Chinese answer to climate control

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12...ent_9151129.htm

Although China's family planning policy has received criticism over the past three decades, Zhao said that China's population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society.

As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said.

The UN report projected that if the global population would remain 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of a little more than 9 billion according to medium-growth scenario, "it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions".

Meanwhile, she said studies have also shown that family planning programs are more efficient in helping cut emissions, citing research by Thomas Wire of London School of Economics that states: "Each $7 spent on basic family planning would reduce CO2 emissions by more than one ton" whereas it would cost $13 for reduced deforestation, $24 to use wind technology, $51 for solar power, $93 for introducing hybrid cars and $131 electric vehicles.

[peejay 327]

What countries like China, Mexico, and many third world countries do through internal live births, the USA imposes on itself through high immigration numbers (legal & illegal). The USA has added around 100 million people to our population in the last 30 years and a big chunk of that is immigration driven. It never ceases to amaze me that some of the same people here on VJ that pitch a b*tch about Global Warming and the high use of fossil fuels by the USA are big open borders zealots and illegal alien cheerleaders that complain that immigrating to the USA is too cumbersome and difficult as it. That we need even higher immigration numbers. As if there is no correlation between huge population increases and increased carbon emissions in an developed economy such as ours here in the USA. Here are some graphs that add a bit of visual perspective to the dilemma.

[HAL 9000 96]

I b!tch about GW for what it is but I certainly am no open borders fan. I'd like peejay to seek out these people and point them out to us so we can all learn a little more about his obsessive rants.

(He won't of course, because he can't.)

Nice graph too. It should scare the REAL Americans.

[peejay 327]

I b!tch about GW for what it is but I certainly am no open borders fan. I'd like peejay to seek out these people and point them out to us so we can all learn a little more about his obsessive rants.

(He won't of course, because he can't.)

Nice graph too. It should scare the REAL Americans.

I think that people can read the aggregate posts on this forum by any member(s) and can draw their own conclusions without being led like a dog on a leash (or as sheep by a shepherd). Singling out particular members might even be against ToS in certain circumstances.

However, I do note that you haven't (as usual) refuted the data or any conclusions I have drawn. Rather the usual tactic of shooting the messenger rather than the message is employed as a diversion.

Edited December 13, 2009 by peejay

[slim 1,533]

Are we going to charge countries with volcanoes more money because volcanic eruptions release so much CO2 and other toxins?

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

Are we going to charge countries with volcanoes more money because volcanic eruptions release so much CO2 and other toxins?

time for oregon and hawaii to pay up!

[HAL 9000 96]

I b!tch about GW for what it is but I certainly am no open borders fan. I'd like peejay to seek out these people and point them out to us so we can all learn a little more about his obsessive rants.

(He won't of course, because he can't.)

Nice graph too. It should scare the REAL Americans.

I think that people can read the aggregate posts on this forum by any member(s) and can draw their own conclusions without being led like a dog on a leash (or as sheep by a shepherd). Singling out particular members might even be against ToS in certain circumstances.

However, I do note that you haven't (as usual) refuted the data or any conclusions I have drawn. Rather the usual tactic of shooting the messenger rather than the message is employed as a diversion.

What data was that peejay?

If you do have the ability to tabulate posts from individual members, perhaps a search of my posts regarding whatever issue will yield that I do not support illegal immigration and you may even find a post or two about population effects on resource consumption once you've factored in consumption rates at the current level we like to splurge on as a society of banal comforts. Of course (as usual) you'll skip over the obvious and try to isolate it only to the incoming immigrants. Lets cut to the chase shall we?

[NickD 203]

I b!tch about GW for what it is but I certainly am no open borders fan. I'd like peejay to seek out these people and point them out to us so we can all learn a little more about his obsessive rants.

(He won't of course, because he can't.)

Nice graph too. It should scare the REAL Americans.

I think that people can read the aggregate posts on this forum by any member(s) and can draw their own conclusions without being led like a dog on a leash (or as sheep by a shepherd). Singling out particular members might even be against ToS in certain circumstances.

However, I do note that you haven't (as usual) refuted the data or any conclusions I have drawn. Rather the usual tactic of shooting the messenger rather than the message is employed as a diversion.

What data was that peejay?

If you do have the ability to tabulate posts from individual members, perhaps a search of my posts regarding whatever issue will yield that I do not support illegal immigration and you may even find a post or two about population effects on resource consumption once you've factored in consumption rates at the current level we like to splurge on as a society of banal comforts. Of course (as usual) you'll skip over the obvious and try to isolate it only to the incoming immigrants. Lets cut to the chase shall we?

