Unless we figure out carbon neutrality without cratering HDI in the next year or two maybe lets work on reducing birth rates. ‘we could have 20 billion people if we all live like subsistence farmers’ is fucking stupid.
except that not all “capita” have same emissions. someone in Eritrea has a much smaller “carbon footprint” (a term invented by BP to distract from their own wanton disregard for the environment) than a billionaire in the western world
Yes that means it’s less important to reduce birth rate in Eritrea than in the US or Australia or whatever. As long as you’re either not concerned about raising their HDI rapidly or you think it can raise without per capita emissions rising with it and good luck with that.
It doesn’t need to be, the core concept is simple. We are already overpopulated because we are failing to sustainably provide for 8 billion people. Doubling the number of people to provide for is not going to help.
I don’t have to. You’re trying make me argue inside your simplistic logic, which I refuse to do as it completely glosses over - among other things - the fact, that not every ‘capita’ contributes equally to emissions.
yeah no shit that’s the emissions per capita part. It was ‘oversimplified’ but I guess still too hard for you to understand?
Yes that means it’s less important to reduce birth rate in Eritrea than in the US or Australia or whatever. As long as you’re either not concerned about raising their HDI rapidly or you think it can raise without per capita emissions rising with it and good luck with that.
If you didn’t actually have a rebuttal you could have just not engaged instead of being a smug prick with nothing to add.
total emissions = emissions per capita * capita
Unless we figure out carbon neutrality without cratering HDI in the next year or two maybe lets work on reducing birth rates. ‘we could have 20 billion people if we all live like subsistence farmers’ is fucking stupid.
except that not all “capita” have same emissions. someone in Eritrea has a much smaller “carbon footprint” (a term invented by BP to distract from their own wanton disregard for the environment) than a billionaire in the western world
Yes that means it’s less important to reduce birth rate in Eritrea than in the US or Australia or whatever. As long as you’re either not concerned about raising their HDI rapidly or you think it can raise without per capita emissions rising with it and good luck with that.
From memory, the choice of an american to become vegan makes up for a nuclear families worth Nigerians.
Wow, that’s a detailled analysis of an issue, if I’ve ever seen one.
It doesn’t need to be, the core concept is simple. We are already overpopulated because we are failing to sustainably provide for 8 billion people. Doubling the number of people to provide for is not going to help.
That’s the beauty of it, every concept can be simple, if you simply oversimplify.
OK then explain how increasing population reduces demand for goods and lowers GHG emissions.
I don’t have to. You’re trying make me argue inside your simplistic logic, which I refuse to do as it completely glosses over - among other things - the fact, that not every ‘capita’ contributes equally to emissions.
https://climatefactchecks.org/worlds-richest-10-linked-to-two-thirds-of-global-warming-since-1990/
yeah no shit that’s the emissions per capita part. It was ‘oversimplified’ but I guess still too hard for you to understand?
If you didn’t actually have a rebuttal you could have just not engaged instead of being a smug prick with nothing to add.