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.
The Malthusians are in overdrive
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..
…I just had to ask….
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.
Just picking random pieces of madness out of MSM dk_…
Yes. MSM, who are setting the theme exactly as they’ve been bought and paid for.
Keep up the good work.
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.
Yes, India has a lot of affluence, but also a lot of effluence.
Especially in the Ganges.
Well, India does have a history of notable engineering projects:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_pillar_of_Delhi
Ask the construcors of vimanas in historic times 😀
…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.
Rud, what is an expert in sustainable cities? My spidey sense for oxy-(or perhaps edu-)morons is tingling.
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.
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?
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.
The obvious problem is the dumbing-down of the education system almost everywhere as only a highly-educated person will believe this nonsense.
“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.
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.
I’ve been hearing that for more than 10 years now… still hasn’t arrived.
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.
Perhaps because people like the majority of the commenters here are resisting the changes?
Things always taste better when cooked on a stove fired by cattle dung.
Fuel-efficient cookstoves in Africa | Saving wood in Malawi (rippleafrica.org)
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.
Hey, griffter!
Please post a picture of YOU using one; otherwise shut your yap!
At least not a solar cooker 😀 or an windmill driven electric one 😀
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.
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
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!
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
“climate economists”
Wow! the blind leading the blind!
Or the blind leading the ignorant (or stupid if you prefer).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
You know, sometimes ‘I told you so’ just doesn’t say it.
There’s only one way to settle this debate among climate changers and doomsters.
Ask the chief- ‘Bumbling Biden is in trouble’ (msn.com)
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
I expect these people to set an example. Give me their assets for ‘safe keeping’ and slaughter their own descendants.
An argumentum absurdum – reducing human influence on the planet only to the amount of CO2 emitted.