ve yet to actually answer anything. It’s just “omg ur sah dumb. I smart. I’m not responding” over and over. Thread after thread.

Because you really are that simple...

Population growth is a macro problem.

If you don't understand that concept, please defer to your parents.

 

[Demontim275]

Because you really are that simple...

Population growth is a macro problem.

If you don't understand that concept, please defer to your parents.

Okay. So you feel that individuals can have as many kids as they want. But you have issue with population Growth

You’re just an idiot. Got it.

“Man with numerous children whinges that other people are having children” would’ve just summed up your point.

 

[Fadge]

Okay. So you feel that individuals can have as many kids as they want. But you have issue with population Growth

You’re just an idiot. Got it.

“Man with numerous children whinges that other people are having children” would’ve just summed up your point.

Not sure I've ever whinged about other people having children, just cited that Population growth is the biggest challenge facing mankind.

Conversation ends there.

 

[Demontim275]

Not sure I've ever whinged about other people having children, just cited that Population growth is the biggest challenge facing mankind.

Conversation ends there.

It’s the biggest challenge...says the guy having numerous children...

“I can have as many kids as I want! It’s a macro issue!”

Jesus Christ.

 

[dustysnecktattoo]

Not sure where to post this but...

shouldn’t there be international aidright now? Bring in a fleet of those Boeing fire fighters, I’m talking 100 or more of them just get the fires out

 

[Snake_Baker]

So Australia has the 2nd highest emissions in terms of per capita.

If we're going to elicit guilt based upon "CO2 emissions per capita" according to a map, then it's also consistent logic to include sequestration of CO2 according to the same map. When this is included, Australia is a CO2 "sink" and easily accounts for its own "CO2 emissions per capita".

It can be dismissed as a logical fallacy. Entertain it no more.

 

[Seeds]

Because you really are that simple...

Population growth is a macro problem.

If you don't understand that concept, please defer to your parents.

If everyone did what you did and had two children then world population would not fall. You arent even consistent with your own idiot genocidal ideology. Kind of like a communist who wants to live a life of luxury.

Ps. macro outcomes are nothing more then the summation of micro decisions. You dont get to hide behind it.