|
Post by StuartG on Jun 29, 2011 21:25:28 GMT 1
Reading the Wiki entry on Carbon Dioxide "Also, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) writes in their Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report [41]: "The uptake of anthropogenic carbon since 1750 has led to the ocean becoming more acidic with an average decrease in pH of 0.1 units...."" in this... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_oceanstaking the start of the paragraph... "The uptake of anthropogenic carbon since 1750" which implies that this time is where it all started, in short the 'Industrial Era' At this time, or thereabouts, according to this... www.prb.org/pdf10/10wpds_eng.pdfThe world population was 1 billion something like this... "If CO2 emissions are halved by 2050 compared to 1990, global warming can be stabilised below two degrees." www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090502092019.htmmade me wonder what was really being inferred. "Today, Global Population Adds Another Billion at Record Rates." "At some point around 1800, after untold millennia of human history, global population reached its first billion. The world’s population now grows by 1 billion about every 12 years. The 20th century began with 1.6 billion and, at the end of that century, those two numbers had simply reversed to 6.1 billion. If birth rates continue to decline in developing countries, the increase to 8 billion could take slightly longer." The obvious inferences [to me] is that we have an excess of population, and that if it was reduced back to say 1990 levels would mean a reduction of roughly 4 Billion souls. Are my inferences correct? Is it possible to so improve our use of resources that the subsequent population expansion would be negated, or is this the Elephant? StuartG
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Sept 1, 2011 20:39:19 GMT 1
They are not doing anything about the population explosion. They are solving problem by banning 60W light bulbs !
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Sept 2, 2011 15:25:27 GMT 1
Stuart,
Ignoring the spats on global warming (if that is possible on what remains of this board) it is of course blindingly obvious that reducing the pressure on the earths resources will improve most peoples lives.
If you reduce the population then the demand for raw materials currently provided in the main by multinationals will fall, and they will exert their political clout, which is not inconsiderable to protect their own interests. They depend on a steady rise in demand - and by definition that means a rise in the number of consumers, the population in other words, so even if population growth were stabilised it would be bad news for them.
However, since we don't have a world government we can only start in our own back yard, and whatever any government of any colour does will be very unpopular.
You could tax a second child, and tax a third child more. That would go down well.
You could close the borders, but I suspect it is a tad too late for that.
You could stop sending food aid to areas of the world which due to Sahara creep, climate change or whatever you want to call it can no longer sustain their populations, except one year in 10.
Other than enforced sterilisation I don't think it is such an easy nut to crack (pun intended)
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Sept 3, 2011 10:34:57 GMT 1
You are quite right to say that overpopulation is a difficult problem but other "green" policies will be a waste of time if we do not tackle it. Regarding taxing children, there is no need to go so far. At present, the government effectively pays people to have children by means of child benefit, tax allowances and numerous other subsidies. All that is needed is to reduce the subsidies. Better control of immigration would also help. It would prevent countries from exporting their excess population. If countries had to find jobs for their own people, rather than exporting their unemployed, they would be more likely to control population growth. We can only control our own population and try to influence other countries to do the same. International agreement on population policies will be difficult but the consequences of not agreeing will be even more difficult.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 3, 2011 21:48:42 GMT 1
Jonjel and Mak, It's the old problem, but in reality, take a chess board put two grains of rice on the first square and double the grains for each subsequent square. [unless the 'family unit' is limited to one child] However the subject is viewed there are endless insurmountable problems. At first sight World population control is out of the question. How will it be possible to get the approximately 195 countries to all agree. Come to that how will someone? get those countries to a meeting to even consider the question? United Nations probably. It may be that some disaster on a large scale where the population excess is seen to be directly responsible might kick something into action. Looking at the figures above "The 20th century began with 1.6 billion and, at the end of that century, those two numbers had simply reversed to 6.1 billion." Being very simplistic, if 4.5 billion were 'bumped off' given the turn of 100 years we would be back to where we started, except we would have even less raw materials, so the problem would be that much worse. It took over a century for 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' to be discussed with some determination. Until quite recently it was the preserve of a few dedicated souls, since then it's become open to all especially with the greater uptake of internet connections. So without facetious intent look at the AGW debate. How was interest generated. To do that it has to appeal to many types of general personality. There are those who interest lies in the science behind the ideas. To the politicians there is the attraction of imposing new taxes whilst appearing to be leading thinking. To those with a controlling nature there is the attraction of imposing rules of compulsion and prohibition. To those who look for business opportunities there is the chance to open new markets. Of course this must generate 'scepticism' [n.b. 