Population growth: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "The most fundamental driver of the ecological crisis is human population growth, is on track to continue at least through this century. But population growth and its effects a...") |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The most fundamental driver of the ecological crisis is human population growth, is on track to continue at least through this century. | '''The most fundamental driver of the [[ecological crisis]] is human population growth, is on track to continue at least through this century. An estimated three-quarters of a billion people are slowly starving and 1 to 2 billion don’t get enough food to fully function as human beings<ref>https://e360.yale.edu/features/avoiding-a-ghastly-future-hard-truths-on-the-state-of-the-planet</ref>.''' | ||
P (population) x S (services used by people) x E (energy needed to power those services) x C = CO2 (carbon dioxide output) | |||
It’s a neat little formula because it drives home the point: that for all the Paris climate talks and more affordable Teslas, environmental incrementalism is somewhat pointless. Population is of course trending ever-higher, as are the services people demand, especially in the developing world which has barely scratched the surface in terms of cars and air conditioning and other modern basics. Those two factors swamp progress in energy efficiency. Gates points out that scientists are calling for an 80 percent drop in carbon emissions by 2050 e(and a total end by 2100) to stave off the most dramatic effects of climate change, yet even with more efficiency, the growth in population and services means that emissions will instead ''jump'' by 50%. | |||
Population growth causes crowding, joblessness, friction, and conflict. Managing the heat of friction as population grows and the economy is under pressure to keep up makes it more difficult to cool it. It becomes less likely that leaders will recognize cooling, rather than fueling, as the more urgent need. This is evident as near-universal policies focus on getting “more” — more food for more people, for instance, rather than easing the crises by policies incentivizing population flattening and de-growth. | |||
Latest revision as of 22:38, 23 February 2022
The most fundamental driver of the ecological crisis is human population growth, is on track to continue at least through this century. An estimated three-quarters of a billion people are slowly starving and 1 to 2 billion don’t get enough food to fully function as human beings[1].
P (population) x S (services used by people) x E (energy needed to power those services) x C = CO2 (carbon dioxide output)
It’s a neat little formula because it drives home the point: that for all the Paris climate talks and more affordable Teslas, environmental incrementalism is somewhat pointless. Population is of course trending ever-higher, as are the services people demand, especially in the developing world which has barely scratched the surface in terms of cars and air conditioning and other modern basics. Those two factors swamp progress in energy efficiency. Gates points out that scientists are calling for an 80 percent drop in carbon emissions by 2050 e(and a total end by 2100) to stave off the most dramatic effects of climate change, yet even with more efficiency, the growth in population and services means that emissions will instead jump by 50%.
Population growth causes crowding, joblessness, friction, and conflict. Managing the heat of friction as population grows and the economy is under pressure to keep up makes it more difficult to cool it. It becomes less likely that leaders will recognize cooling, rather than fueling, as the more urgent need. This is evident as near-universal policies focus on getting “more” — more food for more people, for instance, rather than easing the crises by policies incentivizing population flattening and de-growth.