# Will having children solve climate change? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 27, 2019, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598 "2019-03-27T10:33:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2019, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/181 "2019-04-07T23:20:24Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’d encourage you to keep this in mind the next time the Republicans nominate someone you think is a bastard or a simpleton. Too young to vote Nixon era. Any thinking person has known that Trump is an asshole, criminal and fraud. And yes, I did not vote for him. So, you still think that having more babies will fix climate change? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/182 "2019-04-08T03:49:43Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > I don’t think direct advocation of violence is the proper response to an aqua man drawing. No, it’s not. Aquaman is an environmentalist. Aquaman is a cool guy. However, the correct response to _this misuse_ of an Aquaman drawing, is for Aquaman to show up and\* throw a polar bear\* at the insipid Mr Lee. Or, for the sake of not starting an incident involving the Justice League, for someone else to destroy Mr Lee’s career in such a way as to make him a warning to others. Aquaman is not the problem. Dismissing an existential crisis with a laughed speech of nonsense is the problem. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/183 "2019-04-08T04:01:35Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > … an existential crisis … You think global warming represents “an existential crisis”? To what? The USA? The human race? The planet Earth? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/184 "2019-04-08T04:11:01Z")
Yes, all of the above. Well, the biosphere of the planet, anyway. Have you really not learned this yet? Look up “clathrate gun.” ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/185 "2019-04-08T04:38:48Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Yes, all of the above. Well, the biosphere of the planet, anyway. > > Have you really not learned this yet? Look up “clathrate gun.” Which IPCC report can I read about it in? ---
**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:** [April 8, 2019, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/186 "2019-04-08T05:47:57Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You think global warming represents “an existential crisis”? To what? The USA? The human race? The planet Earth? > [@foolsguinea](#): > > Yes, all of the above. Well, the biosphere of the planet, anyway. > > Have you really not learned this yet? Look up “clathrate gun.” > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Which IPCC report can I read about it in? Well **foolsguinea** , what you point out is not likely, but **Hurricaneditka** is also wrong because once one thinks about the most likely things to happen, the existential crisis comes by just realizing that war is more likely. Just by thinking a bit about the most likely results of going over the 2 degrees Celsius limit that the IPCC is trying all to not pass. But, so far humans seem to be running towards the worse case scenarios. SciShow In which Hank details the five scariest things that will likely happen because of climate change. > [@](#): > > 03:57 > **The worldwide redistribution of growing conditions and freshwater** > > Cuz you know, you have air conditioning and so it’s not too big a deal if the world gets super hot, but you know who doesn’t have air conditioning? Cucumbers and cows and other stuff that we like to eat. > > Those things have to be outside, that’s how they work, and so they care if suddenly everything gets super hot and dry and right now a lot of the wealth and a lot of the people in the world are distributed in the places where there’s really good growing conditions; and as the Earth continues to warm places with historically really amazing growing conditions like central California could become lifeless health escapes and that would be a perfect habitat for zombies but not so good for cabbages and strawberries and by the time we reach something as subtle as a three degree increase in global temperatures, which scientists say could happen as soon as 2100, Saskatchewan could be the next Central California and all of the Fertile Crescents of the world may stop bringing forth their marvellous bounty and what always comes along with poor growing conditions and drought? Well, you get famine and you also get his brother horseman, War. BTW, I’m aware that his number 5 is not as likely as the other scary things like warming affecting growing regions or ocean rise and ocean acidification, but it can become possible much later if we do not control our emissions soon. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/187 "2019-04-08T08:53:46Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > You think global warming represents “an existential crisis”? To what? The USA? The human race? The planet Earth? Look not meaning to sound like a jerk here but if you’re this far behind have you considered reading the most recent IPCC report? ---
**Author:** ![NiceGuyJack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/niceguyjack/32/3069_2.png) [@NiceGuyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NiceGuyJack)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/188 "2019-04-08T10:02:52Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > Anyone remember the 60’s and 70’s? I do. > > Nixon did one good thing for sure The current crop of republicans want to tear that all down. Apparently, along with every thing this country stands for. > > I long for the days of a bastard like Nixon, or a simpleton like GWB. I might agree about Nixon, but not GWB. Remember the Kyoto treaty? No? You can thank [GWB](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/mar/29/globalwarming.usnews) for that. He was no friend of the environment as he killed the Kyoto treaty. The guy that was actually elected back in 2000 should have been president, Al Gore was already on board on the need to do something about climate change, 20 years ago. Maybe we wouldn’t be in such dire straights today. But hey, that’s just speculation. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/189 "2019-04-08T14:13:58Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Look not meaning to sound like a jerk here but if you’re this far behind have you considered reading the most recent IPCC report? Does it discuss the clathrate gun? ---
**Author:** ![wguy123](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wguy123/32/3161_2.png) [@wguy123](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wguy123)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/190 "2019-04-08T14:19:23Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Does it discuss the clathrate gun? Not sure about that, but I know it doesn’t suggest having more babies to solve the climate change crisis. Having more babies was listed under the heading of “most idiotic suggestions to solve climate change crisis.” ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/191 "2019-04-08T15:00:31Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Does it discuss the clathrate gun? :rolleyes: Doubtful, but it may get you up to speed on why people who actually _are_ up to date on the science are treating it like an existential threat. Because it is. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/192 "2019-04-08T15:26:37Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > :rolleyes: > > Doubtful… Why do you doubt that the clathrate gun is not discussed in the latest IPCC report? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/193 "2019-04-08T16:02:36Z")
Tell you what - if you want to actually have a discussion, let me know. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/194 "2019-04-08T16:05:59Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Tell you what - if you want to actually have a discussion, let me know. 🙂 I’d love to have a discussion. Right now I’m interested in the “clathrate gun”. **foolsguinea** suggested it represented “an existential crisis” to the human race. That sounds interesting. **GIGObuster** indicated it “is not likely”. Where does your opinion on the matter fall? Is the clathrate gun going to kill us all? ---
**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:** [April 8, 2019, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/195 "2019-04-08T16:10:06Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Why do you doubt that the clathrate gun is not discussed in the latest IPCC report? Uh, as mentioned already, the other poster was wrong, **deal with the items that are mentioned, or show all that you are like many contrarians out there that just want to concentrate on fringe opinions so as to make it look as if all that look at the science follow that fringe** ; the IPCC report mentions droughts, ocean rise, ocean acidification that will very likely hurt us a lot, no clathrate gun needed. As to point out how conservative the IPCC is, one thing they do not talk much about one very likely outcome: climate-driven refugees. But that is because, the IPCC deals with the physical evidence and likely physical outcomes, not much about the sociological ones, for that one then has to look at what experts on that tell us when they look at what the IPCC is estimating: [https://www.refugeesinternational.org/advocacy-letters-1/2018/10/9/refugees-international-raises-alarm-on-the-special-report-of-the-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change](https://www.refugeesinternational.org/advocacy-letters-1/2018/10/9/refugees-international-raises-alarm-on-the-special-report-of-the-un-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change) > [@](#): > > More forced migration, conflict, and poverty > > The report makes clear that climate change projections will contribute to human displacement, migration, and conflict. Extreme weather events already displace upwards of 20 million people per year on average. The report forecasts more extreme precipitation and higher levels of sea level rise and finds with “high confidence” that increased drought will drive forced migration and sustained conflict in certain regions. Least developed countries and indigenous peoples, the report finds, will be particularly impacted. > Loud and clear warning on need to reverse course > > Avoiding this fate is within the power of the global leaders. But doing so will require immediate and urgent action to mitigate the causes of climate change especially here in the United States, and to support the least developed countries to adapt to climate change that has occurred and will continue. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has frustrated global efforts to combat climate change. Not only has President Trump announced that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Agreement, but his administration has also dismantled laws and policies designed to curb U.S. emissions. > This must change. The findings of the report are loud and clear. It’s time to put politics aside and to focus instead on finding solutions. Not doing so is to condemn future generations to greater levels of poverty, conflict, displacement, and forced migration. And what Trump is doing has been, as far as I can see, approved by the likes of senator Lee. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/196 "2019-04-08T16:27:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > UH, as mentioned already, the other poster was wrong… When you say that **foolsguinea** was wrong, do you mean just about the “clathrate gun” or about the whole “existential crisis” thing? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > … **deal with the items that are mentioned, or show all that you are like many contrarians out there that just want to concentrate on fringe opinions so as to make it look as if all that look at the science follow that fringe** ; the IPCC report mentions droughts, ocean rise, ocean acidification that will very likely hurt us a lot, no clathrate gun needed. … I think it unlikely that “droughts, ocean rise, ocean acidification” represent an existential crisis for the human race. I think the sort of stupid bullshit fear-mongering that **foolsguinea** ’s post is a fine representation of do not serve your side of the discussion well. You do seem more level-headed though, so I’d be delighted to hear your opinion about your perception of the scale of the problems you listed above (or the climate-driven refugee issue). For example, I recently saw [this clip](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/02/bjorn_lomborg_95_fewer_climate-related_deaths_over_last_100_years.html) which said in part: > [@](#): > > … we actually have pretty good data for how many people die from weather-related disasters, so climate-related disasters, and the truth is over the last 100 years it’s dropped dramatically. Every year in the 1920s, we estimate about half a million people died around the world. Now, we quadrupled the population and, yet, the number has dropped like a stone. It’s 95% reduced. We are now down to about 20,000 people that die every year. … First off, is he wrong? Secondly, do you expect this trend to reverse itself in the next 80 years or so? Are weather-related deaths expected to soar? ---
**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:** [April 8, 2019, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/197 "2019-04-08T16:43:10Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > When you say that **foolsguinea** was wrong, do you mean just about the “clathrate gun” or about the whole “existential crisis” thing? Read it again please. As mentioned one does not need that gun for us to continue to play Russian roulette. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think it unlikely that “droughts, ocean rise, ocean acidification” represent an existential crisis for the human race. I think the sort of stupid bullshit fear-mongering that **foolsguinea** ’s post is a fine representation of do not serve your side of the discussion well. You do seem more level-headed though, so I’d be delighted to hear your opinion about your perception of the scale of the problems you listed above (or the climate-driven refugee issue). For example, I recently saw [this clip](https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/04/02/bjorn_lomborg_95_fewer_climate-related_deaths_over_last_100_years.html) which said in part: > > First off, is he wrong? Lomborg is always wrong. You fell hook line and sinker for a well known denier with an interest on minimizing the dangers. > **[Bjorn Lomborg’s lukewarmer misinformation about climate change and poverty -...](https://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/bjorn-lomborgs-lukewarmer-misinformation-about-climate-change-and-poverty/)** > > On 27 August, the ‘New York Post’ published an article by Dr Bjorn Lomborg that was filled with misrepresentations and... > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Secondly, do you expect this trend to reverse itself in the next 80 years or so? Are weather-related deaths expected to soar? Again, if you put some thought to it, it is clear that what Lomborg and other deniers out there are going for is misleading in the extreme, they are willing to ignore deaths caused by displacement and civil unrest that are happening now in part due to climate change already observed, so what Lomborg and others do is misleading. ---
**Author:** ![BeagleJesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5daacb/32.png) [@BeagleJesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeagleJesus)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/198 "2019-04-08T17:01:52Z")
> [@Ulfreida](#): > > The absolute best thing to combat climate change would be the immediate disappearance of the human race. If even that would work. I starting to suspect the planet agrees with this sentiment. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/199 "2019-04-08T17:04:29Z")
> [@NiceGuyJack](#): > > You can thank [GWB](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/mar/29/globalwarming.usnews) for that. He was no friend of the environment as he killed the Kyoto treaty. Of course I supported Gore in 2000, but I hoped GWB wouldn’t be too bad. He _had_ promised to counter climate change. Shortly after his inauguration, he announced that his science advisors had just informed him that CO2 was the natural product of all carbon fuel usage and that his CO2 promise was therefore off the table! :eek: I was rather astounded to learn that something every 8th-grader knows was invisible to GWB — a petroleum industry man, no less — until he had the Federal governments scientists at his beck and call. The Bush Administration just went downhill from there, obviously. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2019, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598/200 "2019-04-08T17:07:19Z")
I don’t think there’s any “solving” of climate change – just mitigation or adaptation. In the long run, the Earth will be fine, and so will life, broadly speaking. In the short term (geologically speaking), climate change could result (and probably has already started to result) in severe upheaval for humanity, and mass extinctions for other species. Senator Mike Lee’s response strikes me as an entirely unserious one for a serious issue that could harm millions of Americans. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-having-children-solve-climate-change/831598.md?page=11)