Anu Ramaswami. Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University. Fair use, low resolution image to identify the subject.

Claim: The Climate Crisis is Not About Overpopulation, the Problem is Affluence

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A debate is raging amongst climate economists, about whether we need a drastic reduction in global population, or whether simply making everyone poor will suffice to save the planet.

It’s wrong to blame ‘overpopulation’ for climate change

By  Sarah Kaplan
May 25, 2021 at 8:00 p.m. GMT+10

“Why is the impact of population growth infrequently mentioned? A couple producing more than two children will impact carbon emissions to a greater degree than any other activity. That impact cannot be offset by any practicable lifestyle change; switching to vegetarianism doesn’t come close to balance the scales.”

— James, Lebanon, Pa.

The answer is: Not necessarily. Climate change isn’t caused by population growth. It’s caused by greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels.

“But,” you might respond, “doesn’t having more people on the planet lead to more fossil fuel consumption, which leads to more emissions?”

Again, not necessarily, says Princeton University environmental engineer Anu Ramaswami, an expert on sustainable cities and contributor to the United Nations’ Global Resources Outlook reports.

To measure humanity’s collective mark on the planet, environmental scientists like Ramaswami use the “IPAT” equation: Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology. In this formula, affluence is defined as the gross domestic product per capita, and technology is a measure of the amount of resources required to produce a unit of GDP.

These data suggest that stabilizing the climate depends on addressing the affluence and technology aspects of the IPAT equation, Ramaswami said. “Fixating on population decrease doesn’t make much of a difference.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2021/05/25/slowing-population-growth-environment/

Anu Ramaswami mentions decoupling, that magical spreadsheet adjustment by which somehow everyone gets rich without digging stuff up or emitting more CO2. But to date real world decoupling mostly appears to be something which happens in China, when the CCP wants to conceal an economic slowdown.

4.3 12 votes
Article Rating
162 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 25, 2021 10:05 am

How ill is that ? comment image

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 25, 2021 1:17 pm

Well, it’s just a circular argument with no merit:

To measure humanity’s collective mark on the planet, environmental scientists like Ramaswami use the “IPAT” equation: Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology. In this formula, affluence is defined as the gross domestic product per capita, and technology is a measure of the amount of resources required to produce a unit of GDP.

These data suggest that stabilizing the climate depends on addressing the affluence and technology aspects of the IPAT equation, Ramaswami said. “Fixating on population decrease doesn’t make much of a difference.”

They come up with a completely fabricated ‘IPAT’ equation, use it, and then claim that the results of using this equation prove that the equation is valid.

Quite frankly, I’m amazed that even moderately intelligent and moderately educated people can actually fall for this.

Last edited 2 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Chris Hanley
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
May 25, 2021 2:39 pm

And the climate now is as stable as it ever was or ever will be.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
May 25, 2021 10:21 pm

It’s a liberal art decorated with mathematics, Krishna. As is consensus climatology and all of climate modeling.

Subjectivist narratives have absconded the liberal arts and are making inroads into science. Soon, all will be politics.

Subjectivist narratives assume what should be proved (IPAT), grant assumptions the weight of evidence (These data suggest that…), and every study is confirmatory.

Tom Halla
May 25, 2021 10:09 am

Their attitude is that peons should freeze (or swelter) in the dark.

William Capron
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 25, 2021 11:01 am

… and equality comes from us all being peons!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  William Capron
May 25, 2021 9:08 pm

Equality isn’t the goal, it’s now Equity. Which means everyone has the same outcome, regardless of level of effort. So why would you expend any effort?

starzmom
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 25, 2021 12:13 pm

Plus you won’t get much food either, unless you and your horse drawn plow can grow it.

H.R.
Reply to  starzmom
May 25, 2021 12:16 pm

… if you’re not forced to eat your horse to prevent starvation.

Tom Halla
Reply to  H.R.
May 25, 2021 12:21 pm

Or you can get extra food for carrying your betters sedan chairs.

starzmom
Reply to  H.R.
May 25, 2021 4:19 pm

She would not like that very much.

John Endicott
Reply to  starzmom
May 26, 2021 2:04 am

What make you think you’ll be allowed enough to afford a horse or a plow?

starzmom
Reply to  John Endicott
May 26, 2021 11:10 am

Well, I already have the horse, elderly as she is. Maybe I can find an old plow somewhere? But then I have to teach her to drive. Maybe I should just forget the whole thing, and we can eat oatmeal together.

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  starzmom
May 26, 2021 3:11 pm

Feedbag doubles as face mask.

May 25, 2021 10:12 am

I’m curious about Chinas or Indias average affluence. Let’s also take a look on Africa and their planned Chinese coal plants.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 25, 2021 1:37 pm

Article says affluence is ~GDP per capita. 2019 data rounded:
India $3000
China $10000
US. $65000
see longer comment below on this professor.

ggm
May 25, 2021 10:13 am

What these people really want, is not to make everyone poor – but to make everyone other than them poor.

Mr.
Reply to  ggm
May 25, 2021 12:04 pm

Exactly.
What’s needed to inform these debates is a central register of those who are pontificating about curtailing human living activities, and their personal assets & income levels.

Plus an algorithm that then presents their standing on an “hypocrisy scale”

Drake
Reply to  Mr.
May 25, 2021 5:36 pm

So how d we go about doing that?

Mr.
Reply to  Drake
May 25, 2021 6:43 pm

We make it up.
Just like the climate alarmists & carpetbaggers do.

Richard Page
Reply to  ggm
May 25, 2021 12:46 pm

This looks to be a reversal of the aspirational society idea. ‘Rather than actually working to improve our society, why not just make everyone else worse off’ – what a crock. It smells like an extreme left wing ideological dumbing down or levelling down.

TonyG
Reply to  Richard Page
May 26, 2021 8:18 am

It’s completely in line with the philosophy of creating equality by spreading the misery.

DMA
May 25, 2021 10:15 am

“The answer is: Not necessarily. Climate change isn’t caused by population growth. It’s caused by greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels.”
This is the big lie that has empowered this CAGW movement that is wrecking western economies. Every regulation and legislative effort to control our emissions sits on this lie. Until it is widely refuted and accepted as a lie we are doomed to the Lysenkoesk policies that diminish our well being, have only negative effects and have no effect on the climate.

Doonman
Reply to  DMA
May 25, 2021 11:06 am

I am positive that physically, the earth cannot tell the difference between CO2 that comes from burning fossil fuels and CO2 that comes out of the oceans and volcanoes.

If someone can point me to the studies that negate this, I would be thankful to be proven wrong. I’ve already searched but found nothing. So I think Anu Ramaswami, the “expert” is all wet in her assessments.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Doonman
May 25, 2021 11:32 am

CO2 is the MagicMolecule™. It also alters weather without changing the temperatures.

starzmom
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 25, 2021 12:23 pm

My very smart (really, no sarc) engineer son also insists it can cause “perturbations” of the earth’s orbit. He hasn’t yet explained how that happens.

