Jump to content

Menu

slowing global warming (do I dare go there...)


SparklyUnicorn
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think it's rediculous to explore the idea of "reducing personal carbon emissions" by including the red herring of, "You are personally responsible for the carbon emissions of other people."

 

If it's truly the case that one's personal emissions include the impact of choosing to have offspring, then all of my emissions are in fact the responsibility of my parents.

 

If it's the case that my emissions are my own, then it's obviously the case that my children's emissions are their own -- not mine.

 

Mathematically, since a hypothetical child emits carbon, she does not emit it three times, and it can not be 'reduced' three times. Her didn't-become-a-father can not reasonably claim to reduce emissions by her total amount, in addition to her didn't-become-a-mother claiming that reduction, in addition to her own not-a-self claiming the total reduction. This is bogus math built on faulty logic.

 

Yes, people emit. Therefore, new people raise emissions. However, the continuation of the species is not optional, and parents are not forever responsible for the environmental impact of their children. That's just a weird perspective.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's rediculous to explore the idea of "reducing personal carbon emissions" by including the red herring of, "You are personally responsible for the carbon emissions of other people."

 

If it's truly the case that one's personal emissions include the impact of choosing to have offspring, then all of my emissions are in fact the responsibility of my parents.

 

If it's the case that my emissions are my own, then it's obviously the case that my children's emissions are their own -- not mine.

 

Mathematically, since a hypothetical child emits carbon, she does not emit it three times, and it can not be 'reduced' three times. Her didn't-become-a-father can not reasonably claim to reduce emissions by her total amount, in addition to her didn't-become-a-mother claiming that reduction, in addition to her own not-a-self claiming the total reduction. This is bogus math built on faulty logic.

 

Yes, people emit. Therefore, new people raise emissions. However, the continuation of the species is not optional, and parents are not forever responsible for the environmental impact of their children. That's just a weird perspective.

Agreed. But I have met people who actually really do believe that the continuation of the human species is quite OPTIONAL!

 

So there is that.

 

Wow. As if that's going to catch on as a highly promoted worldview! LOL

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already saw this debunked during the GWB era and remember the logic but lost the source if it's even still on the wayback machine so what do I know?

 

Why don't we split the difference,then: all y'all just raise the kids and grandkids I never had and all of my dead sister's brood because she didn't live that long and my grandmother lost a brother young, too, so who knows how many kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids he would have had.

 

Do I dare disturb the universe and say

 

YAWN

 

btdt bought the T shirt; all y'all like bean dip? I like bean dip. Read any good books lately?

Edited by Guest
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Agreed. But I have met people who actually really do believe that the continuation of the human species is quite OPTIONAL!

 

So there is that.

 

Wow. As if that's going to catch on as a highly promoted worldview! LOL

 

 

Yeppers; me too.

 

The more things change the more they stay the same.

 

I grow old … I grow old …

I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, people emit. Therefore, new people raise emissions. However, the continuation of the species is not optional, and parents are not forever responsible for the environmental impact of their children. That's just a weird perspective.

 

Technically, it *is* optional.  And, frankly, the way we're going, an impartial observer might think that we are trying to hasten its demise.  

 

That said, assuming that we do want to keep the species going, the only requirement is that we reproduce at a replacement level--exponential growth is not required.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an example of things making sense in theory, but not being so neat in practice.

 

In practice, in a first-world country, "only children" will consume much more than siblings in a bigger family.  It will only be limited by what the parent is able and willing to spend.

 

There probably is a happy medium, and a free and prosperous society will more or less tend to that happy medium.  Some will have a houseful of kids, some will have no kids, and the average will be surprisingly close to the replacement rate.  I did a little research some years ago and that is where the USA happened to end up.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One fewer child than... what?  I wanted 6 kids, but I ended up with 4 so I guess I had two fewer kids.  Also, the houses in my neighborhood are all about the same size and so use about the same amount of electricity, water, etc. (actually, according to the "this is how much the average house in your neighborhood uses" thing on our water bill we actually use quite a bit less than most).  We have 6 people in our house.  Most of the houses have 2-4 people living in them so when divided, our carbon footprint is actually smaller per person.  I am a stay at home mom (which IME is more likely with larger families) while in most houses in our neighborhood both parents work, each driving a separate vehicle.  So, again, our carbon footprint is smaller.  I just don't think it's so easy as to say one person's carbon footprint is x size when larger families can actually have much smaller ones that smaller families (and vice versa depending on lifestyle).

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the human extinction project people should be happy. The U.S. birthrate is below 2 per woman so not a replacement rate. This would indicate that with the Boomer Generation nearing average life expectancy causing a huge death rate, and the birthrate so low, this part of the world will begin a population decline. Some predicting possible worldwide population decline beginning in 2070.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.html

 

So if the world can hang on until the decline....the carbon emission from people being just being alive should go down!

 

And I do agree, lifestyle is everything. Remember when Al Gore went around lecturing everyone about their carbon footprint while incurring an average $1080 a month electric bill? Driving his SUV, etc. It was estimated that his carbon footprint was twenty times higher than that of the average US household, thus the ridicule.

 

I know a lot of people doing things to reduce fossil fuel use...cloth shopping bags, reducing other plastics use at home, fuel efficient cars, saving errands and getting them all done in one trip, car pooling to work, keeping the thermostat down, buying as much local food as possible to reduce long distance trucking, etc.

