Alaska's Bering Sea Lost a Third of Its Ice in Just 8 Days

[youjustcomplain]

What is going to kill us far faster than some global warming is there are too many people on the planet, and they are producing way too much pollution. Reining in population growth is doable (unlike trying to change major atmospheric forces). Cleaning up present pollution is far more important, and producing less waste/pollution. Moving populations away from very low coastal areas would mitigate sea level rising. If you want people to use less carbon/petroleum based fuels all you have to do is provide an economical alternative. You want wind and solar panels? How come they are less affordable and cost effective than the alternatives? Why aren't solar panels, wind generators, everywhere in Canada, when we need so much fuel to heat homes, and move vehicles? Why are we building neighborhoods so far from city center, everyone has to travel miles to get from A to B? So many changes that could be made, not happening. Our society as we know it is not sustainable.

Reining in population growth? How? Limit families to 1 child? How would that level of oppression work out?

We have 7 billion on earth and that number grows daily. But you suggest people move away from the coasts? How does that work? Tell people that the coast will flood year over year until it's under water. The wealthy people will move away and the poor will be left living in the flood zone. This idea is just so flawed it's ridiculous.

I think it's accepted by almost everyone that burning coal and petroleum is not a good thing. Alternatives DO exist though. Until the cost benefits make sense, only the rich will buy them. Why don't the cost benefits make sense? Because these solutions need to be made on a mass level in order to lower costs. Currently, there is not enough demand, and that demand isn't coming from government, it's coming from us. Why don't you own a Tesla? Cost. Simple as that.

Why aren't solar panels and wind turbines everywhere in Canada? Well, both are expensive and who would pay for them? I won't buy a wind turbine for my house. I have .12 of an acre. I won't buy solar panels because they seem to take 10+ years to pay for themselves, assuming nothing goes wrong with them. If a solar panel farm on my roof paid for itself in 1 year, then I'd be all over it. The cost benefits aren't there yet.

Why are we building neighborhoods so far from cities? I'm confused. It's pretty obvious isn't it? I mean, look at the cost of real estate in city centers. What I could get for 1 million dollars in the suburbs would be significant. That money would get me a dirty old 1 bedroom condo in Vancouver. I'll live away from the city center, just like almost everyone else, because I have to; I can't afford otherwise.

Yes, so many changes that could be made.. but none of them are realistic.

[Silverstarqueen]

Yes, people will have to have fewer children. A limit of two children per family is not oppressive, and would accomplish just replacing current population and prevent population growth.
Yes, I am suggesting that people move out of areas (like Richmond and Delta), over the course of the next 100 years or so. Of course they do not have to, they can let the ocean wash over them if they prefer.Perhaps you could suggest some other option that doesn't involve using gondolas to get to work, or putting homes on stilts?
We cannot stop the ice melt, so we should be thinking of best ways to deal with it. Sea levels have been higher only about 1000 years ago , but the human race will stubbornly stand by and insist that the water not return to those levels ever again.

At least we agree that alternatives to petrochemical products seem to be far too expensive to compete with current polluting means of power and fuel generation. So not going to reduce CO2 emissions for quite some time.

[Omnitheo]

Global population growth is actually declining. Most estimates have humanity not reaching 11 billion. Indeed as countries continue to develop, the population goes down. We’re at a point where most countries are currently at that stage. Imagine if 100 years ago in Canada we were told you could only have 2 children. (My foster mum from the farm in SK was from a family of 24 children, all of whom worked on the farm to produce more food than they consumed).

If you want population to go down, then support aid to foreign countries which helps them develop to where ours is now.

[Silverstarqueen]

Sure, well let's keep ploughing ahead then with families of more than two children. 11 billion will be at least twice the garbage, pollution and starvation that we currently have on this planet. We will figure out how to reduce green house gasses with 11 billion instead of 7 billion. The math alone makes no sense whatsoever. Not to mention most of those with four, five, six kids are facing poverty and many starvation. So we would rather people starve to death or die of disease because they are too poor for health care, instead of limiting population to a sustainable level. A family of 24 children, over their lifetime is going to produce a heckuvalot more green house gasses, pollution, than a family with 2 children.

[youjustcomplain]

Sure, well let's keep ploughing ahead then with families of more than two children. 11 billion will be at least twice the garbage, pollution and starvation that we currently have on this planet. We will figure out how to reduce green house gasses with 11 billion instead of 7 billion. The math alone makes no sense whatsoever. Not to mention most of those with four, five, six kids are facing poverty and many starvation. So we would rather people starve to death or die of disease because they are too poor for health care, instead of limiting population to a sustainable level. A family of 24 children, over their lifetime is going to produce a heckuvalot more green house gasses, pollution, than a family with 2 children.

It's been said, and I totally agree with the idea, that the best way to stop woman from having a lot of kids is to educate them. This isn't about first world countries so much as it is about 3rd world countries. Canada has never really been a country in which our population grows due to child birth of its residents. We typically grow through immigration.

I would never ever support government telling woman how many children they could give birth to. I find that to be oppressive. You don't, I get that. I just don't understand how you feel that way.

