world

IEA says world needs 'laser-like focus' to bring down emissions

11 Comments
By Katie SCHUBAUER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2019 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.


11 Comments
Login to comment

The past? It's not so much the past but the future that is alarming. From StatsCan: "The projections show that growth would continue in Canada over the next 50 years, and that the population could reach between 44.4 million and 70.2 million inhabitants by 2068.

You can't just focus laser--like on what is happening in Canada, which is less than 1% of the global population, when talking about this.

The global population is projected to have a population of between 9.4 and 12.7 billion by 2100, which means an increase of between 1.7 and 5 billion from today.

Almost all of that is attributable to one region: sub Saharan Africa, which is projected to go from a population of about 800 million today to between 3 and 5 billion by the end of the century. With the exception of North Africa/Middle East, the population of every other region in the world is projected to peak and then decline over the same period (when it peaks varies, Europe already has, South Asia will peak in about 30 years, etc).

But lets just ignore that for the moment and point out the underlying stupidity of focusing on controlling population growth to control CO2 emissions: even if we were to immediately bring population growth down to zero tomorrow this would solve nothing, since we'd still have a population of 7.7 billion people pumping CO2 at an unsustainable rate into the atmosphere.

We need to bring net CO2 emissions down to zero by about 2050 if we are going to have a chance at avoiding the worst case scenarios, how are you going to do that by just focusing on controlling population growth? There is no path forward using that approach that offers any practical solutions whatsoever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@rainyday

"but the fact that it has grown in the past is irrelevant to the question of future growth based on birth/death rates and immigration rates."

The past? It's not so much the past but the future that is alarming. From StatsCan: "The projections show that growth would continue in Canada over the next 50 years, and that the population could reach between 44.4 million and 70.2 million inhabitants by 2068.

The alarming thing is the members of this population are the worst contributors to global warming....and they're growing and will continue to do so, thanks to a false narrative peddled by many PC quarters. The other alarming thing is that so many people aren't alarmed.

Based on the facts, its idiotic to be arguing addressing population growth is an effective strategy for dealing with climate change.

The graph of historical population growth is exactly the same as the graph of Co2 emissions in the atmosphere - shaped like a horizontal hockey stick. It is beyond idiotic to say that one has nothing to do with the other. People are the ones putting the emissions in the air, Fewer people means fewer emissions. How hard is that to understand?!?

In the meantime, good luck with arranging those deck chairs on the Titanic.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

That simply isn't true. In my country, Canada, the population was around 20 million when I was a kid and now it's nearing 40 million and growing.

Yes it is. I'm Canadian too. Population now is about 35 million, but the fact that it has grown in the past is irrelevant to the question of future growth based on birth/death rates and immigration rates. Current projections are that the populations of Europe and North America collectively will flatline after 2020, even with immigration taken into account. Canada's population will grow a bit by 2050, but by nowhere near the rate that it grew in the late 20th century, and its growth will be more than offset by declining populations in some European countries.

The population of Africa on the other hand is exploding (even with people emigrating from the continent) and will actually account for more than 100% of the overall increase in human population over the 21st century (it will account for all the net increase, meaning in addition to growing the total number it wlll also be off setting shrinking populations in the wealthy parts of the world).

Based on the facts, its idiotic to be arguing addressing population growth is an effective strategy for dealing with climate change.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@rainyday

Pretty much 100% of the increase in human population over the next century is projected to occur in Africa,

That simply isn't true. In my country, Canada, the population was around 20 million when I was a kid and now it's nearing 40 million and growing. The policymakers today are vowing to pump up the population even higher. Canadians are the biggest Co2 emitters per capita in the world, it should be noted.

China did its bit for ages, with the one child policy....

China's one child policy laid the foundations for the greatest economic miracle in modern times.

The problem with emissions will be solved by cutting down on industries and reliance on fossil fuels,

The problem is, solar or wind can't power heavy industry, like steel production, etc. You can't power a blast furnance using the sun, and the tech to do so is not in the cards in our lifetimes and probably beyond

There's only one solution but hardly anyone wants to take it. We are doomed.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It's the people at the very top who need scrutinizing.

I think the elites, Al Gore, Zuckerburg, Leonardo Decaprio, etc. should lead the way by cutting out their CO2 emissions to that of a poor African or Asian. Once that occurs the world might be able to stem the onset of the apocalypse scheduled to occur in 11.5 years. That and 10,000 nuclear power plants.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

rainyday:

Pretty much 100% of the increase in human population over the next century is projected to occur in Africa, where per person CO2 emissions are negligible. In the parts of the world where CO2 emissions are high, on the other hand, (North America, East Asia, Europe, etc) populations are going to actually decrease over the same period.

...except with the open borders and unlimited immigration that the globalists are pushing for (does the "UN compact for migration" ring a bell for you?), Western governments are trying to import Africa's massive population growth into Europe and the US, thus moving all those millions from a low-consumption to a high-consumption life style. So no, the static world-view makes no sense.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Well, how about making the "growing population" (aka, the root problem) stop growing? Problem solved. Nah, sounds like too much effort that might offend someone.

China did its bit for ages, with the one child policy. And we all know how controversial that was. The problem with emissions will be solved by cutting down on industries and reliance on fossil fuels, not cutting down on people.

It's the people at the very top who need scrutinizing.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Well, how about making the "growing population" (aka, the root problem) stop growing? Problem solved. Nah, sounds like too much effort that might offend someone. Let's just re-arrange deck chairs on the Titanic instead.

Its not that its too much effort, its that focusing on population growth is a stupid way of approaching the climate crisis.

Pretty much 100% of the increase in human population over the next century is projected to occur in Africa, where per person CO2 emissions are negligible. In the parts of the world where CO2 emissions are high, on the other hand, (North America, East Asia, Europe, etc) populations are going to actually decrease over the same period.

So tackling population growth isn't going to do anything - it doesn't exist in places where people produce high CO2 emissions.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

sustainable energy for a growing population

Well, how about making the "growing population" (aka, the root problem) stop growing? Problem solved. Nah, sounds like too much effort that might offend someone. Let's just re-arrange deck chairs on the Titanic instead.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

There have already been stark warnings from the The World Bank, and the IMF

Good to see more of the establishement highlighting the realities of the Climate Crisis.
2 ( +5 / -3 )

Though it said IKEA for a second there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites