Was a long article and only skim read, but wouldn't a bigger factor be rising living standards? As more of the world moves to developed world living standards, which would be ideal, if this shift is faster than green technology + depopulation we are going to see increased climate pressure. I didn't seem them mention this but my inexpert view seems the rising tide of living standards may present the real problem.
I haven't read the actual paper, but alone from the abstract many questions come up.
Personally, I doubt the any "near" to "mid" term population decline will have larger effects on the climate change we are seeing. It is just too slow. Meaning that we certainly get (much!) larger effects about climate change done with other stuff, no doubt about that.
However, using that as an inverse argument to foster population growth is a stupid idea, because more people means more resources needed for everything, starting with food and water, climate change resistant shelter, and all the other stuff that is needed for actual living. All of that isn't created out of thin air. Considering that there is increased pressure just to provide food and water already (climate change anyone?!), the lower the population in the long run is, the better. Also, food supply destroys a lot of our environment, alone the meat industry is a planet wide killer because of that.
If I add all this up, population decline is a good thing. And if I read something like "Meanwhile, a smaller population slows the non-rival innovation that powers improvements in long-run productivity and living standards" I start to question the sanity of the people writing something like that.
Most countries in the global north (who happen to be the big contributors to climate change) are facing an aging and declining population.
Many of those countries over the last few decades have been steadily outsourcing manufacturing abroad and other things that shift where the pollution happens and gets accounted.
Over the last decade or so in response to public pressure many of their governments have been pursuing national green policies that really further offshore their contribution to climate change rather than reduce it. Its a kind of frustrating greenwashing that isn't what the voters imagine is happening. Cue rant.
Indeed - people in the West tutting while reading stories on their smart phone about large scale environmental damage due to rare earth mining in China....
For all the talk of net zero the rate of emissions is still going up - ie year on year we are pumping out more than we did the last.
> many of their governments have been pursuing national green policies that really further offshore their contribution to climate change rather than reduce it
That’s my view as well but if I voice it to friends and acquaintances in Western Europe I get angry faces looking back at me. All this talk about green policies whilst electronics waste is burned in Pakistan and India or China dumps huge amount of chemical waste in order to produce the resources for phones and gadgets. Go figure.
Our ability to adapt to a changing climate without too much human suffering should radically increase with a shrinking world population though.
In general I think too much emphasis is placed on trying to preserve the current climate as is, and too little on trying to make this planet a good place to live for generations to come. The climate changes over time, that’s just how it is. The climate changes we are seeing now are not extraordinary when viewed over the course of the Earth’s history. The current climate has no intrinsic value and will be long gone in a billion years, regardless of what we do.
The point of trying to address climate change is not that it's impossible for us to adapt, it's that to adapt to the predicted rate of change is going to be a lot more expensive/disruptive than trying to slow the change to more natural levels.
> In general I think too much emphasis is placed on trying to preserve the current climate as is, and too little on trying to make this planet a good place to live for generations to come
This is on the money.
> The climate changes we are seeing now are not extraordinary
The rate of change is extraordinary, and makes it expensive/different to adjust.
The rate of change over the last 150 years has certainly been dramatic. But it’s nothing extraordinary over the course of Earth’s history. There’s been roughly 30 million 150-year periods in Earth’s history and given the planet’s violent past - massive impacts, supervolcanoes - it’s statistically absurd to think ours is the most extreme.
It doesn't have to be anywhere near the most extreme for all of us to die.
We're not all going to die, but my point stands.
It's not about the earth shifting, it's what happens to all of the human processes, trade, infrastructure, farm production, and human lives along the way.
i know i sound like a denier but havent we existed through extremes of weather up until now? why would more of the same be fatal? im dubious about the apocalyptic parts. no doubt the climate is warming, but the sky is falling?? not so sure
Imagine a snowball rolling down the mountain that turns into a basketball sized ball, that into a mountain sized ball, that turns into a planet sized ball.
There are numerous periods throughout human history where we have almost gone extinct, and several where we have had under 10,000 people worldwide.
I have some exposure to geophysics, earth modelling, mineral and energy exploration mapping and modelling.
The extraordinary part is the degree of climate change directly attributable to a biological organism over the course of a century (with the greatest increase in atmospheric insulation happening on a shorter timeframe still).
