"Forget, for a moment, your national identity. Consider inequality from an astronaut’s perspective. Imagine the earth and all the suffering on it. Think globally, as if there were no countries or borders, but only one great planetary pool of humans,which can be partitioned into nations, or races, or genders, or ethnic and religious communities. Or into classes—like “the global one percent”—defined by wealth, income, and emissions.
...bigger picture.
In this global inequality approach, one doesn’t compare the wealth of an average American to that of an average Chinese, or the emissions of an average Colombian to those of an average Russian. One ignores countries, at least initially, to reveal the
...Carbon Inequality Era paper shows that, in the period since 1990, as emissions almost doubled, the rising consumption of the world’s top 10 percent was responsible for almost half of that increase—almost as much as the entire remaining 90 percent of
Because income and emissions are highly correlated, this approach allows us to better answer the question of why humanity’s cumulative emissions have doubled since the early years of the U.N. climate treaty. The Stockholm Environment Institute’s
Many of us will live to see the consequences of this emissions growth, as the temperature begins a true overshoot (and not just a transient spike) above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). To have a 50/50 chance of holding the 1.5-degree line,we have to limit emissions from the beginning of 2023 onward to about 250 metric gigatons of carbon dioxide. At current global emissions levels, that budget will be exhausted in 2029. But the world’s richest 10 percent would exhaust it on their own by
The problem isn’t just that wealthy people generate more carbon emissions than poor people. It’s that the sheer overwhelming extent to which they do so belies the endlessly repeated claim that rising fossil fuel consumption and even thedestabilization of the climate system are justified by the need to lift the world’s poor from poverty.
The truth is that the poorer, energy-deprived half of the human population has barely contributed to, and barely benefited from, these past three decades’ rise in emissions, during which the earth’s temperature has risen perilously. Rather, theycontinue to struggle, even as they’re pummeled by the devastations of an ever more inhospitable climate system. "
https://newrepublic.com/article/176558/emissions-rich-people-problem
ltlee1 wrote: [ . . . ]-----------------------------
Very complicated issue. As people are becoming wealthier they are also emitting more carbon
certainly makes sense in general. However, the lower, upper bound, as well as assumed
linearity appear to be arbitrary. In particular, However, the lower bound of 30% of median income
seems high. This would skew increase carbon emission over time toward higher income groups
including groups getting wealthy more recently.
ltlee1 wrote:
ltlee1 wrote: [ . . . ]-----------------------------
Very complicated issue. As people are becoming wealthier they are also emitting more carbon
certainly makes sense in general. However, the lower, upper bound, as well as assumed
linearity appear to be arbitrary. In particular, However, the lower bound of 30% of median income
seems high. This would skew increase carbon emission over time toward higher income groups
including groups getting wealthy more recently.
Overpopulation is the problem. We were overpopulated 50 YEARS AGO,
when the scientists called for Zero Population Growth!!
--
--
David P. wrote:-------------------
ltlee1 wrote:Many learned people the sun moved around the earth not that long ago.
ltlee1 wrote: [ . . . ]-----------------------------
Very complicated issue. As people are becoming wealthier they are also emitting more carbon
certainly makes sense in general. However, the lower, upper bound, as well as assumed
linearity appear to be arbitrary. In particular, However, the lower bound of 30% of median income
seems high. This would skew increase carbon emission over time toward higher income groups
including groups getting wealthy more recently.
Overpopulation is the problem. We were overpopulated 50 YEARS AGO,
when the scientists called for Zero Population Growth!!
--
--
As far as I can tell, Zero Population Growth had never gain mainstream.
Since you had repeated the claim of overpopulation multiple time, would
you please also tell how many out of how many scientists called for Zero Population Growth.
ltlee1 wrote:Have you ever heard Julian Simon and his bet with Paul Ehrlich?
