Peak Oil News and Message Boards

those of us living in rich countries should encourage our young people to limit the number of children they have, preferably to 2 or less


stabilizing the population won't fix the problems by itself , but we can't solve the problems if we keep adding 200,000 more human beings to the planet every day

and we need to do all we can to incentivize young people everywhere to delay having their first child.....the longer women delay having their first child the fewer children in total they have

kiwichick wrote:those of us living in rich countries should encourage our young people to limit the number of children they have, preferably to 2 or less


stabilizing the population won't fix the problems by itself , but we can't solve the problems if we keep adding 200,000 more human beings to the planet every day

and we need to do all we can to incentivize young people everywhere to delay having their first child.....the longer women delay having their first child the fewer children in total they have

Having three daughters over thirty with no grandchildren I think I've done my part on that.
To really cut the carbon foot print of the top ten percent we would need to scrap all the automobiles and commercial aircraft.

kiwichick wrote:those of us living in rich countries should encourage our young people to limit the number of children they have, preferably to 2 or less


stabilizing the population won't fix the problems by itself , but we can't solve the problems if we keep adding 200,000 more human beings to the planet every day

and we need to do all we can to incentivize young people everywhere to delay having their first child.....the longer women delay having their first child the fewer children in total they have

Yes. We can also set a good example for young people by living a low carbon lifestyle, and pointing out that it's possible to do the right thing on occasion. (You can do this without being preachy, being low key and only doing it when the subject / right opportunity comes up. Not having kids of my own, it's how I choose to handle various "teaching moments". YMMV, of course).

On Turkey day my eldest neice (with a child due in May) was talking about needing a car. I pointed out that this might work out well. That if she didn't mind driving a Corolla, I could give she and her husband my good as new Corolla, and that it had good safety test results, would take a child seat, was cheap to run and maintain, etc.

"But what about you?" she asked.

"Well, I replied, "I'd like to get a Prius Prime and lower my gasoline burning from 4000ish miles to 200ish miles a year. There's no point in having two cars in my driveway".

"But why would you want to do that?", she asked. "I'd have thought you'd keep that car for another decade."

"True enough, generally.", I replied. "However, now with how serious AGW is", the practical technology is here at a resonable price. I want to do this to set an example (I don't expect to see a lot of these cars in KY, at least not in the short term), and it is the right thing to do. I can afford it. If people like me don't buy this sort of car to further lower their carbon footprint, who will?"

I have no idea whether such actions/examples will collectively do any good over time. All we can do is try. It's the principle of the thing. IMO, it's the right thing to do.

And my 3 driving age neices/nephews drive a LOT, like their parents, so it seemed worth the shot to mention the message.

I probably won't know if my offer or the message is accepted for a few months or so. (Pushing, IMO, is the LAST thing to do).

The dream I have is to keep my 2003 Jeep Wrangler, as a spare vehicle and a snowplow and a vacation vehicle. The engine would be converted to burn E85 fuel, based on the theory that such fuel would be available longer in the MidWestern corn belt than the E10 gasoline sold now. I would be surprised if I drove it 200 miles per year, unless going camping or towing. The wife's 2001 Cherokee would be sold here in California, and replaced with another E85-capable medium SUV - or better yet, a plug-in hybrid medium sized SUV. Maybe even a Chevy Bolt or a Tesla 3.

As for the offspring, I had one, and she planned to have one, and instead we got twin grandkids - a blessing, and they are now approaching 18 months old, and I'll be getting re-acquainted with them in a week.

I don't think that we are any of us very different in our heartfelt goals, although we do squabble a bit here at PO.com. But in the end, we all seem to have very similar middle-class values, in a world where the Middle Class is rapidly disappearing.

KJ wrote: "... many more people than you think ..."

KJ, kindly cease and desist from ever presuming you know anything about what I think. Here (and generally) you are 100% wrong in your assumptions of my presumed ignorance.

Thank you.

But on this: "...the wealthiest 10% could reduce their carbon emissions.."

We can certainly agree. But in fact, on average, most have not and probably will not.

vt wrote: "Having three daughters over thirty with no grandchildren I think I've done my part ..."

It sounds to me as though your awesome daughters are the ones who have 'done their part' and you're trying to take credit for their restraint, restrain which you could not seem to muster yourself.

Just a point.

Be proud of your kids...don't try to steal their luster or take overmuch credit for their virtues.

(Just my unsolicited, free advice, which is probably worth as much as the charge! )

dohboi wrote:vt wrote: "Having three daughters over thirty with no grandchildren I think I've done my part ..."

It sounds to me as though your awesome daughters are the ones who have 'done their part' and you're trying to take credit for their restraint, restrain which you could not seem to muster yourself.

Just a point.

Be proud of your kids...don't try to steal their luster or take overmuch credit for their virtues.

(Just my unsolicited, free advice, which is probably worth as much as the charge! )

Sending them off to college is my only positive action on population control but it is working more then I ever imagined.
Their considerable accomplishments are certainly due to their efforts and not mine though the Missis deserves a few college credits for editing dozens of college papers with a Catholic school"s attention to spelling and grammar.

HA, I've just been doing some editing of my own daughter's college papers.

We all do what we can.

Congratulations again on what sounds like an excellent family!

dohboi wrote:HA, I've just been doing some editing of my own daughter's college papers.

We all do what we can.

Congratulations again on what sounds like an excellent family!

Wait until the day comes when you suddenly realize that one of your children is smarter (not just more educated but smarter) then you are and you should start taking his or her advise very seriously. You feel old and proud at the same moment.

The richest 10% of people produce half of Earth’s climate-harming fossil-fuel emissions, while the poorest half contribute a mere 10%, British charity Oxfam said in a report …

The report said that an average person among the richest one percent emits 175 times more carbon than his or her counterpart among the bottom 10%.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... says-oxfam

Just to come back to the study that launched this thread...a good reminder to us all.

And yet according to what I have read, the poor South will be disproportionately affected by AGW. I see no concrete actions to ameliorate this situation.

onlooker wrote:And yet according to what I have read, the poor South will be disproportionately affected by AGW. I see no concrete actions to ameliorate this situation.

The poor ALWAYS feel the most pain. I think it is completely useless to mention who feels the pain.

The wealthy think they can isolate themselves with their money. This is the mindset that has to be changed.

The wealthy think they can isolate themselves with their money. This is the mindset that has to be changed...

.... because they always have in the past. Winter homes on Jekyll Island, summer retreats in the Adirondacks, private compounds and communities in places like Long Island and Nantucket... How do you change that? Pitchforks and Kalashnikovs?

Except for the fact that the left, who are always quick to talk about income inequality, also want to ban guns. Good luck with all that revolution stuff without them.

jedrider wrote:

onlooker wrote:And yet according to what I have read, the poor South will be disproportionately affected by AGW. I see no concrete actions to ameliorate this situation.

The poor ALWAYS feel the most pain. I think it is completely useless to mention who feels the pain.

The wealthy think they can isolate themselves with their money. This is the mindset that has to be changed.

But of course. Let's pretend like "the poor" have NONE of their situation due to self-inflicted behaviors. As if actions didn't have consequences.

When I was in my 20's, I noticed that a lot of businesses had a smattering of cars in the parking lots on Saturdays. Clearly people working overtime. And I noticed that a large plurality of those cars were fancy cars and/or luxury cars. Aha! That correlation isn't an accident.

But let's pretend wealth and work have no correlation, so we can blame "the rich" for all our problems. As though that will solve the problem.

Cog wrote:Except for the fact that the left, who are always quick to talk about income inequality, also want to ban guns. Good luck with all that revolution stuff without them.

What are your handguns and rifles going to do against a modern well armed potent military ?

onlooker wrote:

Cog wrote:Except for the fact that the left, who are always quick to talk about income inequality, also want to ban guns. Good luck with all that revolution stuff without them.

What are your handguns and rifles going to do against a modern well armed potent military ?

The same thing the Taliban has done against our military in Afghanistan since 2001. Survive to fight another day. You do not attack the pointy end of the stick in an insurgency. There are much more juicy and less defended targets of opportunity. A modern military is potent because of its logistics train. Eliminate that, and you remove what makes it a potent fighting force.

But what makes you think the military are going to target the deplorables? I'd be more worried if I were on the left right now.

“surged by 24 percent to a record level of $9.2 trillion,” in 2017.

" the richest 10 billionaires own a combined $663 billion"

“dramatic improvement in extreme wealth creation” in the United States due to “buoyant equity markets and robust corporate earnings.”

"The United States is home to the most billionaires of any country in the world and accounts for 34 percent of billionaire wealth worldwide. New York maintained its position as the top billionaire city, home to 103 billionaires."

"In 2017, Wealth-X published a report on the world’s “ultra high net worth” population, which includes individuals whose net worth is over $30 million.

According to this report, the world’s “ultra wealthy”—some 250,000 people worldwide—owned a combined $25 trillion, including $9.6 trillion in liquid cash alone. "

For just one fifth of the total wealth of the 10 richest people in the world, the following social needs could be immediately addressed:

* The provision of housing for all 634,000 homeless people in the US: $20 billion

* The provision of food to 862 million malnourished people worldwide: $30 billion

* Reduction by half of the total number of people without access to clean water: $11 billion

* Education for every child who doesn’t receive one: $26 billion

* Free maternal and prenatal care for every mother in the developing world: $13 billion

* Treatment and vaccination to prevent 4 million malaria deaths: $6 billion

* Replacement of the toxic water infrastructure of Flint, Michigan with a safe and clean system: $1.5 billion

* Immediate $20,000 bonuses to all 3.1 million teachers in the US: $62 billion

Total cost: $169.5 billion.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05 ... s-m21.html

dohboi wrote:For just one fifth of the total wealth of the 10 richest people in the world, the following social needs could be immediately addressed:

* The provision of housing for all 634,000 homeless people in the US: $20 billion

* The provision of food to 862 million malnourished people worldwide: $30 billion

* Reduction by half of the total number of people without access to clean water: $11 billion

* Education for every child who doesn’t receive one: $26 billion

* Free maternal and prenatal care for every mother in the developing world: $13 billion

* Treatment and vaccination to prevent 4 million malaria deaths: $6 billion

* Replacement of the toxic water infrastructure of Flint, Michigan with a safe and clean system: $1.5 billion

* Immediate $20,000 bonuses to all 3.1 million teachers in the US: $62 billion

Total cost: $169.5 billion.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05 ... s-m21.html

I have mentioned this before Dohboi, but hidden in this egregious inequity of wealth is a constraining force to reduce consumption and population. All those social needs being met translates to how many more hundreds of millions or billions of consumers?

It's hopeless, you are questioning the values of a committed "social justice warrior", all too eager to go on complaining until everyone everywhere is equally miserable and poor.

He just cannot stand the idea that somebody somewhere has more to eat, more to spend, or more opportunity than some miserable turd world citizen, because of where they were born. It offends his Marxist ideals.

...just not enough to give up his life of priviledge as a 1%er citizen of the USA.