Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Climate Change Means More Heatwaves, Premature Deaths, Scientists Warn
WASHINGTON - Climate change is a serious health hazard that the United States must prepare for, according to government and university scientists from across the country.
Dust storm in Queensland, Australia, September 2009. (Photo by Tom Fletcher)
They advised Thursday that climate models show that global warming will
increase air pollution and trigger more heat waves, floods and
droughts, all of which will threaten human health.
"Climate change is a quintessential public health problem," said Michael McGeehin, director of the Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an agency of the federal government.
"Heat waves are a public health disaster. They kill, and they kill the most vulnerable members of our society," McGeehin warned. "The fact that climate change is going to increase the number and intensity of heat waves is something we need to prepare for."
McGeehin was one of several scientists who briefed reporters on a teleconference held by the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists.
Climate change models show that the kind of heat waves some parts of the country have been suffering through in recent weeks will occur more often and at closer intervals, and last longer, said David Easterling, a climatologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.
"The current spate of heat waves could be a harbinger of things to come," he said, pointing out that from January through May, this year has been the hottest on record for global average temperatures.
Climate change could even make regions of the Earth uninhabitable, according to Matthew Huber, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Purdue University. His research on the effects of heat stress, reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, calculated the highest temperature-humidity combination that humans can withstand.
Huber's findings show that if emissions from burning fossil fuels continue unabated, extremely high temperature and humidity levels could make much of the world essentially uninhabitable for human beings.
Over the long term, perhaps 200 or 300 years, the planet could experience an increase of average global temperatures of 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit.
Under that scenario, much of the world, including Australia, many Mediterranean countries, and parts of Africa, Brazil, China, India and the United States, would be so hot and humid that people would not be able to survive outside during heatwaves for more than a few hours.
"We can still decide to try to avoid that" by dramatically reducing the heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming, Huber said. "And from our calculations, it is something we should try to avoid."
Jonathan Patz, director of global environmental health at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, said that while climate change is a health threat, tackling it is a major public health opportunity.
He pointed out that the World Health Organization reports about one million people annually die prematurely from air pollution. He says that cutting global warming emissions also would reduce certain kinds of pollution, especially ground-level ozone.
"If we can reduce air pollution," Patz said, "we can save lives."
Patz's latest research found that cutting down on the number short car trips and reducing the number of miles driven by about 20 percent would save hundreds of lives, avoid hundreds of thousands of hospital admissions, and save billions of dollars in healthcare costs in the Midwest alone.
If drivers got out of their cars and either walked or rode a bicycle, Patz added, "we could probably double those health care cost savings."
Climate scientist Brenda Ekwurzel with the Union of Concerned Scientists, who moderated the press briefing, noted that addressing climate change is not all about saving polar bears and other faraway creatures and habitats.
"More and more, studies demonstrate that the health care impact and health care costs related to climate change," she said, "are directly related to us."
- Posted in
112 Comments so far
Show AllWhat?! Outrageous! How dare they suggest that humans are not immune to physical and biological laws? Where's Inhofe? He'll do right by us real humans, he'll get up there and call these people names and cut their funding, by gum!
On with the stupidity! Rah rah rah! The talking monkeys rule the planet! Rah rah rah!
Global Warming, the ultimate Letterman Stupid Human Trick. 'Cept it ain't no trick.
Poor,pay and suffer;rich,air conditioning.Earth changes and Karma catch all who "do it to the least of their fellow man" will get what is deserved.Trouble is they are going to take everyone with them;damn,can't win for losing.Tony
RAH! RAH! RAH! to your post, ricg.
Nothing to add. You said it!
happy breathing,
cm
If we all close our eyes tight an believe there is no global warming, really believe hard, there will be no global warming. But honestly, no amount of irony can overcome the depression I feel when I think of the place this comfortable little planet of ours is headed. The human race could be as terrible as a 20K diameter asteroid hit on the Earth, or in the grand scale of our enveloping and evolving universe, one could say, as random.
Gotta admit it is getting hot, and that makes remembering how cold the past winter was here a bit difficult. Too bad the political hacks poisoned the discusssion with such notions that CO2 is really the menace that billions of years of plant evolution glaringly refutes.
You seem not to grasp the essential principle: plants are CO2 consumers and oxygen producers. Other living creatures, like you, are oxygen consumers and CO2 producers. As long as the ratio of producer to consumer is in balance, everything is fine. The ratio is not now in balance.
