# Confess!!! (your climate sins) **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [September 19, 2019, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502 "2019-09-19T16:39:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2019, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/101 "2019-09-22T23:47:16Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Nor do I really care because I’ll make my arguments on my own terms, but to be clear, that overpopulation is a big environmental issue is _not_ a flawed argument. Yes, in this case for the simple reason that you are not dealing with the logical argument posted many times already: “if you were correct then things like controlling ozone depletion gases, controlling phosphates in rivers, controlling acid rain, controlling dirty water in developed nations and many other items would be impossible, and yet that has happened many times before while the population has increased.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2019, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/102 "2019-09-23T00:03:11Z")
> [@pool](#): > > Here is the awful truth, on the individual level little to nothing can be done, it’s like trying to stick your fingers in the dyke as multiple streams of water shoot out streams of water. Really it’s even less than that, we are all hypocrites, the only way to make a real difference is government regulation and the mutual, Enforced agreements of world governments. > > On the individual level I don’t see much point, the Earth will correct our sins in its own cruel way, and the human race might end in a week due to a meteor or something hurtling through space at this very moment. I don’t go out of my way to make things worse, but I’m not going to live like it’s 99BC either. On that note and other times I made that point by showing how in the past when efforts were there to get clean water and avoid disease in our cities. There were indeed also early adopters of things like toilets and some even were willing to afford pipes to take the sewer away, of course a lot ended in the rivers like the Thames, but while it was little, it actually helped show many how a bigger solution could be implemented. As it was when government then organized the big water works what not only separated the dirty water from the clean, it also cleaned a lot of the Thames by sending those early adopters refuse into the big pipes of the sewer projects. Similarly, a lot of the electrical car or solar adopters are doing little now, but they are invaluable on showing how government can eventually get involved with a bigger and more organized effort… Until we get a better government that is. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2019, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/103 "2019-09-23T00:09:16Z")
I drive a gas guzzler that is necessary to get me where I want to go given where I live. To mitigate, I ride my bike to work on good weather days (roughly 50 km / 30 mile round trip), and try to work at home whenever possible. When there are sufficient charging stations and something electric comes out that can do the job, I will get it. It’s all of us mitigating as best we can that will make a difference. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2019, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/104 "2019-09-23T06:28:05Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > you are saying that the world population is falling? No, but I’m willing to wager that Dopers as a whole have not had enough children to replace themselves. If you had said that policy and projects to increase living standards, and improve education and medical care in poor countries would reduce overpopulation - ultimately helping to protect the environment - then I would agree. And who could object to measures so obviously good in themselves, besides having beneficial side effects? But for the average poster here, their government’s foreign policy has far more effect on overpopulation than their personal reproductive choices. And it also seems to me that it’s a problem we’ve in large part already solved, whereas how to make western lifestyles more environmentally friendly is a very pressing issue as they are rapidly adopted by people around the world. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2019, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/105 "2019-09-23T06:47:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, then you did not read the link. It was to show that you also need to be aware of how nativists have twisted climate change arguments like the one you posted. Just another thing one should be aware so as to not fall for “easy” solutions coming from the anti-imigration front. I did, though I don’t know how relevant it is. I’ve never seen anyone make such arguments here in the UK, though I guess it could happen in the future. Perhaps it’s a good thing the right does not care about the environment, given what their solutions might be… ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2019, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/106 "2019-09-23T07:03:16Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Yes, in this case for the simple reason that you are not dealing with the logical argument posted many times already: “if you were correct then things like controlling ozone depletion gases, controlling phosphates in rivers, controlling acid rain, controlling dirty water in developed nations and many other items would be impossible, and yet that has happened many times before while the population has increased.” And as I already asked you in post 95 > [@](#): > > I don’t follow your logic. What do the other issues you list have to do with CO2? Why does my initial statement being true mean the other things must be impossible? ---