 

A lot could be done IF our government wanted to spend money on it, like expanding public transportation in population centers for a start, and creating incentives to use it. But I do not see politicians spending on things that do not enrich their own coffers. I am getting pretty darn skeptical.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And I do agree, lifestyle is everything. Remember when Al Gore went around lecturing everyone about their carbon footprint while incurring an average $1080 a month electric bill? Driving his SUV, etc. It was estimated that his carbon footprint was twenty times higher than that of the average US household, thus the ridicule.

 

 

 

Yes.  What a freaking hypocrite.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.  What a freaking hypocrite.

For those that are interested, here is a list of trees that are high sequestration species. While it can take many years for a young tree to reach maturity, it is something that can be done to assist future generations. I am all for mass planting in urban centers, and wish more was done with parking garages (going up) than with these vast parking lots. While garages are far more expensive in the short term to build, in the long term, preserving trees and not putting so much area to asphalt is a step in the right direction.

 

It is going to take many steps, all kinds of different steps to get a handle on the issue. But NOT doing anything because this or that step alone doesn't feel like much of an achievement is not the answer. 

 

I would be supportive of businesses who voluntarily chose to reduce their carbon footprint, invested funds in Solar, planted trees, etc. I would vote for that with my money.

 

 

 

A 2002 study he co-authored lists the Common Horse-chestnutBlack Walnut,American SweetgumPonderosa PineRed PineWhite PineLondon Plane,Hispaniolan PineDouglas FirScarlet OakRed OakVirginia Live Oak and Bald Cypress as examples of trees especially good at absorbing and storing CO2. Nowak advises urban ...Mar 29, 2017

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's plenty we could do to make sure the birth rate is not only optimal for the planet, but for individual women. All without coercion!

 

For example, making education accessible to girls and women tends to bring down their birth rates. Good social security nets in old age do the same.

 

Personally I love the planet as much as the next person, and all the freaking 'anti-breeders' do my head in.

 

Eco-misogyny is still misogyny.

Absolutely!

 

And to be honest, it isn't that our planet can't support 7 billion people. That can actually be done. The problem is allocation of resources, hoarding of resources, refusal to share resources, and certain profit making and governmental entities determined to exploit resources to the detriment of a lot of people.

 

I think that when implementing a plan like this, probably to start with a voluntary program works because if some businesses get on board and are successful, it helps get the less than enthusiastic ones to come along. But ultimately, something will have to be made mandatory and the longer we wait, the more drastic those demands will need to be.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I read an interesting thing the other day. The person was saying that the number of kids people are having is falling, even in places like Bangladesh. This is due to education. He said that the next goal needs to be the age of having your first child. In B'desh it's still around 18. So you could have baby, mum, grandma, greatgrandma - several generations all going simultaneously. While if you have first child in late 20s, 30s, the number of generations alive simultaneously is reduced.

 

There's also research that children born to older parents do better - health, education, happiness. So two reasons to encourage women to have children later.

 

This is at population level, of course. On an individual level, there might be disadvantages (ie reduced fertility). But on population level, that'd be an advantage. 

 

In terms of global warming, though, I believe that there needs to be some serious investment in carbon capture technology, or it's all over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are people who take very seriously the question of whether having more children or not is good for the earth.  I am sure global warming is part of that conversation for them, along with other environmental factors.

 

Personally it seems like the TYPE of people we end up with will have more affect than the numbers we end up with.  The people who are asking those questions would probably raise very thoughtful and earth friendly children.  Seems those are the type of people we need more of, not less.

 

Also, I think the earth tends to self-regulate (via pandemics and other factors). We're already overdue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those that are interested, here is a list of trees that are high sequestration species. While it can take many years for a young tree to reach maturity, it is something that can be done to assist future generations. I am all for mass planting in urban centers, and wish more was done with parking garages (going up) than with these vast parking lots. While garages are far more expensive in the short term to build, in the long term, preserving trees and not putting so much area to asphalt is a step in the right direction.

 

It is going to take many steps, all kinds of different steps to get a handle on the issue. But NOT doing anything because this or that step alone doesn't feel like much of an achievement is not the answer.

 

I would be supportive of businesses who voluntarily chose to reduce their carbon footprint, invested funds in Solar, planted trees, etc. I would vote for that with my money.

 

 

 

A 2002 study he co-authored lists the Common Horse-chestnut, Black Walnut,American Sweetgum, Ponderosa Pine, Red Pine, White Pine, London Plane,Hispaniolan Pine, Douglas Fir, Scarlet Oak, Red Oak, Virginia Live Oak and Bald Cypress as examples of trees especially good at absorbing and storing CO2. Nowak advises urban ...Mar 29, 2017

Oh rats, I was going to chop down our horse chestnut tree, which drops a bazillion horse chestnuts in our yard every fall. Guess I'll keep and curse the wretched tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I do agree, lifestyle is everything. Remember when Al Gore went around lecturing everyone about their carbon footprint while incurring an average $1080 a month electric bill? Driving his SUV, etc. It was estimated that his carbon footprint was twenty times higher than that of the average US household, thus the ridicule.

 

Yup.  I remember this.  I hold this guy in the same disgust as O.J. Simpson.  My sinful nature is showing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am all for mass planting in urban centers, and wish more was done with parking garages (going up) than with these vast parking lots. While garages are far more expensive in the short term to build, in the long term, preserving trees and not putting so much area to asphalt is a step in the right direction.

 

Or potentially eliminating some of the mandatory parking guidelines in the US that encourage people to drive more and discourage green space/public transportation. Vox had an interesting piece this week on it - https://www.vox.com/videos/2017/7/19/15993936/high-cost-of-free-parking

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...