Miscellaneous climate change info

[John Fedup]

This link discusses nuclear weapons and climate change. As per the last paragraph it is a reductio absurdum essay. Nevertheless there are some interesting suggestions about population.

The Climate Change Consequences of Nuclear Weapons — Global Security Review

Deterrence

globalsecurityreview.com

 

[Feanor]

This link discusses nuclear weapons and climate change. As per the last paragraph it is a reductio absurdum essay. Nevertheless there are some interesting suggestions about population.

The Climate Change Consequences of Nuclear Weapons — Global Security Review

Deterrence

globalsecurityreview.com

They're not good suggestions. Low population doesn't lead to progress. It can give you stasis, but we had better be prepared for a significantly lower quality of life. On a most basic level, you don't need railroads for a bunch of disconnected farmers. The suggestions that the way forward to resolve global warming is by shrinking population are all essentially reactionary in nature. We, as a civilization, need a way forward not a way back.

 

[tonnyc]

The article is a satire and it should not be taken seriously, or rather if taken seriously, should not be taken as is.

A low population does have advantages and yes, a continuously growing population will eventually overwhelm Earth's ability to support it. Yet we have seen that a fast rate of population growth tend to overwhelm a country's ability to support their people and use up available resources at unsustainable rate and thus create poverty for many. We have also seen that a declining population creates stagnation and economic burden, as there are less productive workers having to support a larger population of the elderly. This suggests to me that we should aim for a stable population instead.

If low population is desired, it should be done such that it happens very slowly. Something like China's old One Child Policy is a mistake. A family planning program where a family is encouraged to have two children would have been better over all.

A stable population doesn't necessarily means a stagnant population. Technology and the arts can and do improve people's lives. These are potentially unlimited, though it may not be as fast as resource exploitation. And there is still a long way to go before the people of the Earth as a whole all enjoy a high standard of living. It does mean that developed countries won't see a high rate of economic growth, but that's no different from today. If Germany has a 1% GDP growth, that's just how it is.

Personally I think it's great if Earth can stabilize at the current population while growing the economy until every country reach developed nation status. I also think we should do more with space, since the solar system has a lot more space, natural resources, and energy resources compared to just Earth, but that's going to be homework for future generations.

 

[John Fedup]

The article is a satire and it should not be taken seriously, or rather if taken seriously, should not be taken as is.

A low population does have advantages and yes, a continuously growing population will eventually overwhelm Earth's ability to support it. Yet we have seen that a fast rate of population growth tend to overwhelm a country's ability to support their people and use up available resources at unsustainable rate and thus create poverty for many. We have also seen that a declining population creates stagnation and economic burden, as there are less productive workers having to support a larger population of the elderly. This suggests to me that we should aim for a stable population instead.

If low population is desired, it should be done such that it happens very slowly. Something like China's old One Child Policy is a mistake. A family planning program where a family is encouraged to have two children would have been better over all.

A stable population doesn't necessarily means a stagnant population. Technology and the arts can and do improve people's lives. These are potentially unlimited, though it may not be as fast as resource exploitation. And there is still a long way to go before the people of the Earth as a whole all enjoy a high standard of living. It does mean that developed countries won't see a high rate of economic growth, but that's no different from today. If Germany has a 1% GDP growth, that's just how it is.

Personally I think it's great if Earth can stabilize at the current population while growing the economy until every country reach developed nation status. I also think we should do more with space, since the solar system has a lot more space, natural resources, and energy resources compared to just Earth, but that's going to be homework for future generations.

Yep as per the author..."reductio ad absurdum or, as Jonathan Swift called it, satire, to make a point". WRT population expansion, it is a problem and even more so if everyone wants a 25% carbon footprint of that of NA. Also, lets face it, nuclear weapons are here to stay. No member of the current nuclear club are ever going to give them up.