Who said anything about how "we would rather people starve"? Careful with your straw man argument there. I don't think anyone would argue that they'd rather people starve. It's not a binary argument: either you want humans to starve, or you want the government to mandate a 2 child law.

My argument is not that humans will be stubborn or stupid about moving away from the coast. My point is that the poorest people of society are the vulnerable ones. If floods starts happening more and more, the affected areas will start to cost less and less to live in. Guess where poor people will be able to afford to live. Wealthy will leave. No government involvement is needed. Real estate value will drive the change. Quality of life, for those who can afford better, will drive the change.

[Silverstarqueen]

There's 1 billion people go hungry every day, about 10% of the world's population. Just suppose someone had thought twenty years ago to limit the population growth, and keep it toward 6 billion instead of 7 billion. 1 billion fewer mouths to feed, means 1 billion fewer people going hungry every day. 10% less emissions in the world, 10% less garbage, 10% less water required to grow the food for 1 billion people. China figured this out some years ago, they are now able to consider allowing people to have two children instead of 1 (and I am not saying it has to be a one child policy, which was harsh, but it saved many millions from starvation).
And why would any responsible government allow people to move into an area that will flood as sea levels rise? Sure real estate in Richmond and Delta will be very cheap in a hundred years, but really, it should be regulated not to live on a flood plain that is below sea level, which is where it will hypothetically be.

[Silverstarqueen]

As I mentioned above, China has had a one child policy since 1980, so they have been doing their bit to reduce population growth , for almost 40 years now. India has a slightly higher birth rate of 2.4 children per woman, so not outrageous by an means. There are other countries which have much higher fertility rates, so yes, I think those should dial it back some. They would probably need some help and funding from some organization like Planned Parenthood. I am mainly concerned about those which have three,four or more children especially when families are impoverished, often poor education for the children, making the children work etc.

[Omnitheo]

The fact that some people go hungry is not a population problem. It is a supply problem. The world produces more than enough food to feed everyone, but much of it is wasted.

[Silverstarqueen]

China's birth rate is comparable to Canada, U.S., Europe. No where near the rate of many other countries.

Yes, going hungry is a supply problem. 1 billion people are not being supplied with enough food. If someone, twenty years ago (as China did forty years ago), had figured out how to have two children instead of four, five or six children, there would still be far fewer people going hungry. 1 billion people cannot feed themselves adequately, the other six billion are busy feeding themselves any way they can. IF there's excess food somewhere, so simple, just send it, eh? Like they aren't already doing that for millions already. 1 billion fewer people, would still be 1 billion fewer hungry people. How does China feed over a billion people? They are not asking someone else to feed them. They were heading for starvation, now they aren't. People can criticize their "oppression", but it is feeding their people better than any other country of that size.

In africa and parts of asia, 10% (or more) of the population goes hungry, yet these are the areas that are predicted to have the greatest population growth. Why add to populations that already cannot feed their masses?
"By 2070, the bulk of the world's population growth will take place in Africa: of the additional 2.4 billion people projected between 2015 and 2050, 1.3 billion will be added in Africa, 0.9 billion in Asia and only 0.2 billion in the rest of the world"

So we will progress from 1 billion people being chronically malnourished, and add another few billion, and expect there will not be even more hungry people.
Or, limit the population growth so that at least the hunger problem does not also grow.

[rustled]

An interesting way of looking at the problem and potential solution:
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_ ... ion_growth
From 2010, but the suggested solution may still be germane.

[Glacier]

[Omnitheo]

Funny, 200 years ago Richard Malthus was saying the same thing about Irishman. Don’t give them aid. They keep breeding and Ireland is overpopulated, they’ll ruin it for all of us. Increased population will lead to the misery of all.

This was when the world’s population was 1/7 of what it was today, and people in England were dumping their *bleep* in their drinking water.

Malthusian theory has been pretty resoundingly debunked.

[Silverstarqueen]

I don't think we have to go to such extremes. I think we can help some of these countries by improving their agricultural methods, and water management, and yes, population growth. That doesn't mean no children, but fewer children. Just shutting the borders and refusing any help, doesn't help anything. But if we are providing aid, it should be aid that helps them, not just dumping loads of food and not helping with education, health, contraception, agricultural and developing small cottage industries. As they say " A hand up, not a hand out". some of this is already being done, but not nearly enough, and limiting (not stopping) reproduction, is just part of it.
I don't know why the assumption is they are just "mating , and mating , and mating". It only takes six "matings" to make six children, if they are not using contraception. A woman only has to have sex once per year to have twenty or more children.

[Omnitheo]

If you want countries to have fewer children, there is a pretty surefire way to do so, which has worked time and time again throughout the history of developed nations:

fund better education and healthcare.

[Glacier]

If you want countries to have fewer children, there is a pretty surefire way to do so, which has worked time and time again throughout the history of developed nations:

fund better education and healthcare.

Explain Mormons, Muslims, and Celebrities. They have lots of kids even when wealthy with healthcare.