350

[Flyfisher]

Of course many of our problems would go away if the population were smaller, but we are not empowered to achieve that. We can, however, change the way we live and, fortunately, that turns out to be "10x" more significant.

Why do you believe we're not empowered to have less children? Surely that's just another example of changing the "way we live"?

 

[Moo]

I can't do the sums, but surely birth-rate and life expectancy are both factors in world population. In the western world we live longer and longer, as a result of education and technological progress, but this doesn't apply in the less developed bits of the world (eg Bhutan?).
So what would happen if the poverty that shortens the lives of the Bhutanese could be eliminated? Would it be possible to do it without increasing their consumption of resources?
And what would the figures look like if, as well, we in the west started behaving better?

 

[Flyfisher]

Increasing lifespans will have a short-term effect on the overall population but I don't think it can contribute to sustained growth in population numbers.

 

[biffvernon]

Why do you believe we're not empowered to have less children?

You must speak for yourself, but I cannot have less children, nor can I have fewer children. What's done tis done and I'm nor having any more. But I might be able to reduce my CO2 emissions next year, and the next, 2011 (20% in 2011) and so on.

I am very willing to try to persuade people to reduce their CO2 emissions year on year and sequester carbon so that we actually do get down to 350ppmv. I am not going to tell a young woman she should not have a baby. Improving women's education, heath care, social security and pensions do not of themselves mean increased pollution. We can be smart about it. Endless population growth is not inevitable.

By the way, I mentioned Bhutan as an example of a nation whose environmental impact was rather low, not as an example of a nation with a short average life expectancy. Bhutan is mid-range for third world countries in this respect, at over 66 years (UK 79, Japan 82). Russia comes out just worse than Bhutan in the league table.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Improving women's education, heath care, social security and pensions do not of themselves mean increased pollution.

Biff, advanced healthcare and the economic might necessary to deliver social security and old age pensions do not come without increased energy/resource consumption. There is no way in the world that developing nations could deliver any/all of those to even a rudimentary standard without increasing pollution.

Whilst fascinating, this thread is becoming rather circular!

I stick with Malthus - disease and/or resource competition (food/water/energy) will return the global population to a sustainable level sooner or later. It happens with every other population (from the frogspawn we hatched in a tank this spring* to foxes, rabbits, etc, etc). The only thing that staves off the inevitable seems to be man's ability to develop technological solutions to current problems in the nick of time. Let's all hope we continue to do so for both increased population and the effects of climate change.

*wtaching tadpoles turn carnivorous is rather gruesome!

 

[Flyfisher]

I am very willing to try to persuade people to reduce their CO2 emissions year on year and sequester carbon so that we actually do get down to 350ppmv. I am not going to tell a young woman she should not have a baby.

I don't think a baby is the problem - indeed, limiting ourselves to a baby per couple for a few generations might be a very good thing.

It's interesting that you're willing to persuade people to reduce their carbon footprint but not their number of offspring, which are probably the biggest contributing factors to increasing their carbon footprint. How about giving every person a fixed "carbon allowance", say at the level that would equate to 350ppm. If they form a couple (I was going to write "marry" but it seemed so old-fashioned )they could pool their allowances. If they have children they would have to share the allowance with them. And with any grandchildren, etc. On a death, their allowance could be 'inherited' by the family.

No doubt such a scheme would be greeted with uproar, but it might focus people's minds on the very real impact of an increasing population. Each new person has to share the finite resources we have; fewer people can have more or more people can have less (assuming equal distribution, which is another can of worms, of course). It's not rocket science.

PS: FW - I think you've got your quote tags mixed up in your last post - that was Biff's quote, not mine.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Bah - can't get these wretched tags right. Corrected now.

FF - an interesting idea. Now where have I heard it before? Oh yes - Kyoto (albeit on a national scale). Even assuming we could get the required political signup right across the globe, we'd soon find a thriving market in carbon credits on eBay. :roll:

 

[Flyfisher]

I didn't really believe it was an original idea but I didn't realise it cropped up at Kyoto. A 'carbon allowance', yes, but not one that had to be shared by offspring.
I wonder why it didn't catch on? :lol:

 

[biffvernon]

The sort of peri-natal health care and community support for the elderly that removes the advantage of having many babies to ensure some survive to care for you in old age, does not need to be more polluting. Whilst sure that the perils we face are great, I maintain that we are more intelligent than frogspawn and remain of the view that while there's life, there's hope. (Dan Dare said that on viewing an approaching Treen missile.)

Soft solutions, involving women's education for example, are more likely to be successful than a reliance on techno-fixes.

For carbon allowance read Tradeable Energy Quotas (TEQs). A brilliant scheme created by David Fleming that should already have been adopted.

Dr. David Fleming is the Founder Director of the Lean Economy Connection, and an independent writer in the fields of energy, environment, economics, society and culture. He first published the system of TEQs (formerly Domestic Tradable Quotas - DTQs) in 1996. The wider context of our times is addressed in his forthcoming Lean Logic: A Dictionary for Our Time.

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, a nice simple idea but it doesn't mention anything about offspring (I only read the summary: http://www.teqs.net/summary.html), just that "every adult" is given a certain number of TEQs to trade with. Does this imply that new TEQs are created for everyone's 18th birthday? Wouldn't this risk a similar situation as already exists in certain countries/cultures where more children means more wealth for the extended family, thus encouraging population growth?

 

[biffvernon]

'Every adult' means just what it says. TEQs is about carbon rationing not about taxing babies. That would be silly.

 

[Penners]

I don't think a baby is the problem - indeed, limiting ourselves to a baby per couple for a few generations might be a very good thing.