Art
Reply to  starzmom
May 25, 2021 1:55 pm

EVERYTHING bad (real or imagined) is caused by our CO2 emissions. No explanation required.

Oh, and white hetero men too.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Art
May 25, 2021 2:21 pm

Oh, and white hetero men too.

I’m a white, heterosexual, cisgender, affluent male. I’m also a boomer, own my own home and investment property to pay for my self-funded retirement.

Basically absolutely everything is therefore my fault. I’m comfortable with that.

Drake
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
May 25, 2021 5:59 pm

Mostly Ditto. I do have several pensions from 2 different employments.

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  Art
May 26, 2021 3:19 pm

Everything bad caused by CO2…
You are catching on. This is the boogeyman ploy. Like in M. Night Shamalan movie “The Village.” The elders developed a fear that served to sustain the society they wanted. Was there really a boogeyman?

Watch the movie and see. But these are the types of things we tell our young kids. Eat your vegetables or the boogeyman will get you.

Some parents scare their children with the threat that the policeman will get them. “Eat your vegetables or the police will get you.”

CO2 is the Boogeyman. All harms are from him. Do what we say and we will keep you safe.

This is similar to a superstition. Why do you [insert superstition]? So that [insert rarely occurring feared event]. But [feared event] is a super rare! See, my superstition is working.

Right now, the Cause of All of Our Problems is Racist White Male Christians with Jobs and Businesses.

Drake
Reply to  starzmom
May 25, 2021 6:12 pm

I would say possibly a lot of schooling, but if he thinks CO2 can cause “perturbations” he is not smart. Sorry, no insult meant. You are obviously smart. You are here at WUWT, and your comments reflect your intelligence.

I am so sorry your tree was on a hill and the apple rolled far away. Possibly something will happen to roll it back. Wife, children, responsibility, etc.

One never really knows what will cause the awakening, or if it will ever happen. My stepson, it happened at about 45, my daughter at about 23, my step daughter at 17. They are all doing really well now. We are very happy about all that and I wish to leave them a good chunk for them and the grandkids when we pass. We kick some $ over regularly for vacations, bikes, music lessons or instruments, etc. although they really don’t need it.

Pat Frank
Reply to  starzmom
May 25, 2021 10:26 pm

Supposedly by melting polar ice and shifting the terrestrial center of gravity. It’s all crockness upon crockness.

Direct your smart son to, “Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
It demonstrates beyond rational doubt that no one knows what they’re talking about. Including (especially) the IPCC.

starzmom
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 26, 2021 11:13 am

Sadly, my son does not direct well. Maybe as he ages into his profession (mining engineering) he will improve, But he is of the youtube and social media generation, and they miss lots of wake-up calls.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 25, 2021 1:38 pm

GAS, MAGIC GAS!
Plants: I want it! I need it!
Alarmist: You can’t have it!

(My apologies to all Who fans, but it’s just a teenage wasteland!)

beng135
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 26, 2021 11:39 am

CO2 is the MagicMolecule™

And beans are the MagicalFruit™.

Richard Page
Reply to  Doonman
May 25, 2021 12:57 pm

The earth can’t but it’s possible all of us animals might (emphasis on the might). All animals need trace amounts of C13 and discriminate against C12 – plants do the opposite with transpiration. All animals get C13 from plants that store small quantities during transpiration. However because fossil fuel combustion releases mostly C12 and next to no C13, this could have an impact on animal health in the long term.
Having said all that, I haven’t seen any studies making that link so it may be a complete non issue. I found it interesting when I came across the information, however, so I thought I’d share!

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Page
Jim G.
Reply to  Richard Page
May 25, 2021 3:55 pm

Please explain how all animals “need C13”. It is indistinguishable from C12 on a chemical level. 6 protons, 6 electrons. Neutrons are just that. Neutral.

The belief is that the production of C13 is steady state throughout time.
(I’m not defending this.)
Once the animal/organism stops taking in additional carbon, while the animal is alive, it should emit/ingest the same amount. After death, it decays and gives us an idea how long ago it died.

Richard Page
Reply to  Jim G.
May 26, 2021 4:56 am

C13 and C12 are not indistinguishable from one another – both plants and animals can distinguish between the 2 isotopes. Plants discriminate against C13, absorbing mostly C12 through transpiration and animals discriminate against C12, absorbing trace amounts of C13 through ingestion. These are known biological facts and you can check online to see that – frankly you should have already done so before commenting. I know there are several processes in the human body that require C13 to work effectively but I’d have to look them up to give a complete list and I can’t be bothered if you can’t.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Richard Page
May 26, 2021 9:02 am

If you do a simple Google search for “C13 essential to the human body”, you get no results. Try again.

Meab
Reply to  Doonman
May 25, 2021 1:18 pm

Don’t get me wrong as I’m the first to say that the climate “crisis” is a scam but it is possible to tell the difference between CO2 that comes from fossil fuel and the CO2 that is continually cycling between vegetation, the ocean, and the atmosphere. Carbon in the atmosphere has a small amount of C-14, a radioactive isotope, that comes from cosmic rays bombarding Nitrogen – about one atom of C-14 for every 10^12 atoms of normal C-12 and C-13. Since C-14 decays with a half-life of 5700 years, it’s completly gone in ~40,000 years. Coal and oil are older than that, so they have almost no C-14. C-14 in the atmosphere that decays is replenished with new C-14 that is created extremely slowly (many thousands of years) but the CO2 created by burning fossil fuels doesn’t have C-14. That’s why the atmosphere has seen a rapidly decreasing C-14 concentration ever since atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons (which also produce C-14) stopped in the early 1960s – the natural CO2 which is high in C-14 is being diluted by fossil fuel CO2 which has almost no C-14.

Last edited 2 months ago by Meab
Richard Page
Reply to  Meab
May 25, 2021 1:34 pm

When C14 decays it turns into N14, so there is little or no connection with C13 or C12. And since there is only an extremely small amount of C14 in the atmosphere (created at the top of the atmosphere by bombarding N with cosmic rays) it’s difficult to tell whether the amount is declining or fluctuating with the solar wind strength.
Climate enthusiasts have been looking for a ‘fingerprint’ in fossil fuel combustion for decades and we still can’t find a big difference between that and plant emitted CO2.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  Richard Page
May 25, 2021 11:44 pm

It’s easy to find a fingerprint of coal combustion in the environment. It’s called radioactive fly ash, which conveniently gets turned into concrete.

The more you look for concrete structure in the world the more you see human Co2 emissions.
The problem being, we produced such collossal quantities of concrete since the 1930s (inc Germany’s ancient autobahns), you wouldn’t know how to add it all up.

Indeed, the fixation with concrete as a “magic material” over the last 100 years shows us up as being do what I say, but don’t do what I do.

Being as buildable land is only a very small proportion of th earth’s surface, it does beg the question does our fascination with cities & buildings, rival nature’s own ability to kick out gases from oceans, volcanoes and termites, now “the little ice age” is over.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Meab
May 25, 2021 1:51 pm

“Carbon in the atmosphere has a small amount of C-14, a radioactive isotope, that comes from cosmic rays bombarding Nitrogen – about one atom of C-14 for every 10^12 atoms of normal C-12 and C-13. Since C-14 decays with a half-life of 5700 years, it’s completly gone in ~40,000 years. ”

Humans have stopped cosmic rays ?

😉

mike macray
Reply to  Doonman
May 26, 2021 4:17 am

Should be easy to distinguish. Carbon 14 cycle 1/2 life is 5700 years, measurable to about 10 cycles so “all gone” in about 50k years. Carbon from fossil fuel is much older so no C14. Bad CO2 from fossil fuels should be easily identified in any atmospheric sample… does anyone know of such data?
BTW C14 is actually generated by cosmic radiation on Nitrogen in the atmosphere, a sort of nuclear transgendrification if you will. Seems to be a relatively constant process apart from a blip in the 50’s and 60’s when atmospheric nuclear testing was all the rage.
Cheers
Mike

max
Reply to  DMA
May 25, 2021 1:47 pm

“The answer is: Not necessarily. Climate change isn’t caused by population growth. It’s caused by greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels.”

To which the response should always be – “prove it.”

Libertyisbest
Reply to  max
May 25, 2021 3:27 pm

CO2 isn’t even a greenhouse gas. These alarmists that want us to stop eating meat, or animal flesh in general, don’t seem to realize it’s more carbs, which means more human produced CO2.

Libertyisbest
Reply to  DMA
May 25, 2021 3:23 pm

humans are the biggest producers of CO2, which isn’t even a true greenhouse gas. Sad thing is the number of people in my profession that buy into the AGW BS.

Mike
Reply to  DMA
May 27, 2021 2:39 am

You are correct. That is the Climate Cricis.

Whilst I am at it. Can we stop using the word ‘acidification’ for something that is alkaline and likely to remain so. It sounds so unscientific. Also, Greta is not a Climate Pioneer, she is an abused child. Can we identify and deal with the abusers? That would be an improvement from glorifying child abuse as the BBC does.

Terry
May 25, 2021 10:17 am

Population decrease doesn’t make much of a difference. There goes any thread of common sense whatsoever. Would CO2 emissions be going up if the world pop was 10,000? Guess not.

Newminster
Reply to  Terry
May 25, 2021 11:09 am

Do you seriously fancy living in a world with only 10,000 people? My guess is you would be dead within a month.
And why does anyone care about CO2 emissions? Below 2500 ppm CO2 is wholly beneficial.

KevinM
Reply to  Newminster
May 25, 2021 1:04 pm

Interesting question. What is the minimum population required to support today’s technology and economic growth,

4 Eyes
Reply to  KevinM
May 25, 2021 3:41 pm

FFS Kevin, don’t give them any ideas

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  KevinM
May 25, 2021 9:16 pm

I would say it takes exactly as many as there are in existence and any given moment.

ResourceGuy
May 25, 2021 10:23 am

Tiptoeing through the UN member sensibilities minefield much?

Clyde Spencer
May 25, 2021 10:30 am

It should be obvious that subsistence farming is the solution to the problem. Use of only human and animal power will dramatically reduce CO2 emissions, and the world population will quickly decline when most people starve to death, and life-saving technologies (such as rapid development and deployment of vaccines) are not available to protect the survivors. Why all the fuss when the answer is so simple?

It is interesting that the picture of Ms. Ramaswami strongly suggests that she is part the problem. She might have to give up her pearl earrings and coiffured hair.

Jeffery P
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 25, 2021 11:51 am

Imagine the genetic benefits to the human race as only the hardiest will survive!

pigs_in_space
Reply to  Jeffery P
May 25, 2021 11:47 pm

It’s been tried in Ukraine during the 1930s by forcing collective farming and executing those that objected.

starzmom
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 25, 2021 12:16 pm

Also her lipstick. I would expect that lipstick and other manufactured cosmetics are pretty high on the carbon scale.

Drake
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 25, 2021 6:22 pm

And the end result will solve our election problems, big city liberals would be gone, rural conservatives would still be here.

As to the vaccine issue, people would live so far apart, difficult transmission would not allow a “pandemic”.

Pat from kerbob
May 25, 2021 10:32 am

Here in canada I have made the point that our idiotic liberal government is pursuing incompatible policies but of course they aren’t smart enough to to grasp this.

We are supposed to go to net zero by *pick a year* (doesn’t matter which as we will miss it).

But the liberals are also doubling immigration. Since most of these immigrants come from poorer but warmer countries, coming to canada means not only increasing our emissions but also world emissions.

A human living in canada has to burn a magnitude greater energy than a human in equatorial Africa, just to keep warm and stay alive.

For my troubles I’m called racist, of course.

And math is racist so it all fits into a nice circular puddle of reasoning.

Progressives are hypocrites idiots, but I repeat myself.

Tomsa
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
May 25, 2021 1:31 pm

Yes we can complain Pat but I’m not that unhappy at the extra taxes (carbon?) on truck gas and natural gas. I got $560 carbon credit on my 2020 taxes, more than I spent on those extra taxes. Let’s tax stuff and then give consumers their money back, just more stupid federal bureaucracy. Reminds me of when Ontario went to HST. They terminated a bunch of federal employees processing GST, gave them severance and pensions, then the ON government hired them back.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Tomsa
May 25, 2021 2:18 pm

A perpetual motion machine that only serves to employ useless mouths that collect and disburse the money, unneeded if they just left the $$ in our pockets.

Utterly useless, which makes it perfect Liberal policy.

Stephen Skinner
May 25, 2021 10:34 am

The most dangerous thing to face humanity are those who have no faith in humanity. They will wreck any attempt to continue being an extraordinary success: The modern Malthusians are like the person shouting up at an airplane “it will never fly!”

“On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?” – Thomas Babington Macaulay

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
May 25, 2021 1:19 pm

Quote in full: “In every age everybody knows that up to his own time, progressive improvement has been taking place; nobody seems to reckon on any improvement in the next generation. We cannot absolutely prove that those are in error who say society has reached a turning point – that we have seen our best days. But so said all who came before us and with just as much apparent reason. … On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?”

Last edited 2 months ago by Stephen Skinner
Ty hallsted
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
May 25, 2021 5:50 pm

An 1857 letter from Thomas B Macaulay to Henry Randall on the fate of America.

Jim G.
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
May 25, 2021 4:02 pm

Fortunately for Macaulay, he did not get to see the misery dealt by communism.
If he had, I think he might lament that such ideas.

To yoke all with equality, no one will be able to rise above and bring others with them.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jim G.
May 25, 2021 9:23 pm

Equality isn’t the problem. That merely means everyone is treated the same, has the same opportunities, etc. Equity describes what you’re talking about, not equality.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
May 26, 2021 12:49 am

Agreed, but is it also the fixation on words that are then given fixed properties by the reader? Revolutionaries, bureaucrats and control freaks appear to be very literal and lack any ability to deal with nuance and the real world.
I only recently came across Frederick Hayek and these two quotes in particular:
“I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the juridical safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice”
“A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers.”

Jim G.
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
May 26, 2021 7:33 am

Jeff:
I was talking about equality of outcome. Quite valid.
People are attempting to redefine words which is a classic Saul Alinsky tactic used to keep your opponent off balance.

The claim of Communism is that all will be made equal.
Unfortunately it lifts some people up at the expense of bringing most others down to a common misery. But the “natural superiors” (Marx) are lifted to their rightful place.

Equity means that you have a right to a claim.

Ed Zuiderwijk
May 25, 2021 10:41 am

What James from Pa actually says is that everyone of us should be ashamed of existing. A pity we can’t speak to him in person, then I at least would forcefully express what I think of that.

AGW is Not Science
May 25, 2021 10:53 am

To every idiot spewing this anti-human twaddle, be it “emissions” bullshit, the supposed need for “depopulation,” or the supposed need for “wealth deprivation,” and any and all variations on these themes:

You first – as follows:

  • Live as a nomad, get everywhere you want to go on foot.
  • Eat only what you hunt, butcher and cook yourself or grow yourself using manual labor (and no tools made of metal).
  • Wear only the skins of your previously hunted dinners.
  • Burn only the wood you can scavenge to keep yourself from freezing to death.
  • Use only caves or “lean-to” shelters constructed of natural branches, twigs and brush for shelter.
  • Use no telecommunications.
  • Source drinking water from whatever water you find – streams, lakes, mud puddles.

Until you’re prepared for the above “lifestyle,” shut the #@%& up.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
May 26, 2021 2:50 am

You dont get it. Griff will be along to tell you that its only other people who have to do that.

n.n
May 25, 2021 10:53 am

There is sill no conclusive evidence of a climate crisis. The problem seems to be sociopolitical effluence that can be mitigated through [political] climate change. Baby Lives Matter

Last edited 2 months ago by n.n
Doug Huffman
Reply to  n.n
May 25, 2021 1:56 pm

Reality is fractally complex. Beware the crisis Black Swan hiding camouflaged in the complexity. Look closely enough and one may find it.

Bruce Cobb
May 25, 2021 10:54 am

Climate “logic”. Ya gotta love it.

Meisha
May 25, 2021 10:56 am

But, of course, none of these idiot CAGW people dare mention that nuclear power, especially given the new designs available, is the OBVIOUS solution to the “problem” (which problem I happen to think does not exist). Nuclear power would drive affluence, which will reduce population.

Oh, but wait, so many people will then have nothing to worry about and have no way to fulfill their REAL desire, which is to “save” humanity from itself. They’ve gone beyond, “Repent…,” after all. I think they’d look so much better in sack cloth and ashes myself.

Doug Huffman
Reply to  Meisha
May 25, 2021 1:59 pm

New designs available, patented, not licensed. Condensing vaporware.

Doonman
May 25, 2021 10:58 am

Real wealth comes out of the ground. If you can’t or won’t dig it up, then you have nothing but air in your hands.

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  Doonman
May 26, 2021 3:39 pm

Land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship.

Olen
May 25, 2021 11:01 am

Expert and collective are two words pointing to incompetence.

The goal of humanity has always been to make life easier, healthier and comfortable and safe. Now some who are living with all the benefits of Western Civilization would undo it all possibly except for themselves. And for what, something they know little about.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Olen
May 25, 2021 1:11 pm

Right- this is the central theme of Alex Epstein on his YouTube channel and his books.

Libertyisbest
Reply to  Olen
May 25, 2021 3:31 pm

Those who seek to undo the benefits of Western Civilization have no intention of living like us

Scissor
May 25, 2021 11:02 am

Professor Ramaswami appears to suffer from an affluent diet. In any case, she can send me her pearl ear rings.

Michael in Dublin
May 25, 2021 11:08 am

Anu Ramaswmi, Professor of Environmental Engineering??????????
Perhaps she is concerned about controlling the exploding population of unicorns?

starzmom
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
May 25, 2021 12:27 pm

I once was involved in a research project with such an environmental engineer. Her idea of doing a sound study was plugging model results into other models, two or three in a row, and coming up with meaningful predictions. Not impressed.

Timo, not that one
May 25, 2021 11:12 am

They should lead by example.

Reply to  Timo, not that one
May 25, 2021 11:22 am

Bingo … especially with their own carbon footprints — but not mine … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLHqMsjWqEU&t

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Timo, not that one
May 25, 2021 1:13 pm

Like St. Francis….

TEWS_Pilot
May 25, 2021 11:13 am

H/T commenter “Kat” on another blog

Afternoon, friends! As you may remember, David Valadao (R-CA),who represents the very agricultural California-21 congressional district (includes Fresno and Bakersfield), was one of the 10 GOP reps (including Liz Cheney) who voted to impeach Trump. Valadao is running for re-election, but this time he may get primaried out by a great, pro-Trump, conservative GOP candidate, Chris Mathys. Just yesterday, it was reported that in order to get the high sierra spring snow melt water to the farmers instead of the notorious Delta Smelt, Mathys came up with a brilliant idea and petitioned the state and federal fish and wildlife officials to declare the Delta Smelt extinct! This is a great end run around the environmentalists and takes them completely out of the equation. In 2018, only 3 smelt were found, and in 2020 no smelt were found at all. 
https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/petition-to-request-delta-smelt-be-declared-extinct-will-be-filed-with-fish-and-game/

Anyway, I just got off the phone with Mathys to tell him his smelt idea was great.. He told me Liz Cheney had just made a $5,000 donation to Valadao’s campaign. Mathys also told me that he got turned down when he asked for support from a big, self-proclaimed conservative businessman in Fresno with a long history of making large political donations. The businessman is supporting Valadao! Please consider giving a donation to Mathys’ campaign. He needs a huge, grassroots effort in order to beat the wealthy liberal and RINO support for Valadao.

Dave Yaussy
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
May 25, 2021 11:57 am

Some of us, many I hope, embrace Trump’s position on climate change but not the man himself. Same goes for Trump clones that he endorses. The Republican party is going to have long term problems if it can’t divorce itself from a cult of personality.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
May 25, 2021 1:17 pm

A much younger, more charming candidate with most of Trump’s policy ideas would be a winning formula- say, a guy in his 40s, handsome, polite, but a serious conservative who doesn’t flaunt it (as he charms people) – people will vote for him, especially against Biden and/or Harris or anyone else the Dems can come up with.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
May 25, 2021 1:52 pm

The real cult of personality is embracing criminally corrupt and sociopathic pols who tell you what you want to hear and give nothing in return! Trump may be a bombastic buffoon but he hit on workable policies for handling energy, China and our ballooning national debt!
Picking a politician based on how nice their tweets are is as nonsensical as sidelining a general for slapping a soldier! The latter cost thousands of casualties in the Ardennes; who knows how many tens of thousands will die from the insanity in DC right now!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Abolition Man
May 25, 2021 5:14 pm

Trump’s sin from the Left’s point of view is he tells the truth. The Left doesn’t like to hear the truth, especially since it makes them look bad.

