Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Greta
Doesn’t that Swedish person ever go to school or does she think she knows it all already?
She’s off to Davos now for a world summit.
She’s off to Davos now for a world summit.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by MWG14. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
As ellipsis says. CO2 emissions per capita are in this case a useful measure. Again, I repeat: if the human population were the same but we didn't rely on, say, coal power stations, then the situation would already have been much-improved.
In a list of priorities for dealing with Climate Change, reducing the human population comes lower than switching to cleaner energy sources. This isn't to say that we shouldn't seek to reduce population growth, but it's simply false to say that it is *the* major factor. It is not. Again, if you'd done some actual research for a change, you might have discovered that.
In a list of priorities for dealing with Climate Change, reducing the human population comes lower than switching to cleaner energy sources. This isn't to say that we shouldn't seek to reduce population growth, but it's simply false to say that it is *the* major factor. It is not. Again, if you'd done some actual research for a change, you might have discovered that.
// but it's simply false to say that it is *the* major factor. It is not. //
It has been the major factor in getting us to the point we're currently at.
It won't be the major factor in addressing the problem. That will come from technology.
Anyhow, as I said, I don't believe it's solvable anyway, even if the will were there, which it isn't. Whatever is going to happen (and none us really know what that is), will happen.
It has been the major factor in getting us to the point we're currently at.
It won't be the major factor in addressing the problem. That will come from technology.
Anyhow, as I said, I don't believe it's solvable anyway, even if the will were there, which it isn't. Whatever is going to happen (and none us really know what that is), will happen.
(CO2 produced by humans) = (number of humans) * (C02 produced per human)
If (number of humans) is zero, then (CO2 produced by humans) is also zero ... ignoring the CO2 produced by what we leave behind after we're all dead, anyway.
If (C02 produced per human) is zero, then (CO2 produced by humans) is also zero no matter how many humans there are.
In 1977, when the global population was 4.23 billion, emissions per capita were 1.19 tonnes of carbon per person.
By 2017, when the global population was 7.55 billion, emissions per capita were 1.34 tonnes. This over a time when most major economies reduced their output.
That means (7.55/4.23)*(1.34/1.19) = almost exactly twice as much CO2 is being produced by humans now as was being produced in 1977.
The United States is still the largest producer of CO2 per capita of all the world's major countries, by far. It is producing 16.24 tonnes per capita (down from 21.20tpc in 1977). China is producing 6.98 tonnes per capita (up from 1.37tpc in 1977). The UK is producing 5.81 tonnes per capita (down from 10.74tpc in 1977). And, as stated above, the global average is 1.34 tonnes per capita, so we're all well above that.
If (number of humans) is zero, then (CO2 produced by humans) is also zero ... ignoring the CO2 produced by what we leave behind after we're all dead, anyway.
If (C02 produced per human) is zero, then (CO2 produced by humans) is also zero no matter how many humans there are.
In 1977, when the global population was 4.23 billion, emissions per capita were 1.19 tonnes of carbon per person.
By 2017, when the global population was 7.55 billion, emissions per capita were 1.34 tonnes. This over a time when most major economies reduced their output.
That means (7.55/4.23)*(1.34/1.19) = almost exactly twice as much CO2 is being produced by humans now as was being produced in 1977.
The United States is still the largest producer of CO2 per capita of all the world's major countries, by far. It is producing 16.24 tonnes per capita (down from 21.20tpc in 1977). China is producing 6.98 tonnes per capita (up from 1.37tpc in 1977). The UK is producing 5.81 tonnes per capita (down from 10.74tpc in 1977). And, as stated above, the global average is 1.34 tonnes per capita, so we're all well above that.
Ellipsis - // Who do you listen to on this topic, andy-hughes? Give some names/sources, please. //
I have offered my view on the OP, and on Ms Thunberg in particular, I don't feel especially inclined to get drawn into a further debate about my views on climate change - there are far too many people on the AB already who are more than willing to do that.
Clearly the mainstays on this thread feel that climate change is a seriously important subject, and they need to have people not only read their views, but agree with them.
I don't think that, and I am not one of them.
I have offered my view on the OP, and on Ms Thunberg in particular, I don't feel especially inclined to get drawn into a further debate about my views on climate change - there are far too many people on the AB already who are more than willing to do that.
Clearly the mainstays on this thread feel that climate change is a seriously important subject, and they need to have people not only read their views, but agree with them.
I don't think that, and I am not one of them.
Ellipsis - // > I don't feel especially inclined to get drawn into a further debate about my views on climate change
Then why are you posting on this thread? //
Because the OP is not about climate change, the debate has widened into that subject.
I have offered my views about the OP, I am not inclined to join the larger debate.
Then why are you posting on this thread? //
Because the OP is not about climate change, the debate has widened into that subject.
I have offered my views about the OP, I am not inclined to join the larger debate.
I sure I've seen David Attenborough saying the same kind of stuff Andy. He's older than 16 and quite experienced. Are you willing to //listen to him?// 21:59.
Now this is not meant to have a pop at Ludwig, but do read it Ludwig. We know that you dislike the source as in "shoot the messenger" he never says what we want to hear. Attenborough is not the "new" new messiah now that the child has failed to inspire the wary.
https:/
Now this is not meant to have a pop at Ludwig, but do read it Ludwig. We know that you dislike the source as in "shoot the messenger" he never says what we want to hear. Attenborough is not the "new" new messiah now that the child has failed to inspire the wary.
https:/
>Attenborough’s hysterical witterings are the first salvo in what promises to be a total blitzkrieg of climate bedwetting,
>star enviro loon Sir David Attenborough leading the charge over the cliff edge like the wrinkliest, long-tusked male in a herd of suicidal walruses.
Togo- do you expect anyone with any sense to give any time to this sort of stuff from Breitbart?
>star enviro loon Sir David Attenborough leading the charge over the cliff edge like the wrinkliest, long-tusked male in a herd of suicidal walruses.
Togo- do you expect anyone with any sense to give any time to this sort of stuff from Breitbart?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Film, Media & TV10 mins ago
Starmer In Jobs Push.....right Oh!
News21 mins ago
