IPCC report 2021; analysis, discussion, and are we fucked?

[RainbowTown]

going to be arguing against a lot of this sort of thing in the coming years, both that and the idea that this is a collective sin for which we deserve the hardships to come.Who do you think it serves to point to the 'feckless multitudes' and say 'ah, look, its all them on there less than a dollar a day!'? Its not just untrue, its going to be eagerly picked up by the worst people, already has been tbf. That way lies getting euthanized for your generations eco-crimes and fed to the recyc tanks when you're 60.

It's a hugely contentious issue, I grant you. And there are no easy answers to it. But the exponential growth of human population IS impacting on the planet (and by association climate change) and not in a good way. My own view (rightly or wrongly) is that we need to include such a debate far more prominently than we do. It's not a comfortable discussion to raise, I know, and it;s open to all kinds of disturbing manipulations like you've rightly alluded too. But that doesn't mean there isn't a serious conversation to be had around this issue, and how we as a species need to look carefully at how we approach our ever increasing population and how it is damaging our planet in all sorts of ways. I personally think that we should, through educational and behavorial means, address it sooner than later.

Does Population Growth Impact Global Climate Change? | Population Media Center

info.populationmedia.org

Population Pressure and the Climate Crisis

A 2020 study found that if the climate crisis isn’t addressed, as many as 3 billion people will be living in areas considered too hot for human survival within 50 years, including places like Los Angeles and Paris.

www.biologicaldiversity.org

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

the countries with highest birth rates also by and large the countries with lowest carbon emissions, so there's that

True, but nearly all trying to emulate the West. Carbon emissions are only part of the environmental problem. Deforestation and species loss are also catastrophic. Humans to blame. I'm not pretending that overpopulation is easy to solve or that it's necessarily the main cause of climate change. It is contributory though. So let's not ignore it or give a free pass to those reactionary religions which promote it. Many on the left have shied away from criticising religion from fear of being called racist. That just gives an easy time to the Catholic Church, Evangelical Christian sects, fundamentalist Hindus etc

 

[LDC]

Fuck any over-population discussion, seriously.

Even if we agreed it was an issue it leads nowhere good, gets picked up on by the worst kind of people as a solution, isn't possible to use to make any changes in time, and excuses dealing with the actual solutions. It's worse than a red herring, it's the argument of western liberals that obscures the real problem.

If over-population is some part of the problem, the answer is to fight for and create an equitable, just, feminist, ecologically sound society/world and then the population issue will sort itself out.

 

[platinumsage]

It's a hugely contentious issue, I grant you. And there are no easy answers to it. But the exponential growth of human population IS impacting on the planet (and by association climate change) and not in a good way.

It's not exponential, as I said a few posts ago the rate is rapidly decreasing and has been doing so for fifty years.

 

[lazythursday]

Population really isn't the driver of this, given the vastly unequal amounts of carbon emitted per capita, and to focus on population just helps usher in some kind of nightmare eco-fascist future. The problem is not the countries with growing populations, it's those that have high energy use practices.

 

[Flavour]

I think we could all take some inspiration from the Ende Gelände protest movement.

 

[nogojones]

Frozen bread does inexplicably make better toast than fresh though. So there's that.

I find that placing my bread at the edge of a forest fire gives it that just right burn

 

[Wilf]

I think capital will adapt and will shift its investments around to more sustainable practices. But there will always be a strong element of greenwash, counting the wrong things as progress and, most of all, allowing business - and accumulation - as usual. Neoliberalism is uniquely unsuited to secure any kind of global restraint (though, as noted upthread, we are really in an era of state monopoly capital, post 2008). Ultimately, the question of whether a genuinely green capitalism can emerge, that really makes changes across the range of activities that affect climate change, can be answered by looking at the recent past. We've known this was coming, but are still locked into growth models and accumulation. Fuck capitalism.

 

[teqniq]

Don't need to look much further than this for reasons why nothing is done. From Feb this year:

Revealed: Dozens of UK former senior officials profit from fossil fuel corporations, rubber-stamped by Whitehall committee

New research reveals that dozens of senior UK defence, foreign office and intelligence officials find employment with oil, gas and mining corporations once they leave public office, rubber-stamped by a Whitehall committee which pays little attention to potential conflicts of interest. Such...

www.dailymaverick.co.za

 

[RainbowTown]

It's not exponential, as I said a few posts ago the rate is rapidly decreasing and has been doing so for fifty years.