Did read projections that in 50 years, Russia will be non-existent and we would all be speaking Spanish, but maybe that would be Chinese instead.

[peejay 327]

I b!tch about GW for what it is but I certainly am no open borders fan. I'd like peejay to seek out these people and point them out to us so we can all learn a little more about his obsessive rants.

(He won't of course, because he can't.)

Nice graph too. It should scare the REAL Americans.

I think that people can read the aggregate posts on this forum by any member(s) and can draw their own conclusions without being led like a dog on a leash (or as sheep by a shepherd). Singling out particular members might even be against ToS in certain circumstances.

However, I do note that you haven't (as usual) refuted the data or any conclusions I have drawn. Rather the usual tactic of shooting the messenger rather than the message is employed as a diversion.

What data was that peejay?

If you do have the ability to tabulate posts from individual members, perhaps a search of my posts regarding whatever issue will yield that I do not support illegal immigration and you may even find a post or two about population effects on resource consumption once you've factored in consumption rates at the current level we like to splurge on as a society of banal comforts. Of course (as usual) you'll skip over the obvious and try to isolate it only to the incoming immigrants. Lets cut to the chase shall we?

I never did state that the sole increase is only due to immigrants and illegal aliens. I merely stated that population increase in general from any source will mean a direct correlation to the increase of energy consumption in a developed country such as the USA. At present, energy consumption mostly equates to carbon emissions. I think it is obvious to conclude that high immigration levels mainly from the third world and their high birthrates have contributed to a huge chunk of the population increase in the USA over the last 30 - 40 years. Not to mention that these people come from underdeveloped / undeveloped countries into a developed economy such as the USA where energy consumption is way higher per capita. And if trends continue unabated it is also obvious that the US population could hit 400+ million by mid century. Whether this will be allowed to occur is debatable.

One thing is for sure...adding another 100+ million people by 2050 will make it even more difficult to reduce any carbon emissions or to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Any conservation breakthroughs or technological advances will be overshadowed and overwhelmed by increasing numbers of people that will consume even more energy, no matter what source it comes from.

It is apparent from the O/P that China sees things that the USA continues to ignore.

[NickD 203]

I b!tch about GW for what it is but I certainly am no open borders fan. I'd like peejay to seek out these people and point them out to us so we can all learn a little more about his obsessive rants.

(He won't of course, because he can't.)

Nice graph too. It should scare the REAL Americans.

I think that people can read the aggregate posts on this forum by any member(s) and can draw their own conclusions without being led like a dog on a leash (or as sheep by a shepherd). Singling out particular members might even be against ToS in certain circumstances.

However, I do note that you haven't (as usual) refuted the data or any conclusions I have drawn. Rather the usual tactic of shooting the messenger rather than the message is employed as a diversion.

What data was that peejay?

If you do have the ability to tabulate posts from individual members, perhaps a search of my posts regarding whatever issue will yield that I do not support illegal immigration and you may even find a post or two about population effects on resource consumption once you've factored in consumption rates at the current level we like to splurge on as a society of banal comforts. Of course (as usual) you'll skip over the obvious and try to isolate it only to the incoming immigrants. Lets cut to the chase shall we?

I never did state that the sole increase is only due to immigrants and illegal aliens. I merely stated that population increase in general from any source will mean a direct correlation to the increase of energy consumption in a developed country such as the USA. At present, energy consumption mostly equates to carbon emissions. I think it is obvious to conclude that high immigration levels mainly from the third world and their high birthrates have contributed to a huge chunk of the population increase in the USA over the last 30 - 40 years. Not to mention that these people come from underdeveloped / undeveloped countries into a developed economy such as the USA where energy consumption is way higher per capita. And if trends continue unabated it is also obvious that the US population could hit 400+ million by mid century. Whether this will be allowed to occur is debatable.

One thing is for sure...adding another 100+ million people by 2050 will make it even more difficult to reduce any carbon emissions or to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Any conservation breakthroughs or technological advances will be overshadowed and overwhelmed by increasing numbers of people that will consume even more energy, no matter what source it comes from.

It is apparent from the O/P that China sees things that the USA continues to ignore.

Area of China is only about 5% greater than the USA, but with over three times the population! Then there is the concept of supply and demand, way too many people increases the supply, so each person becomes cheaper and even expendable as far as the government is concerned. China may claim to have solutions to the problem, but they are a big part of the problem if not thee problem. But India really is in the lead, with less than 30% of land than the USA, and well over three times the population.

Just China and India have over 34% of the entire worlds population.

