Want to Slow Climate Change? Stop Having Babies

Here's something all you true believers can do to stop "global warming" and this comes from one of your own. Time to put up or shut up.

"Carbon dioxide doesn't kill climates; people do. And the world would be better off with fewer of them.
That's a glib summary of a serious and seriously provocative book by Travis Rieder, a moral philosophy professor and bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University.
When economists write about climate change, they'll often bring up something called the Kaya identity—basically a multiplication problem (not an espionage novel) that helps economists estimate how much carbon dioxide may be heading into the atmosphere. The Kaya identity says the pace of climate pollution is more or less the product four things:
How carbon-heavy fuels are
How much energy the economy needs to produce GDP
GDP per capita
Population
After years of policymakers' yammering about carbon-light or carbon-free this-or-that, Rieder basically zeroes in on the fact nobody wants to acknowledge: The number of people in the world—particularly in affluent countries—is literally a part of the equation.
Think of Rieder's as the argument waiting in the wings should the 195-nation Paris Agreement, which came within a shade of enactment this week, fail to address the problem."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-having-babies-bioethicist-travis-rieder-says

 

Yes, a reduction in the birth rate would help. I think that there will come a time when we can no longer produce enough food.

 

Abortions save the ozone layer because it keeps women off the road for a couple of days until they recover. I heard about it on Howard Stern.

 

The problem is if you change the demographics too quickly you end up with a society of a few working younf people and a LOT of old retired people.

 

And there we have it ^^ - the Malthusian roots of global warming alarmism.

 

This professor has a feeble knowledge of market forces. Nothing has had more impact to climate change than the price of oil and the incentive to save money through green technologies.

Which business would you rather invest in, one whose profit margins are improved by reduced energy, water, and waste reduction measures or one that wastes money by ignoring conservation measures?

You don't like conservation? Don't hold your breath because the world will not wait for you to change your mind.

 

In other words you reject the fact that more people means more fossil fuel used even if we reduce fuel used per person. Talk about fuzzy math and refusing to accept responsibility for your life style,you epitomize both.

- - - Updated - - -

Any so now you suddenly put economics above your AGW doom and gloom end of world theory, interesting.

 

So you would solve AGW by creating a massive worldwide depression?

 

Isn't that what you true believers want to do with your anti fossil fuel policies? Now that you may have to sacrifice something near and dear to you like having kids you start screaming economy.

 

While oil is a major concern, less people requires less oil. For example, less people means labor is more expensive, driving up the costs.

 

It seems the countries with the most poverty has the most children. Has anyone ever wondered why?

 

No one has ever suggested to best way to handle AGW is to create a worldwide depression and reducing fossil fuel use will never do that

 

A carbon tax and putting fossil fuel businesses out of business will do exactly that not to mention all the tax dollars wasted on BS wind and solar plants that can't be self sustaining and subsidizing electric cars that are arguably worse for the environment than conventional cars

 

Not in the slightest. I know of no study anywhere that states that. I would be in favor of some population reduction if it is done correctly. Extreme measures are not needed but intelligent changes need to be made

 

You need a study to show you that stopping pipelines and new drilling and saying " you can build a coal fired power plant but you'll go broke if you do" and hillary wanting to put coal companies out of business will cost jobs??????? WTF do you need a study for????

- - - Updated - - -

But developed countries use far more resources per person and that is what the author of the book is talking about

 

Yes we should and do study this. We changed from horse to cars at one time to and put the blacksmith out of business. People got other jobs. And do it will be with this change

 

The difference is that cars are much more economically efficient than horses. Wind and solar are not more economically efficient than coal fired electric power plants. Forced conversion to wind and solar will adversely affect economic growth which regressively affects low income workers. And for nothing. A warming climate is clearly a net benefit. The forced conversion by the western world to solar and wind will do absolutely nothing to reduce the rate of global warming. Hillary's economic and climate change policies will result in reduction of the already pathetic Obama gdp per capita rate of 1% and 0% thus far for 2016. It's incredible that so many people do not understand these basic facts.

 

You have presented a thesis. It is one that every science agency on the planet disagrees with. I will chose their thesis over yours and will rely on the overwhelming scientific consensus like we do in every other thing

 

Dr. Tol has shown that global warming is a benefit by reviewing and consolidating scientific papers on the affects of global warming. There is a scientific consensus that acknowledges the benefits of global warming. How much will the Obama/Clinton global warming damage the economy of the US and reduce the global average temperature in 2100 ?? What does your scientific consensus say about that ?? What you believe in justifies the precautionary principle as a legitimate response to the upper limit on general circulation climate models which cannot "predict" the past.

The damaging effects of forced conversion to wind and solar can be seen in the economies of Spain and Germany. That is not a thesis but proof.

 

The scientific consensus is overwhelming that the negatives of AGW outweigh the positive. The consensus is also that we can reduce the effects of AGW. We can....and we will

 

That is not true. And the actions of the Obama/Clinton global warming policies will have no effect on the global average temperature one hundred years from now. The only measurable result will be an even further reduction in US economic growth. Can you provide a source which quantifies what the effects of the Obama/Clinton policies will have on the global average temperature one hundred years from now ??

 

The scientific community believes our efforts can reduce the effects of AGW. Check the NASA AGW page. Exactly how much does not need to be known. Stop smoking and your health improves. Exactly how much no one knows exactly....but stop smoking anyway.

 

You have no answer and neither does NASA. The answer is that US policies will have zero global warming effect (we know that exactly) and adverse economic effects. This can be shown using the MAGICC climate model as outlined in the book "Lukewarming" by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. Knappenberger - 2016. To implement policies which have adverse economic effects and zero global warming effects is irresponsible.

 

The scientific community has nearly universal consensus that you are wrong

 

I have done my part then by having no childeren of my own yet I helped raise another man's child.