Off Topic Political Debate

I have voted Green in the past but their economic policies are so daft I cannot for now. But Greens should be Green

 

No - do it everywhere. Tinkering is all Greens want to do. Cannot believe a Green advocates deliberaetly waiting while things get worse and then hopes they will improve. Try that for CO2 reduction to should we?

 

Really hard for a Green because people project their own ideas of what you 'should' do onto you.

I vote Green clearly but on a personal level I do a lot of things that may not be the very best. We all make choices.

 

And there is the rub - until someone stops tinkering round the edges and takes a big bang approach things won't change. Sure it will be hugely unpopular with many but this issue won't be solved without drastic measures.

 

I agree with you Dan. I suspect Paris claim to have been a huge success but it is when they get back and fail to act we will see how governments really care.

 

Leo, you cannot presume that fewer people on this earth would be consuming less. Take this on a nation by nation basis - according to your theory those nations with the highest population densities would be consuming more and producing more emissions than those with fewer people per square km. So why is the USA. the biggest polluter here (when their population density is less than nearly all European countries. The case of the USA. suggests that 'fewer' can actually consume more, and produce proportionally more emissions.

And those drastic measures can only be taken by all party coalitions (like in wartime) so that no one single party is blamed for them. If the Green Party suggested stopping all child allowances then they would be cast into oblivion by the electorate - and that helps no one.

 

I understand where you are coming from Yorkie - but don't all parties have people suggesting ideas. However there can be no argument but that the world has too many people and their consumption affects total resources. Why would someone who wants to better the planet not advocate population reduction? It can go hand in hand with any other policy - it rules nothing out. Reduce people = reduce consumption of everything. The Green party could easily have it on their agenda and try to persuade people. After all China followed a one child policy for years and they are the largest population on earth. Two and a half billion people live in China and India,; throw in USA and Indonesia and you top 3 billion. Add in the other countries with more than 100 million people - Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia, Nigeria, Japan, Mexico and the Philippines and you get to nearly 4 and a half billion.That is 12 countries that account for nearly two thirds of the world population. Many of these countries need aid - so link aid to population reduction with large incentives to raise the standard of living for their masses and you make a tremendous difference. Oh dear I see a problem - the Catholic church.

 

Of course I can presume that fewer people will consume less. If God wiped out every second person across the face of the earth tomorrow the planet would use half the resources overnight. Your logic is faulty - my theory does not suggest anything at all about the highest population densities consuming more. Unlike you I am talking about global population reduction. So let's pretend that China's 1.3 billion consume 1000 units and the USA's 320 million consume 2000 units. Halve both populations and China would be 650 million and consume 500 while the USA 160 million would consume 1000. Total consumption drops from 3000 to 1500. Simple maths.
Just because it is not popular does not mean that if it is the essential solution to environmental problems you should not try to persuade people . Do you think your other policies are popular? They are just other forms of nasty medicine. I prefer to continue to live a good life and encourage the whole world to improve their standard of living - but with less people everywhere. Maybe the Green's should try to persuade the other parties that population reduction is good. Or do you think it is fine to keep growing the population -is it not really a problem?

 

Even the Catholic Church is beginning to realise the stupidity of past policies. All I can say is you'd find loads that are not fully practicing ones in Europe

Just out of interest, and this in no way trying to condone my lot, doesn't Islam have the same teachings on birth control?

 

For all you golden oldies I can heartily recommended the RIU Palace hotel in Costa Adeje (5 star of course!) Tenerife. At this time of year it is a bit like being an extra in the film Cocoon, before the residents became younger.
Good mix of nationalities although the krauts have a panzer division to strategically place their towels in the best locations.

Hope to listen to the game this afternoon on hornet player.

coyh's

 

Islam - don't know but probably. Unfortunately throughout history increased population meant increased power and national prestige. It is hard to get people to accept their tribe should reduce - it could only happen (and of course it won't) if all nations practised it.
Individual Catholics are one thing - the Pope and the Church itself is another. Look at Ireland where church attendance has dropped from over 80% to under 20% in the last couple of decades - the leadership is out of touch with the common people

 

Leo....the biggest polluters of this planet are, according to Co2 emissions per head :
The USA. 16.5 Tons Co2 per head
Russia. 12.4 Tons per head
Canada. 15.9 Tons per head
Saudi Arabia 16.8 Tons per head
Australia 17.3 Tons per head
China 7.6 Tons per head
European Union 6.7 Tons per head.

The problem is that linking international aid to population control punishes the wrong people - none of the countries mentioned above (with the exception of China) has a 'population' problem in relation to land size or resources. The theme of Co2 emissions and causes of global warming are 'western' problems mostly created by us - your attempt to transfer attentions to the 3rd and developing World by concentrating primarily on population growth only draws blame onto the wrong people - the 'problem' is our western lifestyle.

 

People do not correspond to mathematics Leo. If you were to halve the population of England to say 30 million, then the end result would not be a halving of either consumption or emissions. The reason is that infrastructure would also have been halved with the result that people would be driving further distances to work, to the shops etc. the remaining population would also then have access to more development land etc. with a proportionate increase in emissions. The end result could well be that they are actually producing the same emissions as before. By the same process we know that the rural population produces more emissions per head than the urban one.

 

I agree that our western life style is creating problems. Single occupancy living is one, where heating is required for a building no matter how many live in that space. The UK has close on 30% of the households with a single person living there, Germany 40%. I would have guessed that this was because of the elderly living longer, but figures show that this is not the case. The vast majority are in the 45- 65 age range, suggesting marriage/partnership break ups. People are conditioned to believe that all of products being advertized are theirs providing that both people work the hours to earn some money. The stress that some people go through in order buy the latest mobile phone seems daft when the one they already have is still working and does almost the same thing as the new model. Maybe this is just one reason that people relate their partners to out of date models and ditch them.

 

Blimey Cologne - change the record. People do not want to have a worse standard of living. It's not about punishment. It's about too many people. When lemmings go on their suicide mission do they pick out the naughty ones ?
Do you honestly believe that you "innocent" 3rd worlders do not aspire to western technology? Cut CO2 if you can etc etc but you cannot deny the biggest problem. Since when should two and a half billion people live in China and India, do they not want to get wealthy (they do by the way) and when they do they are part even of your analysis of the problem Cut the population - everywhere. Are you a population denier?

 

I consider that argument totally fallacious.
However you do your maths a world population of 1 billion would not test the planet's resources.

 

Leo it stands to reason that the more 'spaced out' a population is - the fewer settlements there are, the less infrastructure there is, then the more people have to travel to get the things they need. This is why the rural population produces proportionally more emissions than those in the City. You are presuming that halving a population automatically means proportionally fewer emissions - a presumption which I am placing a question mark over.......and explaining why. And lastly....a World population of one billion would be a strain on resources if they were all like the Americans.

 

It's also misanthropic old goats like me who should be alone rather than inflict themselves on some other poor soul!
Agree entirely on new model phones Tec. Same with a lot of electronic things - and football shirts

 

You overlook the waste of energy due to congestion. Also in a world of 1 billion there would be lots of meetings that took place electronically - technology has moved on and will continue to do so. All coal power stations would be gone and the world would be fuelled by nuclear and renewable energy alone. Even Americans cannot eat 8 times what they already do (can they?). There would be far more forests, far more fish in the sea. Pollution levels so low that the global temperature drops instead of increases so the polar ice caps re-form; at risk islands re-emerge, excessive weather conditions abate - almost a paradise. Like living in your beloved pre-industrial society but without any of us having to give up the good things in life.

 

There is no upper limit to American eating Leo ! There is one basic flaw in your argument Leo.....it will never happen. Short of another Black Death or a massive holocaust or war unleashed by someone.....otherwise who is to decide - you, yourself would presumably want to be 'one of the survivors'. The key is education - I know you do not like statistics but here is one very important one: Illiterate women bear 3 times more children than those who are literate. Every year of schooling raises earning power by 10-20%. Raising of living standards and high fertility rates are not compatible - at least not over the long run. More than 40 countries now have populations which are stable (or slowly declining - Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia). By the middle of the century around 50 countries will probably have smaller populations than today - and the available analysis suggests that our World population will reach a peek around the mid century and then go into reverse.