A Hotter Future Is Certain, but How Hot Is Up to Us.

True what you have said. I am no economist by any means, but the ideal population density should be much lesser than the resources available in the country. That's why Europe is better off than us infact some of the countries are underpopulated.
I remember in college for economics , the population factor was stressed every now and then. It's just later when you actually see around you realise the situation.
More consumption of fuels, natural resources, deforestation and more buildings and concrete around you.
It’s important to keep in mind that even if a country is less populated but has high per capita energy consumption and carbon footprint the problem is compounded.
Just reducing population numbers may not be a solution in itself.
Here is one perspective:
 
From: “We can calculate the contribution of the average citizen of each country by dividing its total emissions by its population. This gives us CO2 emissions per capita. In the visualization we see the differences in per capita emissions across the world.

Here we look at production-based emissions – that is, emissions produced within a country’s boundaries without accounting for how goods are traded across the world. In our post on consumption-based emissions we look at how these figures change when we account for trade. Production figures matter – these are the numbers that are taken into account for climate targets1 – and thanks to historical reconstructions they are available for the entire world since the mid 18th century.

There are very large inequalities in per capita emissions across the world.
The world’s largest per capita CO2 emitters are the major oil producing countries; this is particularly true for those with relatively low population size. Most are in the Middle East: In 2017 Qatar had the highest emissions at 49 tonnes (t) per person, followed by Trinidad and Tobago (30t); Kuwait (25t); United Arab Emirates (25t); Brunei (24t); Bahrain (23t) and Saudi Arabia (19t).

However, many of the major oil producers have a relatively small population meaning their total annual emissionsare low. More populous countries with some of the highest per capita emissions – and therefore high total emissions – are the United States, Australia, and Canada. Australia has an average per capita footprint of 17 tonnes, followed by the US at 16.2 tonnes, and Canada at 15.6 tonnes.

This is more than 3 times higher than the global average, which in 2017 was 4.8 tonnes per person.
Since there is such a strong relationship between income and per capita CO2 emissions, we’d expect this to be the case: that countries with high standards of living would have a high carbon footprint. But what becomes clear is that there can be large differences in per capita emissions, even between countries with similar standards of living. Many countries across Europe, for example, have much lower emissions than the US, Canada or Australia.

In fact, some European countries have emissions not far from the global average: In 2017 emissions in Portugal are 5.3 tonnes; 5.5t in France; and 5.8t per person in the UK. This is also much lower than some of their neighbours with similar standards of living, such as Germany, the Netherlands, or Belgium. The choice of energy sources plays a key role here: in the UK, Portugal and France, a much higher share of electricity is produced from nuclear and renewable sources – you can explore this electricity mix by country here. This means a much lower share of electricity is produced from fossil fuels: in 2015, only 6% of France’s electricity came from fossil fuels, compared to 55% in Germany.

Prosperity is a primary driver of CO2 emissions, but clearly policy and technological choices make a difference.
Many countries in the world still have very low per capita CO2 emissions. In many of the poorest countries in Sub-Saharan Africa – such as Chad, Niger and the Central African Republic – the average footprint is around 0.1 tonnes per year. That’s more than 160 times lower than the USA, Australia and Canada. In just 2.3 days the average American or Australian emits as much as the average Malian or Nigerien in a year.

This inequality in emissions across the world I explored in more detail in my post, ‘Who emits more than their share of CO2 emissions?

Per capita CO₂ emissions, 2020


Carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from the burning of fossil fuels for energy and cement production. Land use change is
not included.
 

Attachments

  • B6E0F80A-BA79-4353-978B-FC2584CD88A0.jpeg
    B6E0F80A-BA79-4353-978B-FC2584CD88A0.jpeg
    907.3 KB · Views: 6
True what you have said. I am no economist by any means, but the ideal population density should be much lesser than the resources available in the country. That's why Europe is better off than us infact some of the countries are underpopulated.
I remember in college for economics , the population factor was stressed every now and then. It's just later when you actually see around you realise the situation.
More consumption of fuels, natural resources, deforestation and more buildings and concrete around you.

What I have observed is that people like conveniences. That is easy access to water, electricity, groceries, hospitals, schools, workplaces etc. Conveniences mushroom where a good number of people demand such facilities, or, people move in where such conveniences are already set up. Conveniences are a magnet. Over a period of time, this leads to overcrowding, and THIS is one of the problems. If we are moving into a location for work or otherwise, where it is already crowded, aren't we part of the problem, or adding to the problem?

Each of us is an arm-chair theorist. We like our Air Conditioners, our Cars, our inefficient Class A amplifiers and Tube Amplifiers, we like to move to places with financially better prospects, and then whine about the deplorable conditions around us. @Nitin K this is nothing personal or related to you, I'm just rambling, kindly excuse.

I'm unaware of what the ideal people, to land, to resources ratio is, but overcrowding, IMO, is definitely a problem.
Overpopulation and population density are two different subjects. I'm unsure as to which subject you are referring to.
 
USER=89867]@Nitin K[/USER] this is nothing personal or related to you, I'm just rambling, kindly excuse.

I'm unaware of what the ideal people, to land, to resources ratio is, but overcrowding, IMO, is definitely a problem.
Overpopulation and population density are two different subjects. I'm unsure as to which subject you are referring to.
I don't take it personally Aeroash :) It's a friendly discussion.
And yes to a certain extent we too are responsible and I too am no saint. But I do whatever I can when it is possible by reducing plastic usage and planting trees.

Population is the root cause of all the problems. Awareness could reduce the issues.
 
What I have observed is that people like conveniences. That is easy access to water, electricity, groceries, hospitals, schools, workplaces etc. Conveniences mushroom where a good number of people demand such facilities, or, people move in where such conveniences are already set up. Conveniences are a magnet. Over a period of time, this leads to overcrowding, and THIS is one of the problems. If we are moving into a location for work or otherwise, where it is already crowded, aren't we part of the problem, or adding to the problem?

Each of us is an arm-chair theorist. We like our Air Conditioners, our Cars, our inefficient Class A amplifiers and Tube Amplifiers, we like to move to places with financially better prospects, and then whine about the deplorable conditions around us. @Nitin K this is nothing personal or related to you, I'm just rambling, kindly excuse.

I'm unaware of what the ideal people, to land, to resources ratio is, but overcrowding, IMO, is definitely a problem.
Overpopulation and population density are two different subjects. I'm unsure as to which subject you are referring to.
It’s sobering to think that all these “high carbon emitting luxuries” that we take for granted may vanish or become irrelevant due to external circumstances that may be directly or indirectly linked to climate change and its effect on the global economy.

Consider the recent events in Ukraine and Srilanka. I am sure there were a few well meaning audiophiles in these countries too.

Political leaders in Europe have been struggling to explain convincingly to their public how crop failure, famine and civil conflicts linked to climate change has been forcing large numbers of people from Africa and South America to undertake perilous journeys north to Europe and US. This of course has been exploited by xenophobic right wingers to attain power using anti migrant and divisive platforms.

The effects of climate change are insidious, and often not very apparent or obviously linked to political events around us.
 
Flogging a tired horse…
While renewable energy production has ramped up in recent years, more countries will need to ramp up their renewable energy production in order to reach net-zero targets by 2050.
 

Attachments

  • FFB85BFC-A32F-47F1-B216-B3A3C57EF41D.jpeg
    FFB85BFC-A32F-47F1-B216-B3A3C57EF41D.jpeg
    890.9 KB · Views: 5
Everything operated in a feedback control loop.
Unfortunately, the "hot future" will generate feedback after generations. And we (evolution honed) humans are too shortsighted and greedy to allow that to influence our today's decisions.
 
Unfortunately, we are programmed to mostly believe our lives and our current reality will continue indefinitely.
But with widespread crop failures due to extreme climatic events (droughts, severe weather) the knock on effects are certain. Poverty and hunger will cause mass migrations, social discord. Increasing crime will further over burden the already struggling law and justice systems. Petty short sighted politicians will inflame passions with divisive agendas to seek power. Although the links between climate change and conflict is still being studied, several most vulnerable countries are experiencing widespread unhappiness, discord and chaos and even outright civil war.

