Submission + - Where Is Population In The Climate Debate? 1
anorlunda writes: "One of the 6,780 reports released today by Wikileaks, is entitled Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Perspective on the Top 20 Emitters and Developed Versus Developing Nations (RL32721 / 2008-12-24) It contains some very simple, easy to understand, and very useful information about greenhouse emissions.
Namely, it says Population delta + per capita GDP delta + Intensity delta = Emissions delta
An interesting side point is that the current world-wide recession causing big negative GDP growths will have a huge inadvertent impact on emissions.
Most important, the equation makes clear that if we continue to allow population to grow, and if we are committed to elimination of poverty, and ending the recession, then population and GDP growth inevitably overwhelm any gains we can make in intensity (i.e. energy consumption and efficiency). There is no scenario in which technology can outrace population x GDP.
Despite that, it seems that 100% of the debate hot air on climate change is over intensity. We are barking up the wrong tree! Assuming that we remain committed to elimination of poverty, the only way that we can beat the climate change problem is to reduce population. Efficient light bulbs be damned; how are we going to reduce global population?
Here's some figures from the report (in percent per year.)
... Population delta + per capita GDP delta + Intensity delta = Emissions delta
... global: +1.4 +1.7 -1.6 = +1.6
... USA: +1.2 +1.8 -1.9 = +1.0
... China +0.9 +9.1 -4.9 = + 4.8
... EU-27 +0.3 +1.8 -2.4 = -0.4
... Russian Fed -0.2 -0.4 -2.0 = -2.7"
Namely, it says Population delta + per capita GDP delta + Intensity delta = Emissions delta
An interesting side point is that the current world-wide recession causing big negative GDP growths will have a huge inadvertent impact on emissions.
Most important, the equation makes clear that if we continue to allow population to grow, and if we are committed to elimination of poverty, and ending the recession, then population and GDP growth inevitably overwhelm any gains we can make in intensity (i.e. energy consumption and efficiency). There is no scenario in which technology can outrace population x GDP.
Despite that, it seems that 100% of the debate hot air on climate change is over intensity. We are barking up the wrong tree! Assuming that we remain committed to elimination of poverty, the only way that we can beat the climate change problem is to reduce population. Efficient light bulbs be damned; how are we going to reduce global population?
Here's some figures from the report (in percent per year.)
