Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Oregon State social science professors, we need harsh carbon taxes to force a global convergence of per-capita carbon emissions. Most of the sacrifices will have to be made by rich nations.
Socially just population policies can mitigate climate change and advance global equity
by Oregon State University
APRIL 28, 2021Socially just policies aimed at limiting the Earth’s human population hold tremendous potential for advancing equity while simultaneously helping to mitigate the effects of climate change, Oregon State University researchers say.
…
“There are strong links between high rates of population growth and ecosystem impacts in developing countries connected to water and food security,” he said. “Given the challenges of food and water security, effective population policies can support achieving both social justice and climate adaptation, particularly when you consider the current and projected uneven geographical distribution of the impacts of climate change. Policies that address health and education can greatly reduce fertility rates.”
…
“Three examples of countries in which improved education for girls and young women may have contributed to significant fertility rate declines are Ethiopia, Indonesia and Kenya,” Ripple says. “Among those nations, specific education reforms included instituting classes in local languages, increasing budgets for education and removing fees for attending school. Ethiopia also implemented a school lunch program, large-scale school construction took place in Indonesia, and primary school was lengthened by one year in Kenya.”
…
“From both climate and social justice perspectives, affluent overconsumption by the wealthy must be addressed immediately, for example through policies like eco-taxes such as carbon pricing,” Ripple added. “Reducing fertility rates alone is clearly not enough. The middle class and rich must be responsible for most of the needed reduction in emissions.”
Taking steps to stabilize and then gradually reduce total human numbers within a socially just framework enhances human rights and reduces the further ordeals of migration, displacement and conflict expected in this century, Wolf and Ripple say. One potential framework is contraction and convergence, which calls for simultaneously reducing net emissions (contraction) while equalizing per capita emissions (convergence). This is equitable in the sense that it entails equalizing per capita emissions globally, a stark contrast to current patterns.
…
Read more: https://phys.org/news/2021-04-socially-population-policies-mitigate-climate.html
What a miserable vision for the future. Even the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin never attempted to create an economy this tightly controlled. And of course, just as in Soviet times, the elite would need special dispensation for extra emissions, so they could fly around, attend their conferences, and perform their good works.
Frankly I’d rather keep my freedom, and take my chances with a few climate driven superstorms, in the the unlikely event any noticeable deterioration of the world’s weather actually happens, than endure the authoritarian nightmare Oregon State University apparently wants to inflict on the world.
Update (EW): Changed “the rich” to “rich nations” in the first paragraph, for better clarity.
You can be sure these professors have a per capita income far in excess of 98% of the world’s population. This income relies on many other people who are in turn polluting the planet.
So if the professors were to take no salary, many other people would be able to get by with less and thereby cut pollution in Oregon.
People in rich nations work hard for their way of life and their advancement has not been handed to them yet they are expected to sacrifice for others who do not sacrifice.
A lot of the liberal flag words were jammed into the article but most astounding was educating girls caused sterility.
This tax may well prove to be the biggest, legalized fraud scheme in history.
I would be happy to be taxed a modest amount to promote adapting to climate changes and weather conditions but not to a loony scheme to engineer an ideal climate for each of the five climate zones with 20 subzones (Köppen Classification).
Woke-ism is limitless stupidity, deceit and tyranny.
Every time one thinks it may have peaked, or plateaued, a new level of maniacal appears.
“And the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw”
“Taking steps to stabilize and then gradually reduce total human numbers”
They don’t love the planet, they hate people.
The per capita argument is always absurd. Ostensibly large countries such as Canada, the U.S., Russia, Australia will always have higher per capita outputs of emissions, simply because they are large, relatively sparsely populated and tend to be climatically challenged (in the real sense) by extremes of cold or heat. The outcome of normalizing emissions in those locations as compared to some countries at other ends of the extreme (high population densities and not surprisingly narrow temperature ranges) would result in death in those nations of numbers far exceeding worst case scenarios as IPCC puts forth. Go with solar and wind only in Russia and Canada and you’ll kill off a very measurable proportion of the population within a six month span. Low solar angle (and relatively abundant snowfall during those same months blocking the panels) and sub-8 hour daylengths in winter combined with below freezing temperatures is not a recipe for survival. So if the good professor is looking for a recipe to invoke widespread death in developed nations, well, he just may have found it. BTW, those migrants we’re so concerned about won’t fare any better when they arrive to take the place of the evil European descendants that have perished.
Idiocy.
Rich nations?
By 2027, we estimate that 1.2 Billion Chinese will be in the middle class, making up one quarter of the world total. China already makes up the largest middle class consumption market segment in the world and is a priority market for major multinational firms.
The Indian middle class constitutes 300–350 million of the population. There is significant income inequality within India, as it is simultaneously home to the some of the world’s richest people.