Nothing will be the same in the future, but it is likely to be worse. That’s something that should worry many many more of us much more. Don’t expect mainstream media and politicians to bother us with bad news as they don’t want to disturb our happyness 😊
 
Our public leaders don’t want to take tough decisions as they are likely to be unpopular even if urgent. A large proportion of them even if poorly educated have a clear understanding of the emotional triggers of their audiences, theatrical and oratorical skills needed if they choose to use them on this issue.
The bureaucracy is silenced. The scientific community too is largely quiet on the topic (with a few exceptions).
Social media is full of dubious theories, pseudo science and misinformation that drown out everything else.
Civil society organisations working on environmental issues who played a huge role in social-environmental issues and pressurised governments in the past are under siege.
Religious organisations and mainstream media which could provide valuable support on the need for tough actions on climate change are preoccupied with other issues.
It will probably get a lot worse till we are inevitably forced to change. But by then it will be too late
 
It seems likely that the more affluent are responsible for higher carbon emissions than the poor…

A billionaire emits a million times more greenhouse gasesthan the average person, a study has found.

Hah! Really does one require a formal study to guess this?
Ofcourse a billionaire and his actions will emit more greenhouse gases.
For one, he is living in a place that cause house 100s of normal human beings.
He is having vehicles that can transport hundreds of human beings at once (even if parked the vehicle have been manufactured using polluting technologies).
He is having a private jet that increases the per capita emissions.
He usually never optimizes on the food and drinks ...
 
Our public leaders don’t want to take tough decisions as they are likely to be unpopular even if urgent. A large proportion of them even if poorly educated have a clear understanding of the emotional triggers of their audiences, theatrical and oratorical skills needed if they choose to use them on this issue.
The bureaucracy is silenced. The scientific community too is largely quiet on the topic (with a few exceptions).
Social media is full of dubious theories, pseudo science and misinformation that drown out everything else.
Civil society organisations working on environmental issues who played a huge role in social-environmental issues and pressurised governments in the past are under siege.
Religious organisations and mainstream media which could provide valuable support on the need for tough actions on climate change are preoccupied with other issues.
It will probably get a lot worse till we are inevitably forced to change. But by then it will be too late
It is also a matter of staying economically competitive.

I always say this openly: Polluting operations (mining/manufacturing/etc.) offer a great competitive advantage to the developing world!
Why would anyone want to increase his cost of production by implementing lesser polluting mechanisms/schemes?
After all we have created the most important thing in this universe that we cannot part with ever: money.
 
Hah! Really does one require a formal study to guess this?
Ofcourse a billionaire and his actions will emit more greenhouse gases.
For one, he is living in a place that cause house 100s of normal human beings.
He is having vehicles that can transport hundreds of human beings at once (even if parked the vehicle have been manufactured using polluting technologies).
He is having a private jet that increases the per capita emissions.
He usually never optimizes on the food and drinks ...
Guesswork probably is less credible than well conducted research findings?
BTW Warren Buffet uses some basic car for his commutes. (No idea how much else he emits)
Here is the full article:
 
It is also a matter of staying economically competitive.

I always say this openly: Polluting operations (mining/manufacturing/etc.) offer a great competitive advantage to the developing world!
Why would anyone want to increase his cost of production by implementing lesser polluting mechanisms/schemes?
After all we have created the most important thing in this universe that we cannot part with ever: money.
And that’s what everyone is saying…and probably keep saying till it’s too late and the whole system that we use to justify the status quo starts to collapse.
Follow the COP27 conference if you want to get deeper into the subject and possibly become another alarmist backed by science :)

 
True what you have said. I am no economist by any means, but the ideal population density should be much lesser than the resources available in the country. That's why Europe is better off than us infact some of the countries are underpopulated.
I remember in college for economics , the population factor was stressed every now and then. It's just later when you actually see around you realise the situation.
More consumption of fuels, natural resources, deforestation and more buildings and concrete around you.
Found this. Have a look and make your own conclusions.
1667901082248.jpeg
There maybe more such comparing carbon emissions and population growth over time, specially from the Industrial revolution period onwards
 
A report on Climate Change in the Indian Mind from Yale University’s School of the Environment, 81% of Indians surveyed were worried about global warming, with 50% saying they were “very worried.” In addition, 64% say their government “should be doing more to address global warming.”

Climate Change in the Indian Mind, 2022​


Another recent article:

The world needs India to avert climate catastrophe.​

 
Get the Wharfedale EVO 4.2 3-Way Standmount Speakers at a Special Offer Price.
Back
Top