Er - 'scuse me.... who's going to pay for my (and, in the dim, distant future, your) pension?

Demographic manipulation has all kinds of consequences.

 

[Penners]

If only I had the space for a water tank to hold all the water from the dishwasher and the washing machine so that we could divert it to the lavatory cisterns any ideas?

This website and its onward links may give you a few ideas about what you might be able to do: http://www.reuk.co.uk/Greywater.htm

As I see it, your main problem is that gravity isn't on your side. You'd need a pump to lift the water up from the dishwasher and washing machine to the lavatory cisterns. Not impossible, of course, but electricity would be consumed...

I ought to just highlight a couple of paragraphs from the above website about flushing your loo with grey water:

Greywater Toilet Flushing
Sadly untreated greywater is unsuitable for use in toilet flushing as it can start to smell after a few hours, will stain the toilet bowl, and may carry dangerous bacteria and viruses. Treated greywater can be used for toilet flushing although it doesn't always make economical sense to do so. (Instead consider harvesting rainwater for flushing toilets if possible.)

Greywater must not be put into the toilet tank (cistern) in case a drop in water pressure causes it to enter the fresh water supply. Instead the greywater must be sent directly to the toilet bowl via separate plumbing.

 

[Flyfisher]

'Every adult' means just what it says. TEQs is about carbon rationing not about taxing babies. That would be silly.

How can rationing work if the pool of TEQs increases as the population increases? Isn't rationing the administration of a fixed resource, not a growing one?

 

[biffvernon]

How can rationing work if the pool of TEQs increases as the population increases? Isn't rationing the administration of a fixed resource, not a growing one?

I see you haven't read the significant part about TEQs that explains your point. The pool of TEQs decreases over time.

 

[Flyfisher]

I don't think a baby is the problem - indeed, limiting ourselves to a baby per couple for a few generations might be a very good thing.

Er - 'scuse me.... who's going to pay for my (and, in the dim, distant future, your) pension?

Demographic manipulation has all kinds of consequences.

Indeed. Unintended consequences can, and undoubtedly will, crop up all over the place. Perhaps pensions will disappear? After all, they are a fairly recent invention and may turn out to be unsustainable. They are already under significant pressure, with talk of retirement ages having to rise. It does seem remarkable that people can be productive for half their life, or less, and still enjoy (indeed, expect) a very high standard of living.

One of my favourite quotes (although I can't remember by whom) refers to the conflict in the Middle East: "If you think you have a solution then you don't understand the problem".

This whole climate change thing seems very similar to me There are lots of very clever people who are spending their entire lives working on the problems and the issues, yet there doesn't seem to be any real concerted and acceptable action plan emerging. Perhaps it's just too complex to deal with. A bit like the economy really; if a government really understood how things work and could figure out how to make everyone happy then they'd remain in office forever. But it's just too complex so they just lurch from crisis to crisis and keep micro-managing things to give the impression that something is being done.

Interesting article on human nature here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327225.700-triumph-of-the-commons-helping-the-world-to-share.html?full=true

 

[Penners]

Perhaps pensions will disappear? After all, they are a fairly recent invention and may turn out to be unsustainable. They are already under significant pressure, with talk of retirement ages having to rise.

The problem, though, is lead times. I, like millions of others before and after me, entered into a contract with the Government that I would pay for my pension in instalments, throughout my working life. The Government, presumably knowing more about these things than I do ( :? ), took on the actuarial risk that I would live an antisocially long time and cost them more than they had "bet" that I would.

The problem is that the Government decided not to put my state pension contributions into an interest-paying account until I retired, but to blow them on current expenditure. So they now rely on today's working population to feed me a meagre crust.

If this system is unsustainable, then the terms of the contract can presumably only be renegotiated with those who have not yet signed it. So the effects of the changes won't be felt for several decades. Meanwhile birthrates continue to be worryingly low, so the head-count of the indigenous population who are supporting me may continue to decline.

Hence the Government's reluctance to turn off the immigration tap. Hence the virtual impossibility of using population control to reduce carbon emissions.

 

[Flyfisher]

How can rationing work if the pool of TEQs increases as the population increases? Isn't rationing the administration of a fixed resource, not a growing one?

I see you haven't read the significant part about TEQs that explains your point. The pool of TEQs decreases over time.

Ah, yes, point 9 in the summary. Not sure how I missed that bit.

Still not entirely sure how it differs from the current system where fossil fuels are directly traded. Countries already trade fossil fuels with "money" and the pool of remaining fuels declines over time. I can see that TEQs could be managed such that fossil fuel is left in the ground by the time all TEQs disappear, thus helping to reduce CO2 emissions, it's just that I don't think such a scheme would be politically acceptable. It would be a bit like starving yourself to death even though the cupboard is full of food.

 

[Flyfisher]

Perhaps pensions will disappear? After all, they are a fairly recent invention and may turn out to be unsustainable. They are already under significant pressure, with talk of retirement ages having to rise.

The problem, though, is lead times. I, like millions of others before and after me, entered into a contract with the Government that I would pay for my pension in instalments, throughout my working life.

But, in practice, your NI contributions were never adequate to pay for your own pension, you were really contributing to the pensions of those already retired during your working life. But that model is now broken, so that's another big problem waiting in the wings. It seems fairly obvious that as people are now living longer, healthier lives, they'll have to work well beyond 'standard' retirement ages. Or, how about having loads of children and encouraging extended families to support the old folks all in the same house. Er, hang on, that's not going to help keep the population down . . . .

 

[Penners]

The problem keeps revolving
And around the sun we go
We do not die of aging,
But we die of vertigo.