• shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    20 days ago

    LOL, not at the rate we’re at now! C’mon, you don’t think the population going from 3.7 billion in my childhood to 8+ billion today isn’t a major factor?

    People think of their personal habits, mostly driving, when they think of global CO2. Factor in all those people eating. That’s a shitload of farm CO2, and other waste. And look how fat we are in the first world!

    Concrete is a major driver of CO2 emissions, something like 7-8%. Guess what all of us need to build our homes and infrastructure.

    On top of that, worldwide poverty has nosedived in that time, and that’s a great thing, but people that weren’t burning fuel and needing plastics are doing so now. Even as population has exploded, poverty is still riding hard on the down slope. That lift out of poverty requires energy, and shitloads of it.

    Depopulation is going to cause worldwide economic depression. But whether by individual choice, government decree or climate change, it’s gonna happen. I don’t know of any economic system that can weather this.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      When we burn fossil fuels, CO2 concentrations stay elevated basically forever in human terms. Half the burning since the industrial revolution has happened in the last ~30 years. The human population is young, so to make the kind of difference you’re thinking of, it would mean a campaign of mass murder.

      I’m not in it for that.

      You can get a very modest difference in future emissions by encouraging the use of contraceptives, and educating girls, but it isn’t going to get you out of the need for a rapid shift off fossil fuels.