Murder? Who's talking about murder?
What baffles me is how folks seem to be willing to accept pretty much anything in the name of global warming (Consume less! No more meat! No more plane hollidays! Smaller houses! Spend a gazzilion dollars!) even though whatever we do probably won't even outpace the population explosion.
However, having less children is hardly ever mentioned and when you do people react all strange.
Murder? Who's talking about murder?
What baffles me is how folks seem to be willing to accept pretty much anything in the name of global warming (Consume less! No more meat! No more plane hollidays! Smaller houses! Spend a gazzilion dollars!) even though whatever we do probably won't even outpace the population explosion.
However, having less children is hardly ever mentioned and when you do people react all strange.
What baffles me is how folks seem to be willing to accept pretty much anything in the name of global warming (Consume less! No more meat! No more plane hollidays! Smaller houses! Spend a gazzilion dollars!) even though whatever we do probably won't even outpace the population explosion.
However, having less children is hardly ever mentioned and when you do people react all strange.
I honnestly don't get it. Genocide? I'm talking about birth rate control. For starters: introducing it in the debate might be a good begin. Now it seems to be the last big taboo.
It's quite simple. With regardless what pupulation growth, and with regarless what GW countermeasures you take, it is a mathematical certainty we will sooner or later surpass whatever limit you impose on total global warming impact. Likewise, it is a mathematical certainty that with a population decline we will sooner or later arrive in a position where we can all enjoy our current lifestyles without too many issues.
Unfortunately it is not. Architects who came-up with this nonsense seems to believe that their dumb invention will not require any energy to operate.
adding contraceptives into the food sold to third-world countries
we are even decreasing the fraction of humans living in abject poverty
Those third-worlders just need decent education and a chance, and many of them would then make us first-worlders look simple.
Skipping back a paragraph, why do we still allow IVF? Surely we could say that's just Nature's lottery, but of course one has the God-given right to bear children, and that's the main issue with a growing population. Mustn't interfere with anyone's rights.
Sorry to be that guy, but neutron bombs are tactical weapons designed to penetrate thick armors at close distance; at farther distance the neutrons are stopped by air.
one 100 megaton Big Ivan would roast everybody within tens of km.
Those third-worlders just need decent education and a chance
The problem is that it is the west causing most of the emissions.
No we can't live in the arctic circle it's err.... all water.
EU accounted for 9.51% of fossil CO2 emissions in 2017 with a drop of 19.5% from 1990; US 13.77% with basically no change from 1990, and Russia 4.76% with a 25.8% drop from 1990, so about 30% overall, and all except US dropping their emissions.
So, what the fuck is the "west causing most" that you are talking about?
Or are you saying that you feel like the west is responsible?No we can't live in the arctic circle it's err.... all water.Bullshit. Look at the map. Greenland, Siberia, northern Canada will all be prime estate land, with roughly current Central/Southern European climate. Very good for agriculture.
However, there's people already there, and at least in Nordic countries, are getting very fed up with the EU/UN population replacement programs currently underway.
It will not be able to carry several billion humans, no; but perhaps a couple of hundred million, in excellent comfort, even if the rest of the world becomes a hot dry desert. No risk of human extinction, or extinction of life in general, was my point.
Bullshit. Look at the map. Greenland, Siberia, northern Canada will all be prime estate land, with roughly current Central/Southern European climate. Very good for agriculture.
Ok so I take that nothing made in china or shipped from china has anything to do with Europe or the US? Yes our emissions have droped. UK electricity consumption has stabilized and dropped a bit due to the better efficiency of our products.
Unfortunately a lot of that land mass is permafrost, which won't remain frosty with a lot of global warming. How many people can farm and live on a bog?
China chose to ignore pollution in order to gain a commercial advantage. It's on them.
Ok so I take that nothing made in china or shipped from china has anything to do with Europe or the US? Yes our emissions have droped. UK electricity consumption has stabilized and dropped a bit due to the better efficiency of our products.Countries like Finland have invested a lot into scrubbing emissions from coal powered energy and heat plants.
I have this principle that if you have to construct complicated dependency chains to find the root who to blame, there is something wrong in the logic.
In your case, it seems like you believe Europe or the US has forced China to produce stuff and sell them to Europe. That's not how it happened. China chose to ignore pollution in order to gain a commercial advantage. It's on them. In fact, you probably don't even realize that China has restarted manufacturing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, i.e. freon) to use as a cheap refrigerant in their internal market, even though they claim they have forbidden their manufacture just as about every other country on this planet has.
If you consider a bit deeper, it is the Chinese who benefit from their pollution, not the Europeans. Europeans spent a lot of resources into making manufacture less polluting, and because it increases the cost of manufacture, Chinese government chose to avoid those measures and gain a competitive advantage. Sure, that pollution kills a lot of people in China, but it's not like their government actually cares much.
These are not complicated chains.
As to per capita calculations, I already explained that you cannot talk anyone else to reduce their quality of living. It does not work on humans, it does not work on primates, and it does not work on monkeys. Either you limit or reduce the number of humans, or you develop the technology to reduce the pollution. For CO2, the technology already exists and is used in the West; it's just that China et al. have considered their use too costly thus far (and the related death rates etc. acceptable), because they'd lose their manufacturing advantage.
Because it is always the less privileged who suffer the most, this same picture will repeat again if/when China decides to go the European route, and start dealing with the massive pollution problem.
Just think about the whole picture a bit before you spout the inane talking points media regurgitates for those who find critical thinking too hard.
There is only a commercial advantage when there is a market to sell into.
If we wouldn't accept the cheap goods then they would only make the more expensive ones, so the buyer is at least partly to blame.
This is the argument used against kiddy porn consumers and you wouldn't want to get involved in disputing that, I reckon.
Simple solution then. Slap huge tariffs on china!
So take everything china makes for the rest of the world and add the carbon that would have been produced if it were made locally.
I was not even talking about their methods. Just the fact that they make stuff for us which means that our emissions are not as low as they seem.
That is all i was saying but you had to insinuate and distort!
Fact we consume a lot and not all of that consumption shows up in our local consumption.
There is only a commercial advantage when there is a market to sell into.
If we wouldn't accept the cheap goods then they would only make the more expensive ones, so the buyer is at least partly to blame.In the figure Simon showed, not "partly"; completely. Those statistics are calculated as if the buyer caused all the pollution needed to manufacture the product.
We could discuss what factor between 0% and 100% we could use (I really don't have an opinion, except that it probably is somewhere in the middle and not at either end), but it would become politics really fast, as "free trade" is strictly regulated, and it is near impossible for any single country (except a large one like USA or Russia, or a union like EU) to impose tariffs for products simply because of pollution in manufacture.