Hurricanes

[shadyJ]

there's a really simple solution to the US's problems; dramatically increase the population and force them to live in total squalor.

I like the way you think!

 

[Midwesthonky]

I hate HOAs. We have one in our neighborhood too.

My HOA isn't bad now that the one person sold and moved out. She would complain about every little thing. But was the same person that put in tall grass so it wouldn't have to be mowed and didn't even put the liners into their car seats.

I currently have the faded heap of a Mustang I bought at auction sitting in my driveway against the HOA rules just to see what happens. I'm curious. The Mustang will make it into the garage, but I'm just seeing if anyones nose gets bent.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Yes and no. Let's take a couple examples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Lets take China and India vs the US

China produces 29.5% of world emissions currently, at a rate of ~7.7 tons per person.
India produces 6.8% of world emissions, at a rate of ~1.9 tons per person.
The US produces 14.3% of world emissions, at a rate of ~16.1 tons per person.

Seems clear cut enough, but it ignores economic side of the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
The US leads the way in GDP with ~18.5 trillion dollars
Ignoring the EU, China is #2 at ~11.2 trillion dollars
India is substantially less, at ~2.3 trillion dollars

Doing the math, one finds that the Chinese are putting out double the carbon of the US, but have a significantly lower GDP. India produces roughly 1/2 of the carbon the US does, but its GDP is also 8 times less. IOW, for any given economic activity, the US is producing less carbon than either China or India.

Why does this matter? Because these countries aren't just sitting still, they're developing and ramping up their economies. If that increase is powered by fossil fuels, there's a much bigger problem than what exists today. Of course, you can consider the reverse: if only per capita emissions matter, there's a really simple solution to the US's problems; dramatically increase the population and force them to live in total squalor.

I was thinking in general terms, which I should have made clear. And, although I have no argument with your post, it doesn't really address what I stated. I was referring to poor countries with high fertility rates, which means primarily African countries. China's fertility rate is similar to developed countries and India's isn't much higher.

 

[Steve81]

I was thinking in general terms, which I should have made clear. And, although I have no argument with your post, it doesn't really address what I stated. I was referring to poor countries with high fertility rates, which means primarily African countries. China's fertility rate is similar to developed countries and India's isn't much higher.

The last paragraph still applies. While not as far along as the BRIC quartet, African countries are developing. I mean, let's face reality here: people aren't making a conscious decision to live in abject poverty in order to reduce their carbon emissions. They want better. Just as important, the world (via organizations like the World Bank, African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, USAID, etc.) want better for them. Nobody wants to see the humanitarian disaster that would result from the combination of ballooning populations and stagnant development. As with China and India, sustainable development is the only viable path forward, but that involves not reproducing like rabbits as well.

 

[highfigh]

Glad to see we're all on the same page, here!

I have been on three rafting trips in the Grand Canyon and occasionally, we would see signs with "Take only photos, leave only footprints".

 

[highfigh]

The last paragraph still applies. While not as far along as the BRIC quartet, African countries are developing. I mean, let's face reality here: people aren't making a conscious decision to live in abject poverty in order to reduce their carbon emissions. They want better. Just as important, the world (via organizations like the World Bank, African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, USAID, etc.) want better for them. Nobody wants to see the humanitarian disaster that would result from the combination of ballooning populations and stagnant development. As with China and India, sustainable development is the only viable path forward, but that involves not reproducing like rabbits as well.

People usually want more/better if they know it exists.

 

[GO-NAD!]

The last paragraph still applies. While not as far along as the BRIC quartet, African countries are developing. I mean, let's face reality here: people aren't making a conscious decision to live in abject poverty in order to reduce their carbon emissions. They want better. Just as important, the world (via organizations like the World Bank, African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, USAID, etc.) want better for them. Nobody wants to see the humanitarian disaster that would result from the combination of ballooning populations and stagnant development. As with China and India, sustainable development is the only viable path forward, but that involves not reproducing like rabbits as well.

I think the onus is on developed countries to assist less developed countries skip the conventional road to prosperity - increasing industrialization through the burning of horrendous quantities of fossil fuels, stripping thousands of square miles of forest, etc; as much from self-interest as from any sense of moral obligation.

As for "reproducing like rabbits", I'm sure the high fertility rates in under-developed countries isn't from a desire to have huge families because women just love having lots of kids. It's lack of education, taboos surrounding contraception and scores of other factors. Many people criticize these countries for bringing so many kids into the world that can't be fed. But, the same phenomenon happened in developed countries when they were less so.

 

[Steve81]

I think the onus is on developed countries to assist less developed countries skip the conventional road to prosperity - increasing industrialization through the burning of horrendous quantities of fossil fuels, stripping thousands of square miles of forest, etc; as much from self-interest as from any sense of moral obligation.

No doubt. Moral obligation clearly hasn't been enough to change the status quo over the years, but self interest is a much better motivator. Africa is currently projected to have 2.5 billion people by 2050. That's an environmental disaster waiting to happen if they go it alone.

As for "reproducing like rabbits", I'm sure the high fertility rates in under-developed countries isn't from a desire to have huge families because women just love having lots of kids. It's lack of education, taboos surrounding contraception and scores of other factors. Many people criticize these countries for bringing so many kids into the world that can't be fed. But, the same phenomenon happened in developed countries when they were less so.

For my part, it's not a criticism per se, but an acknowledgement that it's a problem that's much more difficult to control than the carbon output of developed countries. As much as some people have problems with policies like CAFE, gasoline taxes, subsidies for renewable energy companies, etc., they're mild nuisances compared to something like China's one child policy.

As it stands now, the hope is that things don't go that far, that as these countries develop and education, access to medical care, women's rights, and so on improve, that birth rates will fall as they did in the developed world. But it's just that: hope. It takes time to change a culture, and when it comes to population growth of that scale, time isn't a luxury we have an abundance of.

 

[gene]

Good to see you back @gene. I hope you and Berta are both unscathed. Likewise for your Status Acoustics 8Ts. But mostly you and Berta.

Thanks. All is fine but we did have a pretty decent amount of clean up and putting stuff back outside. I hope I won't have to repeat that again anytime soon, but we were fortunate.