Did you understand that?
If it gets sufficiently out of balance, as it's trending, the frozen methane stores will release and Earth will go into Venus mode, killing all oxygen-dependent forms of life. That includes you.
Did you understand *that*?
Do you have a ratio handy for plant mass to animal mass? If so I'd like to see it, unless of course, the political hacks have gotten to it first. I do get a chuckle out of your presumptousness that suggests your notions of the complexities involved are the correct ones.
From what I've read and heard, global warming has nothing whatever to do with "plant mass vs. animal mass." The problem is in digging up all the stored carbon from billions of years and releasing it back into the atmosphere in a very short period of time. These gases trap solar heat and raise the temperature. Now the raised temperatures are releasing stored methane, which traps even more heat. This process will most likely be fatal to nearly everyone, and probably much more quickly than the article suggests.
Exactly.
As I've watched over the years, I've noticed a profound underestimation of the degree of climate change. All the models are consistently underestimating the rate of change and the risk of more dramatic change, suggesting that the models are ignoring vital factors that cannot be ignored. (That is, assuming that the models have any relationship to reality)
For example, the positive feedback effects you mention of methane release. As far as I know, none of the models have included the methane hydrates into their calculations. As someone who has looked closely at risk assessments, I know that factors not recognized have a risk of zero, and so are completely excluded from consideration.
The not-so-pleasant truth, however, will be far less amenable to manipulation and much harder to spin. Especially once the blackouts start en masse, and people begin losing their AC. Then we'll see how non-negotiable our way of life actually is.
Your question speaks of delusion, or dishonesty. Comparative mass is not the central issue, just as the volume of water is not the central issue if you're drowning. Ten gallons of water can drown you just as well as an ocean. The central issue is *too much water* for you to cope with.
The central issue in this case is *too much CO2* for Earth to cope with.
My question speaks directly to your balance of oxygen producers and consumers. And again I'm getting from you this 'too much of...' And again, as ego dictates, your narrow slice of time is meant to eclypse billions of years of a complex system's existence. You know, you're sounding as doctrinaire and coercive as religious fundies who demand that their prerogotives of abortion are consistent with God's will and those who disagree are contrary to that will.
I'll close with my original lament: too bad the political hacks have poisened the discussion.
The only meaningful balance is measured by CO2 production vs CO2 consumption, not the total body-masses of the producers vs consumers! How can you possibly not realise that?
Would you prefer that we believe you to be honest but stupid, or aware but dishonest? It's one or the other.
He's dishonest, unaware and stupid. The only political hacks involved are hired guns trying to preserve the 'drill baby drill' status quo.
"The only meaningful balance is measured by CO2 production vs CO2 consumption, not the total body-masses of the producers vs consumers!."
Exactly correct! Climatologists have even worked out the calculations to so how much CO2 has been put into the atmosphere over time, and that the Oceans have absorbed a fair amount of it, but unfortunately we are pumping it into the air faster than the Earth's biosphere and oceans can absorb it.
You can also eliminate any discussions of animal mass verses plant mass by looking the planet Venus. No plants or animals there, just an Atmosphere that is largely CO2, a known greenhouse gas. Even though it is further from the Sun than Mercury, it is much hotter because of the greenhouse effect caused by the greenhouse gas CO2.
You are talking some very BASIC science here folks, not rocket science..
Assuming that that you are writing from north America, particularly eastern N. America, The past winter wasn't cold.
Temperatures were overall above average. There were some major snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic US - mostly wet snowstorms due to mild temperatures but snow has nothing to do with temperature - aside from it needing to be being below freezing.
A technology to mitigate heat waves in cities--see my article:
http://greeneconomypost.com/atmospheric-vortex-engine-how-to-recover-hidden-energy-urban-heat-island-7468.htm
The Atmospheric Vortex Engine technology, featured in the above article, may be the "final answer" to both the global warming and energy scarcity problem, in that it harvests a virtually inexhaustible supply of residual solar energy found in the troposphere, in warm surface waters, or, as in the above case, heat stored in city streets or buildings.
ref: http://vortexengine.ca
Sorry--use http://tiny.cc/l4pkp
site wouldn't come up ...
copy above "tiny" and paste in browser--hit enter.
ref: http://vortexengine.ca
checked out the site, very interesting .....
but videos wouldn't play ....