 

[swerve]

They're not good suggestions. Low population doesn't lead to progress. It can give you stasis, but we had better be prepared for a significantly lower quality of life. On a most basic level, you don't need railroads for a bunch of disconnected farmers. The suggestions that the way forward to resolve global warming is by shrinking population are all essentially reactionary in nature. We, as a civilization, need a way forward not a way back.

If both population & living standards grow, it's hard to see how we could keep CO2 emissions down.

There's no reason why a reducing population should lead to a reversion to a bunch of disconnected farmers. As we get richer we get more mobile, farming takes fewer & fewer people, & more & more goods move further & further, per person.

 

[tonnyc]

If both population & living standards grow, it's hard to see how we could keep CO2 emissions down.

There's no reason why a reducing population should lead to a reversion to a bunch of disconnected farmers. As we get richer we get more mobile, farming takes fewer & fewer people, & more & more goods move further & further, per person.

Higher living standards do result in lower birth rates and it's likely that if we can bump up living standards in developing countries, we can stabilize the population number.

As for reducing the population, it's not the final number that matters. It's the rate of reduction. If the rate of reduction is 1% per generation, we probably won't even notice and only statisticians will notice. But there are very fringe individuals that call for a radical depopulation measures. A One Child Policy, for example, will get a 50% reduction in several decades, but I don't see how that is not going to be a disaster.

 

[Feanor]

Higher living standards do result in lower birth rates and it's likely that if we can bump up living standards in developing countries, we can stabilize the population number.

As for reducing the population, it's not the final number that matters. It's the rate of reduction. If the rate of reduction is 1% per generation, we probably won't even notice and only statisticians will notice. But there are very fringe individuals that call for a radical depopulation measures. A One Child Policy, for example, will get a 50% reduction in several decades, but I don't see how that is not going to be a disaster.

The ugly reality is that we're past the point of stabilizing anything. Population is shrinking and will continue to shrink, and it's going to cause problems.

If both population & living standards grow, it's hard to see how we could keep CO2 emissions down.

There's no reason why a reducing population should lead to a reversion to a bunch of disconnected farmers. As we get richer we get more mobile, farming takes fewer & fewer people, & more & more goods move further & further, per person.

It was an example of the problems caused by a shrinking population. To solve this problem in a way that isn't simply regress we need a growing population, not a shrinking one. There are future technologies and efficiencies that won't come to be if the population isn't there to make them worthwhile. An earth of 20 billion people will colonize the moon and mine the asteroid belt. An earth of 500 million won't need to do any of those.

 

[swerve]

An earth of 20 billion may be in deep shit due to climate change - & why an earth of 500 million? That assumes a catastrophic decline, but we're currently over 8 billion & headed for 10 billion. The world's population is NOT shrinking: some regions are.

Why wouldn't 8 or 9 or 10 billion people expand outwards?

 

[Feanor]

An earth of 20 billion may be in deep shit due to climate change - & why an earth of 500 million? That assumes a catastrophic decline, but we're currently over 8 billion & headed for 10 billion. The world's population is NOT shrinking: some regions are.

Why wouldn't 8 or 9 or 10 billion people expand outwards?

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

I don't believe we are heading for 10 billion. Global birth rates have shrunk to 2.3 birth per woman. Basic population replenishment is 2.1 and the rates have been on a steady downward trend. Developed countries suffer from this more then any others, where in many countries the importation of migrants is seen as a solution to the issue of having enough workers. At the extreme end places like South Korea and Japan, some of the more prosperous, developed, and industrialized nations, are actively dying out. You'll note the world bank data cuts off at 2021. However the decreases are definitely continuing.

The Lancet: Dramatic declines in global fertility rates set to transform global population patterns by 2100 | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

By 2050, over three-quarters of countries will not have high enough fertility rates to sustain population size over time. This will increase to 97% of countries by 2100.

www.healthdata.org

I don't know if we will shrink to 500 million. It was a bit of an arbitrary figure. But there are technologies that only make sense at scale and improvements that only become necessary with a growing population. We have a definite situation where developed countries dip into a negative population growth trend. And we have more and more countries becoming developed over time. Now maybe development will stop or even rollback. Or maybe something will emerge to get developed countries birth rates up. But as it stands, I believe we're heading for a significant population decline in much of the world, possibly all of the world in a forseeable future. I think right now shrinking populations are a bigger problem then growing populations.