There will be more Trump truth-telling in the future. The Left is not looking forward to it,

Doug Huffman
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
May 25, 2021 2:04 pm

For-Q

I recently noticed, “The GOP is throwing the GOP out of the party.”

The Oval Office is SEDEVACANT, as is the Holy See. Donald J. Trump is my president. Yes, I am DEPLORABLE. I am Anon.

Libertyisbest
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
May 25, 2021 3:35 pm

Trump will win in 2024, if he runs. It’s his policies that attracted record minority voters.
The Dems have no one to run against him, because they have nothing but failed policies. Trump has successful policies. The next set of Republicans must follow through on and improve his policies

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Libertyisbest
May 25, 2021 5:30 pm

“The next set of Republicans must follow through on and improve his policies”

That’s the key.

Fortunately, the Republicans have some good conservative talent in their ranks, and they see things from Trump’s point of view, which consists of just looking at things with common sense, for the most part, i.e. living in the Real World.

It won’t hurt to have Trump leading the parade, because he knows where he is going. He is showing the way for all conservatives to follow.

If you don’t like his demeanor, well, I don’t think that harms anything other than a few overly-sensitive people, and he gets the job done, and puts the Left through the hell they so richly deserve, and that’s good enough for me.

I would like to see the Republicans in the House of Representatives elect Trump as Speaker of the House in early 2023. That will enhance Trump’s ability to give the Left hell. I would just like to see the look on the faces of the Democrats if that were to happen. That would be delicious!

Then he can run for president in 2024 with probably DeSantis as his vice president. I don’t imagine Mike Pence is in the picture any longer. I do think that Trump made a mistake by criticizing Pence during the vote count. One of the few mistakes Trump has made. He should not have put the onus on Pence.

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 26, 2021 4:13 pm

Y’all are off track. You all do not realize what has been happening. Trump hijacked the Republican party.

The R Party does not like him. Why? He is an outsider. All, or nearly all teh rest, are playing the game. They are all in financial arrangements with each other, getting wealthy.

Either party. Once you look promising, people fro the party, either party, start informing you about how it works. To get elected, it is immensely easier to work with the party – the elected officials and the un-elected people that run things, paid and volunteer.

As you progress from school board member to local city council to local Rep to local Senate to Fed Rep or Fed Senator, you are expected to raise money, and give part to the party, endorse, help, etc.

If not, you are cut out.

That is all fine and good. If you want to be part of the party, and or use their label, then you have to pay to play. Fine.

But as you move along, you get brought in on money deals. At the same time, once you get far enough, they begin developing the blackmail dossier on you.

It does not have to be you. It can be your spouse or child or sibling. This is what China does. Any outspoken dissident has his family get hauled in on some charge. Doesn’t matter what.

To be outspoken in China means your family will greatly be hassled.

Same here.

How can they get the info? It has been officially revealed that the FBI uses private contractors on cases, and the FBI uses the NSA data base as well as other sources, and it has been officially acknowledged that MOST of the NSA searches, for a multi year period, were unauthorized. Also, that there were multiple searches of the same person across time – they were “following” people. This helps figure out where they are vulnerable.

This is why you will see this pattern: a politicans has a scandal emerge when they are a threat to the R and D cabal – the Uniparty.

Right when it was emerging that Cuomo WAS responsible for nursing home corona deaths, the harassment accusations emerged. Right when Gaetz was one of the few talking about a stolen election, we find out he likely had se x with a 17yo.

They save the knowledge until they need to use it.

With Trump, they did not have knowledge so they faked it. [Read the Final Conclusion of the Mueller Report which is VERY clear about this: no evidence.]

Sure, the R Party could get some candidates who are not obnoxious like Trump.

It won’t work. Their wings will be clipped. Once you stand up to China and cut off our secret fueling of Permanent War in the Middle East, you will be neutered in one way or another.

The reason Trump was successful – Mid-east Peace, self-sufficiency in energy reducing power of Middle East, isolation of Iran for lowered terrorism action, trade war with China to reduce North Korea threat, shift from “Service Economy,” favoring Mitt Romney and Job Exporters, to home-grown business with corresponding Huge Employment – Black, While, Brown, etc. – was that he was largely separate from R Party.

Remember they MADE him sign a statement, as he steamrolled the R Primaries, that he would support the eventual R nominee? Remember how R kept sending bills to Obama to end Obamacare, and then Trump got elected and said “send me the bill I will sign it,” and the bills immediately ceased? And “end Obamacare” died as a platform item?

Remember? No?

Trump was an independently wealthy person whose Dirty Laundry had already been the front page of New York Daily News.

Who else have we had like that? Dem Party: no one. No one that has gotten far.

R: H. Ross Perot. Hugely popular. Would have won. But he dropped out. Why? The Powers that Be, the Uniparty, were threatening his family.

Reagan: Was an outsider. A wild card. Was not supposed to win. But hugely popular. Not informed enough to realize that he was saddled with Ultimate Insider Bush. But still: ended the Cold War, did not negotiate with terrorists, etc.

In my opinion, not many individuals can win this way. Matthew McCaunahey – not informed enough about how the world works. Trump knew candidates and local civics – you have to in order to get buildings built. [Perot was a govt contractor.]

We can guess who else might follow this mold. But the typical local guy who is a decent fellow – if he wins, he will NOT be able to enact policies that Trump did. This hypothesized good guy would not get one bill passed unless approved by the Powers that Be.

Derg
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
May 26, 2021 1:10 am

That was funny

May 25, 2021 11:20 am

Please read here for the origins of climate alarmism
http://www.davdata.nl/math/piedpiper.html

Editor
May 25, 2021 11:23 am

In other words, it’s not the fault of all of the rapidly growing Third World, but the fault of the affluent West, even though they are cutting emissions!

John the Econ
May 25, 2021 11:29 am

Just another example of how “the climate crisis” is a gaslight operation to distract people from the fact that while freer markets have elevated billions out of abject poverty, Progressivism has been a dismal failure, and that the only solution is more Progressivism.

Of course, the reality is that only affluent societies care about their impact upon the environment. The environmental movement and policy did not evolve until the middle class moved far enough up the Maslow curve. Want to see real environmental degradation? Make people poor again. You’ll will get less people (due to poorer health and shorter lifespans) but you’ll also get an environment that most people will not find enjoyable.

Joel O'Bryan
May 25, 2021 11:30 am

The loss of affluence and sacrifices to the climate gods are always intended to be someone else’s loss and sacrifice, it is never the Marxist’s driving this crazy train. Just the money that is supposed to pay for it all is OPM. It’s all fun and games until you run out of OPM.

