My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Eclipse Now]

Birth control to Catholics? Hard.
Birth control to evangelicals? Easy. I'm one of them.

The thing is the various environmental challenges we face, from global warming to peak fossil fuels to peak fisheries to peak water to peak arable land to peak metals and other rare earths... basically 'peak everything' all starting in the next decade; these crisis could either cause us to fight it out over the remaining resources, or unite under various new international regimes. (EG: Kyoto might just be the beginning.)

Imagine something like the EU growing across the world as Africa forms their own USA. Imagine the governments of the world finally providing democratic stability and the ability for the citizens of the WORLD to vote on global issues. Imagine western democracies providing education, freshwater, basic nutrition and housing and healthcare and all the basic human needs to everyone in Africa and China.

That's a recipe for a worldwide 'demographic transition'. The main ingredients for solving world overpopulation are:-
1. Meeting basic human needs (so that peasant farmers don't have 15 kids in case 10 of them die!)
2. Educating women (UN says every 3 years of female education = roughly 1 less child).
3. Some basic economic security in old age (if we guarantee peasants won't starve to death in old age, then they don't feel like having 12 labourers to work the farm and look after them in their old age.)

So... peak oil? Global Warming? Scary?

We can solve these threats in a variety of ways, but primarily by political agreements that prevent conflict over these things. Then we can get on with the "Picken's Plan" of wind power through the central USA as someone posted above.

Lastly, the reason I can campaign for population control — even as one of the infamous "Sydney Anglican's" —*is because these individual measures that make up the 'demographic transition' are worth doing in and of themselves.
For more, see my page at:
Eclipse Now: Reduce population growth

[questor]

Unfortunately, I can't envision the many countries of the world cooperating on anything. This has never happened so far. Probably a fourth of the world is illiterate and unreachable by current communications. While some of the developed nations are reducing their carbon output, many others will be increasing theirs, leading to continued degradation of the atmosphere. A good book to read on this subject is ''The Population Bomb'' by Paul Erlich.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Population Bomb
Author Paul R. Ehrlich
Country United States
Language English
Subject(s) Population
Publisher Ballantine Books
Publication date 1968
Pages 201
''The Population Bomb (1968) is a book written by Paul R. Ehrlich. A best-selling work, it predicted disaster for humanity due to overpopulation and the "population explosion". The book predicted that "in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death", that nothing can be done to avoid mass famine greater than any in the history, and radical action is needed to limit the overpopulation''
This book created quite a stir when written, but now everyone is worried about global warming. I think the population problems will kill many more people and cause more global distress sooner than global warming.

[Zythryn]

With that in mind Questor, what is your method of reducing the population?
You said it was the best solution. How do you propose achieving that goal?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by questor

I think the population problems will kill many more people and cause more global distress sooner than global warming.

I agree, but I don't think that we should abandon action on our pollution. We need to be tackling all of these world-wide problems together, concurrently.

The population problem is indeed something that needs to be addressed in some way. There's a great thread on the subject of population growth and what to do about it here:

http://hypography.com/forums/social-...opulation.html

[questor]

I have no proposal to reduce population. People will not act to solve this problem until it is to late, they are too busy acting on global warming. A solution for population control would undoubtedly reduce carbon emissions and may actually solve that problem, but no one is talking about it. One thing that will surely happen is starvation, the other probability is war over arable
land and water supplies.

[Zythryn]

Questor, since you have no suggestions as to how to lower the population, I would reiterate that we should then return to the idea of lowering the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere as we know how that can be done.

As for population being an issue in and of itself, Freeztar's link goes to a great thread about that topic.

[questor]

If you want to lower co2 emissions, by all means talk to the Chinese and Indians. They have 10 times the population we do and will be
pumping out co2 far in excess of ours when they all get autos. In reading some of the articles in Freeztars link, I saw much acknowledgement of the population problem, but no solutions. The true solutions are probably too painful to discuss. Humanity will not control population, but nature surely will.

[Zythryn]

Well, since I have no valid input with the Chinese or Indian governments, and I do ours, I think it is more constructive to start here

[Zythryn]

So Questor, you raised the questions below. Do you have any thoughts on the answers I offered?

Originally Posted by questor

So let's assume the human factor is indeed contributing to or is the major cause of global warming, what is the remedy?
1. Cut down on emissions by burning less fossil fuels? What would this do to the world economy? How do we force India and China ( non-signers of the Kyoto Treaty ) to cut back? They will quickly surpass the US in carbon emissions.
2. Must America become a totally agrarian nation? Only farms, no factories?
Don't forget, the rest of the world wants it's day in the sun.
3. America goes totally green, uses wind, solar, nuclear while the rest of the world uses up the remaining fossil fuel.
We don't control the world and in the next 25 years we will probably lose whatever influence we now possess.
The best solution would be for the world to reduce it's population. There are now 6 billion people in the world, all using oxygen, producing CO2, human waste, plastics, water, et cetera.

While I agree world population is a huge factor, without a plan to reduce it, other solutions that can be implimented are necessary.
How do you answer your own #2? Do you believe that would be necessary?

[REASON]

Originally Posted by questor

If you want to lower co2 emissions, by all means talk to the Chinese and Indians.

Does this mean we don't have to change unless they do? Currently, the United States is by far the biggest contributor to atmospheric greenhouse gases. As the technological and moral leader of the world, for which we claim to be, doesn't it make sense that we should be leading the way in the development of alternative energy solutions that reduce greenhouse gases? Or maybe we should just resist and let others take the lead so we don't have to get off our fat asses and do anything.

We don't control the Chinese and the Indians, but we are responsible for our own policies and behavior. If it is our intention to attempt to motivate them to change their poluting practices, our case would be far more legitimate if we were setting the right example in the first place. Why would anyone listen to us when we refuse to acknowledge our contribution to the problem and are unwilling to change our ways?

Blaming someone else never solves anything.