If 1) this technology is controllable, 2) the fact it "may produce more local precipitation" isn't a problem, 3) it uses local heat factors, reducing temps, 4) it actually replaces fossil fuels - it sounds pretty neat. Why hasn't something been done with it? Or are there bad side effects the site doesn't mention?
Would be interested in checking this out some more ....
As unbelievable as it may seem, this is one technology that has very few disadvantages, the ones most often cited as being "danger" to aircraft in the vicinity or "escaping" of the vortex.
The vortex would be easily detected in humid zones, by its visibility and in dry zones by doppler radar available at any airport.
It's possible that in some location, communication interference might occur, but if the "treated" air can be made free of particles by the "washing" it would undergo to "amp-up" the potential, this could easily be mitigated.
As for the delay in implementation, you would have to ask the power companies--this technology has been promoted strongly for over five years and nobody has come up with any proof that it wouldn't work. It is recommended for development by the Canadian Academy of Engineers and by an Atmospheric Scientist and NASA vortex expert at the University of Michigan, whose name I don't feel at liberty to publish here. His name can be found in the press articles on the subject, however.
Of course, investing in its development would be a "no-brainer", IMO.
Thanks for that ShadowDancer! I had fun - all I had to do was sit here and read : ).
The fight over climate change is about survival of human and other life.
AD
Argue, argue, argue... Why don't we control our wandering "mad monkey" minds enough to stick to the scientific FACTS, if known? Arguing gets us nowhere but into MORE arguing.
Some folks actually have GREED for arguing. What are they trying to run away from in themselves?
In a recent issue of National Geographic --- good article about Greenland re the impact of climate change both now and in the past, including insight into who survived and who didn't and why.
As for the future, climate change and class will be inseparable, though rarely discussed, topics. Those who own the wealth/power will survive; of course, their addresses will change. The refusal to recognize and plan for the future will throw the rest of us into all sorts of variations of misery. The central controversy is whether to label the catastrophe genocide or mass-suicide.
Yup, you nailed it.
Ronald Wright in A Short History of Progress, says this about collapsing: “The concentration of power at the top of large-scale societies gives the elite a vested interest in the status quo; they continue to prosper in darkening times long after the environment and general populace begin to suffer.”
No they won't survive. Many may even go in the second wave from their weakened condition.
Basically where all on the Titanic together and the life boats are bogus. By this I mean the last round of serious capital speculation will be scheming to get off the planet. Billions of dollars will exchange hands in bogus flimflam's to get on that last helicopter out of Saigon, but in the end their will be no cake to eat even for the rich and of course the oxygen will be asthmatic.
Are our breaths numbered? and what will we do with them?
Few people, if any, ever mention the "P" word in global warming discussions: population.
Almost 7 billion people worldwide (and increasing). Unsustainable, in my opinion.
Antoine
Antoine22, having followed the debate over climate change, I am convinced that talking about human population as a major factor ***in the context of climate change*** is WRONG and COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE, because it will be used to move the focus away from CONSUMPTION and a wasteful way of life.
Believe me, practically every article on climate change on CD has someone raising the population factor. I suspect it's not debated lately because people are tired of that debate, or (hopefully) realize that consumption is the major problem that needs to be addressed. Take a look at this thread, for example:
Six Reasons Why Earth Won't Cope for Long:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/12/17-0
I have not seen a SINGLE person who denies that the human population is way beyond sustainable levels. However, the move towards a sustainable number has to be without violence and pain. So if we are not going to bomb the hell out of cities and we don't want to see people dying of hunger, famine, malnutrition, disease, floods, droughts, etc., then a decrease in population is going to take a few generations to achieve. In the meantime, I believe that the resources need to be shared equitably. Equitable sharing will necessarily involve drastically reducing or giving up meat and dairy consumption - simply because of the greater amounts of resources needed for their production.
Even wiping out the entire population of India and China would not help much if the western levels of consumption continue. So, while a country like Bangladesh obviously has a very high population density and despite having fertile agricultural lands the resources are strained beyond limits, the fact also remains that the average consumption of a Bangladeshi is a fraction of that of an American. So, if anyone wants to start with population reduction to solve climate change, then they have to start with the USA and all the countries where the average consumption levels are high.
