1. 3
  1. 2

    You had me until the really weird turn at the end about family planning and curbing global population growth. But that was the point, right? That it got bad when we wanted to reduce a population of the earth using knowledge (because global war- I mean), but then we became enlightened, and now we want to reduce the population of the earth (because global warming), using knowledge… wait, it wasn’t the point?

    The author of the post also misquoted his own source, making a connection where there was none: “Two solutions influence family size and [therefore] global population…”

    The original source is below:

    Two solutions influence family size and global population: educating girls and family planning. Because the exact dynamic between these solutions is impossible to determine, our models allocate 50 percent of the total potential impact to each. We assume that these impacts result from…

    And it’s still not comforting - “Two solutions…”? “Because the exact dynamic… is impossible to determine…”? “Our models…”? “Potential impact…”? “We assume…”?

    So what it seems is really being posited is… nothing! A whole bunch of suppositions based on a metric ton of assumptions.

    Dear god.

    1. 1

      I think the post confuses things a bit as it jumps from one thing to another. It would make more sense to talk about avoided rather than reduced emissions.

      I believe it’s commonly accepted that educating girls leads to a reduction in birth rate. Hence, we end up with a reduction in population growth, and eventually a stable or declining population. Compared to continued population growth, it results in lower total emissions.

      I haven’t looked closely at how Project Drawdown arrives at 51 gigatons, but I think they’ve at least put quite a bit of work into analysing different ways of reducing emissions.

      However, I think it’s a stretch to call the web an emissions reduction mechanism.

    2. 1

      A post about software development, history, surveillance, knowledge, and climate change.

      It wasn’t bad, but it all flowed and jumped from topic to topic too freely.