Just to note, that even if there were no fossil-fuel CO2 emissions from the 5.5 or so billion people in the developing world, continued emissions at the level of emissions of the 1+B or so in the developed world, climate change would be a pending risk‹to keep the CO2 concentration from changing, emissions need to drop by 80+% or so. Thus, it is really our choices that are critical‹a small number of people could also cause a significant impacts (CFC use being another example). So, let¹s not try blaming others‹developed nations made an unfortunate choice (and that this was the case was recognized quite a few decades ago‹so, even if necessary at the start, the level of emissions could have been a good bit lower) and developing nations are just following our unfortunate example‹and now we all need to change where our energy comes from. Developed nations need to demonstrate that a modern economy can prosper with low fossil fuel emissions‹until committed to that, preaching to others is rather hypocritical.
Mike MacCracken On 3/14/11 3:02 PM, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> wrote: > Steve, > > The world may well be a better place with an order-or-magnitude fewer people, > and this would markedly diminish environmental problems. > > However, in the next decades the increase in emissions tied to population > growth is likely to be substantially less than 50% (i.e., a factor of 1.5), > whereas per-capita development at 3% per year sustained for a century is > approximately a factor of 20. > > So, population growth without development might increase emissions by a factor > of 1.5. Development without population growth might increase emissions by a > factor of 20. Together, they would increase emissions by a factor of 30. If we > want to knock that 30 down to a factor of 0.5 or 0.1 or 0.01, we will need to > depend heavily on technological innovation. Population measures just don't > give us all that much leverage. > > So, it is important to recognize the role of population, but we should not > neglect the other processes driving increased resource use and pollution > creation. > > Best, > > Ken > > ___________________________________________________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:30 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Many thanks for all Ken, Mike, Andrew, John Latham, John Gorman and other >> colleagues are doing to protect biodiversity from massive extinction and >> preserve Earth's ecology from irreversible degradation. >> >> I hope it is all right for me to post now here a presentation on the issue of >> population, that appears to have everything to do with climate change. >> >> As humanity's most luminous beacon of truth, science provides us with a last >> best hope for the survival of life as we know it on Earth. We must make >> certain that scientific evidence is never downplayed, distorted and denied by >> religious dogma, politics or ideological idiocy. >> >> Let us not fail for another year to acknowledge extant research of human >> population dynamics. The willful refusal of many too many experts to assume >> their responsibilities to science and perform their duties to humanity could >> be one of the most colossal mistakes in human history. Such woefully >> inadequate behavior, as is evident in an incredible conspiracy of silence >> among experts, will soon enough be replaced with truthful expressions by >> those in possession of clear vision, adequate foresight, intellectual honesty >> and moral courage. >> >> Hopefully leading thinkers and researchers will not continue supressing >> scientific evidence of human population dynamics and instead heed the words >> of Nobel Laureate Sir John Sulston regarding the emerging and converging, >> human-driven global challenges that loom ominously before humankind in our >> time, ³we¹ve got to make sure that population is recognized.... as a >> multiplier of many others. We¹ve got to make sure that population really does >> peak out when we hope it will.² >> >> Sir John goes on, ³what we want to do is to see the issue of population in >> the open, dispassionately discussed.... and then we¹ll see where it goes.² >> >> In what is admittedly a feeble effort to help John Sulston fulfill his charge >> to examine all available scientific evidence regarding human population >> dynamics, please give careful consideration to the following presentation and >> then take time to rigorously scrutinize the not yet overthrown science from >> Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel regarding human population dynamics and >> human overpopulation. >> >> http://www.panearth.org/GPSO.htm >> >> Please accept this invitation to discern the best available science of human >> population dynamics and human overpopulation; discover the facts; deliberate; >> draw logical conclusions; and disseminate the knowledge widely. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Steve Salmony >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Latham <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected]; Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> >> Cc: Climate Intervention <[email protected]>; >> geoengineering <[email protected]>; Andrew Lockley >> <[email protected]>; Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sun, Mar 13, 2011 3:29 pm >> Subject: Re: [geo] MERGING 'climateIntervention' AND 'geoengineering' GOOGLE >> GROUPS BACK INTO <[email protected]> >> >> Hello All, >> >> Absence of perfection in any human activity involving >> more than one person (at most) is virtually inevitable. >> >> Overall,I have found the blogs that Ken initiated to be of >> great value in many ways, and in my view we owe him >> a hearty vote of thanks, which should also be extended >> to those others who have devoted a lot of time to keeping >> them running. >> >> Cheers, John. [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> Quoting Ken Caldeira <[email protected]>: >> >>> > Folks, >>> > >>> > The experiment to separate the <geoengineering> group into >>> > <climateintervention> and <geoengineering> seems to have failed in a >>> morass >>> > of confusion and redundancy. >>> > >>> > The original idea was to have one group be more lax, and open to >>> > climate-related discussions and so on, retaining the other for more >>> > narrowly-focused academic announcements and discussion. >>> > >>> > The idea is now is to admit defeat and merge both groups back into the >>> > original <[email protected]>. >>> > >>> > The revamped <[email protected]> will relax its moderation >>> > criteria to be open to geoengineering-related discussion that is not >>> > narrowly focused on geoengineering. However, moderation may be slightly >>> > tighter than with the existing <climateintervention> group. >>> > >>> > Therefore: >>> > >>> > 1. If you are >>> > (a) a member of <[email protected]> and >>> > (b) you are not a member of <[email protected]> and >>> > (c) would like to continue receiving relevant email, >>> > please sign up to <[email protected]>. You can do >>> > this by sending an email to <[email protected]>. >>> > >>> > 2. Andrew Lockley will do the heavy lifting of day-to-day moderation, with >>> > Mike MacCracken and me filling in when Andrew is busy, on vacation, etc. >>> > >>> > 3. <ClimateIntervention> will continue running in parallel for a month or >>> > so, but people who post to this group will be reminded to switch over to < >>> > [email protected]>. >>> > >>> > We hope this better meets the need of this community. >>> > >>> > Best, >>> > >>> > Ken >>> > (following discussion with Andrew Lockley and Mike MacCracken) >>> > >>> > ___________________________________________________ >>> > Ken Caldeira >>> > >>> > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology >>> > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >>> > +1 650 704 7212 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> >>> [email protected] >>> > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira >>> > >>> > -- >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> > Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> > [email protected]. >>> > For more options, visit this group at >>> > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>> > >>> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
