Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Climate scientist calls for 'world war type mobilization' to combat climate change [View all]OKIsItJustMe
(21,703 posts)28. "Population Momentum"
https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/popfacts/PopFacts_2017-4.pdf
Thanks to a phenomenon known as population momentum, a youthful population with constant levels of mortality and a net migration¹ of zero continues to grow even when fertility remains constant at the replacement level.² In this situation, a relatively youthful age structure promotes a more rapid growth, because the births being produced by the relatively large number of women of reproductive age outnumber the deaths occurring in the total population, even if the fertility of the average woman stands at the replacement level.
Under the assumptions of the momentum variant, the worlds population would continue to increase in the coming years and decades, reaching 8.3 billion in 2030 and 8.9 billion in 2050. Thereafter, the global population would stabilize at around 9 billion. Compared to an estimate of around 7.4 billion for 2015, an additional 1.5 billion persons would thus be added to the worlds population by 2050, even if fertility were to reach the replacement level instantly and if mortality were to remain constant at levels observed in 2010-2015.
Now, just for purposes of argument, let's say that everyone stopped having babies altogether tomorrow. Now, clearly, after 100 years or so, the population problem would be solved. (Right?)
The thing is, we need to address the climate crisis in a shorter time frame than that. So, population control is clearly not a viable solution.
So, how do we address the climate crisis?
Thanks to a phenomenon known as population momentum, a youthful population with constant levels of mortality and a net migration¹ of zero continues to grow even when fertility remains constant at the replacement level.² In this situation, a relatively youthful age structure promotes a more rapid growth, because the births being produced by the relatively large number of women of reproductive age outnumber the deaths occurring in the total population, even if the fertility of the average woman stands at the replacement level.
Under the assumptions of the momentum variant, the worlds population would continue to increase in the coming years and decades, reaching 8.3 billion in 2030 and 8.9 billion in 2050. Thereafter, the global population would stabilize at around 9 billion. Compared to an estimate of around 7.4 billion for 2015, an additional 1.5 billion persons would thus be added to the worlds population by 2050, even if fertility were to reach the replacement level instantly and if mortality were to remain constant at levels observed in 2010-2015.
Now, just for purposes of argument, let's say that everyone stopped having babies altogether tomorrow. Now, clearly, after 100 years or so, the population problem would be solved. (Right?)
The thing is, we need to address the climate crisis in a shorter time frame than that. So, population control is clearly not a viable solution.
So, how do we address the climate crisis?
- By cutting emissions.
- By actively removing Greenhouse Gases from the atmosphere.
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:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Climate scientist calls for 'world war type mobilization' to combat climate change [View all]
OKIsItJustMe
Jul 2019
OP
Your hybrid probably produces less CO₂ per mile than my (old) conventional car
OKIsItJustMe
Jul 2019
#4
Since 1980 the world's population growth has been linear, at 80 million per year.
The_jackalope
Jul 2019
#9
I would like me to point out that climate change is just one of many impacts from pop. growth
NickB79
Jul 2019
#10
"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
Reducing population growth will help in many ways other than just GHG emissions
progree
Jul 2019
#29
Yup. Or nearly 11 billion by 2100, despite those nice declining fertility graphs
progree
Jul 2019
#7