Banning the term climate change won’t stop the reality

[shadyJ]

The otherwise noble efforts of bringing potable water, AIDS medicine, looking to eliminate malaria in countries, has the unintended consequence of placing additional demands on the earth's resources.

We have to keep in mind that the countries which have problems with potable water, AIDS, Malaria, etc, don't have nearly the per capita resource consumption that the first world nations do, and they don't have nearly as much blame to shoulder. But ultimately the problem is too many people. This is a problem that will get solved one way or another- the easy way or the hard way. Technological advances can only prolong the inevitable. If it is to be the hard way, I am glad I will likely be gone before a population crash may occur. It will make for an interesting era for sure.

 

[KEW]

The term consensus, and here in the US the oft repeated 97% consensus, bears some examination as to its origin. The WSJ wrote an opinion piece last year that sought to shed some light on this. As we all know, the way a question or statement is phrased, the way a survey is conducted, can have a profound influence on the outcome. To use my friend ShadyJ's expression, there's been sensationalizing as well as an unbalanced view. Would it not be honest to also examine benefits as well as detriments to overall climate warming? Would it not be honest for proponents of warming to put numbers with appropriate uncertainty numbers for the public's consideration when it's said the first three months of the year were the warmest on record? Would it not be honest to say that the drought in California is exacerbated by matters such as massive population increases, lack of planning and testicular fortitude in having created dams, and the agriculture business that increasingly supplies produce for the world?

Like you, I thought the move to alternate refrigerants was a good idea and I like the increasing development of LED bulbs which are coming down in price. The development in batteries, capacitors, solar efficiency, and the like is good. Having grown up on a family run farm, this economy appeals to me.

Population is not only a problem because of numbers and longevity, it also creates its own problems as people become wealthier. They're going to look to become consumers and consumers buy an awful lot of stupid sh!t.

I tried to read the WSJ opinion piece, but they want my credit card number and $ to read it.

I am unclear what the point you are making is.
Are you of the opinion that Global Warming doesn't exist, or that man is not to blame, or it might more accurately be a smaller percent than 97?

 

[Chu Gai]

We have to keep in mind that the countries which have problems with potable water, AIDS, Malaria, etc, don't have nearly the per capita resource consumption that the first world nations do, and they don't have nearly as much blame to shoulder. But ultimately the problem is too many people. This is a problem that will get solved one way or another- the easy way or the hard way. Technological advances can only prolong the inevitable. If it is to be the hard way, I am glad I will likely be gone before a population crash may occur. It will make for an interesting era for sure.

Yeah, that Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has some nerve!

Governments arent going to be able to effectively address population mitigation. That's why I think what's going to happen is we're going to become sufficiently skilled and advanced to selectively target people through some means like specifics in the genetic code perhaps through modified foods. For example, imagine a remarkably high yielding rice strain that has the ability to shorten life spans to 40 years and creates non aggressive personalities. However the crop could not be used to create more of the same.

But now you need a way to test it. So you create a batch and rely on a country like North Korea, known for its belligerence and destabilizing actions as well as its love for just stealing stuff. Basically, they get set up.

 

[Chu Gai]

I tried to read the WSJ opinion piece, but they want my credit card number and $ to read it.

I am unclear what the point you are making is.
Are you of the opinion that Global Warming doesn't exist, or that man is not to blame, or it might more accurately be a smaller percent than 97?

Well, here's another version of that. I do think man contributes and not necessarily on a global scale. Brazil is suffering through a drought which scientists are of the current opinion that it is due to their massive deforestation of the Amazon Rain Forest. Seems that all these trees release massive amounts of water vapor that in turn contribute to rainfall. Same thing with the deforestation in Africa which affects micro climates.

My general position is that the 97% number is inaccurate and the surveys themselves were not skillfully done.

 

[KEW]

My general position is that the 97% number is inaccurate and the surveys themselves were not skillfully done.

Oh, sorry, I really don't have enough passion about that topic to care...I'm out!

 

[Chu Gai]

The recent volcanic eruptions in Chile may have some sort of cooling effect if enough smutz makes its way into the upper atmosphere. Do check out the pictures.

 

[Chu Gai]

Good move by China. I'd like to see more of this. I wonder if they did an environmental impact study?

