Global Warming?

[susanann]

I don't think anyone is against reducing population growth (allthough the method may be an issue).

The United States wants huge increases in its population. They also want huge increases in population of other countries so they can sell more widgets, and get more profits. When American mothers went into negative population growth, it changed its laws to increase immigration to guarantee an increased rate of population growth.

Fact is fact.

 

[susanann]

Without conservation anyone suggesting population control is only seeing half the picture. We need to conserve (which does make economic sense, most people are just greedy) and slow population growth before things become really unpleasant.

Of course it would be better to do both - conserve and reduce population.

But conserving while increasing population will not work - because you can increase population more than you can conserve. YOu are limited to 100% in conserving, but you can increase your population much greater than 100%.

Reducing population, on the other hand, almost necessarily causes reduced consumption.

The bigger the reduction in population the greater the reduction in consumption.

A 50% or 90% reduction in population almost guarantees reduced consumption. With a much smaller population it would not even be profitable to have high consumption rates.

 

[chaim]

Of course it would be better to do both - conserve and reduce population.

But conserving while increasing population will not work - because you can increase population more than you can conserve. YOu are limited to 100% in conserving, but you can increase your population much greater than 100%.

Reducing population, on the other hand, almost necessarily causes reduced consumption.

The bigger the reduction in population the greater the reduction in consumption.

A 50% or 90% reduction in population almost guarantees reduced consumption. With a much smaller population it would not even be profitable to have high consumption rates.

The issue with reducing population is one of time scales and implementation. Taking your example of reducing population in the US by 50%, in the best case scenario, where you eliminate immigration and ban having children (good luck) , it would take half a life span, or about 40 years to bring the population down by 50%.
By that time it is likely that we will have reached any tipping points in the climate system.
A more realistic goal is zero population growth, which buys you nothing from a resource consumption point of view but combined with conservation could quite easily reduce total consumption by 50% over the next 10 years.

As an aside, theoretically population reduction is a worthy goal, but how do you propose to achieve it without violating every civil right imaginable and without economic ruin?

Scottish John has given a great example as to how as an individual he has managed to significantly reduce his consumption on a short time frame. I have a similar philosophy, I am striving to reduce my total consumption by 50%. My house is wind powered, and wood heated, I drive a used, high MPG vehicle and catch the bus and ride my bike as much as possible. During the summer months I try and shop at the local farmers market as much as possible, and buy in bulk the rest of the year.

I am of very moderate means and making these

conservation efforts has made economic sense. The major factor stopping most people from making similar efforts is greed and
sloth. I also don't have any children, and I do not plan on having any. However this is a paradox. as if those who believe in conservation all stop having children, he conservation movement is at risk of extinction, while the selfish 4 child families will continue to prosper.


​

 

[susanann]

A more realistic goal is zero population growth, which buys you nothing from a resource consumption point of view but combined with conservation could quite easily reduce total consumption by 50% over the next 10 years.

We went below ZPG over 35 years ago. It does buy you a lot in resource consumption since a steadily reducing population uses less and less resources and pollutes less and less. There is only so much food a person can eat, fewer persons means less food. Fewer persons means less gasoline, less heating oil, less highways, less steel, less coal, less water, less housing space, less every thing.

 

[susanann]

As an aside, theoretically population reduction is a worthy goal, but how do you propose to achieve it without violating every civil right imaginable and without economic ruin?

Instead of giving tax incentives to have children, you have tax disincentives.

Our native born population is already declining by 2% - tax disincentives would cause it to decline by much greater amounts.

Of course, that is hypothetical, assuming that our country would even want a reduction in population - which they dont.

I only show you how it could be done to demonstrate how easy it would be.

In addition to those population decreases, we could halt immigration, and deport all illegals which would cause an immediate drop in our population of over 20 million.

Instead of economic ruin, we would have an immediate labor shortage with full employment, so the family economies would be doing greater than ever.