Yes, you are correct in this. The rate has declined during the past fifty years ; this after an increase from 1.65 billion to 6 billion in the 20th century; and apparently in 1970 there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now. A mere six decades ago. That is an incredibly short span of time . We are set to hit 10 BILLION people by 2057- IF we still increase at a rate of 1.05% (the current rate). Currently 84 .5 million births this year, 35 millions deaths - thus population growth 49 million (as of the time of this post). Can our planet - given the shitty, precarious state it's already in - sustain this kind of growth? And any subsequent growth after that? Then after that? And after that.....and after that etc.... I highly doubt it.

I welcome some of the responses on here questioning the involvement of population growth with climate change. Seriously. Even the most vocal ones.. But my original view remains. Population growth is something I think has had a telling impact on climate change and the environment, and has contributed in no small part to the mess we are in now. As a species we need, as David Attenborough said, to break the 'taboo' of even acknowledging it. This applies most especially to those of us lucky enough to live in countries and regions of the developed world; the places which, by and large, are responsible for the crisis we're all now in. For me, it's not an either/or situation. The issue of climate change is far too nuanced for that. That's my take on it anyway. Our planet is finite and so are the resources on it. And we're seeing the damning consequences beginning to unravel before our eyes.

 

[lazythursday]

Is population growth a factor in breaching planetary boundaries, including carbon emissions? Yes, of course - but focusing on it as a major casual issue is just a red herring and misses the real reasons why climate change has got so bad and why action to confront it has been so ineffective. We could carry out some sort of nazi mass sterilisation of half the globe tomorrow and still hit 1.5 degrees warming by 2050 with emissions increasing merrily towards 3 degrees.

 

[platinumsage]

Yes, you are correct in this. The rate has declined during the past fifty years ; this after an increase from 1.65 billion to 6 billion in the 20th century; and apparently in 1970 there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now. A mere six decades ago. That is an incredibly short span of time . We are set to hit 10 BILLION people by 2057- IF we still increase at a rate of 1.05% (the current rate). Currently 84 .5 million births this year, 35 millions deaths - thus population growth 49 million (as of the time of this post). Can our planet - given the shitty, precarious state it's already in - sustain this kind of growth? And any subsequent growth after that? Then after that? And after that.....and after that etc.... I highly doubt it.

Population growth is already predicted to continue falling and eventually turn negative. Nothing that could be reasonably done to hasten that would have a material affect on climate change in the required timescale.

 

[maomao]

Yes, you are correct in this. The rate has declined during the past fifty years ; this after an increase from 1.65 billion to 6 billion in the 20th century; and apparently in 1970 there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now. A mere six decades ago. That is an incredibly short span of time . We are set to hit 10 BILLION people by 2057- IF we still increase at a rate of 1.05% (the current rate). Currently 84 .5 million births this year, 35 millions deaths - thus population growth 49 million (as of the time of this post). Can our planet - given the shitty, precarious state it's already in - sustain this kind of growth? And any subsequent growth after that? Then after that? And after that.....and after that etc.... I highly doubt it.

I welcome some of the responses on here questioning the involvement of population growth with climate change. Seriously. Even the most vocal ones.. But my original view remains. Population growth is something I think has had a telling impact on climate change and the environment, and has contributed in no small part to the mess we are in now. As a species we need, as David Attenborough said, to break the 'taboo' of even acknowledging it. This applies most especially to those of us lucky enough to live in countries and regions of the developed world; the places which, by and large, are responsible for the crisis we're all now in. For me, it's not an either/or situation. The issue of climate change is far too nuanced for that. That's my take on it anyway. Our planet is finite and so are the resources on it. And we're seeing the damning consequences beginning to unravel before our eyes.

Luckily we know that reducing poverty also reduces the birth rate so we don't need to stop poor people having children we just need to stop them being poor.

 

[Wilf]

Luckily we know that reducing poverty also reduces the birth rate so we don't need to stop poor people having children we just need to stop them being poor.

Yep. There's no denying the issue of population growth and the fact that growth has been insane since 1960 or so. Even with a reduced rate of growth it will continue to get worse. But separating population growth off from poverty, capital and consumerism is massively one eyed.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yep. There's no denying the issue of population growth and the fact that growth has been insane since 1960 or so. Even with a reduced rate of growth it will continue to get worse. But separating population growth off from poverty, capital and consumerism is massively one eyed.