As for 20 billion and the earth's carrying capacity, I think this is overblown. We can't all drive SUVs and live in suburbs with massive commutes, but with reasonable urban planning, good public transit, and an effort to invest in things like renewables and nuclear energy, the carrying capacity of the earth is far larger then 10 billion. There are many reasons for why the current carbon footprint is as large as it is that have to do with economic choices and lifestyles rather then direct quality of life issues.

 

[John Fedup]

An earth with 20 billion humans.....just think of the new pathogens that will emerge as humans squeeze wildlife habitat even further.

 

[Ananda]

We can't all drive SUVs and live in suburbs with massive commutes, but with reasonable urban planning, good public transit, and an effort to invest in things like renewables and nuclear energy, the carrying capacity of the earth is far larger then 10 billion.

The trend already there for sometime. Urbanisation already in high level, and if we see Japan practical their population are centralised in Metropolitan and Urban area. While rural area is emptying fast. Even Indonesian Java, where 150+ millions and growing, as most populated Island in the world, some rural area begin shown population decline.

So in sense there will be area for food production while population cramped in Urban area. That's more to economics necessities. Africa will increase population fast in this century, while Asia will slow down, and some will begin population decline and aging.

Nuclear energy I agree will be the answer, those other renewables will not be enough. Large food estate with reduce workers but more tech incentives already increasing even in Global South. So even tough I agree 20 bio population less likely happen, but low teens can still be happening. That low teens depends on trend in South Asia and Africa. While even with that trend, it is mostly still manageable eventough in some area means pushing out natural wild live.

also think we should do more with space, since the solar system has a lot more space, natural resources, and energy resources compared to just Earth, but that's going to be homework for future generations.

As in everything else on human history, going to space depends on economic incentives. If the economic incentives is there, the tech will going to find ways on taking that direction.

 

[John Fedup]

What happens in Brazil might be the critical factor. The Amazon rain forest is the lung of the world. When it is totally converted to a giant cattle ranch we are likely &ucked.

 

[Feanor]

What happens in Brazil might be the critical factor. The Amazon rain forest is the lung of the world. When it is totally converted to a giant cattle ranch we are likely &ucked.

I was under the impression that the oceans were the real lungs.

 

[Todjaeger]

I was under the impression that the oceans were the real lungs.

IIRC the oceans account for about half of the oxygen generation/conversion from CO2, so that Amazon rainforest is not as important, but it still captures and converts a significant amount of carbon, with trees and rainforests accounting for some 28% of the oxygen. If the Amazon were to be clear cut, it would likely trigger even further and greater extreme weather events.

 

[Ananda]

There're increasing studies shown connection between Sahara Dessert to Amazon Rain Forest. There's enough evidence that Sahara dusts blown by the wind crossing Atlantic and feeding nutrients on Amazon's Forests.

NASA Satellite Reveals How Much Saharan Dust Feeds Amazon’s Plants - NASA

What connects Earth’s largest, hottest desert to its largest tropical rain forest?

www.nasa.gov

There're also studies indicate greening of Sahara can increases due to Global Warming.

How Climate Change Is Turning the Sahara Green | Britannica

Overview of the Sahara, including a discussion of the impact of climate change on the desert.

www.britannica.com

Can cutting down Amazon, increase global warming, being balance by Green Sahara ? That's something that's still open to various studies and debates by climate science. However Sahara historically was Green, and it's not that far of in History as there're paintings in caves in Sahara or ancient settlements that indicate Green and Watery environments. It is used to be large bodies of fresh water in the middle of Sahara, some of the water now underground. Something that Libya under Khadafi wants to tap that.

Point is, nature of this planet have ways on balancing each others. Whether we as Human can addept well or our civilisation will be significantly harm, that's the question.