Tim Spence
May 25, 2021 11:35 am

The Malthusians are in overdrive

Harry Passfield
May 25, 2021 11:40 am

It just has to asked: How the hell do these people see a depopulation of the planet by something like 6 Billion without (cough) drastic measures.
When I called the net zero plan the NZC-fication of the planet I didn’t realise how close I had come to their dreams. The carbon they wanted to zero out was human carbon!
These people are so sick! All that’s needed to make sure there’s no need for overly large families is by making sure there’s cheap, available, reliable and dependable energy: FF energy – until someone comes up with a similar source of energy that is not FF (if that matters!).
But no, NZCs just want other people to die for their cause..

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Harry Passfield
May 25, 2021 11:41 am

…I just had to ask….

dk_
May 25, 2021 11:43 am

Eric,
Friedman answered this in the 70’s, and his followers and students have had to reiterate since then. This is zero-sum-game economics that ignores history and examples from real-life socio-economics at almost any scale in any culture, and plainly has no clue on what production actually means.
You are following on your piece on Keen, as well as on Kip’s piece. I sense a theme.
Cheers, in spite of the buzz-kills around us.

dk_
Reply to  Eric Worrall
May 25, 2021 3:35 pm

Yes. MSM, who are setting the theme exactly as they’ve been bought and paid for.
Keep up the good work.

Rud Istvan
May 25, 2021 11:47 am

I was curious about this Princeton professor in their Civil and Environmental Engineering Department. So looked her up. She is the chaired professor of India studies. Who knew India studies belonged in Civil and Environmental Engineering?
Well, it is Princeton, who also took in racist Cornell West for black studies after Harvard ‘detenured’ him (forced him out) for refusing to give any nonblack student anything more than a B.

India studies explains why she thinks affluence rather than people is the root climate ‘problem cause’. India isn’t affluent but does have a lot of people. So climate isn’t an India problem, you see. Which also explains why India is building so much new coal fired generating capacity. when you are not affluent, you get a pass.

Mr.
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 25, 2021 12:12 pm

Yes, India has a lot of affluence, but also a lot of effluence.
Especially in the Ganges.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 25, 2021 1:33 pm

Well, India does have a history of notable engineering projects:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_pillar_of_Delhi

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 25, 2021 2:50 pm

Ask the construcors of vimanas in historic times 😀

dk_
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 25, 2021 3:39 pm

…as well as a long and notable engineering, physics, and mathematics history. Good point, Clyde.
I do wonder who pays the endowment for the Princeton chair, and the grants and endowments for research in the department.

dk_
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 25, 2021 3:59 pm

Rud, what is an expert in sustainable cities? My spidey sense for oxy-(or perhaps edu-)morons is tingling.

starzmom
Reply to  dk_
May 25, 2021 4:33 pm

What is a “sustainable city”? I doubt there has ever, even in prehistory, been a sustainable city, if it is defined as a city that fully supports and provides for all its own needs within its own boundaries. Even in prehistory, food came from outside the city, and there was a significant division of labor. In fact, that ability to specialize and divide the work is likely what made cities workable.

dk_
Reply to  starzmom
May 25, 2021 5:23 pm

starzmom,
I thought so, too. Does this mean that someone can be expert in study of something undefined that does not apparently exist? Should that sort of study belong in a school of engineering or of a strange demonic theology?

starzmom
Reply to  dk_
May 26, 2021 11:28 am

Definitely a social study not a hard science. Maybe theology as well. after all, it was the prehistoric high priests who set up the system of cities and division of labor and roles. When all else failed they called for the sacrifice of virgins.

Last edited 2 months ago by starzmom
Jeffery P
May 25, 2021 11:55 am

The obvious problem is the dumbing-down of the education system almost everywhere as only a highly-educated person will believe this nonsense.

gbaikie
May 25, 2021 11:55 am

“A debate is raging amongst climate economists, about whether we need a drastic reduction in global population, or whether simply making everyone poor will suffice to save the planet.”

Everyone on Earth is poor. But having billions of people which are even poorer, is not saving planet. As everyone is not poorly educated know, poorer people have a higher birth rate. And poorer people tend not live very long. There many factors why poor people have more children, and just boredom and isolation could be factor, and if rich raising children is very expensive, time consuming, and they can be a pain in the ass- or it’s certainly a lot work being a parent. But if poor, it’s something to do, and it will give you the entire meaning of your life. Or richer people are more distracted, and due to being distracted they may regard parenting as full wrong steps and disappointment. Or with fewer children they can give more time to each child.
As I said, we poor, no one can travel to Venus, only a few have got to Earth orbit. And not everyone can live on the beach. Earth is energy poor environment, nearly all energy is from the small amount of energy from the Sun which is or has reached the Earth surface. Or Sun is a “free” huge fission reactor, with 99.99% of it’s energy, “wasted”. And nuclear energy works a lot better, off planet Earth, than on planet Earth.
Or once we are a spacefaring civilization, you will then realize how poor we have been, just as 1000 years ago, the richest kings, were poor people as compared to present standard. They could not fly around world, they lacked a computer, etc. etc. And might not have not even had indoor plumbing.

Posa
May 25, 2021 11:56 am

This is all a prelude to a New Dark Ages for a de-industrial, depopulated chattel population outlined originally by Predator Class Oligarchs at the Club of Rome.

griff
Reply to  Posa
May 25, 2021 12:00 pm

I’ve been hearing that for more than 10 years now… still hasn’t arrived.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
May 25, 2021 1:04 pm

Oh Griff, you poor thing. Did you get bored waiting for your personal rapture?
And again – did you go to the hospital to get checked out? I’m getting very worried about your mental health.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
May 25, 2021 1:35 pm

Perhaps because people like the majority of the commenters here are resisting the changes?

shrnfr
May 25, 2021 12:05 pm

Things always taste better when cooked on a stove fired by cattle dung.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
May 25, 2021 1:42 pm

Very nice link Griffy. Liked it a lot but I fail to see any connection between a wood fired (but efficient!) stove and the stove fired by cattle dung because of the scarcity of wood. Apart from that one teeny tiny little issue, I did like it. Again, I can only assume It’s your mental health issues that made you think the 2 were connected – do I have to keep reminding you at every turn to get yourself checked out? I really am extremely concerned now.

Abolition Man
Reply to  griff
May 25, 2021 1:56 pm

Hey, griffter!
Please post a picture of YOU using one; otherwise shut your yap!

Reply to  griff
May 25, 2021 2:52 pm

At least not a solar cooker 😀 or an windmill driven electric one 😀

Drake
Reply to  griff
May 25, 2021 6:53 pm

And that wood stove is so wonderful that the cook gets to breath in the horrible, deadly, US EPA regulated 2.5 micron particles. They are saving wood, (not really), but if the EPA is to be believed (it is not) you are shortening their lives.

Give them real electric stoves or gas stoves, not a better wood of dung stove without even a chimney.

