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

progree

(12,175 posts)

31. And reducing population growth will help.

Reply to OKIsItJustMe (Reply #30)

Sun Jul 7, 2019, 08:42 PM

Jul 2019

Last edited Sun Jul 7, 2019, 09:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Edited to add:

Just like building thousands of wind turbines or planting millions of tree will help, but it's not enough to be the whole solution.

I have no illusion that reducing population growth alone, or even drastically reducing world population by even, say 80%, will be the WHOLE solution to the climate change problem, as long as per-capita GHG emissions are anywhere near where they are now.

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