wolfger’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  All the graphs shown strongly correlate with the very first one. Does anyone think that we would be having most of these problems if the human population were only 1 billion? Rather that dream up another technofix lets do a human numbers fix that works and is much cheaper. When considering supporting efforts to reduce CO2 production one should be aware that one can either support cleaner power sources or one could help reduce the future number of generators of CO2. Consider that of the 200 million annual births globally, that around 70 million are unwanted, which is close to the annual increase in global population. For every birth voluntarily prevented, the generation of around 1500 tons of CO2 are prevented in the developed world. In the less developed world around 20 tons of CO2 are prevented. Family planning education and ready availability of birth control have been shown to be the most effective ways to prevent unwanted births even in poor countries. The Optimum Population Trust estimates that "The $7 cost of abating a tonne of CO2 using family planning compares with $24 for wind power, $51 for solar, $57-83 for coal plants with carbon capture and storage, $92 for plug-in hybrid vehicles and $131 for electric vehicles." http://www.optimumpopulation.org/reducingemissions.pdf Supporting Planned Parenthood or similar international organizations will achieve this. One could also consider supporting educational organization such as the Population Media Center which creates very effective radio soap programs to achieve broadcast education of family planning in less developed countries. http://www.populationmedia.org/ Let's work the human dimension!On Why Branson and SuperFreakonomics are wrong, in pictures posted 2 weeks, 6 days ago 33 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Ingrid, Umbra, some efforts to stem CO2 creation, call them offsets or whatever are very effective. When considering supporting efforts to reduce CO2 production one should be aware that one can either support cleaner power sources or one could help reduce the future number of generators of CO2. Consider that of the 200 million annual births globally, that around 70 million are unwanted, which is close to the annual increase in global population. For every birth voluntarily prevented, the generation of around 1500 tons of CO2 are prevented in the developed world. In the less developed world around 20 tons of CO2 are prevented. Family planning education and ready availability of birth control have been shown to be the most effective ways to prevent unwanted births even in poor countries. The Optimum Population Trust estimates that "The $7 cost of abating a tonne of CO2 using family planning compares with $24 for wind power, $51 for solar, $57-83 for coal plants with carbon capture and storage, $92 for plug-in hybrid vehicles and $131 for electric vehicles." http://www.optimumpopulation.org/reducingemissions.pdf Supporting Planned Parenthood or similar organizations will achieve this. One could also consider supporting educational organization such as the Population Media Center which creates very effective radio soap programs to achieve broadcast education of family planning in less developed countries. http://www.populationmedia.org/On Ask Umbra on climate weapons posted 3 weeks, 4 days ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Though I agree with reducing one's own carbon footprint first with money that may otherwise go to carbon offsets, the $ value of the typically suggested offset is usually insufficient for a major carbon footprint reduction effort. When considering supporting efforts to reduce carbon production one should be aware that one can either support cleaner power sources or one could help reduce the number of consumers of carbon. Consider that of the 200 million annual births globally, that around 70 million are unwanted, which is close to the annual increase in global population. For every birth voluntarily prevented, the generation of around 1500 tons of CO2 are prevented in the developed world. In the less developed world around 20 tons of CO2 are prevented. Family planning education and ready availability of birth control are the most effective ways to prevent unwanted births even in poor countries. The Optimum Population Trust estimates that "The $7 cost of abating a tonne of CO2 using family planning compares with $24 (£15) for wind power, $51 (£31) for solar, $57-83 (£35-51) for coal plants with carbon capture and storage, $92 (£56) for plug-in hybrid vehicles and $131 (£80) for electric vehicles." http://www.optimumpopulation.org/reducingemissions.pdf Supporting Planned Parenthood or similar organizations will achieve this. One could also consider supporting educational organization such as the Population Media Center which creates radio soap programs to achieve broadcast education of family planning in less developed countries. http://www.populationmedia.org/On Ask Umbra on offsetting work trips posted 3 weeks, 6 days ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Foodprovider's article from Michael Grunwald ends with: "As the world population rises, both of those figures are likely to explode unless agricultural productivity can explode as well. So by all means, we should ask industrial farmers to clean up their