In your opinion, which is the bigger problem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gwens18a
  • Start date Start date
G

gwens18a

Guest
In your opinion, which is worst and is the greater cause of the global warming? Would it be people on the planet emitting too much greenhouse gas, or is it that there are too many people on the planet who happen to emit greenhouse gas?
If it's people on the planet emitting too much greenhouse gas we already have many solutions to reduce our emissions, but if your opinion is too many people, how many is too many and how do ethically reduce the human population?
So now it's semantics is it Jim?
So Jim words it is, methane is carbon neutral and humans emit methane? Ok that's fare, but consider this. There are more than six and a half billion people on the planet that emit methane and most survive on food sources from synthetic fertilizer. Since this synthetic fertilization relies heavily on petroleum, how can human emission still be considered carbon neutral? There is now more petroleum based calories that go into growing and transporting a plant then that plants acquires naturally from the sun. I have supporting documentation by Dr. Vaclav Smil and will put up a reference if I can find it in my pile of papers, until I do let this suffice http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071104/NEWS/711040325
One could make the claim that humans are now partially powered by fossil fuel and that is not carbon neutral. That's not all, methane is considered a short lived molecule, but what happens when it breaks down in the atmosphere and the carbon oxidizes?
 
Yes, I believe that the human population is unsustainably high; however, I don't believe that there's any need for policy action after the advent of birth control. The historical experience has been that population grows exponentially, eventually reaching its greatest growth rate immediately prior to stabilizing. That's what's happened to the native and settled immigrant populations of the developed nations, and I anticipate that the same trend will occur in the currently developing states. The population of the planet will probably reach a peak of around 9-11 billion around 2050, before declining somewhat and then stabilizing around the 7-10 billion area. It doesn't seem likely that population growth will again resume until humans begin colonizing Mars and the rest of the solar system, which itself won't occur until fusion technology becomes economically viable.

So to answer your question, it's definitely the amount of GHG's emitted per-capita. Accounting not only for current costs but observed trends, I've conservatively figured that GHG emissions per unit of GDP can be reduced 90-95% without any reduction in living standards, and likely even a net gain.
 
Back
Top