Are there many examples you can cite of greater change due to biological activity in shorter timeframes that make this current AGW change seem ordinary?
> Are there many examples you can cite of greater change due to biological activity in shorter timeframes that make this current AGW change seem ordinary?
thats not why people care about climate change though
> In general I think too much emphasis is placed on trying to preserve the current climate as is, and too little on trying to make this planet a good place to live for generations to come.
Well, the easiest way to "make this planet a good place to live for generations to come" is to preserve the current climate (or, arguably, make it cooler).
It won't work. I mean, not necessarily at individual level, but at the global level. We need to take care of things as they are, not as we wish them to be.
It would be better if people in poor, warm places have less kids than people in cooler, richer. But it is not the case. Long term solutions involve better education and status for women (so having children is not the main, or only, be a part of society) and better economy and social security network (so children are not used as free labour in the field, or care of the elderly. There are no short-term solutions, population growth won't change overnight, and even if it did -well over a billion of people leave in such places right now.
And nope, I don't think it is OK to say that these people should suffer the climate change. Especially as is not them who burn fossil fuels!
This is not what you said exactly, but I agree that the only future for humans is living in an environment that we create and manage for ourselves. Whether that's on a planetary scale, small orbitals, or underground bunkers.
We had better get a move on, large scale crop failure could destroy civilization as we know it, and I'd much rather my children live in a utopian garden of Eden rather than some dank dungeon eating cockroaches and algae.
I guess you don't have any knowledge about climate... the issue is not that the climate can be particularly similar to a given one eons ago, the issue is that the speed at which it happens makes it so that no plant or animal can adapt to it through evolution, and we face extinction
Was a long article and only skim read, but wouldn't a bigger factor be rising living standards? As more of the world moves to developed world living standards, which would be ideal, if this shift is faster than green technology + depopulation we are going to see increased climate pressure. I didn't seem them mention this but my inexpert view seems the rising tide of living standards may present the real problem.
I haven't read the actual paper, but alone from the abstract many questions come up.
Personally, I doubt the any "near" to "mid" term population decline will have larger effects on the climate change we are seeing. It is just too slow. Meaning that we certainly get (much!) larger effects about climate change done with other stuff, no doubt about that.
However, using that as an inverse argument to foster population growth is a stupid idea, because more people means more resources needed for everything, starting with food and water, climate change resistant shelter, and all the other stuff that is needed for actual living. All of that isn't created out of thin air. Considering that there is increased pressure just to provide food and water already (climate change anyone?!), the lower the population in the long run is, the better. Also, food supply destroys a lot of our environment, alone the meat industry is a planet wide killer because of that.
If I add all this up, population decline is a good thing. And if I read something like "Meanwhile, a smaller population slows the non-rival innovation that powers improvements in long-run productivity and living standards" I start to question the sanity of the people writing something like that.
World population is still growing; the classic Hans Rosling TED talk is awesome https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_global_population_gro...
Most countries in the global north (who happen to be the big contributors to climate change) are facing an aging and declining population.
Many of those countries over the last few decades have been steadily outsourcing manufacturing abroad and other things that shift where the pollution happens and gets accounted.
Over the last decade or so in response to public pressure many of their governments have been pursuing national green policies that really further offshore their contribution to climate change rather than reduce it. Its a kind of frustrating greenwashing that isn't what the voters imagine is happening. Cue rant.
Indeed - people in the West tutting while reading stories on their smart phone about large scale environmental damage due to rare earth mining in China....
For all the talk of net zero the rate of emissions is still going up - ie year on year we are pumping out more than we did the last.
> many of their governments have been pursuing national green policies that really further offshore their contribution to climate change rather than reduce it
That’s my view as well but if I voice it to friends and acquaintances in Western Europe I get angry faces looking back at me. All this talk about green policies whilst electronics waste is burned in Pakistan and India or China dumps huge amount of chemical waste in order to produce the resources for phones and gadgets. Go figure.
Our ability to adapt to a changing climate without too much human suffering should radically increase with a shrinking world population though.