[slim 1,533]

Did read projections that in 50 years, Russia will be non-existent and we would all be speaking Spanish, but maybe that would be Chinese instead.

I've read the same projections. Russia's non-existence is based on population decrease, ours on Spanish-speaking population increase.

My Russian wife said in 20 years Russia and America will all be same = Chinese.

[peejay 327]

I b!tch about GW for what it is but I certainly am no open borders fan. I'd like peejay to seek out these people and point them out to us so we can all learn a little more about his obsessive rants.

(He won't of course, because he can't.)

Nice graph too. It should scare the REAL Americans.

I think that people can read the aggregate posts on this forum by any member(s) and can draw their own conclusions without being led like a dog on a leash (or as sheep by a shepherd). Singling out particular members might even be against ToS in certain circumstances.

However, I do note that you haven't (as usual) refuted the data or any conclusions I have drawn. Rather the usual tactic of shooting the messenger rather than the message is employed as a diversion.

What data was that peejay?

If you do have the ability to tabulate posts from individual members, perhaps a search of my posts regarding whatever issue will yield that I do not support illegal immigration and you may even find a post or two about population effects on resource consumption once you've factored in consumption rates at the current level we like to splurge on as a society of banal comforts. Of course (as usual) you'll skip over the obvious and try to isolate it only to the incoming immigrants. Lets cut to the chase shall we?

I never did state that the sole increase is only due to immigrants and illegal aliens. I merely stated that population increase in general from any source will mean a direct correlation to the increase of energy consumption in a developed country such as the USA. At present, energy consumption mostly equates to carbon emissions. I think it is obvious to conclude that high immigration levels mainly from the third world and their high birthrates have contributed to a huge chunk of the population increase in the USA over the last 30 - 40 years. Not to mention that these people come from underdeveloped / undeveloped countries into a developed economy such as the USA where energy consumption is way higher per capita. And if trends continue unabated it is also obvious that the US population could hit 400+ million by mid century. Whether this will be allowed to occur is debatable.

One thing is for sure...adding another 100+ million people by 2050 will make it even more difficult to reduce any carbon emissions or to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Any conservation breakthroughs or technological advances will be overshadowed and overwhelmed by increasing numbers of people that will consume even more energy, no matter what source it comes from.

It is apparent from the O/P that China sees things that the USA continues to ignore.

Area of China is only about 5% greater than the USA, but with over three times the population! Then there is the concept of supply and demand, way too many people increases the supply, so each person becomes cheaper and even expendable as far as the government is concerned. China may claim to have solutions to the problem, but they are a big part of the problem if not thee problem. But India really is in the lead, with less than 30% of land than the USA, and well over three times the population.

Just China and India have over 34% of the entire worlds population.

But per capita energy consumption is much higher in the USA than in India / China. In any event it is the evil USA that uses too much energy and is being singled out to cut carbon emissions. How would adding another 100+ million to the US population not influence any goals of carbon emission reduction? I say that you cannot add huge increases to the population in the future and at the same time reduce or even keep carbon emissions at present levels. I just do not see any miraculous technological breakthrough by 2050 that would allow that while allowing the present standard of living. Something has to give.

[NickD 203]

I b!tch about GW for what it is but I certainly am no open borders fan. I'd like peejay to seek out these people and point them out to us so we can all learn a little more about his obsessive rants.

(He won't of course, because he can't.)

Nice graph too. It should scare the REAL Americans.

I think that people can read the aggregate posts on this forum by any member(s) and can draw their own conclusions without being led like a dog on a leash (or as sheep by a shepherd). Singling out particular members might even be against ToS in certain circumstances.

However, I do note that you haven't (as usual) refuted the data or any conclusions I have drawn. Rather the usual tactic of shooting the messenger rather than the message is employed as a diversion.

What data was that peejay?

If you do have the ability to tabulate posts from individual members, perhaps a search of my posts regarding whatever issue will yield that I do not support illegal immigration and you may even find a post or two about population effects on resource consumption once you've factored in consumption rates at the current level we like to splurge on as a society of banal comforts. Of course (as usual) you'll skip over the obvious and try to isolate it only to the incoming immigrants. Lets cut to the chase shall we?

I never did state that the sole increase is only due to immigrants and illegal aliens. I merely stated that population increase in general from any source will mean a direct correlation to the increase of energy consumption in a developed country such as the USA. At present, energy consumption mostly equates to carbon emissions. I think it is obvious to conclude that high immigration levels mainly from the third world and their high birthrates have contributed to a huge chunk of the population increase in the USA over the last 30 - 40 years. Not to mention that these people come from underdeveloped / undeveloped countries into a developed economy such as the USA where energy consumption is way higher per capita. And if trends continue unabated it is also obvious that the US population could hit 400+ million by mid century. Whether this will be allowed to occur is debatable.