Or just blind

 

[lazythursday]

Or just racist

 

[chemn]

.....And, of course, there is THE red herring that few want to acknowledge or engage with, let alone act upon,: human breeding and the ever increasing growth of populations ....

Like you say, this is a red herring, and not something to be engaged with seriously.

 

[RainbowTown]

Population growth is already predicted to continue falling and eventually turn negative. Nothing that could be reasonably done to hasten that would have a material affect on climate change in the required timescale.

Fair point.

 

[bimble]

A bigger problem than population or methane is the kind of useless abject despair that someone like me feels when reading this stuff, todays report.
I'm not even that old or that much of an arsehole but the feeling that we are totally and utterly fucked, there is no hope of averting catastrophe and i'm just glad i don't have kids' means i might pathetically recycle my rubbish but i'm not going to be part of any solution because basically i've given up.
Don't know what to do about it, the shitty useless despair. Its too late to just leave it to the next generation to sort out.

 

[NoXion]

A bigger problem than population or methane is the kind of useless abject despair that someone like me feels when reading this stuff, todays report.
I'm not even that old or that much of an arsehole but the feeling that we are totally and utterly fucked, there is no hope of averting catastrophe and i'm just glad i don't have kids' means i might pathetically recycle my rubbish but i'm not going to be part of any solution because basically i've given up.
Don't know what to do about it, the shitty useless despair. Its too late to just leave it to the next generation to sort out.

The way I think about it is this; despair is what the bastards want. People who have no hope for the future are easier to control. So I refuse to give in to it simply on that basis alone. Plus there are mental health benefits in my experience.

I suppose it's easy for me for me to say, because I absolutely despise the kind of misanthropy that is unfortunately becoming more popular these days. That's another thing that useful for those with wealth and power; why bother trying to fight for a better world if humans are inherently evil? Rather than say, blaming the people with all the money and power who are actually responsible for all this fucking mess.

 

[RainbowTown]

Luckily we know that reducing poverty also reduces the birth rate so we don't need to stop poor people having children we just need to stop them being poor.

I absolutely concur. Nowhere in my posts did I refer to poor people. Indeed I stated that the richer, more developed countries especially need take responsibility for what has and is unfolding.

Yep. There's no denying the issue of population growth and the fact that growth has been insane since 1960 or so. Even with a reduced rate of growth it will continue to get worse. But separating population growth off from poverty, capital and consumerism is massively one eyed.

Like I said in one of my posts, it's not a case of either/or. It's far more nuanced than that I think. Including what you've pointed out here. And which I agree with.

Or just racist

I'm not sure whether you're alluding to me. I'm taking it you were. So sincere apologies for my response below if you were not.

If you were, please just don't engage with me if you're going to use despicable, cheap and wholly false terms like that against someone you don't even know. I've been hospitalized by racist, homophobic scumbags several years back, as it happens, and I don't wish to engage with someone here who appears who throw out a baseless and untrue comment like that. If 'racist' is what you took from my posts, then fine. Have a pleasant day. Now peace off.

 

[bimble]

I don't really know anyone in their teens - 20s, would like to know if they feel more optimistic than me and what their hopes for averting catastrophe within their lifetimes look like.

 

[bimble]

The way I think about it is this; despair is what the bastards want. People who have no hope for the future are easier to control. So I refuse to give in to it simply on that basis alone. Plus there are mental health benefits in my experience.

I suppose it's easy for me for me to say, because I absolutely despise the kind of misanthropy that is unfortunately becoming more popular these days. That's another thing that useful for those with wealth and power; why bother trying to fight for a better world if humans are inherently evil? Rather than say, blaming the people with all the money and power who are actually responsible for all this fucking mess.

I don't think humans are in any way inherently bad, 'human nature' is not the problem.
So what form does your hope take?
Todays report says drastic immediate action to reduce emissions is needed now, not in ten years, to avert catastrophic & irreversible climate change. If you feel that this is a possibility how do you think it might happen? (i am absolutely not trying to argue with you or your hope just asking how you do it).

