Other than the precise numbers contained in the infographic, which aspect of the original post ignores the fundamentals of science?
Especially now that you’ve also agreed that fewer people equals less consumption.
I don’t understand why you have having such a hard time understanding that more mouths to feed, house, clothe, and provide energy for increases co2 emissions. No one is suggesting murdering children here. Having fewer children can be accomplished easily by using birth control such as condoms or the pill or any other method available.
You’re latching on to what China did as an example and it forms the majority of your argument. I dont see anyone here suggesting we adopt a one child policy like they did, only reduce the amount of children being born.
Yes one could arguably bike everywhere and it would reduce your stress on the environment than if you drove everywhere. One could also argue having fewer people also reduces stress on the environment as well. Both will do the same thing, one to a greater degree.
It honestly sounds like you have children and are trying to justify your behavior despite knowing the negative impacts.
I think the problem is, lets say 20 years from now, we now have a carbon negative economy. If we just look at the past trend lines, we would have to look at the future trend lines “each kid you have reduces carbon output by…”
In the long run, its an over simplistic representation.
I would love to know the impact of just raising the kid to the age of 4, I did some math and the C02 needed just for the materials for 4 years of diapers is over 100 lbs of C02 alone. That doesn’t even include all the C02 the factory and workers use to make them.
“Overpopulation” is simply one perspective on the problem of overconsumption. It’s the lazy option, because esp. childfree people can pretend they tOTallY would’ve had 5 children, but they valiantly put the planet before their personal wishes. Incidentally, those same people then do nothing else and smugly point at other people. The truth is you didn’t want to have children anyway, so you saved 0 CO2. I say this as a childfree person myself.
We can either reduce consumption or reduce population. I find only one of these has a chance to happen ethically, without, you know, genocide.
I lecte you about drinking strawberry milk wrong!!1!!1!!
putting the strawberry pulver in almond milk is better because almond milk is a lot thicker what really fits the strawberry taste. But i would not reccomend drinking it raw because i dont really like it
At least here somemmilk alternatives are cheaper then the cheap normal milk so it could even be profitable to test them out or “gasp” to mix them with milk (i did not test it but could be interesting)
This graphic indicates not eating meat saves 0.82 tonnes of CO2. Going car free is 2.4. So yet again, it seems like the vegetarian option is another “fix our problems so we don’t have to”.
I often eat vegetarian meals, but it’s not easy or cost efficient. I have gone car free and my 2012 Mustang GT has sat in the garage for a year now. I have one child, not 3. I’ll stop meat entirely when I see larger polluters do their part. I can’t save the world alone.
The graphics 58,6 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per Year and Child are 266,25% higher than the average americans 16 tonnes and 1365% higher than the global average of 4 tonnes. What are the assumptions on that hypothetical child’s lifestyle? Will it roll coal and eat beef jerky 24/7?
The Guardian article says that
figure was calculated by totting up the emissions of the child and all their descendants, then dividing this total by the parent’s lifespan. Each parent was ascribed 50% of the child’s emissions, 25% of their grandchildren’s emissions and so on.
Even if i quadrupled those 4.23t to match the US citizens average CO2 footprint, 16,89t doesn’t even come close to the claimed 58,6.
where’s my mistake?
pS: for the calculations I fixated the birth rate at 1,66 starting in generation 5 as well as the age with an estimated maximum of 123 years starting in generation 18.
Kind of like saying the best birth control is abstinence. Technically true, but most people are going to have kids anyway. As long as we stay around replacement rate, which most western countries are at or below, having kids is a good thing so that society can keep going as people (ideally) retire.
So while we’re all still here, how can humans lessen our emissions. That’s the question.
I think that the issue is that everyone here is saying “everyone should do X”, and that just doesn’t make sense. Maybe everyone should just pick one thing on the chart and do that to improve the world as a whole? “People will have kids anyway, so that’s not a good measure” could easily be reframed as “People will have meat anyway, so that’s not a good measure”.
We all have a sacrifice we’re willing to make to be better, and we don’t mind doing. Some people don’t want to have kids, so they contribute that way. Some people don’t want to eat meat anyway, so they contribute that way. If you want to do better, pick one thing and start doing it, even if it’s not perfect.
Sure, but I don’t think that a ribeye deserves the same untouchable nature as continuing the human species. Especially because if we get too many people choosing the child free route, suddenly your retirement plan will need to include a bullet. We don’t have to all go full vegan, but would it be the end of the world to have a passing relationship with beans, or at least give the impossible whopper a try.
Having fewer children is the number one thing you can do. And it’s not even close.
I mean, do the other things anyway if you like. They can’t hurt. They may even save you money. But they won’t save an overpopulated planet.
Removed by mod
It is not an opinion to state that fewer people equals less consumption.
Edit: Pardon, but if those of you mindlessly downvoting could explain your point instead of just being disagreeable, it would be appreciated.
Removed by mod
Other than the precise numbers contained in the infographic, which aspect of the original post ignores the fundamentals of science? Especially now that you’ve also agreed that fewer people equals less consumption.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
Removed by mod
I don’t understand why you have having such a hard time understanding that more mouths to feed, house, clothe, and provide energy for increases co2 emissions. No one is suggesting murdering children here. Having fewer children can be accomplished easily by using birth control such as condoms or the pill or any other method available.
Removed by mod
You’re latching on to what China did as an example and it forms the majority of your argument. I dont see anyone here suggesting we adopt a one child policy like they did, only reduce the amount of children being born.
Yes one could arguably bike everywhere and it would reduce your stress on the environment than if you drove everywhere. One could also argue having fewer people also reduces stress on the environment as well. Both will do the same thing, one to a greater degree.
It honestly sounds like you have children and are trying to justify your behavior despite knowing the negative impacts.
