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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
“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?
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.
You first Sarah Kaplan
Read this charmer’s CV. The Jesuits turn out another Libtard.
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.
From the above article: “A debate is raging amongst climate economists . . .”
Uhhhh . . . exactly what schooling is needed for one to become a “climate economist”?
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?
Yes, remember in the leftists utopia all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
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?
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.
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