quote:

Put simply, if governments want to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent, and the world's population rises to the mid-range forecast of 9.2 billion, each person would in fact have to slash their emissions by 72 per cent. More efficient technology, renewable energy and lifestyle changes will help do that, but growing prosperity and consumption in developing countries will also make it harder. That all our low-energy light bulbs, home insulation, efficient cars, boilers and washing machines have so far failed to stop emissions growing illustrates how difficult cutting them will be to achieve.

Some population activists argue the world can only support a population of two to three billion, even as few as 500 million in future. But even if reducing the world's population is unlikely or distasteful, it is incredible that there is not even a debate about limiting and maybe one day reversing growth. There are many understandable reasons for the prevailing reluctance to talk about population.

Some question whether there is a problem at all. Blair says Britain doesn't need a population policy, and he has a point: Britain's population grows only because of immigration. But greenhouse gas emissions are a global problem, so it should not matter which countries people live in (some say developed countries have higher standards of living so moving people into them increases overall emissions, but it is hard to argue we should deny others our quality of life). At a global level, optimists say advances in science and technology will provide the solution; more aggressive estimates suggest we could double consumption and halve our impact on the planet.

But other evidence suggests it is too soon to relax. Even if huge advances can be made on slashing greenhouse gases, there is an argument that densely populated countries cannot cope with local environmental stresses such as home-building, fresh water use, waste, traffic, light pollution and noise. More worryingly, the evidence that technology can solve the problem is not yet convincing: the recent failure of European car-makers to meet voluntary emissions reductions is a reminder that a decade after the international community made a serious pledge to tackle global warming, emissions are still rising.

Another deterrent to discussing population is the uncomfortable suspicion that environmentalism is a soft cover for more objectionable population agendas to stop or reduce immigration or growth in developing countries. Sometimes it might be. But that doesn't take away the underlying fact: that more people use more resources and create more pollution. This is why some braver voices - Sir David Attenborough, Jonathan Porritt and Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, to name a few - have begun to raise the issue.

Oh, I did read the article, I swear-- but I think I have a point -- growth is among populations in the world that are not big contributors to global warming.

Am I right?

"Even if huge advances can be made on slashing greenhouse gases, there is an argument that densely populated countries cannot cope with local environmental stresses such as home-building, fresh water use, waste, traffic, light pollution and noise."

Yeah, the more industrial a country becomes, the less labor they need, hence a reduction in growth. Thing is, though, it no longer matters which country one was born in. We all consume and exhale.

Education of women is apparently the single thing most strongly correlated with decreasing birth rates. So that's something we should be championing wherever we can.

On population, I suspect it's going to get sorted one way or the other, easy or hard. When all the ice on the Himalayas is gone and there are a billion Indians on one side of them and a billion Chinese on the other side without enough water... something will have to give.

Of course, there are plenty of other ways it can go, from nuclear war (w're not completely out of those woods yet) to avian flu or some as yet unseen virus to an asteroid strike to... something that's not even on our radar.

quote:

Originally posted by Bravus:
Education of women is apparently the single thing most strongly correlated with decreasing birth rates. So that's something we should be championing wherever we can.

No wonder all the Fundies keep their womens as st00pid as possible. Outta curiosity, is there a source for this?

Here's an American one:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/97facts/edu2birt.htm

And one from the Max Planck Institute, using data from Zimbabwe:

http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol3/3/html/4.htm

Something from Iran that is more about political effects:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update4ss.htm

From that Iran report: "Female literacy climbed even faster, rising from less than 25 percent in 1970 to more than 70 percent."

Not so sure about the source of this one, but:

http://www.pobronson.com/factbook/pages/225.html

"Because as a general rule, when women become literate and educational attainment rates rise, birth rates fall. That isn't just a vague policy statement that's hard to grasp. That's a real predicator of actual behavior – your wife's and your daughter's. The higher an education a woman has, the fewer the children the woman will have. That's because women getting an education will put off getting married and having children until she's finished with her education. Educated women learn about contraception and family planning, so they have less unwanted pregnancies."

Further down the page on that last link there are some exceptions, where strong religious or cultural effects have over-ruled the education effect to some extent, but basically it's pretty well supported that increased education for women is directly correlated with reduced population growth.

Thanks Bravus. This is a facet i'd not considered. And it's gonna take a bit of time to read...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Boogerhead,

Washington Post today

You may need to sign in to read-- here is page 1:

Gore Urges Congress to Act on Global Warming

By Debbi Wilgoren, Shailagh Murray and Bill Brubaker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 21, 2007; 6:40 PM

Weeks after he wowed moviegoers and Hollywood elites with his Oscar-winning documentary on global warming, Al Gore returned to Congress today and urged lawmakers to take drastic measures to address what he called "a true planetary emergency."

He faced a far tougher audience, however, than he had at the Academy Awards.

"Global warming science is uneven and evolving," said Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Tex.), the ranking minority member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Barton questioned evidence presented in Gore's hit film, "An Inconvenient Truth," and said measures Gore was recommending to curb carbon emissions "fail the common sense test -- they provide little benefit at a huge cost."

Later, Gore squared off with Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.), senior Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who once called global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the American people."

But the former congressman, senator, vice president and 2000 Democratic presidential nominee argued that the scientific community has overwhelmingly agreed that climate change is a genuine threat.

"The planet has a fever," Gore told the House committee, sounding incredulous at Barton's skepticism. "If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says, 'You have to intervene here,' you don't say, 'Well, I read a science fiction novel that says this isn't important.' "

"Nature is on the run," Gore told the Senate committee, relating how a manatee turned up in Memphis last summer because "it got too hot in southern Florida."

"I'm not making this up," Gore assured the panel.

Gore began the day at the joint hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Science and Technology Committee, many of whose members come from oil- and car-producing states that are wary of new environmental protections.

Gore told the committee that global warning "is a crisis that is by far the most serious we've ever faced," dwarfing the post-World War II reconstruction of Europe, the rise of Communism and the ravages of disease and civil war in the developing world.

"A day will come when our children and grandchildren will look back and they'll ask one of two questions," Gore said. "Either they will ask what in God's name were they doing? Didn't they see the evidence . . . Were they too blinded and numbed by the business of political life and daily life to take a deep breath and look at the reality of what we're facing?

CONTINUED 1 2 3 4 Next >

So I wonder when he's going to announce his candidacy.

Dont you want Greenland to be green again?--Here comes the sun...thats all.

quote:

Originally posted by Scotty78:
Dont you want Greenland to be green again--Here comes the sun...thats all.

Hi Scotty--

As you know, there's a lot more to it than that.

like After us the deluge. Literally.

Just dont steal my money over it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Scotty78,

Let the first non hypocrite cast the first carbon voucher.

quote:

Originally posted by Scotty78:
Just dont steel my money over it.

Ok, as soon as you stop dumping your emissions in my garden.

Steel?

quote:

Originally posted by Boogerhead:
Steel?

Now, now-- be nice!

I am touch-typing-challenged myself...

Here is a link an interpreter colleague sent me:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/climate_action_g8/tf.php

and after 15 March:

http://www.avaaz.org/blog/en/w/iain/2007/03/we_did_it_but_its_not_over_yet.php

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Aisha,

sorry can't spell(ie slave to spell check); check out steorn.net.

Some garden that London; great beer though.

this guy really has his house in order

I really hope steorn.net has something, but the fact they were web developers just a few years back doesn't help...

Realistically I think we'll move into a time where wind, solar, waves, geothermal become the mainstream and 1 or 2 % is done by new alternatives like induction engines and magnetism from the air...

If steorn can lie so can algore.