You know, since plants hate a little extra warmth and CO2: Climate Change [Allegedly] Raises Threat of Global Starvation - Bonnie Erbe (usnews.com)
Before the Green Revolution, it was fashionable to blame overpopulation for mass starvation. The explanation fell out of favor as the Malthusian claims in Paul Ehrlich's 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb proved wrong. Perhaps Ehrlich was just 40 years too early with his book, as the Malthusian catastrophe argument seems closer to reality now than four decades prior. This time, overpopulation combined with global warming (which is of course a product of overpopulation) may produce the next generation of food shortages.
Climate Change TruthAustralian Climate Madness: US climate madnessMarc Morano is the Executive Editor and Chief Correspondent for ClimateDepot.com, a global warming and eco-news center.
According to Marc, the environmental "left" has always had to have a crisis. In the '60's it was the scare that focused on chemicals such as DDT. In the '70's it was the overpopulation crisis and global cooling. In the 80's the concern was over the rain forests.
The ancient Druids were afraid of the weather and today we have people living in similar fashion as they go about communicating scenarios of environmental doom.
What does the scientific data really say about climate change? Could the hysteria have something to do with population and/or people control? What affect is global warming ideology having on young people? Get the answers to these and other questions concerning climate change on this edition of Crosstalk [MP3].
It's incredible that elected officials of the worlds only remaining superpower can spout such utter nonsense, and not be laughed out of the room. Such is the power and influence of the AGW religion. Fortunately, however, the bill has virtually zero chance of ever making it into law - the Republicans and a significant number of Democrats who can see through this charade will see to that.
Posts
1 comment:
As you hint, climate change and overpopulation are inherently linked. A much smaller population would not have had such a 'tipping point' influence on climate. Climate change also results in less global carrying capacity for humans, and it is carrying capacity, not population numbers per se, that matter most.
In this sense, climate change speeds up time - the faster the climate changes, the more negative impact on carrying capacity and the fewer humans can survive (and, the sooner we hit general social collapse, starvation, resource wars, plagues, and the like.
We’ve already exceeded global carrying capacity. We are now in “overshoot”. (Visualize a car sailing smoothly, but quite temporarily, through the air after having been driven off of a cliff.)
Global population is nearing 7 billion. Different theorists using different methods seem to end up agreeing that global carrying capacity is probably somewhere in the 1 to 4 billion range. (This assumes some level of social justice and a moderate, low by US standards, standard of living. More is possible if you accept a cattle car / Matrix-esque "life".)
In any case, we will get to that much-lower-than-7-billion number the hard way (wars, famine, disease, and their accompanying losses of environmental quality, freedom, and social justice) OR the less hard way (immediately and drastically reducing our population voluntarily). Yes, all of us, yes, everywhere. There is no scenario anywhere in which population growth is a "good thing" long term.
Yes a drop in population would cause problems, but none of those problems are as big as the problems, suffering, and environmental collapse that is certain to occur if we don’t.
I disagree with any argument that there is some “right to reproduce”. If there is any "right to reproduce" it's in the concept that one has the freedom to nurture a child or children and form some sort of family. Biological reproduction is not necessary to do that and there are many in need of this sort of nurturing. I would also argue that there is no right to cause suffering to others, now or on into the future, and that is exactly what having babies does.
This is a global issue with local and nation-state consequences. For example, immigration is a consequence of overpopulation, not a cause of it. Likewise, global climate change and the collapse of ocean fisheries are not impressed by national boundaries.
No technological / "alternative energy" options have the capacity or can be ramped up fast enough to avoid major global calamity. That isn't to say we shouldn't do them. Aggressively shifting to alternative energy is necessary, just not sufficient.
The only thing that is sufficient? Stop making babies now, everywhere.
For more comprehensive analysis of all this I suggest
Bandura etc.
http://growthmadness.org/2008/02/18/impeding-ecological-sustainability-through-selective-moral-disengagement/
Albert Bartlett on the exponential function as it relates to population and oil:
http://c-realm.blogspot.com/2008/12/kmo-interview-with-albert-bartlett.html
Approaching the Limits www.paulchefurka.ca
Bruce Sundquist on environmental impact of overpopulation http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/
How Many People Should The Earth Support? http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html
Video short on exponential growth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2rTQpdyCFQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fin-gods-name.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F03%2Ftoo-many-people-too-much-consumption-by.html&feature=player_embedded
Carrying Capacity
http://iere.org/ILEA/leaf/richard2002.html
The Oil Drum Peak Oil Overview - June 2007 (www.theoildrum.com/node/2693)
...and of course the classic "Overshoot" by Catton
Post a Comment