Removed by mod
I think the problem is, lets say 20 years from now, we now have a carbon negative economy. If we just look at the past trend lines, we would have to look at the future trend lines “each kid you have reduces carbon output by…”
In the long run, its an over simplistic representation.
Double post. Ignore this.
I would love to know the impact of just raising the kid to the age of 4, I did some math and the C02 needed just for the materials for 4 years of diapers is over 100 lbs of C02 alone. That doesn’t even include all the C02 the factory and workers use to make them.
deleted by creator
Would you like to know the secret of Soylent Green?
So what should I do with this extra kid?
Eating meat creates four times more greenhouse gases than being vegan, study finds.
It’s not “one thing” option, you can do most of those, even all of them.
“Overpopulation” is simply one perspective on the problem of overconsumption. It’s the lazy option, because esp. childfree people can pretend they tOTallY would’ve had 5 children, but they valiantly put the planet before their personal wishes. Incidentally, those same people then do nothing else and smugly point at other people. The truth is you didn’t want to have children anyway, so you saved 0 CO2. I say this as a childfree person myself.
We can either reduce consumption or reduce population. I find only one of these has a chance to happen ethically, without, you know, genocide.
Me and my childless girlfriend can ride our bikes to the Steakhouse with a clear conscious.
I know a vegan with like 6 kids who tries to lecture me for eating meat.
I lecte you about drinking strawberry milk wrong!!1!!1!!
putting the strawberry pulver in almond milk is better because almond milk is a lot thicker what really fits the strawberry taste. But i would not reccomend drinking it raw because i dont really like it
At least here somemmilk alternatives are cheaper then the cheap normal milk so it could even be profitable to test them out or “gasp” to mix them with milk (i did not test it but could be interesting)
This graphic indicates not eating meat saves 0.82 tonnes of CO2. Going car free is 2.4. So yet again, it seems like the vegetarian option is another “fix our problems so we don’t have to”.
I often eat vegetarian meals, but it’s not easy or cost efficient. I have gone car free and my 2012 Mustang GT has sat in the garage for a year now. I have one child, not 3. I’ll stop meat entirely when I see larger polluters do their part. I can’t save the world alone.
The graphics 58,6 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per Year and Child are 266,25% higher than the average americans 16 tonnes and 1365% higher than the global average of 4 tonnes.
What are the assumptions on that hypothetical child’s lifestyle? Will it roll coal and eat beef jerky 24/7?The Guardian article says that
Considering the global total fertility rate dropping from now 2.42 childs per woman to 1.66 in 2100, a global sex ratio of 101:100, average age at first child of 28 and a global life expectancy of currently 74.3 years (82.1 in 2100) my crude calculation would look like this:
0.5 * 4t * (74.3 + 28 * ((82.1 - 74.3) / (2100 - 2023))) / 74.3 + 0.25 * 4t * (74.3 + 56 * ( 7.8 / 77 )) / 74.3 * (2.42 - 28 * ((2.42 - 1.66) / (2100 - 2023))) / (201 / 100) + 0.125 * 4t * (74.3 + 84 * ( 7.8 / 77 )) / 74.3 * (2.42 - 56 * ( 0.76 / 77 )) / 2.01 + 0.0625 * 4t * (74.3 + 112 * 0.1012 ) / 74.3 * (2.42 - 84 * 0.0098 ) / 2.01 + 0.0313 * 4t * (74.3 + 140 * 0.1012 ) / 74.3 * (2.42 - 112 * 0.0098 ) / 2.01 + 0.0156 * 4t * (74.3 + 168 * 0.1012 ) / 74.3 * (2.42 - 140 * 0.0098 ) / 2.01 + 0.0078 * 4t * (74.3 + 196 * 0.1012 ) / 74.3 * (2.42 - 168 * 0.0098 ) / 2.01 + 0.0039 * 4t * (74.3 + 224 * 0.1012 ) / 74.3 * (2.42 - 196 * 0.0098 ) / 2.01 ==================================================================================================================================== = 2.076t + 1.148t + 0.518t + 0.228t + 0.1229t + 0.0634t + 0.0327t + 0.0168t + 0.0087t + 0.0045t = 4.2191t @ 10 generations = 4,2238t @ 25 generations = 4.2238t @ 50 generationsEven if i quadrupled those 4.23t to match the US citizens average CO2 footprint, 16,89t doesn’t even come close to the claimed 58,6.
where’s my mistake?
pS: for the calculations I fixated the birth rate at 1,66 starting in generation 5 as well as the age with an estimated maximum of 123 years starting in generation 18.
Kind of like saying the best birth control is abstinence. Technically true, but most people are going to have kids anyway. As long as we stay around replacement rate, which most western countries are at or below, having kids is a good thing so that society can keep going as people (ideally) retire. So while we’re all still here, how can humans lessen our emissions. That’s the question.
I think that the issue is that everyone here is saying “everyone should do X”, and that just doesn’t make sense. Maybe everyone should just pick one thing on the chart and do that to improve the world as a whole? “People will have kids anyway, so that’s not a good measure” could easily be reframed as “People will have meat anyway, so that’s not a good measure”.
We all have a sacrifice we’re willing to make to be better, and we don’t mind doing. Some people don’t want to have kids, so they contribute that way. Some people don’t want to eat meat anyway, so they contribute that way. If you want to do better, pick one thing and start doing it, even if it’s not perfect.
Sure, but I don’t think that a ribeye deserves the same untouchable nature as continuing the human species. Especially because if we get too many people choosing the child free route, suddenly your retirement plan will need to include a bullet. We don’t have to all go full vegan, but would it be the end of the world to have a passing relationship with beans, or at least give the impossible whopper a try.