There is a simple concept called the "Ecological Footprint", and "carbon footprint" is part of that. And so is "water footprint". No matter where one lives, it is urgent that we reduce our footprint. It's MUCH, MUCH easier to reduce our carbon footprint and in short order, than it is to reduce human population by natural means. The carbon footprint of the US military is by far the largest of any entity in the world. And it involves such monstrosities as mid-air refueling (aerial refueling), so that military aircraft can stay airborne for long durations. And the Europeans are demanding THEIR share of contracts from Pentagon for their Airbus. There are people like Amazon's Jeff Bezos and Virgin's Richard Branson engaged in developing private space flights - for space tourists! And don't forget the monstrosities such as luxury yachts, private jets, a ski resort and a refrigerated beach (planned, not sure if actually completed) in Dubai, and so on. It is THESE monstrosities that need to go FIRST, and pronto.
It is true that human population has to go down. But it needs to be addressed differently. For example, there is ample evidence that when women are educated and are empowered, they automatically choose to have fewer children. Education has to involve not only subjects on biology and ecology, but also exposing the role of religions that stand in the way of birth control, and even homosexuality. When people's lives improve and they can feel confident that the one child they have (yes, finally it will have to come down to just one child per couple) is going to grow up healthy, population will shrink. For this to happen, much has to change in terms of wealth distribution.
That is why I think raising the issue of population ***in the context of climate change*** is pointless, and counterproductive. It has to be dealt with in a separate context of its own.
P.S. The one place where I'll make an exception is when it comes to the über-rich - because reducing THEIR population could have an immediate impact on climate change.
ALCYON: A humane, intelligent post that looks at the problem from a more holistic standpoint. It is obviously both population and the ecological footprint factor (added to established patterns of resource allocation) that exacerbate climate change. Still, as you related, the numbers will not go down for several generations; and therefore the issue to work with is one that focuses on patterns of waste/consumption. So long as America teaches the kids that it's all about prosperity, and paper money is the only rationale required for anyone's pattern of use (or access to resources), then the ethos of conservation will be not unlike pissing in the wind. Here is another case where the elite's control of the media/air waves wreaks havoc on our common wondrous blue-green living sphere, Gaia. The necessary (and timely) education is just not taking place... because it would interrupt the elite's access to the delusion of unlimited profits in a limited (ecologically speaking) sphere.
Siouxrose, unfortunately the problems of consumption and an unfair system of "access to resources" are not just in the USA alone. Countries around the world, in their rush to development (a completely legitimate goal, IMO) have adopted the western model. And guess what? There too we see extreme inequalities emerging.
As for the "elite's delusion of unlimited profits in a limited sphere", sometimes I wonder if they have something more sinister in the works: such as letting this unsustainable system play out into disaster, with well-laid out plans to ride out the chaos (with the help of armed guards and secure enclaves), and the remaining population even more completely enslaved. I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory. But I say this after asking myself: knowing all that we know about climate change, peak oil, etc., how can the elite be so stupid as to pursue an unsustainable course? For the ultra-rich, I don't think more money or wealth will be a primary motivator anymore. It is possibly something bigger: control over the whole planet. One way to achieve this control is to actually allow a disaster to happen. I hope I am wrong.
C'mon right to the point you want 6 1/2 BILLION PEOPLE to disappear! and you go on about how to do it humainely! jeez your not askin much.
I mean kill between 6 and 6 1/2 billion thats not exactly scooping the litterbox, were talking targeting 1000 to 1500 nuc's some enhanced radition(clean type) mostly multi megaton blockbusters depends on how much infrastructure you want to keep. like the effiel tower of the Golden Gate bridge..
And you also demand they feel no pain.. WOW I'm stumped.
>^^<
"So, if anyone wants to start with population reduction to solve climate change, then they have to start with the USA and all the countries where the average consumption levels are high."
While for the purposes of your argument lets say this is true, would you not have a rising energy usage in India and China as you forced a decline in the US? India and Chinas energy usage is on a steep incline upwards.
mightymite, energy usage in China and India will increase in the near term. And IT SHOULD. Not only in these countries, but in many more countries, as more people try to move out of poverty and subsistence levels.
The question is, what kind of "development" path are they following? Unfortunately, the path adopted by China and India (and Brazil, South Africa and a whole lot of other countries) is not too encouraging. For example, every automobile company is viewing China and India as the markets that can prop up their profits. There is a great deal of construction going on in these countries, and not all of which seem to be well thought out. The investment in building roads and bridges and freeways far outweighs the investment in public transport. While the movement of people and cargo itself is somewhat inevitable, there are clearly different ways to move them, each with varying levels of efficiency. But it does not appear that these countries have consciously chosen the most efficient, most sustainable path. Instead, their "development" seems to be driven by corporate interests. Their governments seem to have bought into the "trickle down" theory, and so you see a great number of millionaires and billionaires (China has the second largest number of billionaires - please pass on this information to the China-apologists:) even while millions struggle on in uncertain times, see their farmland and water resources diverted to service the rich, and so on.