Businesses would have an initial reduction in sales the first year, and after that would have to curb waste or consumption in order to preserve profits. Thus, businesses would be encouraged to conserve, be more efficient, and less wasteful in order to make up for steadily declining domestic consumers.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

The changes the earth endures is an ongoing cycle. Yes, we humans have sped up the current global warming process, but hasn't the earth gone through it before right into the Ice Age?

Also, all this talk about population reduction. We are already declining, so why the impatient hurry up? Wait, that's right. You want the earth to last for you and not no one else. Gotcha

 

[chaim]

Really? From what I have read the current population growth rate is 0.9% per year. Of that 0.3% is from immigration and 0.6% is birth rate. (from CIA fact book). Secondly the US energy consumption rate is growing at 2.1% per year (a per capita growth of about 1% per year), so growth in energy consumption is an even bigger factor than growth in population, and is easier to address.

I don't mean to agrue with you, I think population control is a very important factor in conservation as a whole. However in the developed world, reduction in consumption is an equally and more practicle in the short term goal. In the developing world, where per capita consumption is not nearlly as obscene as it is in the US population control is a more practical solution. In the developing world per capita consumption is going to increase and the developing world has no right to complain.

We went below ZPG over 35 years ago. It does buy you a lot in resource consumption since a steadily reducing population uses less and less resources and pollutes less and less. There is only so much food a person can eat, fewer persons means less food. Fewer persons means less gasoline, less heating oil, less highways, less steel, less coal, less water, less housing space, less every thing.

 

[chaim]

The changes the earth endures is an ongoing cycle. Yes, we humans have sped up the current global warming process, but hasn't the earth gone through it before right into the Ice Age?

The earth has not seen a change of this magnitude in at least half a million years. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are at an all time high and the rate of climate change is faster than ever recorded.

Also, all this talk about population reduction. We are already declining, so why the impatient hurry up? Wait, that's right. You want the earth to last for you and not no one else. Gotcha

The idea is the opposite. Climate change is (probably) not going to be catastrophic for the well off during our lifetime, it is the future generations who will bare the brunt of it. By making some sacrifices (such as not driving a hummer ) now we may be able to lessen the suffering of future generations. If we leave a little bit of oil unburnt, they too may be able to experience to joy of plastics!

Population as a whole is growing alarmingly quickly!

 

[susanann]

Really? From what I have read the current population growth rate is 0.9% per year. Of that 0.3% is from immigration and 0.6% is birth rate.

Your counts are mixed up. You are including births to foreign born women into your birth rate column instead of the immigration column.

Also, you are not including illegal immigrants, which probably outnumber legal immigrants.

You are also not including the growth of resident and non-resident aliens living here, H1-B visa workers and their families, foreign college students, and other aliens living here thru various programs.

 

[susanann]

I don't mean to agrue with you, I think population control is a very important factor in conservation as a whole. However in the developed world, reduction in consumption is an equally and more practicle in the short term goal.

Nothing works faster in the short term than deporting 20 million illegals tonight.

Your disconnect of population growth with destroying the earth is an old trick common among those who are avoiding the real issue - overpopulation.

As a member of Zero Population Growth since 1970, and as a conservationist long before then, you cant fool me.



-----------------------------------------------------
Immigration is
an Environmental Issue

Immigration Moratorium ASAP! [SIZE=-1]Alliance for Stabilizing America's Population[/SIZE]

Since 1945, the U.S.'s population growth rate has equaled that of India's.

B. Meredith Burke, Published in tile San Francisco Chronicle, October 28, 1997


A forthcoming Sierra Club membership poll on whether to adopt a stance on population and immigration policy has provoked just this sort of response.

Well before the first' Earth Day in 1970 the Sierra Club had advocated population control as essential to protecting the environment.

We Americans who pleaded for "zero population growth" ESPECIALLY in the United States (due to our high per-capita resource consumption) were viewed as enlightened.

At that time our focus was on the above-replacement fertility of the parents of the "Baby Boom" and on the frontier mentality that rejected the reality of natural limits. When a place got too sullied or drained of natural resources, we could just move on.

