Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[Ben]

I have always embraced this issues as a good citizen of the planet but recent data combined with the lack of political will in the world for the first time as a 59 year old I actually think that we may screw it up so bad that I will see that horror in my lifetime.

I can't be alone in this feeling and the captains of industry and power must so how feel they will get first class seating an their way to hell, otherwise WTF are they thinking?

I think we take the prudent approach. Key word. Prudent. Meaning, of course, acting with or showing care and thought for the future.
We're deciding that future generations simply have no value. Plus there are benefits to reducing fossil fuel emissions. Less pollution. Isn't that a good thing?
The Canadian scientist, David Suzuki, pointed out that when he was born the population was 2 billion. That was in 1936. We're at 7 billion now. Heading toward: 9 billion by 2050.
And all these people in India and China and elsewhere are gonna want refrigerators, air conditioning, cars, computers etc., etc., etc. I mean, how are we gonna manage to sustain this endless level of production and consumption?
Brings me to: carrying capacity:
http://www.sustainablescale.org/Conc...gCapacity.aspx

[Ben]

David Suzuki speaks about overpopulation:

[Ben]

The Toxification of Planet Earth - Paul Ehrlich:

[Stavros]

David Suzuki speaks about overpopulation:

Suzuki doesn't know what he is talking about. Demography has already down-graded the rise of the world's population over the coming century, and that is without factoring in mega-deaths from as yet unidentified pandemics -a rogue factor but not entirely fanciful. I was reading about these population trends in the 1990s so I don't know how supposedly informed people like Suzuki can be so out of touch with reality. The concentration of populations in urban areas might be a problem (or an opportunity) but Malthus was wrong in the 19th century just as Suzuki is in this one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...h-harper-video

[sukumvit boy]

Excellent links. Thanks Stavros.
Agree ,the Suzuki video is ridiculous. The Sarah Harper video is a much more interesting and thorough and very thought provoking.

[Ben]

Suzuki doesn't know what he is talking about. Demography has already down-graded the rise of the world's population over the coming century, and that is without factoring in mega-deaths from as yet unidentified pandemics -a rogue factor but not entirely fanciful. I was reading about these population trends in the 1990s so I don't know how supposedly informed people like Suzuki can be so out of touch with reality. The concentration of populations in urban areas might be a problem (or an opportunity) but Malthus was wrong in the 19th century just as Suzuki is in this one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...h-harper-video

It isn't really human numbers. It's production -- and consumption.
I mean, there are close to a billion people in sub-Saharan Africa.... Their impact on the climate is quite negligible. Much like the people in Bangladesh. A population of close to 150 million. Impact on global warming? Pretty negligible.
However, India and China want what we have. And are gonna get it. Now what impact will that have on, well, exacerbating climate change?

Climate Change Leads to Massive Food Shortages:

[Ben]

Inhofe: God Says Global Warming Is A Hoax:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...oax/?mobile=nc

[Stavros]

It isn't really human numbers. It's production -- and consumption.
I mean, there are close to a billion people in sub-Saharan Africa.... Their impact on the climate is quite negligible. Much like the people in Bangladesh. A population of close to 150 million. Impact on global warming? Pretty negligible.
However, India and China want what we have. And are gonna get it. Now what impact will that have on, well, exacerbating climate change?

Climate Change Leads to Massive Food Shortages:

Sorry Ben, your thinking is muddled. In Suzuki's case, the constant growth of the population -a concept that should have died with Malthus- must be replaced by a structured concept which acknowledges that the rate of growth will plateau around 2050 and decline thereafter. The challenges posed by these trends are: a) an increase in the volume of people living in cities and their suburban areas; and b) the gradual concentration of the human population into the 30-70 age group. The only practical way to fit these trends into sustainability is to take an holistic view which incorporates population trends with core issues such as water, food, housing, education and health.

As for Africa, the low level of industrialisation across the continent does mean that net contributions of greenouse gases are small relative to Europe and America, but Africa is hugely important for its forests which collectively make a real difference, and deforestation in central Africa is as critical an issue as it is in the Amazon Basin, Indonesia, and Siberia. In addition, the desertification that has reduced the agricultural potential of the Sahel in Africa, and soil erosion in other parts of the continent have played their roles in the heating up of the planet, so I don't see how you can claim Africa is some sort of passive victim, even if the worst excesses of climate change have already made life difficult there, and will make it potentially even more so.

These two articles on Africa may help you refine you argument:

http://www.ifpri.org/publication/cli...s-and-findings

http://www.boell.de/downloads/weltwe...urg_afrika.pdf

[trish]

The U.S., Western Europe and Australia are in red on Dr. Harper’s map indicating they are regions where fertility is low. Presumably people in these regions feel less pressure to have large families. Perhaps because they feel they will not need to depend upon their children for their future economic security. They have pensions, savings, stocks, social security (or its equivalent) and government safety nets. Fewer children now, entails fewer child bearing adults in the near future. So the U.S., Western Europe and Australia are expected to remain in the red. Dr. Harper claims the red will expand; i.e. fertility will begin to decline in other regions. It seems that this can only happen if the factors that contribute to the economic security of Western nations also spread around the world. But it is just that economic security that correlates (imo) with an exponential increase in consumerism. I remain pessimistic that conditions of economic security conducive to low fertility rates will ever spread across the world. But suppose it happens. Can the Earth can long sustain 10 billion Western style consumers? It’s not even clear it can long sustain the Western style consumers who are currently eating away at the planet’s resources and changing its climate.

Happily it seems that a healthy, economically secure populace will of its own accord maintain a low fertility rate. But unhappily, if its economy should seriously fail and its safety nets disappear, I fear people will return to the security offered by having large families and fertility rates will once again rise. Of course populations don’t grow exponentially as Malthus maintains but rather logistically (i.e. they grow exponentially until they near the carrying capacity of the enviroment, the mortality rate rises and population painfully and asymptotically levels off. The question is, “Will 10 billion consumers create enough stress to initiate long term (perhaps permanent) world wide economic collapse?”

[trish]

The question is, “Will 10 billion consumers create enough stress to initiate long term (perhaps permanent) world wide economic

Or is ten billion the Goldilocks number;i.e. just right?

By the way, Dr. Sarah Harper reminds me of Amanda Tapping in the SyFy series Sactuary