Short answer: Yes, energy usage in China and India (and other countries) will increase in the short term. However, they can greatly reduce the impact of such increase by choosing more efficient and sustainable pathways (a well-laid public transport system is obviously more efficient and more sustainable than a few million cars on the road, but less profitable to the corporations). Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening.
If you mention China and India because of their population, for the sake of argument, if you put all the overseas Chinese and Indians back in China and India, and all white people (from North & South America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc.) back in Europe, and all black people back in Africa, the picture will look very different. Oh, and China and India will not feel much difference.
Think per-capita.
Hhmmmm, I'm going to have to think about this in conjunction with some of your other posts. Thanks to you and drosera by the way. Interesting!
Alcyon,
Sorry but I don't get your argument. You say consumption must be addressed first and then we will talk about population control. But why can't you do both? Why can't you make family planning available to all societies? Why can't you offer rewards for having smaller families or at least not subsidizing big ones? Why can't you begin to advertise the advantages of small families? Besides, from a empathic point of view, there are a hell of a lot of women who do not want to keep having six, eight or ten babies. For their sake we should make birth control available to them and to their sons and daughters.
The fact is: Population size X consumption = degree of environmental degradation. We must work on both factors and as quickly as possible. There is not enough time to wait another generation or two. Remember: what is happening now to the Earth affects all species, not just humans. We've got to get moving now or face the extinction of untold numbers of plants and animals.
drosera, my argument is one of priorities and about achieving maximum results, immediately, and without pain and violence. The obvious place to start would be with consumption. I NEVER said population isn't a problem. I only object to a frivolous, repeat mention of this as THE leading factor affecting climate change.
Picture this:
Some idiot living in North America, driving a car or an SUV, eating beef and all kinds of meat **regularly**, using the airconditioner, going to airconditioned shopping malls with escalators running all the time, watching or going to the superbowl, watching or playing ice hockey, golf, etc. (among the most wasteful of sports), telling a family in Bangladesh: "You know, you folks need to go slow with your breeding, 'cause the planet is heating up, you know", - as they are living in this meager accommodation eating their rice and lentils, wondering where they will have to move next because the sea is already creeping up inland due to climate change.
What if the family responds by saying, "ok, let's do an accounting of our carbon footprints. Let's start with the food - and what it takes to produce this food and the accompanying carbon emissions, then add all the other stuff - our house, cars, shopping, military (that is, the per-capita share), everything! Let's add up the carbon emissions associated with our respective lives" ?
(Of course, I would still advise them to stop with one child per family, but I won't kill them).
How can I make this clear?
There are too many people already, and they cannot be (and should not be) killed or left to die of starvation and disease.
Take your own equation: Population size X consumption = degree of environmental degradation.
I agree. So let's do a sensitivity analysis. That is, look at the effect on the result (i.e., degree of environmental degradation, total carbon emissions, etc.) as you tinker with the two terms, viz., population and consumption.
The objective is to achieve a drastic reduction in the product of the two terms in the shortest time.
Which do you think will achieve the fastest result? Reducing consumption, or decreasing population? Subject to the constraints that you are not free to kill or starve or let people die of diseases. Add in the constraints (optional, for now) that you are not free to consume more than your fair share of resources.
You can (and should) reduce both terms - but don't forget the objective: fastest reduction in total carbon emissions. And the constraints: No killing, no starving.
So, feel free to go out and educate (or even legislate, I don't really care) on a small family - one child per family is fine by me. I will not stand in your way. Heck, I'll even make a donation to family planning programs. HOWEVER,
Do you deny that it's still going to take a few generations for the population to come down appreciably to have an effect?
What do you do in the meantime?
What do you do NOW?
Soilent Green... it's good for the environment and ok for you!
>^^<
I'd be the last to agree to Kipling's "white man's burden" and go out to spread birth control among the poor and miserable peoples of the Earth. But I would, upon consulting with the wisest men and women of those cultures, search for ways to promote family planning. As I said, it isn't just a Western idea--it's an idea most women of the world accept wholeheartedly.
