Climate Change - countering the sceptics.

[mark black]

Diomedes71,

Sorry - I lost this thread for a while. The reason I don't agree with argument is that over-population is another dimension of these very same problems – but globally presents a huge and complex picture with a different face in different regions. Further, population predictions are notoriously difficult because of the number of assumptions that have to be adopted into the calculation, and the geometric disparity projected into the future from even the slightest error in those initial assumptions.
Quoting a U.N. report that suggests global population is set to level off at around 9 billion by 2050, Brian Whitaker’s article in the Guardian, 06/11/04 goes on to explain:
'The latest calculation is based on "medium-level" expectations that fertility rates will decline significantly - to about two children per woman - even in developing nations, and then rise again slightly.

But the report, issued by the UN's population division, gives warning that even slight variations - "as little as one-quarter of a child" - below or above this two-child norm could produce dramatic swings, resulting in world totals ranging from as little as 2.3 billion up to 36.4 billion by 2050.’
The medium level prediction of the U.N.’s population division is echoed in the above table from the U.S. Census Bureau, showing a steady rate of population increase over the course of a century. The table below is compiled from longer-term population trends; and casts into stark relief the assumptions upon which the U.N./U.S. predictions are based.

From 1800 to 2000 we see something in the region of a six-fold increase in global population. Coincident with the industrial revolution in the West, this population explosion from 1800 may have been caused by the very same factors upon which the U.N./U.S. rely to suggest that population will level off; namely, economic development resulting in reduced infant moratality, allowing people in developing nations to rationally reduce fertility. for
For population growth to slow to a stop at 9 billion would require as dramatic a change in the long-term trend as that which occurred from the beginning of the industrial revolution. While it has been suggested above that China and India, the two most populous nations on earth are developing rapidly, even so, such an argument assumes that economic development in developing countries will be reasonably equitable, allowing for the emergence of a healthy and educated middle-class inclined to smaller families – rather than a stark polarity between the few very rich and many desperately poor.

The U.N./U.S. figures infer that economic development will manage over-population – even while economic development means greater use of resources and energy – depleting remaining oil reserves and adding to climate change. At present the richest 20% of nations consume 86 percent of world resources, while the poorest 20% use only 1.3 percent. On the basis of the U.N./U.S. figures the 58 million people born in developed countries during the 1990’s pollute more than the 915 million people born in developing countries during the same period.
But for the 9bn figure to prove nearly accurate, the benefits of economic development would need to be fairly evenly distributed, though this would still constitute an imbalanced equation between population, resource use and environmental sustainability – it’s impossible to believe can be righted by technology capitalism cannot afford to apply.
According to Wikipedia: ‘Brazil is today South America's largest economy, the world's ninth largest economy, and fifth most populous nation.’ Clearly, exploiting these resources has generated a great deal of wealth, however, the article continues:

‘By the 1990s, more than one out of four Brazilians continued to survive on less than one dollar a day.’

From Encarta we note: ‘In 1950 Brazil had 51,944,000 inhabitants, and by 1980 the population had more than doubled, rising to 119,002,700. The most recent census, in 2000, recorded a population of 169,799,170. A 2005 estimate placed the population at 186,112,794.’
Thus, Brazil’s population has more than tripled in the past 55 years, and while massive exploitation of the natural environment has generated huge wealth for the few, the benefits of economic development have failed to reach the poorest 25% of the population.

Therefore, despite the massive exploitation of environmental resources, in absolute terms there are just as many people living a hand to mouth existence as there were 50 years ago. It’s simply the wrong approach. As mentioned above, the top 20% of nation-states consume something like 83% of the world’s resources while the bottom 20% get just 1.3% between them. This bears a striking similarity to the distribution of wealth within capitalist societies; according to www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk, in the U.K. the top 1% own 23% of the wealth, the top 10% own more than half, while the top 50% of the population own 94% of the wealth. In the U.S., the top 1% own 38.1%, the top 10% own 59.4% while the top 50% of the population own over 95% of the wealth.

This tells us something about capitalist economics as a mechanism. Within the world, as within capitalist societies the function of capitalist economics is not to efficiently distribute resources, but to accumulate more wealth in fewer hands – and consequently, there’s no discernable validity to the hypothesis that economic development will tackle population growth.

mb.

[philofra]

"....there’s no discernable validity to the hypothesis that economic development will tackle population growth."

However, economic development has deterred population growth, albeit inadvertently.

Industrial societies, as opposed to agrarian societies, have fewer children because not so many hands are needed to till the land and grow food. Also, in economic developed societies people live longer and are healthier, thus making it less necessary to have a lot of children because they don't dying young, as in less developed countries.

Population growth has most occurred in societies that are not developed, like in Africa. And the evidence of less population growth is in economically developed areas such as Europe, Japan and North America.

[mark black]

Philofra,

Allow me to summarise the argument for you. This is the statement Diomedes takes issue with:

There are a billion people starving to death as a result of a capitalist distribution of resources. What makes you think it's going to get any better?

And he adduces evidence of child labour laws, an increase in life expectancy and womens rights - circumstaintial evidence that is vaguely contrary to my asseretion.

But what I'm saying is there are a billion people starving to death under the auspices of capitalism, and it's because capitalism reserves its gifts - like enough food to eat, for those who are useful to capitalism, and because population is growing unchecked, the problems remain.

In 1950 Brazil had 51,944,000 inhabitants. The most recent census, in 2000, recorded a population of 169,799,170. By the 1990s, more than one out of four Brazilians continued to survive on less than one dollar a day. Therefore, there are still almost 50 million people living in poverty. So where's the improvement?

Not unlike Diomedes, you fail to appreciate the complexities of the argument, where you take issue with the statement:

"....there’s no discernable validity to the hypothesis that economic development will tackle population growth."

This is a conclusion for which I adduce facts and figures, lay out my reasoning, and make the argument, but rather than respond to the argument you simply contradict the conclusion - and give me a textbook precis of the very theory I am critcizing.

I assure you, this theory is bollocks - and therefore, Diomedes suggestion that things are getting better is qualified by population growth. The problems remain - while a new wealthier class is created - a penthouse built upon a slum.

This ultimately relates to suggestions that capitalism can address climate change. A similar argument suggests that as people become better off they adopt 'post material values' - such as caring for the environment. This is also bollocks because it's a global and universal problem and capitalism leaves people behind. These people are not incentivized to reduce fertility or protect the environment - rather, subsistence farmers are burning a swathe across South America, Africa and elsewhere - clearing land to grow enough food to eat.

mb.

[philofra]

Brazil is still a developing country economically. Only recently has it become a major economic powerhouse. Thus economic development is only now having an impact in curtailing the population growth. Also, Brazil is still quite a religious country where the Church still has a lot of influence, an influence that has encouraged procreation. But as the economy becomes more influential and people become more economically self-interested, as they have, the birth rate will drop.

[bus2bondi]

hi Mark, i've studied the environment scientifically, in college, & personally on my own, even some of my conclusions coming not purposefully but incidentally such as in the last 10 years saying to myself and others, 'is it just me or has each summer been getting much hotter' & 'the weather wierder.' i completely think climate change is real. what i've also realized is something so big can only be countered by very smart reactions to it.

if you think about how world war 2 went about & ended, was it moreso from trying to persuade disbelievers or harnessing the power of the smartest? i suppose a combination of both, but essentially though, having the man who discovered atomic energy on "our side" enormously helped. so to help these problems, spending less time on skeptics might be one of the solutions.

[bus2bondi]

just wanted to share that Germany is on the forefront of countering climate change, go Germany "the land of ideas"!

