Here's another scientific article suggesting that stabilising human population sooner, rather than later will reduce emissions. It puts population control as its number 1 recommendation.
Roerto Sumiblan Deluna Jr2 (2012;
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/36603/) published an article titled
Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Emission in Asia: Effect of Population, Affluence and Energy Efficiency.
Part of his
Abstract reads
" ... Results showed that 97 percent of the variation in the level of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission could be explained by changes in population, GDP per capita and energy efficiency. Results also confirmed the existence of EKC in Asia, A monotonically upward trend in emissions with increasing income level was observed." Apropos of the last few posts, it also found that emissions increased with increases in GDP per capita.
It's interesting that the author's first recommendation below is human population stabilisation.
Recommendation:
The result of the study suggests the following:
(1) Stabilize human population sooner rather than later will help reduce future emissions.
(2) Changes in industrial sectors and other sectors that utilize energy to reduce emission using readily available technology. Shifting to wind, solar and geothermal power for all electricity generation could greatly reduce the use of fossil fuels.
(3) Increased appliance and machinery efficiency could lower industrial and residential energy use. In the short term, shifts away from personal vehicles toward mass transit, along with increases in fuel efficiency, can reduce transportation emissions. And in the longer term, use of hydrogen-fueled cars and buses could cut emissions even further.
(4) Finally, increasing funding for further research and development of clean energy technologies can also help move the world from a carbon-based and toward a hydrogen-based energy system.
BadgerJelly, where do you get your info from? This graph does not show a plummeting of world population.
And what about a reference to
"11 billion is no big deal"! Please provide some evidence.
I found your references interesting
davidm. I don't know that people will give up dairy and meats too easily though. I think it would be more difficult than finding ways to slow down the population growth.
Why do I get the impression that there seems to be a stigma against discussing population control. It will have to be vigorously discussed sooner or later and the sooner the better as far as I can see. If you look at the graph, you will note that it doesn't vary too much from an arithmetic progression. When does 9 billion become 18 billion and the 18 becomes 36, etc.
davidm, your link,
Can we grow more on less land?, was interesting. It makes the point that more agriculture for more people will require more land clearing and more fertilisers. Rather than advocate more efficient agriculture to sustain more people, why don't we think about ways in which we can harmoniously lower the rate of population growth. We are, after all supposed to be Homo sapiens.
I notice some use of the word 'cullng' in some posts. That's not an option.