May 25, 2021 12:14 pm

Increased atmospheric CO2 is not causing dangerous global warming. The climate computer models that predict dangerous global warming use climate sensitivities (CS) that are 3-5 times the upper bound of CS. The climate models are deliberately programmed to predict dangerous warming, and have no basis in reality.
Scam!
 
There have been ~40 failed very-scary global warming predictions by warming alarmists
since ~1970, At 50;50 (idiot odds) for each prediction, the probability of 40 consecutive wrong answers is 1 in 281 TRILLION! No individual or group could be this wrong, this obtuse, for this long – they know they are lying; they’ve been lying all along.
Scam x Scam = Scam^2
 
There is a high probability that the cause of increased atmospheric CO2 is primarily natural, not human-made; not primarily caused by fossil fuel combustion. CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales, from the ice core record to the modern data record. See Kuo (1990), Keeling (1995), MacRae (2008), Humlum (2013) and Dr Ed Berry’s latest paper and book (2020 and 2021).
Scam x Scam x Scam = Scam^3

Last edited 2 months ago by ALLAN MACRAE
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 25, 2021 4:18 pm

AOC ON JAN. 6 RIOT: I’M ‘DOING THERAPY’ BECAUSE OF TRUMP, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ‘SERVED IN WAR’
https://www.dailywire.com/news/aoc-on-jan-6-riot-im-doing-therapy-because-of-trump-members-of-congress-served-in-war?

Comic relief from AOC:
“…Ocasio-Cortez said that the insurrection was deeply traumatizing for many members of Congress, who effectively “served in war.”
 
Having gone through countless armed checkpoints, manned by soldiers, police, mercenaries and other freelancers, and managed two armed hostage crises with no bloodshed and NO authorities, I have a different viewpoint from these feeble-minded little snowflakes.

I’ve been calibrated – I am rarely stressed  – as long as nobody is pointing a gun at me, I am just fine!

To AOC and other poor little snowflakes – Grow TF up!

Abolition Man
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
May 25, 2021 5:59 pm

What if Pelousi and the DemoKKKrats gave an armed insurrection party and no one showed up? At least nobody with any arms!
They’d still want to have show trials to convict those that were cordially invited into the Capitol Building by the police! The more the DemoKKKrats follow their agenda, the more they look like the old time Soviets or Maoists they quote and admire!

kramer
May 25, 2021 12:26 pm

I’ve read several articles and reports in the past that it’s the middle class that are the ones using unfair amounts of natural resources so I believe this.

Much of this green and population movement is funded/backed by rich people and wealthy foundations. IMO, I see this as rich people trying to reduce resource use by the middle class so that the cost of them doesn’t skyrocket or they don’t become scare, because if these scenarios happened, then all of their vast wealth would be for naught.

Selfish.

Peta of Newark
May 25, 2021 12:26 pm

I’m sorry Anu and Sarah – the problem lies in the mirror. Pick one up and look into it.
(I put the link up, explaining it all, just earlier today.

Here it is again…
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Women-Have-Sex-Understanding/dp/0099546639

Basically it is ‘Romance’

Forget the soft music, candles, steak dinners and wine, Romance is a very hard business deal

The deal is very very simple in essence, it is an exchange of gifts.
a) Boys give girls ‘stuff’
b) In return, girls give boys babies.

Stuff, classically, revolved around The Basics.

  • Food
  • Shelter
  • Clothes (as required but not originally needed where we evolved)
  • Protection from predators and other males

Of course, boys being boys, boys are not especially interested in ‘babies’ – they just like ‘making them’ Even to this very enlightened day, babies always belong/stay with their mothers except in extreme situations.

For a while, the girls manage to keep their chosen boy but after some years (the 7-year itch) the novelty and excitement wear off. By which time, a couple of babies will be pretty well independant.

Because babies always resemble their mothers while very young, after that 5, 6 or 7 year time, the boy may realise he has not actually been looking after his baby.
This is where the particular shape of the Male Appendage comes into play – human females are not programmed to be monogamous and when they are In The Mood will mate with as many males as they fancy.
For very good reason – it produces strong healthy babies.
Livestock farmers who use Artificial Insemination know this

By now you can see a real mess building up…
The girls are frustrated by the demands of society to be monogamous.
As are the boys of course -as far as boys are concerned, there is always a Sex Drought – there is never enough sex.

Thus we see ‘Affluence’ come about:
The boys strive to get their sex requirements via ever more gifts, in quantity and quality, to try to tempt the girls.
Some boys, resorting to utter desperation, make claim to their having a ‘Sensitive Caring’ demeanour.
Sorry boys….
When A Girl, any girl, is in a baby-making frame-of-mind, The Very Last Thing she’s looking for is an effeminate male.
sad. pathetic. now= normal

Even worse (for the environment and resources in general), the girls become ever more selective and demanding in the gifts they will accept
Because monogamy insists ‘only one bite of the cherry’, the girls will make damn sure it is A Big Bite out of One Helluva Fat Cherry.

But even even even worse, monogamy stops evolution dead in its tracks.
It drives in-breeding which sends both physical and mental health into tail-spins.
Hello Covid. Cancer. Dementia. Autism…..

The Problem thus is, Settled Civilisations require monogamy because, a ‘mother with child’ is a reluctant nomad. If she finds somewhere ‘safe’, she will want to stay there.

And the settled society will trash wherever it is they settled>
Picture a horse in a one acre field. Inside 6 months it will be a mini-desert.
Picture 365 horses and 365 one-acre fields and you move all the horses from one field to another every day.
Try to imagine how much grass/crop/fodder will be in those fields compared to the 365 horses permanently chained to each their own acre-sized paddock

No, not ‘better’
Things have never been worse

Richard Page
Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 25, 2021 1:11 pm

Right, okay Peta. So what you’re saying is that men must behave like premier league football players – the ‘hump’n’dump’ mentality?
It’s interesting that society has been insisting that we move in the opposite direction – no wonder the birth rate is reducing.

Abolition Man
May 25, 2021 12:27 pm

The upper hierarchy of the Church of Climastrology is not interested in actual technical solutions to any of their imagined problems; they would be developing nuclear and newer, cleaner fossil fuels if they were! Instead, they see two possible solutions to their liking; institute a worldwide socialist system or bring on the Communist Utopia now!
Just as the early Catholic Church was happy to rule over the feudalism of the Dark Ages; the Climastrologists would gladly govern a world where everyone has limited freedoms and property except themselves! The parallels between Communism and slavery are too numerous to delineate quickly, but they’ll happily settle for socialism in the meantime!

Joseph Zorzin
May 25, 2021 1:05 pm

“climate economists”

Wow! the blind leading the blind!

Drake
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 25, 2021 7:04 pm

Or the blind leading the ignorant (or stupid if you prefer).