David P. wrote:-------------------
ltlee1 wrote:Many learned people the sun moved around the earth not that long ago.
ltlee1 wrote: [ . . . ]-----------------------------
Very complicated issue. As people are becoming wealthier they are also emitting more carbon
certainly makes sense in general. However, the lower, upper bound, as well as assumed
linearity appear to be arbitrary. In particular, However, the lower bound of 30% of median income
seems high. This would skew increase carbon emission over time toward higher income groups
including groups getting wealthy more recently.
Overpopulation is the problem. We were overpopulated 50 YEARS AGO,
when the scientists called for Zero Population Growth!!
--
--
As far as I can tell, Zero Population Growth had never gain mainstream. Since you had repeated the claim of overpopulation multiple time, would you please also tell how many out of how many scientists called for Zero Population Growth.
The scientists looking at our eco-footprint & projecting into the future called for
Zero Population Growth 50 years ago. The other scientists were not qualified to
speak on that subject. The people replied with: "Numbers don't matter!" and "There's no limits", and the people were wrong! Every species has natural enemies
that keep its numbers in check. The Laws of Nature supersede and overrule human laws!
--
--
David P. wrote:-----------------
ltlee1 wrote:Have you ever heard Julian Simon and his bet with Paul Ehrlich?
David P. wrote:-------------------
ltlee1 wrote:Many learned people the sun moved around the earth not that long ago.
ltlee1 wrote: [ . . . ]-----------------------------
Very complicated issue. As people are becoming wealthier they are also emitting more carbon
certainly makes sense in general. However, the lower, upper bound, as well as assumed
linearity appear to be arbitrary. In particular, However, the lower bound of 30% of median income
seems high. This would skew increase carbon emission over time toward higher income groups
including groups getting wealthy more recently.
Overpopulation is the problem. We were overpopulated 50 YEARS AGO,
when the scientists called for Zero Population Growth!!
--
--
As far as I can tell, Zero Population Growth had never gain mainstream. Since you had repeated the claim of overpopulation multiple time, would you please also tell how many out of how many scientists called for Zero Population Growth.
The scientists looking at our eco-footprint & projecting into the future called for
Zero Population Growth 50 years ago. The other scientists were not qualified to
speak on that subject. The people replied with: "Numbers don't matter!" and "There's no limits", and the people were wrong! Every species has natural enemies
that keep its numbers in check. The Laws of Nature supersede and overrule human laws!
--
--
The following from Wikepedia: [ . . . ]
Ehrlich and his colleagues picked five metals ....
ltlee1 wrote:
David P. wrote:-----------------
ltlee1 wrote:Have you ever heard Julian Simon and his bet with Paul Ehrlich?
David P. wrote:-------------------
ltlee1 wrote:Many learned people the sun moved around the earth not that long ago. As far as I can tell, Zero Population Growth had never gain mainstream.
ltlee1 wrote: [ . . . ]-----------------------------
Very complicated issue. As people are becoming wealthier they are also emitting more carbon
certainly makes sense in general. However, the lower, upper bound, as well as assumed
linearity appear to be arbitrary. In particular, However, the lower bound of 30% of median income
seems high. This would skew increase carbon emission over time toward higher income groups
including groups getting wealthy more recently.
Overpopulation is the problem. We were overpopulated 50 YEARS AGO, when the scientists called for Zero Population Growth!!
--
--
Since you had repeated the claim of overpopulation multiple time, would
you please also tell how many out of how many scientists called for Zero
Population Growth.
The scientists looking at our eco-footprint & projecting into the future called for
Zero Population Growth 50 years ago. The other scientists were not qualified to
speak on that subject. The people replied with: "Numbers don't matter!" and
"There's no limits", and the people were wrong! Every species has natural enemies
that keep its numbers in check. The Laws of Nature supersede and overrule human laws!
--
--
The following from Wikepedia: [ . . . ]
Ehrlich and his colleagues picked five metals ....
Can you make a list of all the things we need besides those five metals?