 

[herbu]

Good move by China

China also has laws regarding population growth. In the overcrowded cities, children beyond the firstborn do not receive government benefits, like free school and medical. In the western rural areas where they want to increase the population, there are no such restrictions. Imagine the US doing that in the overpopulated big city slums.

 

[Chu Gai]

It's been advocated for in the past by the President's Science czar.

 

[Steve81]

The otherwise noble efforts of bringing potable water, AIDS medicine, looking to eliminate malaria in countries, has the unintended consequence of placing additional demands on the earth's resources.

As far as I'm aware, the hope is that by reducing the incidence of disease and improving the quality of life, birth rates will decline as they have in the first world.

See Myth #3
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/Resources-and-Media/Annual-Letters-List/Annual-Letter-2014

 

[Chu Gai]

I can buy into that but then you've got people living longer. I don't know if there's ever been a study that looked to compare resource consumption in the two scenarios.

 

[Steve81]

I can buy into that but then you've got people living longer. I don't know if there's ever been a study that looked to compare resource consumption in the two scenarios.

Not sure on resource consumption studies per se, but the population trends are out there:

By those numbers, Nigeria alone will surpass the US in population by 2050, with approximately 450 million people. As I see it, the possibilities in this scenario are:
1. We'll have a lot more starving people in Africa. Resource consumption goes up, and that part of the world becomes even more desperate than it is today.
2. Local agricultural methods will advance to keep up with the population boom; potential for local industrial revolution. Resource consumption goes up dramatically.
3. The West provides assistance to push the African continent into the first world. Population levels stabilize; per capita "dirty"/non-renewable resource usage less than case #2.

 

[herbu]

3. The West provides assistance to push the African continent into the first world. Population levels stabilize; per capita "dirty"/non-renewable resource usage less than case #2.

How would we "push"?
Why would our "push" provide results in Africa that we don't have here?

 

[Chu Gai]

Well, you have to consider the reasons why population levels increase.

 

[Steve81]

How would we "push"?

Largely in terms of technical assistance, i.e. infrastructure development, agricultural
development, renewable energy, etc. The aim is to avoid the humanitarian crisis of option #1, as well as the low tech industrial revolution of option #2.

Why would our "push" provide results in Africa that we don't have here?

Not exactly sure what you mean by this. While the US isn't perfect, oil & coal consumption are on a downward trend, renewables are projected to go nowhere but up, and our population projections are relatively stable.

 

[Steve81]

Well, you have to consider the reasons why population levels increase.

And how much of Nigeria's 176% increase in population over a 40 year period would you expect to come from an increase in life expectancy (currently 52 years) vs relatively high birth rates?

 

[Chu Gai]

Dunno. I was thinking of the US when I commented above with the large influx of legals and illegals contributing to population growth. Relatively closed societies such as Japan trend to slightly negative projections. Agent Smith won't be visiting them.

 

[Steve81]

Dunno. I was thinking of the US when I commented above with the large influx of legals and illegals contributing to population growth. Relatively closed societies such as Japan trend to slightly negative projections. Agent Smith won't be visiting them.

Gotcha. In Nigeria's case, their birth rate is more than triple that of the US (6 births per woman vs 1.88), so it's not hard to imagine how that can spiral out of control quickly, even with a higher infant mortality rate (~74/1000 births vs ~6/1000). One could point to various reasons why that's the case, but the most common points I've seen for why the West has substantially lower birth rates are:

1. Industrialization/mechanization
2. Women's rights
3. Education
4. Better health care

 

[herbu]

Largely in terms of technical assistance, i.e. infrastructure development, agricultural
development, renewable energy, etc.

That should be interesting to watch. WE need all of those things here. WE have crumbling bridges, roads, water pipes, etc. WE vilify GMOs and huge corporate farms. WE still get the majority of our energy from coal and depend on the Middle East for oil. So, watching Congress agree on how and how much to spend to help other countries, should be fun.

 

[Steve81]

So, watching Congress agree on how and how much to spend to help other countries, should be fun.

A couple thoughts:
1. The burden doesn't just fall on the US. The responsibility lies on the first world, and the developing nations are expected to pitch in as well.
2. The "hows" are already in place, i.e. bodies like the World Bank, African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, USAID, etc.
3. It's probably less expensive than you think. We're not taking US construction crews over there to build roads for example. The bulk of the actual labor is sourced locally (i.e. it's cheap), with the first world providing civil engineers for design & construction supervision.