Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

Here's some simple math

In 1800 world production of energy from fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) was 97 terawatt-hours. In the latest year it was 137,000 terawatt-hours.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-pr...on-consumption

So fossil fuel consumption increased 1400 times over a period in which world population increased just under 8 times. https://www.worldometers.info/world-...ation-by-year/ That means consumption per person increased 180 times.

It should be clear from this that population growth accounts for only a small share of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions.

I may respond to any post that appears in these forums, because I don’t have anyone on ignore. But I can only write for those, like you dear reader, who read those responses: those whose egos and reasoning are not so fragile that they listen to (indeed seek to listen to) all sides of issues about which they are curious.

Double post....

Topic debate is fine - when it devolves from that.....well....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Here's some simple math

In 1800 world production of energy from fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) was 97 terawatt-hours. In the latest year it was 137,000 terawatt-hours.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-pr...on-consumption

So fossil fuel consumption increased 1400 times over a period in which world population increased just under 8 times. https://www.worldometers.info/world-...ation-by-year/ That means consumption per person increased 180 times.

It should be clear from this that population growth accounts for only a small share of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions.

---

Per capita by vehicle, yes you are correct.
But guess what feeds most electric grids? Fossil Fuels and Nuclear.
Wind and solar can't produce all the urban power that's required to charge 100% EVs and supporting infrastructure (lights, electric rail, machines, etc.....)

And why is that so? Because of the huge population of urban areas.

But hey...if you're comfortable with deforestation many of our green areas, then who am I to debate that!
But it will be interesting to see an concrete jungle where the Amazon rainforest once was.....

If there were only 1000 people on the planet, and only 1000 cars, would there be catastrophic climate change?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I may respond to any post that appears in these forums, because I don’t have anyone on ignore. But I can only write for those, like you dear reader, who read those responses: those whose egos and reasoning are not so fragile that they listen to (indeed seek to listen to) all sides of issues about which they are curious.

---

I knew he meant you because he was quoting me. The things you've said to him are much milder than things I've said which is to your credit. You've always shown more self-control on these forums than I have. I'll always enjoy reading what you have to say, and it's his loss that he's so threatened by discourse with you.

We use energy to produce food but we also use it to travel and to manufacture things that aren't essential. It should be pretty clear there are major differences in the way we use energy per person and some of those differences are optional.

We are not reducing global population by 7 billion without a catastrophe. Any manmade problem is proportionally less serious if there are fewer people. Instead of regulating guns we could simply get rid of people and there would be nobody to use them. Nobody recommends this because actually being alive is part of human welfare.

But as filghy pointed out above, population accounts for increases in number of users of energy, but not for per person use which dwarfs population differences. How we use energy is also easier to alter within a generation than how many people there are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

But hey...if you're comfortable with deforestation many of our green areas, then who am I to debate that!

If there were only 1000 people on the planet, and only 1000 cars, would there be catastrophic climate change?

---

Let me label this sentence and question I'm quoting A) and B).

He never said A). He didn't say it or imply it. If you want to know what he thinks should be done about deforestation maybe ask him.

B) People accept this point. We don't understand how you plan to roll back population from nearly 8 billion to 1000. How do you plan to do that?

So for sake of discussion, I'll disregard the population theory as bunk and false.
So when is the West going to stop raping Africa for that precious Cobalt for EVs?

Or is the attack on climate change such a global top priority at the expense of Africans?

Workers report “colonial-era” abuse at Congolese cobalt mines
https://african.business/2021/11/ene...-cobalt-mines/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

So for sake of discussion, I'll disregard the population theory as bunk and false.

---

?? I'm not sure there's really been much discussion. You remember when you tried to distract from a conversation about gun control by posting an article about marijuana overdose deaths you hadn't read? Sorry. I'm feeling nostalgic:)

The article MrFanti posted is about the exploitation of Congolese cobalt miners. I’m surprised to find MrFanti is concerned with worker exploitation anywhere. He must’ve thought the article was about deforestation. Certainly deforestation is often a problem whenever any kind of mine is under a forest, whether it’s a cobalt mine in Africa, a copper mine in Arizona or an open pit coal mine in West Virginia that levels a mountain. Cobalt is used in the manufacture of lithium batteries (like the one you’re probably using right now). Coal is used in…well you know.


All mass production, of food or minerals or other materials, has an effect on the environment, as well as our uses of those materials. That’s exactly why we should choose what we use and how we use it wisely.


Malthus assumed but never proved that human populations must reproduce exponentially. We know empirically this is not the case. Malthus lived before the advent of unions and before effective birth control. When people have fair wages, pensions, social security, don’t need to rely upon their offspring to survive into old age and have the freedom to make decisions about their own reproductive health, then they tend to have birthrates near (and often below) replacement level.