**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2019, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/107 "2019-09-23T07:39:57Z")
i remember overpopulation was a catch-all in the 60s and 70s for the ills of the world and if we just reached ZPG as the boomers died out most of the pollution and such would be little to none and the earth could balance its self out by the year 2 k and if we needed population the governments could use central planning and slowly bring it back up why it was a “cure-all?” because other than contraception and family planning we wouldn’t have to personally change anything meaningful in the day to day …the change would occur naturally over decades and most people proposing the idea wouldn’t be alive to see the results … ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2019, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/108 "2019-09-23T09:01:07Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > If you had said that policy and projects to increase living standards, and improve education and medical care in poor countries would reduce overpopulation - ultimately helping to protect the environment - then I would agree. Then we do indeed agree. Those are precisely the things that should be right at the top of the agenda. Not at the expense of other actions, but as well as. Hitchens said it clearly and said it best and I’ve referenced the point in previous threads on other matters > [@](#): > > The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it’s called the empowerment of women. If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, if you give them some say, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some doctrine—religious doctrine condemns them, and then if you’ll throw in a handful of seeds perhaps and some credit, the floor of everything in that village, not just poverty, but education, health, and optimism will increase. It doesn’t matter; try it in Bangladesh, try it in Bolivia, it works—works all the time. The welcome side effect of that is a brake on population increase. > [@](#): > > And who could object to measures so obviously good in themselves, besides having beneficial side effects? But for the average poster here, their government’s foreign policy has far more effect on overpopulation than their personal reproductive choices. OK, but that foreign policy on overpopulation is a conversation worth having yes? > [@](#): > > And it also seems to me that it’s a problem we’ve in large part already solved That is optimistic and smacks of complacency. The rate of increase is slowing but still increasing. By the same logic we see the uptake of electric cars increase and the amount of power generated by coal is flattening out but I suspect you don’t think either of those are a problem we’ve already “solved” and that we can allow them to drop off the agenda. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2019, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/109 "2019-09-23T15:10:56Z")
My climate sins are: I follow the 68°/72° Fahrenheit rule: 68° in the summer and 72° in the winter. And now that I’m older I’m thinking of expanding the gap another five degrees. Since my home has a low-flow toilet, I prevent blockages by filling a bucket in the bathtub and adding an extra two gallons of water to heavy flushes. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2019, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/110 "2019-09-23T15:34:15Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The Right has long felt that the environmental movement was becoming essentially a religion for the Left. The Right thinks everything is a religion because it absolves them from rationality, and they believe everyone else has this similarly defective mindset. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2019, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/111 "2019-09-23T18:14:07Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Since my home has a low-flow toilet, I prevent blockages by filling a bucket in the bathtub and adding an extra two gallons of water to heavy flushes. Water use is one area that is ripe for simple solutions. It is nonsensical that gallons of water that could be put to use flushing toilets or washing cars is simply allowed to drain away. Similarly, capturing rainwater for the the same purposes is a no brainer. I recall a thread on here some years ago in which I recommended it as a sensible course of action and was told that in some places in the USA it was illegal to capture rainwater that fell on your property because someone had the “right” to it further downstream. Utter nonsense that such policies are in place and of course the science shows that the logic behind it is bollocks. Only a tiny fraction of that captured water would ever find it’s way into the watercourse, but as is so often the case with environmental issues, never let the facts get in the way. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2019, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/112 "2019-09-23T18:26:36Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > And as I already asked you in post 95 > [@](#): > > I don’t follow your logic. What do the other issues you list have to do with CO2? Why does my initial statement being true mean the other things must be impossible? Oy! The point is that your initial statement is one factor, _but not the main one in dealing with the CO2 emissions_. Because there is plenty of evidence that other pollution issues were able to be controlled in the past **while even less than now was done about overpopulation**. **And there is no obligation, nor we are forced to completely fix the population issue before we fix the CO2 emissions issue.