The reason that the arguments of the Malthusians-Eerlichians about population control have no merit with regard to environmental issues is as follows:
In a capitalist economic system - especially one which machines replace manual labor, resource usage has nothing to do with population. Resource usage has to do with economic growth. Economic growth, and the size of economies has nothing to do with population growth. In a world that reduced it population to a less than a billion, the capitalist imperative for perpetual resource growth and capital accumulation would continue - they would simply find a way for each affluent individual to consume much more resources than they do now.
There would still be plenty of poverty in a world of one-billion too. That is also a Capitalist imperative.
Cat...
Sounds more like doctrine than science. Poor people do consume resources: water especially, but also wood. They keep animals, lots of them, and they overgraze the land they occupy. Of course Westerners consume more than the poor. But poor countries are making a lot of trouble, too: Nigeria, oil contamination; Indonesia, destruction of the rainforest, Brazil: ditto; the peoples of Northern China (not just the Han), pumping out aquifers; India, just about everything. It isn't just overconsumption that is ravaging the Earth, but poor people trying to hack out a living in land that is overgrazed and desolate, with soil contaminated by salt from irrigation. Carbon gets put into the air by people and animals; it gets taken out by photosynthesis. With less and less forestland, more carbon stays in the air.
Do you understand the concept of carrying capacity? The land can only support a certain number of animals sustainably. After reaching that number, the ecosystem degrades and the population crashes. Doesn't the concept apply to humans as well as deer in the Kaibab plateau of Arizona?
drosera, since you obviously prefer science over doctrine, I would like to ask you: are you familiar with the concept of "ecological footprint"?
Ecological Footprint is a measure of the land (and ocean) area needed to support our lifestyle. It includes "the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste."
Imagine yourself on an island. Everything you need to live has to come from that island, and every waste you produce has to be processed or buried within that island. Oh, and all the CO2 that the islanders produce should be reabsorbed by the trees on this island. Now, divide the area of this island by the number of people there - that's your ecological footprint.
Of course, not everyone on this island will consume equally. So, it should be possible to calculate who consumes more. Suppose some people eat beef regularly, while others eat meat sparingly or not at all. The land area required to produce a pound of beef is several times greater than that required for a pound of veggies. THIS IS NOT DOCTRINE. A cow has to be fed for about 2 years before it's slaughtered, and you get only about 500 pounds of boneless meat. It takes, on average, about 15,000 liters of water to produce 1 kilogram of beef. Suppose the island does not have enough land to produce beef year after year. Then the islanders hear about this great big land - so they go out and conquer that land, so now they have more land to produce beef. To be scientific, what do we do? We add this extra land to the islanders account. Otherwise you are fudging numbers.
Same with CO2 emissions. If the islanders keep burning lots of carbon, and the trees on the island are not sufficient to absorb the CO2 (to keep the atmospheric CO2 in balance), other forests elsewhere have to absorb this CO2. So, add this forest area to their account as well.
You can do this for EVERY SINGLE person living in Nigeria, China, Indonesia, Brazil, India, and of course the USofA. There are ways to compute the ecological footprint (carbon footprint is a subset) of an individual, a family or a nation. While there may be some slight variations between different calculations, the trend will be the SAME.
>>>Do you understand the concept of carrying capacity?
Yes, I do. A related concept is the "Ecological Overshoot". That is, if the said islanders can harvest or extract only so much resources every year so as to stay within nature's capacity to regenerate, and if they exceed this amount, then they go into "overshoot", and start drawing from their next year's quota. Of course, we are now talking of the whole world. Last year (2009), the Ecological Debt Day or the “Earth Overshoot Day” was on September 25. That means all the consumption that was permissible for that year happened by Sep. 25.
That's where the carbon quota comes in (I referred to it on a different post). Let's start using numbers, and stop fudging and hiding behind generalities.
You are debating as if somebody here denies that population is NOT a problem. Show me ONE person that does this. Now let me ask you this:
Do you understand the urgency of reducing atmospheric CO2 concentration? Which do you think will have the greatest and the fastest effect? Reducing per capita consumption or decreasing population? We are talking anywhere from 15 to 40 years tops - to achieve drastic reductions. You tell me how you propose to achieve drastic reduction in population in 40 years. On the other hand, if you are GENUINELY interested in how to achieve drastic reduction in CO2 emissions, there are many proposals. You can start with George Monbiot's "Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning", although Monbiot does not address the role of meat production in that book. For that you could start with "Livestock's Long Shadow - Environmental Issues and Options", a report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.