H. D. Hoese
May 25, 2021 1:20 pm

There is a sort of crony capitalism, including those pork barrel environmental government subsidized or completely paid for. It is partially a result of too much concentrated power controlling finances. The extreme ‘ism’ types might get further if they understood this. Once read of such begging of government in the Texas Republic, so it is probably very old. Nowadays too much, as us biologist observe when the parasites destroy their only host, no more parasite.

max
May 25, 2021 1:45 pm

So, I guess the actual endgame has reared it’s ugly head. It’s a shame, a certain amount of “elites” will not be joining in on the poverty and deprivation, but it’s for our own good, doncha know.

Art
May 25, 2021 1:51 pm

The wealthier the society, the fewer children they have. Currently the capitalist developed nations are reproducing way below replacement rate, while the poorest nations are reproducing way above replacement rate.

So it seems we can have everyone poor (except for the ruling elite, of course) and an exploding population, or all societies wealthy and a declining world population.

Neither of which would seem to produce the results they want.

Mark Pawelek
May 25, 2021 1:53 pm

Climate change is a wildcard for whatever hand an activist wants to hold. Furthermore, if the activists find themselves holding miscellaneous low cards of random suits well they can now invent new winning trick combinations.

Overpopulation, affluence, fossil fuel, racism, capitalism are all hated and accused of causing ‘climate change’. Never with any evidence. The point of ‘climate change‘ is to be a category which cannot be questioned. Activists, media, academics, … demand everyone must believe in climate change. They really mean no one may question any spin, model or bad statistics uttered in its name. Only “denialists” do that. You know – actual Nazis. Denialism is the 21st century witchcraft equivalent. Summary: it’s really all about demonization and political polarization.

Sara
May 25, 2021 2:41 pm

Take their toys and junk and overpriced clothes and over-built dwellings away from THEM, and make them walk everywhere they wish to go. And make them grow their own food with their own efforts.

I will watch while they flounder in self-righteous hubris.

JontheTechnologist
May 25, 2021 3:19 pm

JontheTechnologist says:
February 11, 2021 at 4:21 PM
I have never received an answer to these questions from any Climate Scare Alarmist: What should the earth’s perfect temperature be and has it ever been and for how long; and what should the correct level of CO2 be and do you believe like some that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, and most important, if so, who amongst us should be forced to hold our breath to stop CO2 from getting into the atmosphere???(considering that we inhale 400ppm and exhale approximately 20,000ppm)
Last but not least, is there a published or otherwise empirical paper or experiment linking CO2 to the Earth’s temperature? I think
NOT.

Willem post
May 25, 2021 3:43 pm

During the Roman warm period, there was order, called Pax Romania, industry and affluence and as a result there was a population explosion, compared to the prior cold period and following cold period, called Dark Ages.

The same happened during the Medieval Warm Period, after the plagues of the 1300s.

There were many wars and shortages, and stagnation during the LIA, 1450 to 1850.

During the Present Warm Period, and the finding of abundant, low-cost coal, oil and gas, and improved healthcare, there have been good crops and a population explosion.

The very idiotic “policy/vision/dream” of some folks TO LEAVE IT IN THE GROUND, would totally cripple the world economy.

Thank the Lord, China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc., will slow things to a very slow crawl.

Joel Snider
May 25, 2021 5:12 pm

You know, sometimes ‘I told you so’ just doesn’t say it.

observa
May 25, 2021 5:21 pm

There’s only one way to settle this debate among climate changers and doomsters.
Ask the chief- ‘Bumbling Biden is in trouble’ (msn.com)

John
May 25, 2021 7:28 pm

This is just another academic with a socialist bent
A third world family with 8 children is in my opinion as destructive as a western family with one child
They use excessive amounts of nitrogen fertilizer to eek out a subsistence living on small land
They burn plastic etc for energy polluting the environment
Just different but because there children will also have 8 children etc all at the age of 20 or younger so over 50 years they will have a family of now 128 offspring versus 1.5-2 for a western family
So after all affluence will actually decrease the population growth

All western nations (Japan, Europe USA, Australia) etc have net zero population growth
It is the third world that has added the last 3Billion people

So I say to her go back to her home country and stop breading

Chaswarnertoo
May 25, 2021 11:13 pm

I expect these people to set an example. Give me their assets for ‘safe keeping’ and slaughter their own descendants.

Vincent Causey
May 25, 2021 11:31 pm

An argumentum absurdum – reducing human influence on the planet only to the amount of CO2 emitted.

Prjindigo
May 25, 2021 11:34 pm

The problem is destruction of natural environment. 70% of the ocean and 24% of the land has been made detrimental to life on Earth. That adds up to close to 50% if you include the stuff that wasn’t included in the gross estimates.

JeffC
May 26, 2021 1:53 am

“Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology”

So halving the population would make minimal difference but halving the affluence, problem solved. Don’t they teach basic arithmetic in India?

DonM
Reply to  JeffC
May 26, 2021 4:16 pm

P, A, & T are all interdependent, this I = PAT is make believe crap and has no basis in engineering or math. It can only survive in a ‘social science’ field.

?As technology nears zero, can population approach the infinite without an impact?

?As technology nears zero, and population doesn’t change, what happens to Affluenct?

Any Engineering curriculum that includes this crap, without the qualification that is ONLY to be seen as a cartoonish characterization of a society, is itself crap.

John Endicott
May 26, 2021 2:11 am

You first  Sarah Kaplan

FBGJWH
Reply to  John Endicott
May 26, 2021 3:50 am

Read this charmer’s CV. The Jesuits turn out another Libtard.

May 26, 2021 2:46 am

Quite right. Only good virtue signalling Liberals deserve affluence. All us plebs must just simply grow fat indolent and submissive on our veggie burgers, and drip feed of mains stream media propaganda.

Gordon A. Dressler
May 26, 2021 7:01 am

From the above article: “A debate is raging amongst climate economists . . .”

Uhhhh . . . exactly what schooling is needed for one to become a “climate economist”?

TonyG
May 26, 2021 7:16 am

Well, at least they’re being more honest about it.

Of course, it doesn’t apply to them. After all, SOMEONE has to be in charge, right?

John Endicott
Reply to  TonyG
May 27, 2021 4:15 am

Yes, remember in the leftists utopia all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Jaedo Drax
May 26, 2021 7:33 am

Someone should go and ask the “climate economists” how much climate change is cause by the migration of people from low carbon societies to high carbon societies?

Peter Rayner
May 30, 2021 3:49 am

A Professor from India – with 1.3 or 1.4B people (no recent nodding head count) can’t understand that if you have a farm, you can only have so many cattle on it before the feed runs out and everyone starves. It’s really, really simple unless you have a wooden head.

R Almy
May 30, 2021 9:53 am

Too many rats in the cage?
The problem isn’t the rats it’s their food, their litter, their…….horse-feathers!
Look, our environmental problems/ challenges are all bound up together.
Including but not limited to: climate change, poverty, resource conflicts etc.
All these problems are reduced if there were fewer of us.
Here is a question: why do there need to be 4, 6, 8, 10 billion human beings?
What it the value added either spiritually or materially?
(Except to exacerbate the extinction event we have already started.)
A Geologist

%d bloggers like this: