80% carbon dioxide emissions reduction by 2050 means 80% depopulation

originally posted by: galien8

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
This planet is definitely large enough to withstand current numbers.

But I don't think the ideologies prevalent in the modern world are capable of withstanding the current numbers.

Not even my beloved socialism is up to task.

No! Climate change is only one problem, others are that there will not be enough food for 10 billion people in 2050, seas and oceans will be empty of fish, no more wild flora and fauna, large scale agriculture will already have exhausted all resources etc. etc.

That's not quite true. Do some research on how much food we through away every year...not just the US but the world. There is plenty of food. Pollution is our biggest problem and really the only way to curb that is going renewable.

a reply to: galien8

We could fit all of humanity into Texas, there is more than enough space.

These issues are byproducts of cities, not country life. It seems dire and immediate to people in cities because it might actually be.

I will agree that cronyism has produced monopolies who share the very same centralization shortcomings with government. A free market (which we don't have right now) will produce the best answer.

Time to move.

originally posted by: snowspirit
a reply to: galien8

No, people (the entire population) have to live cleaner, smarter, have much less waste.

OK lets try that first

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: galien8

They aim to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, based on the 1990 levels (not present day)

The roadmap suggests that, by 2050, the EU should cut its emissions to 80% below 1990 levels

Phew, thank goodness for that. I initially thought they were being over optimistic.

originally posted by: amazing
It's definitely going to happen. Tesla is only getting bigger, more solar companies pop up whenever legislation makes it possible. Battery technology, solar panel technology, electric car technology, wind turbine technology...all keep accelerating and getting better by the month.

This is being driven by the private sector, of course. The only problem is that government keeps trying to stifle it and get in the way.

I think we want the same thing, better cleaner energy. The problem is that government is subsidizing some companies (and not others) which creates a crony relationship. Without this distortion, unconnected companies (and people) would independently pursue viable solutions.

As much as I like Musk and while technically his "gift" comes in the form of reduced or eliminated taxes, surely he has been given preferential treatment not afforded any potential competitors. This tends to constrain innovation and increase cost.

I like tax breaks, let's all have them.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Interesting. Also the Fata Morgana from the future, go back to the future!!!

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
We'll never reduce carbon dioxide emissions at the rate we're going. Too much of the infrastructure needs to be re imagined. Like for example the process of constructing roads.

The conversion to electric vehicles is happening faster than I ever imagined it would. This is where we will see a large reduction in CO2 emissions.

OP should have been a little more clear on the reasoning.

Global Impact (I) = (P)opulation (A)ffluence (T)echnology.

In order to Reduce Global Impact (I), One or more of the variable P A T must be reduced.

So, we can reduce population, or wealth of a people, or the technologies they posses. Better yet, why not All Three?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: galien8

Point one, not every country will follow this edict.

Two, the countries that do will have a weakened and vulnerable infrastructure and will be attacked by the countries that didn't adhere to this.

And three, politicians make all sorts of promises they expect us to keep while doing absolutely nothing about it themselves. So they can make all these draconian rules and edicts but they themselves will never follow them.

So true! But I'm sure of my recalling that the majority of countries in the world signed it (Paris treaty)! Anyways Trump when elected is going to throw away the Paris treaty papers he said.

originally posted by: galien8

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
This planet is definitely large enough to withstand current numbers.

But I don't think the ideologies prevalent in the modern world are capable of withstanding the current numbers.

Not even my beloved socialism is up to task.

No! Climate change is only one problem, others are that there will not be enough food for 10 billion people in 2050, seas and oceans will be empty of fish, no more wild flora and fauna, large scale agriculture will already have exhausted all resources etc. etc.

No honestly mate, 1/6th of the population of Britain lives in London alone.

93% of the U.K. hasn't been urbanised.

That's just 7% of the available land in use. In the tiny U.K.
That's space sorted out.

Food shortage is not a problem either.

The amount of land on Earth unused and unfarmed is ginormous.


It's only the systems we live under that make it impossible to sustain 7 billion people.

originally posted by: amazing

Pollution is our biggest problem and really the only way to curb that is going renewable.

Yes I think too, in the end the world will run completely on renewables, the potentials added up (solar, wind, biomass etc) funny thing is can support 18 billion people, problem is the transition, will cost lots of fossil fuel

originally posted by: GodEmperor
OP should have been a little more clear on the reasoning.

Global Impact (I) = (P)opulation (A)ffluence (T)echnology.

In order to Reduce Global Impact (I), One or more of the variable P A T must be reduced.

So, we can reduce population, or wealth of a people, or the technologies they posses. Better yet, why not All Three?

Funny thing the SHELL 2050 energy scenario has a more or less stable energy consumption per capita, but one of my maestro's has extrapolated from industrial revolution time to near future as going exponential this T factor this research was from 1996

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: amazing
It's definitely going to happen. Tesla is only getting bigger, more solar companies pop up whenever legislation makes it possible. Battery technology, solar panel technology, electric car technology, wind turbine technology...all keep accelerating and getting better by the month.

This is being driven by the private sector, of course. The only problem is that government keeps trying to stifle it and get in the way.

I think we want the same thing, better cleaner energy. The problem is that government is subsidizing some companies (and not others) which creates a crony relationship. Without this distortion, unconnected companies (and people) would independently pursue viable solutions.

As much as I like Musk and while technically his "gift" comes in the form of reduced or eliminated taxes, surely he has been given preferential treatment not afforded any potential competitors. This tends to constrain innovation and increase cost.

I like tax breaks, let's all have them.

But that's the problem. Car manufacturers, oil companies, coal companies and electric companies, like Nevada power, they all either have monopolies and pay elected officials to get preferential laws or they get big subsidies and tax breaks that renewable energy will never get.

Oil, coal, power companies and auto manufacterers get billions of dollars in subsides or tax breaks every year.

Also states like Nevada and Florida restrict roof top solar. So if I want to get solar panels on my house and pay for them myself or work out a deal with a solar company...I can't. How is that right or legal. That's the problem.

originally posted by: galien8

originally posted by: amazing

Pollution is our biggest problem and really the only way to curb that is going renewable.

Yes I think too, in the end the world will run completely on renewables, the potentials added up (solar, wind, biomass etc) funny thing is can support 18 billion people, problem is the transition, will cost lots of fossil fuel

Not as much as you might think and a lot of it will be paid for by the private sector...like tesla's charging stations...that's just one small example. We can do it.

They have solved C02 problem. The Nations that begin to flood and burn first will pay for it. Google a bit. here is just one of many companies with tech to remove C02 on massive scale.

qz.com... d-a-way-to-remove-co2-from-the-air-and-turn-it-into-pellets/

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: galien8

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: galien8

Where does it point to "80% depopulation"? I see 80% in reference to cut downs, but nothing about depopulation.

100% emissions = by 100% population
80% emissions = by 80% population

GET IT

Well, no, not really how it works.

A 20% reduction in emissions doesn't mean a 20% reduction in people. It means a 20% reduction in emissions.

Let's say (just for ease) that there are 100 cars and they cause 100% total emissions. To reduce emissions to 80% you reduce the amount of cars by 20, not population.

Thank you. Sometimes I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone on here. I kept thinking "there's no way they really think an 80% decrease in emissions is the same thing as 80% depopulation".

There are so many ways to decrease emissions that have nothing to do with depopulation. Like tweaking existing technologies so they emit less of the target pollutant. Or replacing commonly used technologies with competing technologies that give off less of the target pollutant (like replacing coal factories with wind farms).

Even simple things like increasing and encouraging public transportation over individual cars can help dramatically. And of course, we can replace fossil fuel powered vehicles with electric powered vehicles. Increasing the production and consumption of locally grown crops can also reduce the amount of carbon emissions caused during shipping. And these are just some of the basics.

originally posted by: Xeven
They have solved C02 problem. The Nations that begin to flood and burn first will pay for it. Google a bit. here is just one of many companies with tech to remove C02 on massive scale.

qz.com... d-a-way-to-remove-co2-from-the-air-and-turn-it-into-pellets/

Wait a minute that needs careful analysis, turning carbon dioxide into solid form (the pellets) cost energy, this energy is most likely generated with fossil fuels, fossil fuels converting to energy produces carbon dioxide, is there more carbon dioxide captured than released? I don't know, I only see that there is a lousy 10 tons of pellets produced since startup of the facility

originally posted by: galien8

originally posted by: Xeven
They have solved C02 problem. The Nations that begin to flood and burn first will pay for it. Google a bit. here is just one of many companies with tech to remove C02 on massive scale.

qz.com... d-a-way-to-remove-co2-from-the-air-and-turn-it-into-pellets/

Wait a minute that needs careful analysis, turning carbon dioxide into solid form (the pellets) cost energy, this energy is most likely generated with fossil fuels, fossil fuels converting to energy produces carbon dioxide, is there more carbon dioxide captured than released? I don't know, I only see that there is a lousy 10 tons of pellets produced since startup of the facility

It is just a demo. Scale it up, use nuke power or the Sun. Make lots of them. Like I said the countries that begin to burn or become flooded will pay the bill and build it.

I know it hurts when the environment can be cured and we can still burn fuel.

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: galien8

originally posted by: Xeven
They have solved C02 problem. The Nations that begin to flood and burn first will pay for it. Google a bit. here is just one of many companies with tech to remove C02 on massive scale.

qz.com... d-a-way-to-remove-co2-from-the-air-and-turn-it-into-pellets/

Wait a minute that needs careful analysis, turning carbon dioxide into solid form (the pellets) cost energy, this energy is most likely generated with fossil fuels, fossil fuels converting to energy produces carbon dioxide, is there more carbon dioxide captured than released? I don't know, I only see that there is a lousy 10 tons of pellets produced since startup of the facility

It is just a demo. Scale it up, use nuke power or the Sun. Make lots of them. Like I said the countries that begin to burn or become flooded will pay the bill and build it.

I know it hurts when the environment can be cured and we can still burn fuel.

Would be nice if it turned carbon dioxide back to snake oil

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: galien8

We could fit all of humanity into Texas, there is more than enough space.

Is that with a house per family and a garden (I mean enough living space)? Then very nice, very well put!!!