 

[Pickman's model]

The way I think about it is this; despair is what the bastards want. People who have no hope for the future are easier to control. So I refuse to give in to it simply on that basis alone. Plus there are mental health benefits in my experience.

I suppose it's easy for me for me to say, because I absolutely despise the kind of misanthropy that is unfortunately becoming more popular these days. That's another thing that useful for those with wealth and power; why bother trying to fight for a better world if humans are inherently evil? Rather than say, blaming the people with all the money and power who are actually responsible for all this fucking mess.

We'll have to do rather more than just blame the architects of the situation if we're to break on through to a better world.

 

[lazythursday]

I absolutely concur. Nowhere in my posts did I refer to poor people. Indeed I stated that the richer, more developed countries especially need take responsibility for what has and is unfolding.


Like I said in one of my posts, it's not a case of either/or. It's far more nuanced than that I think. Including what you've pointed out here. And which I agree with.


I'm not sure whether you're alluding to me. I'm taking it you were. So sincere apologies for my response below if you were not.

If you were, please just don't engage with me if you're going to use despicable, cheap and wholly false terms like that against someone you don't even know. I've been hospitalized by racist, homophobic scumbags several years back, as it happens, and I don't wish to engage with someone here who appears who throw out a baseless and untrue comment like that. If 'racist' is what you took from my posts, then fine. Have a pleasant day. Now peace off.

I was responding to Wilf's post, eg to people who "separate population growth off from poverty, capital and consumerism". It is quite clear that an awful lot of overpopulation discourse is either driven by directly by racism, or has the potential to generate racism and boost the far right. It's not cheap or despicable to point that out. In fact it is fucking essential that we do so.

 

[RainbowTown]

I don't think humans are in any way inherently bad, 'human nature' is not the problem.
So what form does your hope take?
Todays report says drastic immediate action to reduce emissions is needed now, not in ten years, to avert catastrophic & irreversible climate change. If you feel that this is a possibility how do you think it might happen? (i am absolutely not trying to argue with you or your hope just asking how you do it).

I suppose striking a balance between the light and the dark. I think it was Tennessee Williams who said "if I got rid of my demons, I'd lose my angels".

 

[bimble]

I suppose striking a balance between the light and the dark. I think it was Tennessee Williams who said "if I got rid of my demons, I'd lose my angels".

what? I'm not depressed, this isn't a personal mood issue, but when i read (bits of) that report today and in general about this subject for decades now, i feel complete useless and very counter productive despair.
Maybe younger people, or people in less class ridden places, less cynical & less disillusioned than me about the kind of men who hold the power in the world to make the necessary immediate changes, fare better than me on the despair front.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

We'll have to do rather more than just blame the architects of the situation if we're to break on through to a better world.

Generally, when architects build something that's hazardous and in danger of falling over, we find new architects.

 

[lazythursday]

I don't think humans are in any way inherently bad, 'human nature' is not the problem.
So what form does your hope take?
Todays report says drastic immediate action to reduce emissions is needed now, not in ten years, to avert catastrophic & irreversible climate change. If you feel that this is a possibility how do you think it might happen? (i am absolutely not trying to argue with you or your hope just asking how you do it).

I think things have moved on a lot in the last couple of years, in the background a bit. What needs to be done has been worked out, scenarios developed, pathways to net zero spelled out. Have a look at the reports done by the Committee on Climate Change, for instance. The enormity of the transition ahead is becoming more and more understood within local councils, bits of the civil service, think tanks, all the stuff that surrounds politics - but politicians themselves are way behind. I think there's every chance we will suddenly see rapid progress - likely not quick enough to avoid two degrees of warming, but personally I think change will happen. Because it can't not happen, ultimately. There is an inexorable logic to the physics. Eventually we will see fossil fuel executives on trial, I firmly believe that.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think capital will adapt and will shift its investments around to more sustainable practices. But there will always be a strong element of greenwash, counting the wrong things as progress and, most of all, allowing business - and accumulation - as usual. Neoliberalism is uniquely unsuited to secure any kind of global restraint (though, as noted upthread, we are really in an era of state monopoly capital, post 2008). Ultimately, the question of whether a genuinely green capitalism can emerge, that really makes changes across the range of activities that affect climate change, can be answered by looking at the recent past. We've known this was coming, but are still locked into growth models and accumulation. Fuck capitalism.

Yup. We’re not going to capitalism our way out of this.