'skepticism is the US spelling]. The focus for AGW really came with the advent of the IPCC. This gave the supporters of AGW a focus and sceptics a target. So to get the 'Population Problem' off the ground what better way than to set up another organisation, called say the 'Internation Panel for Child Control [IPCC]'. At least some arguments are settled, it is 'anthropogenic' by definition and unlike CO2, an unseen gas with an arguable concentration in the atmosphere, population is tangible and readily seen to be increasing. So that's a look at the problem from a world point of view. Like the AGW debate 'population increase' is best dealt with locally. If your own country has a over population problem then take measures to suit that 'back yard' and not seek to impose your problem solutions onto others. In this country a gradual reduction of child benefit could be seen as a part solution. Immigration could be curbed. What ever is tried it will be of no avail as an inevitable increase in population cannot be stemmed by acceptable policies. The only other way is to let 'Mother Nature' take Her course. That sounds like a 'cop out' but in fact it's the only way. StuartG A look at the "List of sovereign states and dependent territories by death rate" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_death_rate is worth a look. The UK has a death rate per thousand of 10.02 lower than Germany at 10.9 but higher than United States 8.38, Iraq 5.03 and Gaza Strip 3.44. "Legend of the Ambalappuzha Paal Paayasam" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambalappuzha#Legend_of_the_Ambalappuzha_Paal_Paayasam
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Oct 12, 2011 22:01:58 GMT 1
Prediction: This subject will take over from CO2 as the next 'doom prediction'.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 12, 2011 22:22:27 GMT 1
Back in the 60s the "population explosion" was a bugbear, just as CO2 is today. It turned out that food production more than kept up with population growth and it may well be the case that with innovation it will continue to keep up with population growth. However, it is surely better for the planet and all its non-human denizens that we do not make ever greater demands for food or for raw materials upon it.
This is not to deny that unforseen innovation could have huge impact on mankind's prospects and make all such worries redundant. I'm inclined to think we will go on discovering and inventing stuff as we always have and that the perceived looming shortages of the doom and gloom fraternity will not actually materialise
Population stabilization followed by a gradual reduction should be attempted in my opinion. Why would people WANT more than a couple of kids?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 13, 2011 18:38:08 GMT 1
wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/13/borlaug-2-0/#more-49195Furthering the productivity of agriculture to met the food demands of a rising population...a team of researchers from Canada, the U.S., Sweden and Germany has come up with a plan to double the world’s food production while reducing the environmental impacts of agriculture. Their findings were recently published in the journal Nature. By combining information gathered from crop records and satellite images from around the world, they have been able to create new models of agricultural systems and their environmental impacts that are truly global in scope. McGill geography professor Navin Ramankutty, one of the team leaders on the study, credits the collaboration between researchers for achieving such important results. “Lots of other scholars and thinkers have proposed solutions to global food and environmental problems. But they were often fragmented, only looking at one aspect of the problem at one time. And they often lacked the specifics and numbers to back them up. This is the first time that such a wide range of data has been brought together under one common framework, and it has allowed us to see some clear patterns. This makes it easier to develop some concrete solutions for the problems facing us.” A five-point plan for feeding the world while protecting the planet The researchers recommend: Halting farmland expansion and land clearing for agricultural purposes, particularly in the tropical rainforest. This can be achieved using incentives such as payment for ecosystem services, certification and ecotourism. This change will yield huge environmental benefits without dramatically cutting into agricultural production or economic well-being. Improving agricultural yields. Many farming regions in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe are not living up to their potential for producing crops – something known as “yield gaps”. Improved use of existing crop varieties, better management and improved genetics could increase current food production nearly by 60 per cent. Supplementing the land more strategically. Current use of water, nutrients and agricultural chemicals suffers from what the research team calls “Goldilocks’ Problem”: too much in some places, too little in others, rarely just right. Strategic reallocation could substantially boost the benefit we get from precious inputs. Shifting diets. Growing animal feed or biofuels on prime croplands, no matter how efficiently, is a drain on human food supply. Dedicating croplands to direct human food production could boost calories produced per person by nearly 50 per cent. Even shifting nonfood uses such as animal feed or biofuel production away from prime cropland could make a big difference. Reducing waste. One-third of the food produced by farms ends up discarded, spoiled or eaten by pests. Eliminating waste in the path that food takes from farm to mouth could boost food available for consumption another 50 per cent.
|
|