act. But first, we might want to beg them to save the planet and feed the world." which again takes an increase in human population to 9+ billion by 2050 as inevitable. It isn't inevitable and reducing the unwanted pregnancies through family planning education and direct birth control aid is the greenest act we can take with the most immediate impact. The human population is a multiplier to all of the environmental problems. http://www.optimumpopulation.org/reducingemissions.pdf CONTRACEPTION IS “GREENEST” TECHNOLOGY Family planning cheapest way to combat climate change Contraception is almost five times cheaper than conventional green technologies as a means of combating climate change, according to research published today (Wednesday, September 9). Each $7 (£4) spent on basic family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a tonne. To achieve the same result with low-carbon technologies would cost a minimum of $32 (£19). The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended. The report, Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust from the London School of Economics*, concludes that “considered purely as a method of reducing future CO2 emissions”, family planning is more cost-effective than leading low-carbon technologies. It says family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. Meeting basic family planning needs along the lines suggested would save 34 gigatonnes (billion tonnes) of CO2 between now and 2050 – equivalent to nearly six times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total. Roger Martin, chair of OPT, said the findings vindicated OPT’s stance that population growth must be included in the climate change debate. “It’s always been obvious that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions – the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down, as we want, while the population keeps shooting up. The taboo on mentioning this fact has made the whole climate change debate so far somewhat unreal. Stabilising population levels has always been essential ecologically, and this study shows it’s economically sensible too. “The population issue must now be added into the negotiations for the Copenhagen climate change summit in December.** This part of the solution is so easy, and so cheap, and would bring so many other social and economic benefits, from health and education to the empowerment of women. It would also ease all the other environmental problems we face – the rapid shrinkage of soil, fresh water, forests, fisheries, wildlife and oil reserves and the looming food crisis. “All of these would be easier to solve with fewer people, and ultimately impossible to solve with ever more. Meanwhile each additional person, especially each rich person in the OECD countries, reduces everyone’s share of the planet’s dwindling resources even faster. Non-coercive population policies are urgently needed in all countries. The taboo on discussing this is no longer defensible.” The study, based on the principle that “fewer people will emit fewer tonnes of carbon dioxide”, models the consequences of meeting all “unmet need” for family planning, defined as the number of women who wish to delay or terminate childbearing but who are not using contraception.*** One recent estimate put this figure at 200 million. UN data suggest that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 per cent, reducing projected world population in 2050 by half a billion to 8.64 billion. Between 2010 and 2050 12 billion fewer “people-years” would be lived – 326 billion against 338 billion under current projections. The 34 gigatonnes of CO2 saved in this way would cost $220 billion – roughly $7 a tonne. However, the same CO2 saving would cost over $1trillion if low-carbon technologies were used. The $7 cost of abating a tonne of CO2 using family planning compares with $24 (£15) for wind power, $51 (£31) for solar, $57-83 (£35-51) for coal plants with carbon capture and storage, $92 (£56) for plug-in hybrid vehicles and $131 (£80) for electric vehicles. However, the study may understate the CO2 savings available because the estimates of unmet need are based on married women alone, yet some studies suggest up to 40 per cent of young unmarried women have had unwanted pregnancies. Mr Martin added: “The potential for tackling climate change by addressing population growth through better family planning, alongside the conventional approach, is clearly enormous and we shall be urging all those involved in the Copenhagen process to take it fully on board.”On Another Monsanto man in a key USDA post? Obama's ag policy's giving me whiplash posted 1 month, 1 week ago 20 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I was very disappointed in this movie; it didn't even keep me awake for some of it. It was a hyped rehash of much that's already known, imho. It didn't look at the real problem: too many of us for sustainability. And it didn't even enlighten us with the best way to start solving the CO2/development crisis which is family planning education, birth control aid, and the desirability of the two child max family. http://www.optimumpopulation.org/submissions/opt.sub.briefing.climate.population.May07.pdfOn Climate doomsday film 'The Age of Stupid' still hopeful, says director in video interview posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 9 Responses