And from the Guardian 13/12/2018:
China called on rich countries to “pay their debts” on climate change at global talks on Thursday, criticising developed countries for not doing enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide finance to help poor countries do the same.
Per capita metrics are idiotic because it is the CAPITA that is the issue. Why should countries like Canada (which as a country is actually carbon neutral due to its large green areas) have to pay for the policies of countries like China and India?
According to the Census Bureau, the population of the United States increased by 7.4% between 2010 and 2020, which is the slowest rate of increase over a decade since between 1930 and 1940 (Great Depression). Most of the observed increase is due to immigration, since the fertility rate (1.71 births per woman) is also at a record low, below “replacement level”.
We don’t need the genius central-planners at Oregon State to “control” population growth–the United States seems to be doing it naturally without their help.
The United States also reduced its total CO2 emissions between 2010 and 2020 (despite the population increase), while China’s emissions more than doubled over the same period.
Back in the 1970’s, the Club of Rome was predicting that over-population would lead to mass starvation by 2000. Did their spiritual heirs at Oregon State ever stop to think that increasing CO2 concentrations lead to better harvests, which enable the Earth to better feed a growing population?
“Did their spiritual heirs at Oregon State ever stop to think”
I find that unlikely.
Okay, back date the bills for all the concrete with carbon emissions used in the Bonneville Power System and all the cheap power they got from this as reparations to the rest of us.
Start with a false premise and you can justify anything.
Unfortunately that’s how the Left has convinced our youth to accept a wide range of “solutions” to social issues (in addition to the “Climate Emergency”).
Youngsters today have lost the ability to “keep their eye on the pea”.
Most (if not all) GCMs assume constant relative humidity to determine WV. This is wrong but even if it was done correctly using the increase in saturation vapor pressure with temperature of the liquid water, the actual measured WV is about 43% more. This fact demonstrates that the GCMs are faulty and basing anything on them is profoundly wrong; perhaps evil. Comparison of assumed with measured WV is shown in this graph.
You guys first:
Propose that all tuition to government supported universities, colleges, and prep schools be waived and turition and fees received from students over the last 20 years be returned. State supported colleges, schools, and universities be taxed at 2x the highest individual rate, and professors, staff be paid $15 an hour. School sports programs to be separated from the academic institution and taxed as is any entertainment industry. Media studies, communications, and journalism schools be sold to the highest bidder (just to save time). Music and arts programs to be detatched from the schools and funded by private donations, only, at normal business rates. All college and university intellectual property be released patent copyright and trademark free and published at the school’s expense. All student loan interest and fee profit to be taxed at 100%. with interest applied at 6% per year.
Completion of extant government contracts and grant studies to be completed, gratis and all fees returned with interest.
Student and work visas for all university foreign and non citizen attendees, employees, staff, and professors at any schools not in compliance to be suspended retroactively.
All teaching positions must be able to pass a timed, comprehensive AP U.S. civics and government exam, in English, as might be typically found in 1980 in a standard suburban high school with a minimun score of 80%.
First question an honest journalist would ask: Professor, when will you reduce your own carbon foorprint to match the world mean?
Humm, no solar panels and lots of grass to mow.
Oregon State researchers are making a compelling argument for John Kerry to get rid of his private yachts and jet aircraft. But I seriously doubt mandated carbon pricing will be restricted to just “the wealthy”. That was the same story told in 1913 when democrats campaigning for income taxes said they would only apply to “the wealthy” too. So much for that fantasy. These people just want more tax revenue because they realize they can’t borrow against the future anymore. Think of it this way, the US government owes 28.2 trillion but only has tax revenue of 3.4 trillion. That’s bad. The good news is there is 161 trillion in assets, so plenty left for new taxes to take. Usually, new taxes are a very difficult thing to do. But not when you are scaring everyone into allowing their assets to be taken by claiming to be saving the planet.
The per capita method of C)2 accounting makes Australia a bigger emitter than China
Absolute tosh
If CO2 causes global warming then it is the PPM in the atmosphere, not how much each individual releases that counts?
And what about historical emissions?
These people are cuckoo. Thinking/believing they can control GDP with social justice edicts is nuts.
This teachable Moment:
“Frankly I’d rather keep my freedom…”
The only thing you’ll be keeping is your EV providing you’re not middle class or rich as no reversion will be tolerated-
1 in 5 electric vehicle owners in California switched back to gas because charging their cars is a hassle, new research shows (msn.com)
“Update (EW): Changed “the rich” to “rich nations” in the first paragraph, for better clarity.”
Not sure I believe this given that rich people are behind the green movement and want to stick the middle class with the bulk of the bill to ‘fix’ the climate.