You seem to foreget that all that rainforest land cleared for livestock is done so as part of capitalist beef-export (mostly to the US) ventures.
You are in denial. Carbon output is a function of the size of a capitalist economy - particularly the prevalence of private automobiles and sizes of residences - thing's the relatively thinly populated US is off the scale on. It has nothing to do with population.
Sustinence farming and livestock raising in the tirrd world has very little carbon footprint.
Sustinence farming and livestock raising in the tirrd world has very little carbon footprint.
------------------
But overpopulation in third-world countries has caused all sorts of havoc in terms of extinctions, forest destruction, and exhaustion of the land. Those, like starvations, plagues, etc. are direct functions of having overflowed the land's carrying capacity.
Mairead, but look closely within the third world countries: you'll see that there's a great deal of inequality in terms of access to land and water. It is often this inequality that pushes the poor to cut trees. And the fruits of any "development" do not reach them adequately - they invariably go to the elite and the cities first. But the actual ecological footprint of the rich in the third world countries would be far bigger than that of the majority.
Add to this, the historic factor: conquests by "outside" religions that discourage birth control. And the mass shipping of the "excess" population from Europe over a period of time that greatly relieved the pressure on land there. The white people from Europe had three new CONTINENTS to fill, whereas the natives in most other countries basically got stuck at home.
And the fact that poverty is often linked with a larger family size. But this is NOT always a rule. I can show plenty of examples in the western world where white couples have had 5, 6, 7 kids and more. You just have to look around you and look up a generation or so before.
You mention "starvations, plagues, etc.". Do you really know of "plagues" in Asia? I'm not saying there weren't - but I'm asking - do you know of specific plagues in Asia and South America? Or even Africa?
>>>SaboCat wrote: You are in denial.
And you are obviously in a hurry. I was going to write a detailed response - but I think it's easier if I point you to the start of this thread - starting with "Antoine22 July 10th, 2010 4:53 pm" where he raised the issue of population, and my original response "Alcyon July 10th, 2010 6:23 pm", as well as my other comments on this thread.
If you had taken the time to read the whole post and the ones above, you might have understood that we were both saying pretty much the same thing - except on the matter of livestock (which you seemed to have understood as referring to those raised in third world alone).
Which is why, over the whole world around with no special pleadings allowed, we must limit each person to 0.5 live birth followed by *mandatory* sterilisation. Any male who impregnates more than one female loses his dangly bits. Any woman who refuses to name her partners is aborted and sterilised then and there.
0.5 live births per person, enforced by post-partum sterilisation, no exceptions. Or we *all* die.
I'm in, as long as you agree to abide by a carbon quota for all:
"Every citizen (of every country) is given a free annual quota of carbon dioxide. He spends it by buying gas and electricity, petrol and train and plane tickets. If he runs out, he must buy the rest from someone who has used less than his quota."
That's not my words, BTW. It's a proposal by Monbiot:
"Here’s The Plan":
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/10/31/heres-the-plan/
I would add *food* to the list of things that this carbon quota is used to buy. So people will have to start paying attention to the carbon footprint of their food as well.
C'mon you try that. We'll kill you, and eat your carbon tax collectors. We Americans are reaching a tipping point, as to how much more we will put up with from our government.
Dammed if I give up eating one day a week while some fatcat cruzes by in his new Lexus battle tank!
>^^<
RichardsCatz, frankly I have trouble deciding where you're serious and where you are mocking and pretending to be dumb on this thread.
Assuming you're serious with this comment, let me clarify:
The "fatcat" gets exactly the same carbon quota as you or anyone else. So, if he still wants to "cruz by in his new Lexus", he can do that, but he'll have to use up his carbon credit, and maybe skip lunch for a few months or more (I don't have the numbers - I'm just saying). Because, in this system, there REALLY is no such thing as free lunch. Money will lose some of its power.
And who said anything about a carbon tax? A carbon quota means everyone gets the same amount of carbon credits which you then spend on things. It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor.
It's more like rationing in times of scarcity. Or sharing whatever food's left when you're shipwrecked and stuck in an island. All are equal, and anyone trying to eat more than his fair share gets killed or gets eaten. Unless someone willingly gives up his share - say, in exchange for a smoke, or a swig of whiskey. Because everything is in short supply and everything's rationed until the rescue ship arrives - whenever that is.