LOL. Per the 1987 Montreal Protocol, reduction in CFC production occurred worldwide. Undeveloped countries just had a different schedule. AFAIK that's what reduced the size of the ozone hole. It wasn't magic.
Rush was citing University of Alabama's Roy Spencer once upon a time. Spencer and his colleague John Christy don't agree with the global warming worriers. Then there's this site:
Even if the US is the only country to reduce it's population growth, there will be less people in 25 years than there would be without. Capiche? Do we now have to address every country's problems before we can address our own? And I gave you some very simple steps, starting with changing the tax code so that it doesn't reward having more children. Raising the tax on cigarettes has reduced their sales. Give people a tax break if they only have one or two children, let them pay an extra tax if they have more. Let parents who have more than two children pay extra local property taxes that fund the schools that are paying to educate those extra kids. Change the welfare rules so that program doesn't encourage more children. If you are going to be on welfare more than X months, require sterilization, that would be an option. Public awareness campaigns would play a role.
How hard was that? Of course the govt will never do it, because they need endless rapid population growth to bail them out of all their deficit spending and unfunded liabilities.
Just to be clear, what I take away from your answer is that you have absolutely no realistic or practical ideas of how to reduce the population of the planet below today's level. And yes, as the problem is global, those who wish to resolve the issue must address it as a global issue.
This of course means that unless the world makes a serious effort to convert to clean energy sources in an effort to reduce the levels of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, human society will continue to dump just as much, if not more CO2 into the environment.
As a result, damage to the ocean ecosystem will increase, ocean temperatures will continue to increase, ice caps will continue to dwindle, ocean levels will continue to rise, there will be an ever increasing amount and severity of devastating storms, etc.
I think we better just learn to live in a world with higher CO2 concentrations. That was my point. There are so many population related causes for CO2 rise that simply throwing a sacrificial Hummer into the volcano is not going to do anything significant. This trend is 8000 years old and the population hockey stick looks just like the CO2 hockey stick.
Maybe that is nature's way of reducing population. The other one is disease but we are far too good at curing them. It is like social security. We have a system financially based on a life expectancy of 66-67 years and we increased that life expectancy without changing the program. The 3d world has a culture of having a dozen kids, assuming 10 of them will die young and we are changing that life expectancy without changing the culture. They are going to grow up wanting, a house, a car, a TV and everything they see on that TV.
That is ok for people who don't have kids, grandchildren or great grandchildren and for people that don't care about leaving things in better condition than they found them.
No, as a problem solver, I will continue to look for solutions and endorse with my elected representatives, any realistic and practical solutions put forth by anyone.
OK..... to clarify, you believe "nature" is some kind of supernatural force?
A human problem with human solutions, it just requires that humans address the problem, not ignore it.
Would you post a link to the source of those statistics, please?
The nerve!
Life expectancy has nothing to do with SS. What IS important is life expectancy at 65 (you really don't care about the kid who croaks before
65 in this area). That has increased only a couple of years since the 40s and has been compensated for. What is killing SS is that it has always been pay as you go with current workers paying for the retirement of the previous generation. Worked in the 60s when there were 5 workers for each retiree, not so much in 2010s with 2.9 per. Much of this is baby boom followed by baby bust.
Don't forget all the mentally disabled democrats drawing "crazy" checks.
Even if true that it's only increased a couple of years, it could still have a significant impact, depending on what the life expectancy at 65 was, ie increasing 10 by 2.5 is would be a
25% increase. But it's worse than that. I don't have data for the 40s, but in 1950 life expectancy at 65 was 13.9 years. By 2010 it was 19.1 years. That's an increase of 5.2 years or 37%. When you have to pay out 37% more money, it's very significant.And AFAIK, it's only been partially accounted for. Today people born in the 50s will have to wait until 66 to get full benefits instead of 65. So, it hasn't been compensated for by adjusting age fully, that's for sure.
Agree with that, which is why I said govt can't afford to see the population increase slow down.
You can take away whatever you please, which is exactly what you're doing. I clearly stated many posts ago that I took Gfre's comments to mean that decreasing the population could include decreasing FUTURE population by limiting increases. You choose to take away that means genocide. And again, I've made it very clear that there are benefits other than CO2 that would help the USA, eg less pollution of all kinds, less loss of free space, less impact on all our natural resources. So, I reject your insistence that I have to solve the problems in Pakistan too. Whatever we do here would help with CO2 too. And the US is a role model, if we do the right things, it encourages others. I gave you some concrete examples, eg removing tax policy incentives to have more children. But feel free to turn that into genocide. This is another example of where you've just gone totally off the rails.
We're going to dump just as much and more CO2 into the environment under all current plans to limit CO2 *increases*. So, following your logic, we should do nothing because we don't have a plan to decrease it. What we are actually doing is exactly what is proposed with limiting population growth, ie limiting future
*increases*. AGain, all I saw Gfre suggesting is that we look at both sides of the equation. Population growth is a driving factor of not only CO2 increase, but most of the world's pollution and resource problems.
Except of course limiting future population increases, which are a driving factor in almost all the world's pollution and resource problems. Did you insist that the US be able to fix the pollution problems of Pakistan and India before you were in favor of reducing pollution from our cars? Is the USA better off 50 years from now with a population of 340 mil or 440 mil? I look around driving here and see what was open space, trees, forests, farms, filled with McMansions. I know, can't fix that without fixing Pakistan.
I am surprised you didn't suggest killing off social security and Medicare as way to reduce the US population....... ;-)
But it's worse than that. I don't have data
Depending on when in the 50s, can go to almost 67, around half is compensated for. (5.2 years increase in LE and 2 additional years of wait. )
No nature is a leveling force. When a planet gets out of balance, nature has a way of bringing it back into balance. The problem is humans are too good at fighting back against nature.
Humans do not have a very good track record of fixing anything that they screwed up.
That is anthropology 101 look it up yourself.
That is the thinking that got is into the problem we have. Everyone wants everything and nobody seems to have the power to stop them. The big leveling force may be nukes because we can't seem to stop people from getting them either.
That is not really true. Best case for SS would be someone who died before they elected to collect, whether that was 62 or 70 as long as they worked. A 50 year old who dies still kicked into the program for ~30 years. The problem is the number who actually do live long enough to collect and that is reflected in life expectancy.
Not nearly enough
True but that is the flaw in any Ponzi scheme isn't it? You start running out of people in the bottom of the pyramid and there was never any real "investment" in the first place. SS is just another line item on a $20 trillion dollar debt.
If you really believe Al Gore, that is meaningless. We will all be dead long before that population decrease had any effect but if we are all dead, problem solved.
Let me know when you give up your TV, car, air conditioning, refrigerator and furnace.
Thanks for confirming that you are just another hypocrite. On the one hand you want to criticize the 1st world for our energy gobbling conveniences but you advocate 5 billion more people having them and then complain about how the consequences of that energy production and use is affecting the atmosphere. You people always seem to ignore the fact that without massive infusions of tax money, mostly borrowed, there would be no real penetration of alternate energy sources or green products. Governments in 3d world countries can barely keep their people fed and protected from murder by roving gangs of thugs. They are not buying their citizens solar panels and subsidizing electric cars. Their cars will end up being 3d generation castoffs from the western world. They will cook and heat their homes by burning whatever is available, including those trees Al Gore sold us as carbon credits. If they get electricity for a TV, it will come from a plant burning a fossil fuel of some kind.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.