So, and finally, a statement that most people do not notice, or only smile. It is completely irrelevant which shade, denomination, race or level of education you belong to…..
This planet is simply overpopulated !
Only briefly listed by me and for each of you to read:
Mankind has managed to grow to 7.5 billion in one damned short period of its existence. By short period of time is meant the period from 1950 ( 2.5 billion) until today. (Increase, calculate!)
So, just under 68 years.
……but that has little to do with global warming and climate change, does it? The irony is not to be missed !
-Please follow all these developments I show you and form your own opinion ! –
So I say : climate change due to overpopulation ………and try to prove it !
Stop the population growth !
If you look at the last statements of the climate agenda, efficiency and renewable energies are at the top of the list. In my opinion this is rather primitive thinking and I am not convinced. I think it is controversial: it is certainly more effective, more sensible and cheaper to slow down the global population growth. To put it more bluntly, it must be unconditionally restricted.
Why does nobody talk about it?
I hear nothing, hence my question :
Is it in bad taste or restricted to talk about it or perhaps just to express one’s opinion?
So a little more on the subject:
Around 2050 there will be almost 10 billion people trying to live on this planet without any particular restrictions. But these 10 billion do not only want to live but also to breathe.
…………and of course emit CO²
It can be read that this species of man has increased more than sevenfold in a fraction of its existence time. ( strange word )
And further calculations speak of 230,000 new citizens of the earth per day……..we easily reach 84 million per year. ………
……….all of which consume, emit and help mutilate the planet.
Additionally, our existing problems are aggravated: resources are consumed faster and forests are cut down or burned faster than they regenerate, more waste is produced than recycled and CO2 production is accelerated, water is consumed (mostly useless, e.g. golf courses) and water is polluted with chemicals and other things.
Thus the population development has an absolutely central influence on the man-made climate change. Both challenges cannot be separated from each other.
And that is also true : it is mainly for the inhabitants of very rich or better wealthy countries, they have to concentrate on reducing the enormously high per capita emissions; they have to be reduced enormously. By the way, Germany is one of the biggest polluters of the planet, with about 12 tons of greenhouse gases per capita and year.
What is being considered as countermeasures?
It is to increase efficiency, which will ?
Technical innovation and the accelerated replacement of fossil fuels by renewable energies.
But how does it actually work? Everything has always been and always will be faith, namely faith in the success of technical progress as a solution to the global challenge of climate problems. Although I have been able to find many innovative solutions in the past decades and have observed some of them, I have unfortunately also found a negative development in almost all indicators of man-made climate change.
It is and remains a difficult task for mankind to understand climate change !
Then there is the – undoubtedly important – appeal to the reason of the individual. According to the World Watch Institute, meat consumption with all its resource-consuming side effects accounts for 52 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. (Original text)
Eats meat sporadically at most, flies as rarely as possible, consumes little, abolishes factory farming, educates especially farmers, locally and sustainably!
These are all very important and correct appeals for those who really perceive it. But they will only remain so and nothing will happen. However, one tries to make the success of these appeals visible, a strange feeling comes over you…….like this :
that is, human beings seem to have trouble linking the complex threat of climate change to their own reality.
Where is the responsibility, because it is clear that climate issues and high birth rates are not about six months, but decades and centuries. Our brain seems to be ill-equipped for the long-term responsibility we have towards this planet and future generations (especially that of politicians worldwide).
. . .and another thing that is true :
Population growth is hardly ever discussed
. . .at least not with the appropriate seriousness.
So it is more than just time, more urgent than ever, to talk about the evaluation of alternative approaches. One is very surprised when one realizes that the topic of population growth (and the associated thought of even more CO2 producers) has hardly been discussed so far.
Slowing population growth is the cheapest, most cost-effective mechanism for reducing emissions. But humanity, or to put it more specifically, the international community is not taking this factor into account.
So it will be special education for girls and women […] that is much more likely to reduce emissions than a switch to renewable energies […] Or what strategies are still in the pipeline?
Educated women, and this must be noticeable and recognizable for every man, will become more emancipated, they will gain more freedom of decision, they will be more involved in family planning, and they will receive the qualifications to enter the labour market independently – and on average have significantly fewer children.
In return, you men of this planet make yourself strong, support your partners whenever you can, they are not second class people but the future in the necessary reduction of people on this planet.
What they unfortunately do not get, the same salary for the same activities of men ?
Why is that so? Because men think that only they do everything right (not trivial)
Therefore, all those who accuse themselves as the government of a state should start here and not shy away from effort and resources, no matter how big they are. Countries that do not have the state capacity for implementation must be supported. The good news will be that this is a far less costly approach than almost all the climate policy ideas currently under discussion.
Unfortunately, politicians see it differently : why take it easy when it’s hard!
This is not just about more education per se, but about qualitative education. Quality includes early sexual education, from contraception and family planning to abortion.
Even in the rich countries it is estimated that the rate of unwanted pregnancies is enormously high: about 16 percent in Great Britain and 50 percent in the USA. Worldwide it is estimated to be about 40%.
Environmental and climate issues must be at the top of the agenda in good curricula. Religion has no place as a school subject, but absolutely no place at all? Which might make tomorrow’s individual more capable of understanding this world and the global consequences of their own actions.
As I was able to find out, some people are already relying on television for this. Why exactly this? A study published in the renowned American Economic Journal shows how in Brazil the television producer ‚Globo‘ presented a family ideal with 0 to 1 children instead of the average of 4.4 children per woman. And in the regions where Globo broadcast its telenovelas, not only did the birth rate drop, but an above-average number of children were simultaneously named after the protagonists from the programmes.
Strange as it may sound……
There are other important measures in addition to these long-term strategies that need to be implemented immediately, such as the provision of contraceptives, the improvement of the legal and medical framework of „abortions“ and the tax consequences of births. On the subject of „abortions“, I only refer to non-viable people (which can already be medically diagnosed in the womb nowadays).
Having fewer children should be rewarded
Also, having fewer children should be rewarded by progressive governments and not be a tax disadvantage. Conversely, people should be made aware of the effects of population growth and climate change, even in school lessons. One way to do this is to find ways to internalise social and environmental costs in the price of goods.
A study in the USA shows:. It is estimated that the CO2 emissions of a single average person are twenty times as high as the amount of emission reductions we could achieve through a more conscious lifestyle – for example by switching to electric cars (caution, think) and using LED light bulbs. That sounds hard – maybe much too hard !
I don’t want to give the impression that I am calling for a refusal to reproduce, or that I am calling for a world without humans.
I say quite cautiously that it should only be about the fact that we steer together into a future on this planet called Earth – an Earth that existed enormously long before we arrived and that will certainly exist a while after us. For this we all have to be strong and, in addition, we all have to make ourselves strong, so that we women with little education can live a self-determined life.
The proposals I have made are a far more cost-effective approach than almost everyone is currently discussing.