What's Really Warming the World? Nice Bloomberg graph

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

It is slowing.

Not really relevant, since it is still a lot of people using a lot of stuff, quantity and "quality"

And the places that aren't keeping up, are essentially "dying" by comparison, and spending a lot of energy worrying about countries that frankly couldn't give a crap about them. Even within the industrialized countries, their culture (as important as any other) is being pushed aside by various groups with a definite breeding strategy.



So, not a simple problem, and I don't know of any reliable answers aside from conflict.


Either everyone's culture (or religion or other semi-abstract grouping) is important, or it isn't. I lean more towards the latter (seeing very little sustainable about the whole "culture" concept), but that makes a lot of people "upset" and whiny.

Perhaps it is a failure of democracy, that the incentive is to be the biggest "group". That is how you control the vote. That is ultimately the real reason folks are opposed to something as innocuous as birth control. Though armies also benefit from large numbers.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by P-hack

Not really relevant, since it is still a lot of people using a lot of stuff, quantity and "quality"

So, not a simple problem, and I don't know of any reliable answers aside from conflict.

Conflict not the answer.

#1> It won't work even if you wanted to advocate for it.
If you look at the rates of total human population % reduced by conflict/wars over time ... conflict / war has been getting safer .. the % of global population reduced by conflict / wars has been in decline for a very long time... For which I am happy to see that progress

#2> The peaceful internal self correcting solution noted previously has a larger demonstrated effectiveness on the global scale ... for which I am happy to see that peaceful solution out performing conflict/war

- - - - - - -

As for the allot of people using allot of stuff .. The world is very very big with lots and lots of resources ... If we need to there is still significant room to grow .. yes I am all for using those resources better than we do today in a far more sustainable way .. and yes , I think we already have many billion more humans than needed .. we have allot of room for improvement on both .. and thankfully if you look at global trends .. that improvement is the trend we are already moving toward .. progress is in the correct direction .. and given the human species rate of generation change over .. the improvement is happening exceptionally fast .. not in hours or days , which would just be 100% pure fantasy to expect that.

To help put into perspective the comparative scale of our current consumption with the available current resource .. we are tiny less than 0.1% of the available resource... noted in the bellow as world consumption.

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by IamIan

yes I am all for using those resources better than we do today in a far more sustainable way .. and yes , I think we already have many billion more humans than needed .. we have allot of room for improvement on both .. and thankfully if you look at global trends .. that improvement is the trend we are already moving toward

But, if the "breeder" mentality, outperforms the "no we have to show restraint" mentality, then we will naturally select for population growth within a few generations. Overcrowded populations ultimately result in conflict, heck even opportunity results in conflict. The only necessary ingredient is believing you have some chance at success.

But as it pertains to the title, the correlation between population size and emissions is undeniable. And consumption looks like a pretty big chunk of reserves per your diagram, peace is a luxury.

[RedDevil]

Population growth is strongly correlated to poverty. Once people are rich enough to spoil their kids they quickly learn to control their breeding prowess.

Or maybe it is because once rich they start polluting with a vengeance and have less time on their hands to breed?

[P-hack]

the population growth graph and the emission graph show a very high degree of correlation. Being "rich" doesn't seem to have much to do with it, however you define that. Sure we can do better with what we have, but "what's really warming the world" simply cannot ignore population growth.

And no, I don't put any faith in "poverty elimination" as having much to do with emissions, or necessarily in population control. That is a bit far fetched, and is akin to "wealth elimination" or equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity, another unsustainable pipe dream.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by P-hack

the population growth graph and the emission graph show a very high degree of correlation. Being "rich" doesn't seem to have much to do with it, however you define that. Sure we can do better with what we have, but "what's really warming the world" simply cannot ignore population growth..

But then you are not taking regional effects into account.
On the whole, yes. Per region, no!

One graph that shows CO2 emissions per country:

(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...xide_emissions).

Population growth again:


It seems like pollution and population growth are inversely related - if you do a per country survey.

But I agree - being rich does not mean a high level of pollution per definition.
The level of industrialisation does.
That's why China scores so high and the oil countries in the middle east not so much.
It is not money on itself, it is what you do with it.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by P-hack

if the "breeder" mentality, outperforms

Evidence to-date shows ~60 years of the opposite has and still is happening .. the longer the opposite continues to outperform .. the more it is evolutionarily and socially UN-selected from the remaining population .. thus making it increasingly less and less likely if.

[P-hack]

it is a small world, and "wasteful" technology rolls downhill, I don't really see "past performance" being that great of an indicator here. And indeed the population still grows.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by P-hack

I don't really see "past performance" being that great of an indicator here.

It should be .. It is the data of what has and is actually happening .. I don't know of a better indicator.

Originally Posted by P-hack

And indeed the population still grows.

In a exceptionally fast nose dive of a reducing rate.

How fast does the 'correction' have to be to satisfy you ?? .. Is it only good enough if Billions dead in a matter of hours or days or something like that ?

[P-hack]

how fast? well according to gore the sky should be in flames already.