You already gave them. You said yourself, the US accounts for more, which means fewer children here still accounts for more than children in other places.
I don’t hate children. Talk about red herring.
The liberal and progressive group that wants to tackle climate change spin their wheels, year after year after year, and they scratch their heads asking themselves how come we don’t get better results. This is why.
Carbon tax? You act like that hasn’t been tried and pushed before? What makes you think it will be different this time… because you’re really, really sure this time? No. That’s not how this works. But you know, go ahead and keep beating that dead horse and expecting it jump up and ride hard for you later because this time you’re really sure that stick is better.
It has never been tried. Gas in Europe is 2 to 3 times more expansive, because they tax that stuff.
We give subsidies to oil companies.
We haven’t once tried anything near useful. Are population is under control, and if it went down, it would be a disaster in the US.
Look at Germany.
So, no, your ideas are a non starter, because, like in person voter fraud, it isn’t actually a problem.
The problem is urban sprawl. We don’t use the land effectively. If we all lived in cities, we would see carbon use plummet. We could open up more space to forest and preservation.
And our emissions per capita is also at a historic low.
No, total CO2 emission is the problem.
And total CO2 emission = population X carbon use per person.
Not this again. If we all lived in states where it doesn’t snow, then carbon use would also plummet.
It’s easy to blame the suburbs when you like cities. It’s easy to blame houses when you live in an apartment. It’s easy to blame furnaces when you live in Alabama. It’s easy to blame cars when you take the bus, and it’s easy to blame buses when you drive a Tesla.
There is no iron law that says a child born in a developing country will always be responsible for 12.5% of the carbon emissions of an American child. There is every reason to expect that gap to narrow a lot in the coming decades.
Sure, but you are volunteering to be part of the solution? Because, I’ll attend your funeral if you are. You can be an example to other people (not me though).
Everyone will one day die and lower the population by one. Before that happens, some people will offset the projected decline by having kids, and others won’t.
Oh I wasn’t trying to handwave off carbon/climate issues, I was just suggesting that overpopulation isn’t an issue. We should worry about solutions to current issues, just not get hung up on whether they’d be compatible with an exploding global population problem. Because the latter most likely won’t happen.
Sure, but young people contribute to the future, pay future Social Security costs, pay taxes, create new scientific breakthroughs, mow lawns, recycle and fight for gun control.
Lets do some some math.
Young People - Less likely to own a car. More likely to carpool or bike.
Old people - Useless drain on society.
I think the obvious solution is that to kill all the old people. They probably cost the most in resources, which in turn create higher Carbon Emission.
Lets face it, you can’t solve this problem but not having kids. The problem isn’t in the future, it’s here today.
Start reducing your carbon footprint. Maybe work from home instead of drive. Maybe vote for higher taxes on things that are harmful in the long run. Maybe go out less, and cook more.
Also, don’t live out in the middle of fucking nowhere. Snow and ice are limited, but AC use if forever.
And just because you don’t want to discuss it doesn’t make you any less wrong than you were early.
The less space you take up, the more trees we can plant.
Old people don’t commute to work, and often don’t drive.
Furthermore, children not only fail to contribute to society by working, they commute to school. So they should be eliminated first.
I don’t know what this means. Right now it’s 60 F in Birmingham, Alabama. Nobody there is running the A/C. It’s practically an eco-paradise. So when you move to Birmingham, I’ll leave the suburbs.
Old people need hospitals, doctors and nurses drive.
Old people need special medicines and machines which costs countless hours of resources to produce and require people to work in factories to produce, and people to harvest material.
If you think the problem is over population, why not make the rationale decision, and put a limit on how old people can get before offing them.
As for me, I live in Southern PA. in the summer, I open my windows and let the wind cool my house down. How often do you open your windows in August?
And how far do you drive to get to work? Cause I work remotely, the school for my kids is 5 minutes away (and next year it will be across the street) and I get by just fine keeping my carbon footprint small.
All the time. But I don’t live in Alabama. However, I used to live in southern PA. And I can guarantee you were burning fossil fuels last night.
And this is exactly what I mean. You work remotely, so you give yourself a pass when it comes to home heating. Someone else has to change, not you, right? Like those dirty sprawling suburbanites.
Population control is something we actually do with other species, but again asking someone not to have 8 children is not the same as a one child per family policy China came up with. They have their own problems with this. It absolutely a valid part of the discussion, and the unwillingness to even discuss it a symptom of why we can’t bring people to the table actually get work done.
I’m sure old people are useless will play great and get lots of people to the table. Great plan forming there.
I wouldn’t worry too much, if projections of what climate change is going to do to the livable portions of the planet are right, we either develop and implement tech to minimize and revert climate change or people won’t need to decide to have fewer children for population to drop.
Population will drop the old fashioned way. Hunger and war.
No, I need to change. I need to wear more sweaters, eat less meat, but honestly, we try to keep the temps low.
But I’ll tell you what, we use don’t have our AC running 24/7 in the summertime. And we have a brickhouse that retains the heat in the winter, and keeps it cool in the summer. Not like the poorly designed buildings you have in the south.
But hey, you build your large house in the middle of nowhere. I’m sure the forests and grasslands that were there before aren’t that important or beneficial. I’m sure watering the lawn isn’t a waste of water in the summertime. I’m sure none of that is a problem.