[mark black]

b2b,

I don't know why I didn't reply to your post when you posted it - in October! I'm sorry, I wasn't blanking you. I think the climate has changed as well. I remeber snow in winter - but it doesn't snow anymore, and summers that were long, hot and sunny. For the past three years it's been wet and warm but cloudy all summer long, and wet, cloudy and cold all winter. It's getting me down.

I realize that's not the worst of it - there's houses in Alaska that were built on permafrost now sinking into the mud. I think it's Northwest China where the desert is spreading and it hasn't rianed for years. The Sea of Galilee in Israel/Palestine is half empty. Species are migrating uphill in moutainous regions. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence of climate change - but the question of whether human acitivities have an effect is now the focus of sceptics.

For me, scepticism is pointless. Whether climate change is caused by fossil fuel use or not, fossil fuels are finite and we have cheaper, cleaner technologies. It's big money and power - passing the scientific ball back and forth between them, with humankind playing piggy in the middle. The only way to win is disable one or both of them and take the ball for ourselves.

mb.

[bus2bondi]

no worries, i think we all do it on accident some times, either too many posts going on at once, or maybe still haven't thought of a full reply or something, no big deal. i just added that because it popped into my head that's all, and related to the thread.

No doubt, we could go on forever with examples of global warming, its everywhere, and its usually less about the phenomenon and more about whats causing it now, i agree. Last night i watched someone commenting on it, saying he believed carbon had nothing to do with it, only the sun, and someday we'll all realize that (this coming from a well respected intellectual in the field and other areas), but i think he had a cog loose somewhere in his head despite some of his other good points about other things.

To me anyways, the evidence is abounding in our contribution to these problems, and even if its not all contributing to global warming, we are contributing to many other detriments to our environment and wellbeing no doubt about it.

[mark black]

b2b,

I couldn't agree more, and I think/hope it's coming - a review of the way we live, and what that means for the future of the species. It's coming either because we are beginning to see the necessity for a review, or we are going to be forced into it. There's so much going pear shaped all at once - energy, climate, population and environment, and if we don't get on top of it were going to get snowed under. That's why this financial/economic crisis presents such an opportunity. I hope they don't miss it. They have the world's attention and willingness to cooperate to address the economic crisis - and could do so by pumping everything into sorting out these problems. So, two wrongs do make a right!

mb.

[mark black]

The UN Climate Change Conference. Poznan - Poland.

(no content)

mb.

[John W. Kelly]

And once we learn that the Earth is warming, what will we do? The same thing we always do...nothing.

[PhilosophicalPhil]

JWK: And once we learn that the Earth is warming, what will we do? The same thing we always do...nothing
PP: I think that there is an equally, if not more dangerous, reaction which is do anything.
There is an underlying concept that we must find alternative energy sources. Why? To continue our materialistic lifestyles. Without these capitalism will crumble. Capitalism is nothing without materialism.

The debate about consuming much less and of rationing is a very unpalatable one and yet it is the very simple and obvious solution.
Capitalism by way of clever marketing has supplanted the maxim 'live within your means' with 'consumption is good' . Capitalism will fight any attempts at rationing. And yet rationing is rational. We do it every day.

In Oz we really don't have much water where its needed. So we have rationing - (free of capitalisms 'invisible hand' as water is not privately owned). And people have accepted it . We cannot wash cars with hoses, cannot water lawns, can only water gardens at certain times. We are having to live within our means and responsibly.

Unfortunately where an alternative exists (desalination, towing ice bergs up from the Antarctic etc) these alternatives will inevitable be chosen as the preferable option over rationing. And so it will be with power and fuel.

Government enforced rationing also carries the need for price and distribution controls and as such will be vigorously opposed by capitalism.

While capitalism (effectively) runs our societies with its 'invisible hand' can there be any hope for a environmentally sustainable future?

[Jules]

Interesting book, free download: http://www.withouthotair.com/

"This remarkable book sets out, with enormous clarity and objectivity, the various alternative low-carbon pathways that are open to us"

- Sir David King FRS
Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government,