We are well into the first week of the Climate Control Summit in Copenhagen, and of all of the answers to the issue of Global Warming no politician has put population control on the agenda.
Paul McCartney has recently joined the debate by controversially suggesting we all go "vegetarian" for one day a week to reduce carbon emmissions from livestock production (farming.)
With a Global population of over 6 billion people, when will over-population become an issue to enter the debate on global warming?
What would be suggestions for controlling world populations?
Some cranks will bring it up, but it's another false crisis.
Well, you have to kill them all off. With so much breathing, they will destroy the earth. It's the only logical thing to do, right?
Could you expand on your bringing in religion to the question at hand?
Atheists like to point out Christians way of thinking. If you know me at all you will know that I am a Christian and I wanted to point out this left field, orbital atheist
When people who are religious, of whatever variety, are questioned about proof, scientific facts or statistics or even evidence about their faith they say most often that religion does not require all of these. Religion is a question of belief or faith and does not need all the normal proofs so it begs the question why would you introduce a religious question into a purely scientific discussion - it does not belong here.
Very interesting point. I don't have an answer for you, but you made me think of it from a different perspective.
Population geographical distribution is a bigger issue than sheer numbers.
Population wealth distribution is a bigger issue still.
Your first point is a GREAT ONE! I hope it doesn't get lost on people. Population density has a much greater impact than total population.
If you take in the large number of natural resources that it takes to feed, clothe and transport the additional population would require there could be a significant impact as well.
The two are related of course. More people need more food, water, energy. But the biggest humanitarian disasters happen where there is dense overpopulation, e.g. around river deltas like Dhaka.
C.J. Wright - My point about wealth distribution was a GREAT ONE too, as wealth is a major cause of poverty. But that's a whole nother argument
The two are related much closer than you think and I would put forward education first as a form of wealth.
Excellent a practical and achievable target rather than us all contributing to the King Canute Syndrome of Man made Global Warming we get to enjoy sex but cut the population and also save the planet by restricting our population.
In China and India they have already implemented this simple idea of controlling population size and are achieving positive results and increasing personal wealth as well.
Who are the Neanderthals who supplied the previous answers by the way?
Well, this is the tune I've been piping all through the week, but one more time won't hurt ...
Oil and coal are enormously filthy, and the combination of the world's dependence on these with chopping down forests at an enormous rate, mean the planet is going to be a pretty crappy place for our grandkids, no matter whether global warming is a fact or not.
...This coupled with the complications oil dependency has on security issues (reliance on the Saudis, for example) means a reduction/elimination of fossil fuel use makese sense, period...
And how nice..Basically the 3rd world telling us we polute while they do nothing...
Yeh, cos they've got so much f*ing money, now don't they!
Do you need to have "so much f*ing money" in order to pollute?
Actually, after calming down a bit, it occurs to me that someone is pulling a fast one here, namely, isn't it normally *companies* and not *countries* that pollute??? And companies know no borders, so a Canadian company can operate in Latin America, and so on -- is this going to end up being yet another corporate bailout? Perhaps. Governments rarely have the stomach to stand up to corporations, it seems.
It always comes down to the evil, evil 'business.' Of course in countries with 'leaders' who adhere to the same nonsense the evil companies are nationalized and therefore the company/country distinction becomes moot.
I agree, I was just using shorthand, so to speak; of course if it is a nationalized industry, or a public utility, then the government in question is at fault. Conversely, I am sure there are many companies that clean up their mess (I am assuming...).
oh wait you just used 3 Carbon credits to post your opinion..lol
by the way they dont chop them..they burn them down to grow drugs so that you can stand too type on stupid forums....lol
Can you not agree that "China" is not the "Third World". tk, keep up, the debate was about who can *afford* to pay for cleanup...
I mean, yes, certain countries in the Third World, and China specifically are expecting a lot thinking they can get away with not paying for their own cleanup, and in my (NON-SPECIALIST) opinion, if you make it dirty, you should clean it up (and I am referring to *companies* here not countries), because pain is the basis for aversion therapy - and extinction of bad behaviour.
But many countries can't even afford to provide fresh water to its population, for example.
I am merely suggesting you distinguish between economies that are in *fact* emerging, and countries that have next to nothing to begin with...
So are you saying China is in the third world or not?
For crying out loud, I just posted a response to you, to the effect of why you have to be so pedantic/literalistic -- it's crazy! Certainly not conducive to *actual* debate.
YES China is in the Third World
NO it is not true that *all* countries in the Third World are the same! Let's compare Haiti and China, for example. China should pay its way, but Haiti...?
You asked me a question, I answered it
You are asking me if I want Haiti to pollute? *This* is your question???
I guess I have to read between the lines here, to get your meaning.
Obviously pollution is bad no matter who does it. I am certainly no expert and so I am not going to attempt to delve into a complex topic like development economics (also the reason I am unsure about the global warming debate: not an expert, so reasonable not to be sure...).
But it does seem to me reasonable that China should foot its own bill for economic growth, including pollution cleanup (which includes the air, so, incidentally, CO2 reduction - coal pollution being pollution ).
As to countries where growth is minimal, non-existent, or negative, well this is a whole new topic: a problem that requires attention, but not one I am equipped to give a response to...
China is well aware of its need to address environmental issues, but as soon as you get into 'mandating' levels you are bound to run into complications that make the insisted upon results unlikely.
Indeed, there is one thing that is rarely mentioned in that sense, which I find a bit strange, and that is that countries regularly get together, sign "binding agreements" and then proceed to ignore them. Canada signed up to Kyoto, and now produces 15% (I think) more emissions than in 1990 -- and we have had governments from two separate parties in power in that time.
ooo wait...In America companies and countries are the same now..its called Communism...the Gov owns health care and the auto indusry and banking...so are you GREEN now?
The government owns health care -- okayyyyy
America is a Communist country: expect a knock on the door tonight then for posting a criticism of your government, and tomorrow of course expect nationalization of entire sectors, including heavy industry.
I am not "green" in the sense of being an absolute believer in global warming - I just think pollution is bad; hardly controversial...
I'm all for population control how about all left handed people shoot themselves? No? How about those with blond hair? Not that either? This is gonna take awhile!
Such is the nature of government, if you ask me (which does not mean I am an American style right-winger, but I am fully aware of the waste of energy, posturing etc., of governments, that makes you want to take them and line them up against the wall, frankly, sometimes)
by ngureco 9 years ago
Why Should They Use Gas-Guzzling Luxury Limos at Copenhagen Climate Summit?Or Is It Just Another Way Of Preaching Water And Drinking Wine?
by rhamson 9 years ago
The current conference in Copenhagen has witnessed the use of 1200 limosines shunning public transportation. Copenhagen had to get a number of the limos from neighboring Germany to fill the order. Is this because of a security risk for the attendees or is it an elitist way of dealing with the...
by Sagarika Rath 8 years ago
With international community showing there devious intent towards Climate Control, it is time now for us to decide our own future ahead. we only can change the course of earth from a disastrous consequences. pls join this campaign and create as much awareness as u can so that the 2010 Mexico Summit...
by JerryTillotson 9 years ago
I've watched the program, and I've also watched follow-up programs made especially to dispel the theory that global warming is caused by sunspot activity.I can't help suspecting that this is correct. Global weather patterns are ever-changing and I don't think man has enough data to make a definite...
by JerryTillotson 7 years ago
Why do people get so emotional when global warming is questioned?As a high school social studies teacher, I find it necessary to present oppsoing points of view on all controversial subjects, including global warming. But frequently people become very expressive in their objections to the...
by sannyasinman 4 years ago
Once again, the latest IPCC report makes exaggerated claims of a looming Armageddon, cherry-picking data to support their alarmist propaganda. However, the NIPCC report also from climate scientists (although not on the UN payroll) does not agree with the official UN report....
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|