Environment & Energy

progree

(12,710 posts)

7. Yup. Or nearly 11 billion by 2100, despite those nice declining fertility graphs

Thu Jul 4, 2019, 09:18 PM

Jul 2019

The actual figures from the UN 2019 report (median projection):

2019: 7,713,468
2100: 10,874,902
A 41% increase

https://population.un.org/wpp/

But as OKIsItJustMe points out, our problem is not just human numbers, but the amount of resource depletion and pollution and emissions they create on a per-person basis (and generally speaking, the lowest fertility countries being the worst per capita and overall) -- depleting ground water and polluting it with salt and nitrates and other chemicals (surface water too), deforestation, soil loss, pollution including all the plastics, fish depletion, species extinction, loss of biodiversity.... simply eliminating GHG emissions doesn't fix these other problems.

And the human misery that goes with it -- as far as humans getting their act together -- there is an unmet need for effective contraceptives for more than 200 million women in the world, and so little is done to help them).
https://www.populationconnection.org/magazine-archives/

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Climate scientist calls for 'world war type mobilization' to combat climate change [View all] OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 OP

I hope humans get their act together but I don't see any action. BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2019 #1

I have decided that the "birth control"/"climate change" meme is racist OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #2

I have a hybrid car, rarely drive, keep my temperature affordable BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2019 #3

Your hybrid probably produces less CO₂ per mile than my (old) conventional car OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #4

Again, the global population rate is growing and that is a problem. BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2019 #5

The global population is growing. The population growth rate is not. OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #6

Since 1980 the world's population growth has been linear, at 80 million per year. The_jackalope Jul 2019 #9

Thank you for explaining so well. BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2019 #18

I would like me to point out that climate change is just one of many impacts from pop. growth NickB79 Jul 2019 #10

Which is more responsible? OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #11

Dunno, maths says total waste equals population X waste per capita progree Jul 2019 #16

"low fertility countries lead, by far, in both waste per capita and total waste" OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #20

Sounds rosy. But the U.N. also projects a 41% world population increase by 2100 progree Jul 2019 #26

"Population Momentum" OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #28

Reducing population growth will help in many ways other than just GHG emissions progree Jul 2019 #29

That may be OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #30

And reducing population growth will help. progree Jul 2019 #31

Another reason African women have a lot of children (on average) progree Jul 2019 #27

Mother Nature doesn't give a damn about per capita numbers NickB79 Jul 2019 #23

So... nature only cares about gross emissions for entire nations? OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #25

Yes yes absolutely yes. BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2019 #19

Yup. Or nearly 11 billion by 2100, despite those nice declining fertility graphs progree Jul 2019 #7

Yep. BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2019 #8

If you want to decrease the population, cut health care OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #13

I donated my farm to Population Connection progree Jul 2019 #15

It is "a modest proposal" OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #21

As Dwight said on The Office-- We need a new plague. BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2019 #17

Well, another strategy might be called "World War III" OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #22

Sad but true, population control has been war and sickness. BlancheSplanchnik Jul 2019 #24

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against population control. OKIsItJustMe Jul 2019 #12

True, or even if they had a per-capita emission the same as China, we would be screwed progree Jul 2019 #14