Two population commissions--the President's Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, headed by John D. Rockefeller 11I; and the Select Commission on Population, headed by Father Theodore Hesburgh, a Notre Dame president--concurred that U.S. population needed to be stabilized. Its 1972-level of 205 million was already threatening the environmental legacy for future generations. The Rockefeller Commission noted that, immigration policy would have to respect this demographic reality. Father Hesburgh agreed.

Since 1945 the U.S.'s population growth rate has equaled that of India's.

But believing the fiction that immigration policy can be divorced from population policy, Congress rejected both commissions' recommendations to subordinate the former to the latter.

In the years since the sources of population growth have shifted radically. Native-born Americans, especially those of white and Asian origins, have had below-replacement fertility for. nearly 25 years. However, post-1970 immigrants and their descendants will contribute 90 percent of the population growth between 2000 and 2030.

Immigrants, not the "baby boom echo," are behind the new baby boom.

Immigration advocates say the question is one of consumption; not population. But many of the 2,000 Sierra Club members who signed the petition forcing the poll support the ecological equation that environmental impact is a function of three variables: population, consumption, and technology.

Endangered wetlands, global warming, congestion, and human encroachment upon open habitat: how are these problems improved by a population that has grown from 150 million in 1940 to 265 million today? If numbers do not matter, is the experience of living in a city of 1 million the same as that of living in one of 5, 10, or 20 millions?

In August environmental groups and activists--including many involved in the '70s population control efforts--met in Colorado to form the Alliance for Stabilizing America's Population (ASAP). They brainstormed how to educate activists and legislators on the need to stabilize U.S. population.

Young people today have grown up with a crashing silence on the population/environment connection: the press has engaged in a quarter-century policy of disconnect between population stories and environmental news.

But after 30 years of sounding the alarm I am proud to stand alongside principled persons of renown as we endure the obloquy of those who assail us--because they cannot rationally attack our message.

The author, an international demographer/economist, was chair of the Maternal and Child Health Advisory Board of San Mateo County, California. She was a visiting scholar at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 1996-97, and is a Sr. Fellow of Negative Population Growth. For more information, Meredith Burke; Ph.D., can be reached by email at MereBphd@aol.com.

 

[chaim]

I am not trying to trick you, nor am I against population reduction, I am just pointing out that conservation is equally important particularly in the short term.

If you deported all illegals today (the number is closer to 10 million according to the government) you would be reducing energy usage by less than 5%. In reality it would be considerably less than this as the illegals will still use resources after they are deported and on average they are of very low socio-economic status and hence use much fewer resources. Do you really think deporting all illegals would be more effective than raising CAFE standards by 10% (which would have the same impact on consumption).

Secondly deporting people from the US is a short sighted solution as it is a matter of time before living standards in less developed countries approach those in the US. Until we embrace conservation we cannot expect a developing country to do the same.

Again I want to make the point that I do not disagree with you, over population is an important issue and we need to deal with it, however it is not the ONLY issue. We need to consider conservation as well. In the US, conservation is a more economically and politicaly viable option than population control.

Nothing works faster in the short term than deporting 20 million illegals tonight.

Your disconnect of population growth with destroying the earth is an old trick common among those who are avoiding the real issue - overpopulation.

As a member of Zero Population Growth since 1970, and as a conservationist long before then, you cant fool me.

 

[susanann]

I am not trying to trick you, nor am I against population reduction, I am just pointing out that conservation is equally important particularly in the short term.

If you deported all illegals today (the number is closer to 10 million according to the government) you would be reducing energy usage by less than 5%. In reality it would be considerably less than this as the illegals will still use resources after they are deported and on average they are of very low socio-economic status and hence use much fewer resources. Do you really think deporting all illegals would be more effective than raising CAFE standards by 10% (which would have the same impact on consumption).
Secondly deporting people from the US is a short sighted solution as it is a matter of time before living standards in less developed countries approach those in the US. Until we embrace conservation we cannot expect a developing country to do the same.

Again I want to make the point that I do not disagree with you, over population is an important issue and we need to deal with it, however it is not the ONLY issue. We need to consider conservation as well. In the US, conservation is a more economically and politicaly viable option than population control.

we will just have to agree to disagree.