--
--
David P. wrote:------------------
ltlee1 wrote:Paul Ehrlich was offered to pick any raw material he wanted per his "population
David P. wrote:-----------------
ltlee1 wrote:Have you ever heard Julian Simon and his bet with Paul Ehrlich?
David P. wrote:-------------------
ltlee1 wrote:Many learned people the sun moved around the earth not that long ago. As far as I can tell, Zero Population Growth had never gain mainstream.
ltlee1 wrote: [ . . . ]-----------------------------
Very complicated issue. As people are becoming wealthier they are also emitting more carbon
certainly makes sense in general. However, the lower, upper bound, as well as assumed
linearity appear to be arbitrary. In particular, However, the lower bound of 30% of median income
seems high. This would skew increase carbon emission over time toward higher income groups
including groups getting wealthy more recently.
Overpopulation is the problem. We were overpopulated 50 YEARS AGO, when the scientists called for Zero Population Growth!!
--
--
Since you had repeated the claim of overpopulation multiple time, would
you please also tell how many out of how many scientists called for Zero
Population Growth.
The scientists looking at our eco-footprint & projecting into the future called for
Zero Population Growth 50 years ago. The other scientists were not qualified to
speak on that subject. The people replied with: "Numbers don't matter!" and
"There's no limits", and the people were wrong! Every species has natural enemies
that keep its numbers in check. The Laws of Nature supersede and overrule human laws!
--
--
The following from Wikepedia: [ . . . ]
Ehrlich and his colleagues picked five metals ....
Can you make a list of all the things we need besides those five metals?
--
--
explosion" theory. Yet he lost. The first question one has to consider is whether
Ehrlich was qualified to speak on the subject.
Anyway, IF you really believe "The Laws of Nature supersede and overrule human
laws", we human could have little chance acting proactively regarding Nature.
ltlee1 wrote:Whatever the laws of nature are, human mind/brains are the only thing which could
David P. wrote:
ltlee1 wrote:Paul Ehrlich was offered to pick any raw material he wanted per his "population
David P. wrote:-----------------
ltlee1 wrote:Have you ever heard Julian Simon and his bet with Paul Ehrlich?
David P. wrote:-------------------
ltlee1 wrote:Many learned people the sun moved around the earth not that long ago.
ltlee1 wrote: [ . . . ]-----------------------------
Very complicated issue. As people are becoming wealthier they are also emitting more carbon
certainly makes sense in general. However, the lower, upper bound, as well as assumed
linearity appear to be arbitrary. In particular, However, the lower bound of 30% of median income
seems high. This would skew increase carbon emission over time toward higher income groups
including groups getting wealthy more recently.
Overpopulation is the problem. We were overpopulated 50 YEARS AGO,
when the scientists called for Zero Population Growth!!
--
--
As far as I can tell, Zero Population Growth had never gain mainstream.
Since you had repeated the claim of overpopulation multiple time, would
you please also tell how many out of how many scientists called for Zero
Population Growth.
The scientists looking at our eco-footprint & projecting into the future called for
Zero Population Growth 50 years ago. The other scientists were not qualified to
speak on that subject. The people replied with: "Numbers don't matter!" and
"There's no limits", and the people were wrong! Every species has natural enemies
that keep its numbers in check. The Laws of Nature supersede and overrule human laws!
--
--
The following from Wikepedia: [ . . . ]
Ehrlich and his colleagues picked five metals ....
Can you make a list of all the things we need besides those five metals? --
--
explosion" theory. Yet he lost. The first question one has to consider is whether
Ehrlich was qualified to speak on the subject.
Anyway, IF you really believe "The Laws of Nature supersede and overrule human------------------
laws", we human could have little chance acting proactively regarding Nature.
We're doing pretty well with agriculture, as long as we don't overdo it!
We just need to become more humble regarding the population numbers.
--
--
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 126:05:02 |
Calls: | 6,663 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,212 |
Messages: | 5,334,951 |