In general I think too much emphasis is placed on trying to preserve the current climate as is, and too little on trying to make this planet a good place to live for generations to come. The climate changes over time, that’s just how it is. The climate changes we are seeing now are not extraordinary when viewed over the course of the Earth’s history. The current climate has no intrinsic value and will be long gone in a billion years, regardless of what we do.
The point of trying to address climate change is not that it's impossible for us to adapt, it's that to adapt to the predicted rate of change is going to be a lot more expensive/disruptive than trying to slow the change to more natural levels.
> In general I think too much emphasis is placed on trying to preserve the current climate as is, and too little on trying to make this planet a good place to live for generations to come
This is on the money.
> The climate changes we are seeing now are not extraordinary
The rate of change is extraordinary, and makes it expensive/different to adjust.
The rate of change over the last 150 years has certainly been dramatic. But it’s nothing extraordinary over the course of Earth’s history. There’s been roughly 30 million 150-year periods in Earth’s history and given the planet’s violent past - massive impacts, supervolcanoes - it’s statistically absurd to think ours is the most extreme.
It doesn't have to be anywhere near the most extreme for all of us to die.
We're not all going to die, but my point stands.
It's not about the earth shifting, it's what happens to all of the human processes, trade, infrastructure, farm production, and human lives along the way.
i know i sound like a denier but havent we existed through extremes of weather up until now? why would more of the same be fatal? im dubious about the apocalyptic parts. no doubt the climate is warming, but the sky is falling?? not so sure
Compounding effects.
Imagine a snowball rolling down the mountain that turns into a basketball sized ball, that into a mountain sized ball, that turns into a planet sized ball.
There are numerous periods throughout human history where we have almost gone extinct, and several where we have had under 10,000 people worldwide.
and we did that 10k bottleneck with wooden spears....
XKCD has an excellent timeline that shows that, yes, it is actually extraordinary.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
This one is also interesting, goes back much further in time:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2024/09/22/new-stu...
I have some exposure to geophysics, earth modelling, mineral and energy exploration mapping and modelling.
The extraordinary part is the degree of climate change directly attributable to a biological organism over the course of a century (with the greatest increase in atmospheric insulation happening on a shorter timeframe still).
Are there many examples you can cite of greater change due to biological activity in shorter timeframes that make this current AGW change seem ordinary?
> Are there many examples you can cite of greater change due to biological activity in shorter timeframes that make this current AGW change seem ordinary? thats not why people care about climate change though
Well… I just don’t care if the cause is biological or not. I care about human suffering, and humans suffer all the same regardless.
> The climate changes we are seeing now are not extraordinary when viewed over the course of the Earth’s history
You realise of course for most of earths history earth was inhospitable to humans
> In general I think too much emphasis is placed on trying to preserve the current climate as is, and too little on trying to make this planet a good place to live for generations to come.
Well, the easiest way to "make this planet a good place to live for generations to come" is to preserve the current climate (or, arguably, make it cooler).
Or to have fewer children and move to where it’s cooler? Could work, or at least it seems so to me.
It won't work. I mean, not necessarily at individual level, but at the global level. We need to take care of things as they are, not as we wish them to be.
It would be better if people in poor, warm places have less kids than people in cooler, richer. But it is not the case. Long term solutions involve better education and status for women (so having children is not the main, or only, be a part of society) and better economy and social security network (so children are not used as free labour in the field, or care of the elderly. There are no short-term solutions, population growth won't change overnight, and even if it did -well over a billion of people leave in such places right now.
And nope, I don't think it is OK to say that these people should suffer the climate change. Especially as is not them who burn fossil fuels!
This is not what you said exactly, but I agree that the only future for humans is living in an environment that we create and manage for ourselves. Whether that's on a planetary scale, small orbitals, or underground bunkers.
We had better get a move on, large scale crop failure could destroy civilization as we know it, and I'd much rather my children live in a utopian garden of Eden rather than some dank dungeon eating cockroaches and algae.
I guess you don't have any knowledge about climate... the issue is not that the climate can be particularly similar to a given one eons ago, the issue is that the speed at which it happens makes it so that no plant or animal can adapt to it through evolution, and we face extinction
> The current climate has no intrinsic value
Correct, that’s backwards, all value derives from the current climate.
obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1732/
obviously nature is broken. it has a correct climate and weve mucked that all up with our god damn PCPs
[dead]