The only long term solution is to reduce population.

The history of man is one of increasing consumption, not decreasing consumption, most people want more - not less. no matter how much people have, they always want more, and I see nothing changing in that regard.

Your hope of getting people to want to consume less is just not applicable nor reasonable nor accepted by anyone.

In the final analysis, the only way in the long term to actually use less and to pollute less is to have less people.

Less crowding, less consumers, more fields and forests, more rangeland, more rainforests, less drilled oil, less mined minerals, is a better approach in my opinion.

However, since I am outvoted by you and the majority of everyone else, we shall see what happens and who was right.

I was a "conservationist" before the word : "environmentalist" was invented.

Personally, as dictator I would get rid of all cars and go back to horses - which solves the oil problem.

In the old days, we had true conservation, we bought up land to be set aside as forests, and such. We tried to preserve family farms, and woodlands, etc.

But I lost to greedy businessmen and the voters who supported them who prefer fumes from traffic jams and overcrowding instead of green empty countryside.

 

[ScottishJohn]

If it wasnt profitable, it wouldnt be done.

Waste is profitable.

Same thing with disposable everything.

No one wants to keep an old car and fix it, or fix electronics when they break, or use straight razors.

It costs more to fix a VCR or to fix a can opener than it does to just buy a new one.

The profit is in the waste. Everyone wants to buy milk in disposable containers, disposable diapers, disposable shavers, etc.

That is because the companies build crap and we buy it. It used to be effective to repair appliances etc, when they were properly made. Now they have built in faults so we have to replace them. It is a false economy, they cost less but you have to buy way more. And we have been stupid enough to buy into it. The profit is for the corportations, and not the consumers.

The problem is that this system is based on cheap natural resources. That is not going to be possible in the future.

You are swimming against a tidal wave with your current arguements.

Tell me about it. It is a tidal wave of resistance to something that would do us all good.

YOu are advocating a more expensive way of life, with reduced consumption and more inconvenience just so you can keep the population growing.

No you misunderstand me. Controling consumption is necessary whether the population grows or not. It is also incredibly simple compared to trying to tell people that they must / must not have babies.

In any case it is not more expensive - it is cheaper. My wife and I save money in the way that we shop AND get better food. We save money in the way that we travel, and get a better more reliable engineering solution into the deal.

You fail to see, or accept, that if you substantially reduced your population all the overpopulation/over consumption problems you think are bad will be reduced.

Except how do you do that without adopting some barbaric measures? Consumption is easy to address and noone loses out. Prevent people from heeding the natural instinct to reproduce is difficult, possibly barbaric and certainly contraversial. This is what you don't see or accept.

Reducing population is the first step, if you dont want to take that first step, you will never achieve anything nor will you ever be taken seriously.

I just don't agree. What measures do you propose? I have given plenty of easily achievable, profitable, beneficial ways of reducing consumption that could be enacted tomorrow. How do you stop population growth? It isn't a first step. It may be a long term strategy, but an easy first step is to use less stuff, particularly when we waste so much.

 

[susanann]

That is because the companies build crap and we buy it.

It used to be effective to repair appliances etc, when they were properly made. The problem is that this system is based on cheap natural resources. That is not going to be possible in the future.

I just don't agree. What measures do you propose? I have given plenty of easily achievable, profitable, beneficial ways of reducing consumption that could be enacted tomorrow. How do you stop population growth?

There is nothing to propose......

....that we didnt already propose 40 years ago....


...and lost.

Nobody wants to reduce population, nor reduce consumption, so it isnt going to happen.

Nobody wants what you are proposing.

The only thing to do is to wait.

Wait for oil to be depleted, wait for the USA to go bankrupt, wait for a big ww3 over natural resources that kills billions, wait for civil wars over unemployment that kills billions and ends immigration.

Wait for natural balancing that reduces population such as viruses and starvation.

Wait for another winter like we had in 1816 where we had no summer and no crops will be grown all year and billions will starve.

Wait for another epidemic like the great plague or the 1918 flu empidemic.

Hopefully, natual calamities will occur before china pollutes the world too much and before the lungs of the earth (the rainforests) are all cut down as happened with the forests of the sahara in africa.

 

[Maxwell511]

There is nothing to propose..........that we didnt already propose 40 years ago.......and lost.

I think it is a bit early to pronounce a winner between our senses and our vices. We're not Fox news.

 

[susanann]

Quote Originally Posted by: susanann

There is nothing to propose..........that we didnt already propose 40 years ago.......and lost.

I think it is a bit early to pronounce a winner between our senses and our vices. We're not Fox news.

Maybe for you.

Maybe you think it is too early because you just got here. Someone arriving at Gettysburg at the end of the third day not knowing how many already died, also would not know that the battle - and the war, was already lost - but those who were there for the whole battle knew it.

If you had been fighting this battle for the past 50 years, you would have a better perspective.

 

[ScottishJohn]

There is nothing to propose......

....that we didnt already propose 40 years ago....


...and lost.

Nobody wants to reduce population, nor reduce consumption, so it isnt going to happen.

You can reduce your consumption. I have reduced mine. Rather than having got as far as recognising the problem and the dangers we face, and then deciding it is hopeless and giving up (which seems to be the antithesis of the 'American way') we can start small. We can make sure that we are part of the solution. After all, saving money, eating better quality food, not having to lug tonnes of rubbish out to the bins every week, spending less on heating and lighting - far from bringing hardship all of these sound pretty attractive to me. If those of us who see the writing on the wall now begin to act responsibly, then others will follow.

Nobody wants what you are proposing.

That is both untrue and irrelevant. What people want and what they get are often very different things. Plenty of people want to live in a more sustainable way, and plenty already are!

The only thing to do is to wait.

Wait for oil to be depleted, wait for the USA to go bankrupt, wait for a big ww3 over natural resources that kills billions, wait for civil wars over unemployment that kills billions and ends immigration.

Wait for natural balancing that reduces population such as viruses and starvation.

Wait for another winter like we had in 1816 where we had no summer and no crops will be grown all year and billions will starve.

Wait for another epidemic like the great plague or the 1918 flu empidemic.

Hopefully, natual calamities will occur before china pollutes the world too much and before the lungs of the earth (the rainforests) are all cut down as happened with the forests of the sahara in africa.

Actually you are right, your plan does sound so much better?! Are you kidding me?!!

 

[susanann]

You can reduce your consumption. I have reduced mine. After all, saving money, eating better quality food, not having to lug tonnes of rubbish out to the bins every week, spending less on heating and lighting - far from bringing hardship all of these sound pretty attractive to me. If those of us who see the writing on the wall now begin to act responsibly, then others will follow.

.... while your neighbor has has rasberries flown in from Brazil every day.......



Whatever you personally save is miniscule and insignificant compared to the jet fuel and exhaust that your neighbor is using.

Like the example of Gettysburg on the third day, what you also dont see with a lack of perspective, is how much weaker our side now is.

50 years ago, we had a huge percentage of our population who were hunters and fishermen who have always cared deeply about our environment.

For a brief time period in the 1960's early 70's, the young hippie generation allied with us in succeeding to achieve Zero Population Growth and from our Earth Day coalition lobby we were able to pass many anti-polution laws and set aside many acres of forest lands.

That coalition is now gone, those hippies are now buying gas guzzler SUV's and the hunters and fishermen and outdoors people are dying off or in nursing homes.

For a very short time, we had some political clout, but whatever minor things we accomplished is now greatly overshadowed by a sea of yuppies and immigrants who want to overpopulate and over develop and over use and eliminate our natural resources.

The conservation/enviromental movement has been crushed.

50 years ago when woodlands, fields, and farmlands were threatened with bulldozing, we had lots of people - hunters/outdoorsmen and hippies - complaining.

Today nearly everyone wants our countryside covered over with concrete and people and houses and stores.

Today, with our current immigration policies, 50,000 more people move here every week, week after week. That means that each week we have to bulldoze and cover over with concrete enough land to build a new city with more houses, schools, stores, hopitals, gas stations, restaurants, and highways in order to handle another 50,000 people. Every week we have to destroy thousands of acres, trees, etc. to build a new additional city.