** The biggest implication of this objection coming from you is that since more people pollute then removing the CFCs from our emissions (for example) would be useless, hard\*, or impossible or horrible to deal with because the silly human governments did not control the population there before preventing disaster for the ozone layer. Sure, governments and the people might had taken into account the population increase, but instead of that the governments took the big polluters to task and the progress was great, the nerve of them for not looking at the population issue before dealing with the polluters! /s - it was a bit hard, but the ones organizing the removal of CFCs from our emissions were pikers for not looking at the population issue then /s ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2019, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/113 "2019-09-23T21:39:20Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The point is that your initial statement is one factor, _but not the main one in dealing with the CO2 emissions_. we can quibble over figures, but it certainly is an important enough factor to remain under constant vigilence. The original study I linked to was fairly clear abpout the impact of each extra child on CO2 emissions. > [@](#): > > Because there is plenty of evidence that other pollution issues were able to be controlled in the past **while even less than now was done about overpopulation**. **And there is no obligation, nor we are forced to completely fix the population issue before we fix the CO2 emissions issue.** At no point have I said that nor implied it. You’ve continued to assume that is what I mean even when I have said, several times now, that it is not either/or. Mark that, _not either/or_. I was pointing out from the start that overpopulation does not get the visibility in this converstation that its importance warrants. I stand by that. > [@](#): > > The biggest implication of this objection coming from you is that since more people pollute then removing the CFCs from our emissions (for example) would be useless, hard\*, or impossible or horrible to deal with because the silly human governments did not control the population there before preventing disaster for the ozone layer. No, not useless, hard or impossible, but potentially incomplete or sub-optimal. It isn’t that it wouldn’t be worth doing but you do risk not gaining maximal benefit from it if you do not ensure that all relevant factors are considered. > [@](#): > > Sure, governments and the people might had taken into account the population increase, but instead of that the governments took the big polluters to task and the progress was great, the nerve of them for not looking at the population issue before dealing with the polluters! /s No, you are flat-out wrong about what I’m suggesting. Remember, I clearly stated it was not either/or but that if we fail to keep all the potential important factors as part of the conversation that we will fail to extract the most benefit from the solutions we develop. I don’t think overpopulation is being kept as high up the agenda as it truly warrants. You seem to think that it is not very important at all. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2019, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/114 "2019-09-23T21:44:35Z")
Once every summer, blast the a/c, wait till the home gets cold, then get a fire going to warm up. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2019, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/115 "2019-09-24T00:17:08Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > we can quibble over figures, but it certainly is an important enough factor to remain under constant vigilence. The original study I linked to was fairly clear abpout the impact of each extra child on CO2 emissions. Already acknowledged. But missing one important bit. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > At no point have I said that nor implied it. You’ve continued to assume that is what I mean even when I have said, several times now, that it is not either/or. Mark that, _not either/or_. I was pointing out from the start that overpopulation does not get the visibility in this converstation that its importance warrants. I stand by that. Already acknowledged, what you continue to miss is that you do ignore how the extreme right is using that argument, but there is still another more important bit… > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > No, not useless, hard or impossible, but potentially incomplete or sub-optimal. It isn’t that it wouldn’t be worth doing but you do risk not gaining maximal benefit from it if you do not ensure that all relevant factors are considered. Thing is that you are missing the element of time, One could also make the point that controlling acid rain would be incomplete or sub-optimal (and in fact, many naysayers made that point back then) but most of the people involved then would look at you funny if you proposed to **also** control the population to control the sulfur emissions, now for sure it would be a factor to take into account yesterday, but even if one could convince all to not have children now the best outcome there for that part of the solution (and for climate change) would be many decades into the future. I don’t know about you, but while I would approve of the population control, the time constriction meant that the focus should and was on ensuring then that fuel for industry and cars had less sulfur or nitrogen oxides, or to use technology to contain less of it when emitted. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > No, you are flat-out wrong about what I’m suggesting. Remember, I clearly stated it was not either/or but that if we fail to keep all the potential important factors as part of the conversation that we will fail to extract the most benefit from the solutions we develop. I don’t think overpopulation is being kept as high up the agenda as it truly warrants. You seem to think that it is not very important at all. Well, if there had been plenty of time to not worry much about the degrading effects of acid rain, then the population increase would be one big factor to take into account, the point is that even if I agree on that (and previous discussions shows that I did) the evidence was that the other factors are more important, time wise. And the factors are similar here then with the CO2 and other global warming gas emissions. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2019, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/116 "2019-09-24T10:55:30Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Already acknowledged, what you continue to miss is that you do ignore how the extreme right is using that argument, I stick with the facts as I understand them and change my view only as and when the facts change. I refuse to be held hostage to that type of misuse, I’ll use it in a better way than them because I trust myself (and people like you) to do so. > [@](#): > > I don’t know about you, but while I would approve of the population control, the time constriction meant that the focus should and was on ensuring then that fuel for industry and cars had less sulfur or nitrogen oxides, or to use technology to contain less of it when emitted. Absolutely. But to \*only \*do so leads to an incomplete solution. My interpretation of your posting is that you would be likely to include information on population growth and demographics in a constant search for an optimum solution. Not that you would be hamstrung by it, but that you would give it due consideration. In that we have the exact same approach. However, If the projections are to be believed then even in a flattening population Nigeria, for example, is on an upward curve towards 750 million. All those people desiring a slice of a high-consumption western lifestyle and very likely to take environmental shortcuts to get there. Such scenarios could dilute or even completely negate the net benefit of the Sulphur or other pollutant reduction technologies. It is negligent to ignore the potential impact of that and negligent not to include population control as a key part of the discussion. Every projection that I’ve seen shows we’re already too late to stop climate change effects. That being the case it is critical to continue to mitigating the effects and stopping it getting as bad but it is also critical to stop putting more people in harms way when the inevitable problems come…which they will. However, I don’t think that \*you \*are being negligent in that respect but the wider, simplistic conversation certainly appears to be. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2019, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/117 "2019-09-24T15:15:25Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I stick with the facts as I understand them and change my view only as and when the facts change. I refuse to be held hostage to that type of misuse, I’ll use it in a better way than them because I trust myself (and people like you) to do so. Thing is that others did look at those facts and there is a reason why there is an understanding that the misuse is not only for unsavory reasons, but the facts that you use are incomplete when time is not considered, and it is called a misuse not just because some do use for bigoted reasons, but because the element of time and other solutions are indeed (even unwittingly by the ones that follow this line) given illogical dismissals as we can see coming from you here: > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Absolutely. But to \*only \*do so leads to an incomplete solution. My interpretation of your posting is that you would be likely to include information on population growth and demographics in a constant search for an optimum solution. Not that you would be hamstrung by it, but that you would give it due consideration. In that we have the exact same approach. > However, If the projections are to be believed then even in a flattening population Nigeria, for example, is on an upward curve towards 750 million. All those people desiring a slice of a high-consumption western lifestyle and very likely to take environmental shortcuts to get there. Such scenarios could dilute or even completely negate the net benefit of the Sulphur or other pollutant reduction technologies. It is negligent to ignore the potential impact of that and negligent not to include population control as a key part of the discussion. You missed that I made that example about acid rain by taking into account that the increase of the population was not the main factor to take into consideration on the way of controlling that issue: > **[The Costs and Benefits of Reducing Acid Rain](https://www.rff.org/publications/working-papers/the-costs-and-benefits-of-reducing-acid-rain/)** > [@](#): > > Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments initiated a dramatic reduction in emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides by electric power plants. This paper presents the results of an integrated assessment of the benefits and costs of the program, using the Tracking and Analysis Framework (TAF) developed for the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP). Although dramatic uncertainties characterize our estimates especially with respect to the benefits of the program, many of which we have modeled explicitly, we find that the benefits can be expected to substantially outweigh the costs of the emission reductions. The lion’s share of benefits result from reduced risk of premature mortality, especially through reduced exposure to sulfates, and these expected benefits measure several times the expected costs of the program. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Every projection that I’ve seen shows we’re already too late to stop climate change effects. That being the case it is critical to continue to mitigating the effects and stopping it getting as bad but it is also critical to stop putting more people in harms way when the inevitable problems come…which they will. Well then, time is more essential then. And of course then the less importance given to the population issue over the other solutions that are available now and sooner than waiting for population reduction to show effectiveness. [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nigeria-britain-renewables-analysis/oil-rich-nigeria-turns-to-renewable-energy-as-population-booms-idUSKBN1I419F](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nigeria-britain-renewables-analysis/oil-rich-nigeria-turns-to-renewable-energy-as-population-booms-idUSKBN1I419F) > [@](#): > > RURAL AREAS > > One of these projects, Sabon Gari, aims to generate between 1-4 MW of solar energy for 12,000 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Nigeria’s second largest city, Kano, by the end of the year. > > The chief executive of the energy company behind the project, Rensource, said companies’ energy costs had fallen at least 30 percent since they started using the solar grids. > > “Up until now, the entire market has been powered by a network of small-scale, dirty, unhealthy generators that are also quite expensive,” Ademola Adesina told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in a telephone interview. > > “We are replacing those generators with a network of solar hybrid systems that are powering the entire market.” > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > However, I don’t think that \*you \*are being negligent in that respect but the wider, simplistic conversation certainly appears to be. As pointed before, regarding the wider conversation, it only seems so. Ignoring time is the most negligent thing to do when more readily available factors for the solutions are. But there are other pedantic reasons that you miss when proponents of change out there seem to not take population into account (while they do). > **["I’m an environmental journalist, but I never write about overpopulation....](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question)** > > Since you asked (many times). > [@](#): > > However. That human numbers are, axiomatically, part of the story of human impact does not mean that human numbers have to take center stage. Talking about population growth is morally and politically fraught, but the best ways of tackling it (like, say, educating girls) don’t necessitate talking about it at all. > > Tackling population growth can be done without the enormous, unnecessary risks involved in talking about population growth. > Population’s unsavory associations > > When political movements or leaders adopt population control as a central concern … let’s just say it never goes well. In practice, where you find concern over “population,” you very often find racism, xenophobia, or eugenics lurking in the wings. It’s almost always, ahem, particular populations that need reducing. > [@](#): > > I don’t doubt that it’s possible to be concerned about the environmental stresses population brings without any racism or xenophobia — I’ve met many people who fit that description, and there were well-meaning (if quite mistaken) population-focused groups in the ’70s and ’80s — but in terms of public discussion and advocacy, anyone explicitly expressing that concern starts out behind the eight ball. The mere mention of “population” raises all sorts of ugly historical associations. > > Public health groups have largely cottoned to this. Even the ones that have “population” in the name focus on family planning rather than population as such. They’ve figured out something important — something not all greens have figured out — which is that the best ways to address population don’t necessarily involve talking about it at all. > [@](#): > > The first way to look at population is as a pure numbers game. More people means more consumers and more emitters, so the thing to do is slow the rise of population. Specifically, since most of the new people are going to come from poor or developing countries, the question is specifically how to slow population growth there. > > Luckily, we know the answer. It is family planning that enables women to have only children they want and choose, and education of girls, giving them access to income opportunities outside the home. We know that women, given the resources and the choice, will opt for smaller families. > [@](#): > > So if you are concerned about the growth in population, make yourself a champion of female empowerment in the developing world. You will be contributing to the most effective solution to the problem without any of the moral baggage. > > And next time you’re at an environmental event, maybe instead of asking the population question, ask the female empowerment question. Why aren’t climate hawks talking about it more? They should be! > [@](#): > > Reducing high-end consumption could have an enormous short-term impact on carbon emissions, as climate scientist Kevin Anderson is always saying. Shifting wealth within populations — reducing the number of very wealthy and the number in poverty — can have as much carbon impact as reducing overall population. > > So maybe, at the next environmental event, you could ask the income inequality question rather than the population question. > > **There’s much downside and not much upside to talking about population** > > So that, for the record, is why I hardly ever talk or write about population. (I will now send all future askers of the population question to this post.) It is high risk — very, very easy to step on moral landmines in that territory — with little reward. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2019, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/118 "2019-09-24T16:41:52Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You missed that I made that example about acid rain by taking into account that the increase of the population was not the main factor to take into consideration on the way of controlling that issue: I still don’t understand what you are getting at with that line. We shouldn’t wait to act on any potentially useful solutions, nor should we ignore the impact of overpopulation in the long term either. We don’t actually disagree on any of that do we? > [@](#): > > Well then, time is more essential then. And of course then the less importance given to the population issue over the other solutions that are available now and sooner than waiting for population reduction to show effectiveness. time is important for _all_ solutions. The sooner you start doing the beneficial things the sooner the impact is felt. Again, I’m not sure where you think we disagree. > [@](#): > > But there are other pedantic reasons that you miss when proponents of change out there seem to not take population into account (while they do). > > [I’m an environmental journalist, but I never write about overpopulation. Here’s why. - Vox](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question) So when I say that overpopulation is not prominent in the environmental conversation, your response is to quote a journalist who says he specifically avoids mentioning overpopulation as part of the conversation? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2019, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/119 "2019-09-24T18:57:53Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I still don’t understand what you are getting at with that line. We shouldn’t wait to act on any potentially useful solutions, nor should we ignore the impact of overpopulation in the long term either. We don’t actually disagree on any of that do we? The point was that you did fall for the minimizing of the other solutions when talking about the population in Nigeria, just saying. > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > time is important for _all_ solutions. The sooner you start doing the beneficial things the sooner the impact is felt. Again, I’m not sure where you think we disagree. And here is important to then report that you are relying on a bit of ignorance, the time to wait for the population item to bear fruit is too long. (unless the mentioning of it does include what the nativists and bigots out there are harping about) > [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > So when I say that overpopulation is not prominent in the environmental conversation, your response is to quote a journalist who says he specifically avoids mentioning overpopulation as part of the conversation? Killing the messenger is easy for you instead of dealing with the points then. Anyone can see how the population issue should be approached, “if you are concerned about the growth in population, make yourself a champion of female empowerment in the developing world. You will be contributing to the most effective solution to the problem without any of the moral baggage.” Also: at the next environmental event (Or discussion 🙂 ), you could ask the income inequality question rather than the population question. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2019, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502/120 "2019-09-24T20:30:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The point was that you did fall for the minimizing of the other solutions when talking about the population in Nigeria, just saying. i just don’t know what you mean by that. I’ve not minimised any solutions.I’m going to have to drop that as you’ve totally lost me. > [@](#): > > And here is important to then report that you are relying on a bit of ignorance, the time to wait for the population item to bear fruit is too long. So…don’t do it? don’t worry about it? only look for the short term gains? The reversing of many ecological trends is going to take decades and many are not guarenteed to work nor be free of unintended consequences. > [@](#): > > Killing the messenger is easy for you instead of dealing with the points then. that’s a complete non-sequiter, I’ve done nothing of the kind. > [@](#): > > Anyone can see how the population issue should be approached, "if you are concerned about the growth in population, make yourself a champion of female empowerment in the developing world. Right, oh, if only I had some sort of permanent record of making precisely that point many times previously. I’ve quoted Hitchens right here in this thread. > [@](#): > > You will be contributing to the most effective solution to the problem **without any of the moral baggage**." bolding mine, I admire your optimism but there is no way of avoiding the moral baggage that comes with speaking out on that. > [@](#): > > Also: at the next environmental event (Or discussion 🙂 ), you could ask the income inequality question rather than the population question. I would encourage everyone present to ask questions on all the important factors, that is my point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confess-your-climate-sins/840502.md?page=7)