Apropos
Do we really need to have more than double the carbon footprint per capita of our British friends? What’s that mostly about, anyway… car usage?
Also: Blame Kazakhstan!
Nesrie
4754
It’s easy for the progressives to go after people they think are rich with houses and yards. They aren’t willing to take the blowback they’ll get if they tell someone with 8 kids to stop having kids, or you know, even 3.
You don’t tell people to stop having kids. You education and empower women and they decide not to have eight kids (because really, few women want to have that many kids.) Besides as Gordon’t chart illustrates, right now the developed world accounts for a far larger carbon footprint than say Africa.
I think so. Just recently transportation in the US accounts for the largest contributor for GHG.
True, and to add to this, you don’t necessarily have to target just women. Raising the overall economic status of a population, including all genders, leads to less population growth. (You know, a decade ago I’d never have said “all genders” - the language of gender has certainly evolved!)
MikeJ
4757
I wonder if some of that is also bigger homes and relatively larger carbon-intensive industrial sectors: agriculture, mining, heavy industry, etc. If you count the carbon footprints of the things Britons import (and subtract the footprints of exports), I suspect the gap narrows a bit.
I thought it had been pretty conclusively proven that prosperous first world countries breed below the replacement rate? I’m personally of the belief that overpopulation is a complete non-issue long-term as more countries modernize.
Nesrie
4759
So if it has to do with overpopulation, we have to go slow with education and patience. If it has to do with people who live in the suburbs, are wary of any claims the government might make at actually doing with the money what they say they will do with… sky is falling act now or die as a species…
That’s a little… it’s a mixed message, and it makes progressives look hugely self-serving.
Doesn’t every US person produce 8 times the carbon that a person from Africa produces?
As for 10 dollars a month… who can afford it? If I have a pretty good paying job, maybe, but in this economy, with student loans and mortgages/rent. Not likely.
As long as salaries are too low, hours are too high, and education is too limited, you aren’t going to see a dime from most people.
magnet
4762
Oh, look at Mr. Richie Rich, with his Netflix subscription!
Did you see my wedding photo?
ShivaX
4764
I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything.
Nesrie
4765
Well if every person in the USA produces ten times the carbon as people in Africa, why do we want people in the USA having 8 kids?
If it really only cost 10 dollars per person to get a huge jump start on climate issues, then the most logical course of action would be to make that a progressive tax so the bottom group that can’t afford it would be subsidized by the top and the middleish would just pay their ten dollars. I’ve never seen any estimates like that though. By the time one of the Democratic plans are done, they’re asking for tens of thousands from families who will outright reject it or can’t afford it, and they wont’ have hard conversations with people that vote for them over population control… and yes, that would be a hard conversation to have.
RichVR
4766
Love that red jacket on you. So flattering.
Yeah, it’s tough to afford. Hell, programs like CHIP is one of the many things that keep my bank account even remotely close positive at the end of the month.
Lets face it, life is plenty tough for the majority of people in the US, and it looks like it will get tough, but hey, if you are doing well, good for you.
We don’t, but population isn’t rising super fast in the US, or in Europe. Sure it’s rising fasting in developing nations, but it takes 10 people to equal one US citizen when it comes to carbon pollution. I’m not going to tell people in another country to stop having kids, when we in the US are a bigger culprit.
But, as has been mentioned early, economic prosperity, especially among women, often lead to lower birth rates.
The Toaster Correlation comes to mind. Families with Toasters are less likely to have kids than families without toasters. Globally.
Nesrie
4769
Okay. I am not talking about other families in other countries. I am talking about ours. We have people with very large families, right here, in this country and in other fully developed nations. Who is going to talk to them?
It’s already been solved.
Thanks Student loans.
German doesn’t even have replacement levels when it comes to birthrate.
Nesrie
4771
This is so cowardly. Yeah, the progressives won’t do it. They’ll hound someone in a house but they don’t have the guts to talk to the large families. Okay. Yeah, double standards. It’s not a good look, and it’s self-serving, like i said.
This is true. However the US accounts for something like 5% of the world’s population but 25%(ish) of carbon emissions. When the rest of the world (7 billion and counting) starts having the same consumption patterns, then what?