It takes not only a lot of land, but a lot of oil, gas, energy, electricity, and other natural resources to build a new city of 50,000 each week.

..... and it never ends. 50,000 more people last week, 50,000 more people this week. Another 50,000 people next week. NOt only do we have to build a new 50,000 city each week, but these people all buy cars and buy oil and gasoline and drive all over on our roads and order rasberries from Brazil.

And so it goes............... never ending, week after week, month after month, year after year, another 50,000 each week, another 50,000 each week,another 50,000 each week, another 50,000 each week, another 50,000 each week,
another 50,000 each week, etc. etc.

 

[ScottishJohn]

.... while your neighbor has has rasberries flown in from Brazil every day.......

Tasteless watery expensive long distance raspberries while we eat seasonal natural homegrown delicious ones.

Actually you are wrong. We have our neioghbours and friends round for dinner, parties, etc. They know how we live, and we are now starting a veg growing cooperative in our street, because they are also fed up with the crap in the supermarkets. When we started getting vegetables delivered we were the only ones in the street. Now there are several other who do the same. Start small and build it up. It is an easy thing to sell because it is a better alternative in terms of taste, cost, and environmental benefit.

Whatever you personally save is miniscule and insignificant compared to the jet fuel and exhaust that your neighbor is using.

So defeatist. Actually now our household and our neighbours household are saving that fuel. And others in the street. Maybe the whole street soon.

Like the example of Gettysburg on the third day, what you also dont see with a lack of perspective, is how much weaker our side now is.

Only with that kind of attitude.

50 years ago, we had a huge percentage of our population who were hunters and fishermen who have always cared deeply about our environment.

For a brief time period in the 1960's early 70's, the young hippie generation allied with us in succeeding to achieve Zero Population Growth and from our Earth Day coalition lobby we were able to pass many anti-polution laws and set aside many acres of forest lands.

That coalition is now gone, those hippies are now buying gas guzzler SUV's and the hunters and fishermen and outdoors people are dying off or in nursing homes.

What a bleak picture. i don't think this gives any justification for giving up, or adopting an 'if you can't beat them join them' attitude. As a Christian I beleive we have been called to be good steward of Gods earth. I intend to follow that calling even if I am the last person on earth doing it - even if it has no impact.

For a very short time, we had some political clout, but whatever minor things we accomplished is now greatly overshadowed by a sea of yuppies and immigrants who want to overpopulate and over develop and over use and eliminate our natural resources.

I think environmental issues are higher on the list of priorities than they ever have been.

The conservation/enviromental movement has been crushed.

50 years ago when woodlands, fields, and farmlands were threatened with bulldozing, we had lots of people - hunters/outdoorsmen and hippies - complaining.

Today nearly everyone wants our countryside covered over with concrete and houses and stores.

Today, with our current immigration policies, 50,000 more people move here every week, week after week. That means that each week we have to bulldoze and cover over with concrete enough land to build a new city with houses, schools, stores, hopitals, and highways in order to handle another 50,000 people. Every week we have to destroy thousands of acres, trees, etc. to build a new city.

..... and it never ends. 50,000 more people last week, 50,000 more people this week. Another 50,000 people next week. NOt only do we have to build a new 50,000 city each week, but these people all buy cars and buy oil and gasoline and drive all over on our roads and order rasberries from Brazil.

I'm sorry, but that isn't true. There are hundreds of thousands of people opting out of this every day. I'm one of them, you could be too.

 

[Maxwell511]

Maybe for you.

Maybe you think it is too early because you just got here. Someone arriving at Gettysburg at the end of the third day not knowing how many already died, also would not know that the battle - and the war, was already lost - but those who were there for the whole battle knew it.

If you had been fighting this battle for the past 50 years, you would have a better perspective.

Well maybe.

In Western Europe the current politic and social trend is moving very much in the direction of sustainable energy and environmental protection and conservation. So I will keep my optimism for the time being.