Climate Control Summit - Copenhagen, December 2009

1. 61

   Communicityposted 13 years ago

   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?

   replyreport
   1. 57

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      What would be suggestions for controlling world populations?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Ron Montgomeryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Spay/neuter programs for Republicans.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Leta Sposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            lolollo  (Oh, sorry!)

            replyreport
      2. 60

         hellerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         See my post thanks.

         replyreport
   2. 59

      tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Some cranks will bring it up, but it's another false crisis.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Make Moneyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Yep overpopulation is a myth.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            hellerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            How come?

            replyreport
      2. 60

         hellerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I don't think so kidda

         replyreport
   3. 60

      marinealways24posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
   4. 61

      sooner than laterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You are a Christian Right?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         hellerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Could you expand on your bringing in religion to the question at hand?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            sooner than laterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            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

            replyreport
            1. 60

               hellerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               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.

               replyreport
2. 63

   SandyMcCollumposted 13 years ago

   Very interesting point. I don't have an answer for you, but you made me think of it from a different perspective.

   replyreport
3. 89

   Paragliderposted 13 years ago

   Population geographical distribution is a bigger issue than sheer numbers.
   Population wealth distribution is a bigger issue still.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Leta Sposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Of course.

         replyreport
      2. 72

         rhamsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         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.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            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

            replyreport
   2. 60

      hellerposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The two are related much closer than you think and I would put forward education first as a form of wealth.

      replyreport
4. 60

   hellerposted 13 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
5. 60

   hellerposted 13 years ago

   Who are the Neanderthals who supplied the previous answers by the way?

   replyreport
6. 64

   AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years ago

   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...

   replyreport
7. 60

   GL Bellposted 13 years ago

   And how nice..Basically the 3rd world telling us we polute while they do nothing...

   replyreport
   1. 64

      AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yeh, cos they've got so much f*ing money, now don't they!

      replyreport
      1. 59

         tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Do you need to have "so much f*ing money" in order to pollute?

         replyreport
         1. 64

            AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            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.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               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.

               replyreport
               1. 64

                  AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  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...).

                  replyreport
8. 60

   GL Bellposted 13 years ago

   they chop down forrest to grow coffee mostly...

   replyreport
   1. 64

      AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, you are right. This is an extremely accurate analysis of world economics. You've condensed it down to a single line -- impressed
      
      (Western corporations are not remotely involved with the chopping down of the forests of course)

      replyreport
9. 60

   GL Bellposted 13 years ago

   oh wait you just used 3 Carbon credits to post your opinion..lol

   replyreport
10. 60

    GL Bellposted 13 years ago

    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

    replyreport
    1. 64

       AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Erudite retort

       replyreport
11. 64

    AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years ago

    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...

    replyreport
    1. 59

       tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       So are you saying China is in the third world or not?

       replyreport
       1. 64

          AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          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...?

          replyreport
          1. 59

             tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             You want Haiti to pollute?

             replyreport
             1. 64

                AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                You asked me a question, I answered it

                replyreport
                1. 59

                   tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   And then I asked you another one.

                   replyreport
                   1. 64

                      AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      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...

                      replyreport
                      1. 59

                         tksenseiposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         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.

                         replyreport
                         1. 64

                            AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                            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.

                            replyreport
12. 60

    GL Bellposted 13 years ago

    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?

    replyreport
    1. 64

       AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       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...

       replyreport
13. 0

    A Texanposted 13 years ago

    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!

    replyreport
14. 59

    tksenseiposted 13 years ago

    Makes you wonder why the time was wasted in the first place.

    replyreport
    1. 64

       AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       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)

       replyreport