 

[swerve]

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

I don't believe we are heading for 10 billion. Global birth rates have shrunk to 2.3 birth per woman. Basic population replenishment is 2.1 and the rates have been on a steady downward trend. Developed countries suffer from this more then any others, where in many countries the importation of migrants is seen as a solution to the issue of having enough workers. At the extreme end places like South Korea and Japan, some of the more prosperous, developed, and industrialized nations, are actively dying out. You'll note the world bank data cuts off at 2021. However the decreases are definitely continuing.

The Lancet: Dramatic declines in global fertility rates set to transform global population patterns by 2100 | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

By 2050, over three-quarters of countries will not have high enough fertility rates to sustain population size over time. This will increase to 97% of countries by 2100.

www.healthdata.org

I don't know if we will shrink to 500 million. It was a bit of an arbitrary figure. But there are technologies that only make sense at scale and improvements that only become necessary with a growing population. We have a definite situation where developed countries dip into a negative population growth trend. And we have more and more countries becoming developed over time. Now maybe development will stop or even rollback. Or maybe something will emerge to get developed countries birth rates up. But as it stands, I believe we're heading for a significant population decline in much of the world, possibly all of the world in a forseeable future. I think right now shrinking populations are a bigger problem then growing populations.

As for 20 billion and the earth's carrying capacity, I think this is overblown. We can't all drive SUVs and live in suburbs with massive commutes, but with reasonable urban planning, good public transit, and an effort to invest in things like renewables and nuclear energy, the carrying capacity of the earth is far larger then 10 billion. There are many reasons for why the current carbon footprint is as large as it is that have to do with economic choices and lifestyles rather then direct quality of life issues.

There's a lag. Population does not stop growing as soon as the birth rate drops to replacement. Previous higher rates are baked in to the age structure. Until the cohorts born when fertility was higher have worked their way up the population pyramid, turning it into a column with a pyramid at the top, growth can continue, especially if life expectancy increases. The statisticians at the UN, World Bank etc. understand this, & that's why they predict, based on current trends, world population to reach 9.7 billion by 2050 & to possibly peak around 10.4 billion.

Nor does population start dropping as soon as TFR drops below 2.1. The lag still applies. World TFR is above replacement rate, & population is going to keep growing until some time after it drops below replacement.

You're making optimistic assumptions, that there will be "reasonable urban planning, good public transit, and an effort to invest in things like renewables and nuclear energy" very soon & continuing. China, India etc. are still building lots of coal fired power stations. New coal mines, oil wells, etc. are being commissioned. There are politicians galore who actively campaign against measures to mitigate climate change, e.g. Jair Bolsonaro - & get elected. Lose too much of the Amazon or Congo rainforests & we're in deep trouble, & there are potentially nasty things that could happen to permafrost. That lot worries me - a lot.

And there's a massive difference between carrying capacity & how many people can live a prosperous life in industrial, developed societies.

 

[Feanor]

There's a lag. Population does not stop growing as soon as the birth rate drops to replacement. Previous higher rates are baked in to the age structure. Until the cohorts born when fertility was higher have worked their way up the population pyramid, turning it into a column with a pyramid at the top, growth can continue, especially if life expectancy increases. The statisticians at the UN, World Bank etc. understand this, & that's why they predict, based on current trends, world population to reach 9.7 billion by 2050 & to possibly peak around 10.4 billion.

Nor does population start dropping as soon as TFR drops below 2.1. The lag still applies. World TFR is above replacement rate, & population is going to keep growing until some time after it drops below replacement.

But it also works in the other direction. It means that many populations that are still growing are doing so on this rising life expectancy, and ultimately are set up to shrink. I guess it remains to be seen how this plays out. We seem to be on the cusp of a major word, possibly a third world war. The demographic damage from just the Russo-Ukrainian war is already measurable.

You're making optimistic assumptions, that there will be "reasonable urban planning, good public transit, and an effort to invest in things like renewables and nuclear energy" very soon & continuing. China, India etc. are still building lots of coal fired power stations. New coal mines, oil wells, etc. are being commissioned. There are politicians galore who actively campaign against measures to mitigate climate change, e.g. Jair Bolsonaro - & get elected. Lose too much of the Amazon or Congo rainforests & we're in deep trouble, & there are potentially nasty things that could happen to permafrost. That lot worries me - a lot.

I'm saying it's possible. Whether it happens or not is another story. And it's not just politicians campaigning against measures to mitigate climate change. There's a reason so many western countries have virtually destroyed their nuclear power industries. Not the wisest of moves.

And there's a massive difference between carrying capacity & how many people can live a prosperous life in industrial, developed societies.

I think this is where technology come in and efficiencies of scale come in. A larger population in my opinion is better able to live in a prosperous society then a smaller one. Again, it only makes sense to build railroads if the population is there. It only makes sense to build high-speed rail if even more population is there. Russia is a great case study in this, where they were looking to copy European high-speed rail developments, but then did some math and realized it would only pay for itself on a handful of routes like Moscow-St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg-Helsinki, and Moscow-Berlin. Even Moscow-Kazan was questionable and still hasn't been put up. For other directions there isn't a customer base to afford the high speed rail. You need a larger population to build certain things, without which those things won't be worth while.

EDIT: On the subject of population, the world seems to have passed peak number of children.

Population Growth

Explore global and country data on population growth, demography, and how this is changing.

ourworldindata.org

https://population.un.org/dataportal/data/indicators/46/locations/900/start/1950/end/2100/line/linetimeplot?df=09ccf9be-baab-4b2b-b399-620cf42f4a9a

 

[Todjaeger]

Lose too much of the Amazon or Congo rainforests & we're in deep trouble, & there are potentially nasty things that could happen to permafrost. That lot worries me - a lot.

Losing the permafrost could trigger several potentially quite nasty issues. IIRC in some areas of the permafrost there are trapped pockets of methane gas and it had been theorized that should permafrost which has trapped one of these pockets were to melt, the gas could get released and end up back in the atmosphere, where it would be anohter/more 'greenhouse' gas. It is also my understanding that in portions of the Russian Far North, there have been some new and rather mysterious craters which have appeared in the ground, which have been theorized to have been caused by some of these trapped gas pockets getting released as the ground warmed.

Another potential problem would be the reintroduction or reemergence of microorganisms and viruses which had been trapped since the last ice age. That large a gap in time would likely mean that the immune systems of things living today would have little protection, which means that there could be widespread infection and so on. This might impact people directly with another/new pandemic emerging, or it could cause widespread infection among animals, plants, or something else. That in turn could trigger food supply issues particularly if certain staple crops were to get blighted.

 

[Vivendi]

Journalists have asked climate experts about how they believe the climate will evolve towards 2100, and their responses are quite grim. 77% believe we are headed for at least 2.5 degrees C, and almost half believe we will reach at least 3 degrees C. Global average the last 4 years is 1.2 degrees C.

World’s top climate scientists expect global heating to blast past 1.5C target | Climate crisis | The Guardian

It does not look good. European leaders must do the following:

1. Increase their efforts dramatically to cut C02 and other greenhouse gases. Apart from this being morally and ethically "the right thing" to do, it also makes it easier to put pressure on other countries to do the same. "Lead by example". The way to do it is to put heavy taxes on products and services that are producing C02.

2. Educate the population on why this has to be done. Now.

3. Invest much more in defense. Apart from the urgent issue of Russia, the whole world is moving towards a period of instability and most likely more conflicts. Climate change will act as a catalyst.

 

[John Fedup]

Progress will only happen when the two largest emitters get serious, This in turn will motivate the tier 2 emitters. Recent weather events in the US and China (floods, wild fires) occurring with increasing frequency and severity hopefully starts the process. You can bet the insurance industry will demonstrate the cost of doing nothing to both governments.