One thing is for sure...adding another 100+ million people by 2050 will make it even more difficult to reduce any carbon emissions or to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Any conservation breakthroughs or technological advances will be overshadowed and overwhelmed by increasing numbers of people that will consume even more energy, no matter what source it comes from.

It is apparent from the O/P that China sees things that the USA continues to ignore.

Area of China is only about 5% greater than the USA, but with over three times the population! Then there is the concept of supply and demand, way too many people increases the supply, so each person becomes cheaper and even expendable as far as the government is concerned. China may claim to have solutions to the problem, but they are a big part of the problem if not thee problem. But India really is in the lead, with less than 30% of land than the USA, and well over three times the population.

Just China and India have over 34% of the entire worlds population.

But per capita energy consumption is much higher in the USA than in India / China. In any event it is the evil USA that uses too much energy and is being singled out to cut carbon emissions. How would adding another 100+ million to the US population not influence any goals of carbon emission reduction? I say that you cannot add huge increases to the population in the future and at the same time reduce or even keep carbon emissions at present levels. I just do not see any miraculous technological breakthrough by 2050 that would allow that while allowing the present standard of living. Something has to give.

I suppose if you or ours energy usage was averaged with Al Gore's transportation:

And his home:

The average usage would be pretty darn high.

As it is, doing everything I can to reduce my monthly energy bills, adding insulation, replacing leaking argon filled windows, looking for cracks, won't drive into town unless I have at least three places to do business as in the last few years, our energy bills have more than doubled in rates.

A lot of our energy consuming industries have been moved to China as well as India. And with global marketing, find myself in competition with foreign engineers that don't nearly have the cost of living they do. The way I am robbed with property taxes can hire three foreign engineers!

Would be nice if our leaders would set the example.

[HAL 9000 96]

I b!tch about GW for what it is but I certainly am no open borders fan. I'd like peejay to seek out these people and point them out to us so we can all learn a little more about his obsessive rants.

(He won't of course, because he can't.)

Nice graph too. It should scare the REAL Americans.

I think that people can read the aggregate posts on this forum by any member(s) and can draw their own conclusions without being led like a dog on a leash (or as sheep by a shepherd). Singling out particular members might even be against ToS in certain circumstances.

However, I do note that you haven't (as usual) refuted the data or any conclusions I have drawn. Rather the usual tactic of shooting the messenger rather than the message is employed as a diversion.

What data was that peejay?

If you do have the ability to tabulate posts from individual members, perhaps a search of my posts regarding whatever issue will yield that I do not support illegal immigration and you may even find a post or two about population effects on resource consumption once you've factored in consumption rates at the current level we like to splurge on as a society of banal comforts. Of course (as usual) you'll skip over the obvious and try to isolate it only to the incoming immigrants. Lets cut to the chase shall we?

I never did state that the sole increase is only due to immigrants and illegal aliens. I merely stated that population increase in general from any source will mean a direct correlation to the increase of energy consumption in a developed country such as the USA. At present, energy consumption mostly equates to carbon emissions. I think it is obvious to conclude that high immigration levels mainly from the third world and their high birthrates have contributed to a huge chunk of the population increase in the USA over the last 30 - 40 years. Not to mention that these people come from underdeveloped / undeveloped countries into a developed economy such as the USA where energy consumption is way higher per capita. And if trends continue unabated it is also obvious that the US population could hit 400+ million by mid century. Whether this will be allowed to occur is debatable.

One thing is for sure...adding another 100+ million people by 2050 will make it even more difficult to reduce any carbon emissions or to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Any conservation breakthroughs or technological advances will be overshadowed and overwhelmed by increasing numbers of people that will consume even more energy, no matter what source it comes from.

It is apparent from the O/P that China sees things that the USA continues to ignore.

Your analysis makes obvious sense, peejay, and I have never disagreed with it in theory.

Your case is based on a per capita argument of consumption/emission, which in itself and compared to China, where our economy does indeed beat the Chinese, but you pessimistically assume that the next 5 decades will yield the likely continued achievement we are likely to attain as insufficient to offset a population on an equal-pattern of consumption as today. Instead you should yield a little more credibility that ignorance of individual contributions to emissions totals are decreasing- hence, more and more people are and will be consuming less per capita in the future.

Not to mention the little fact you ignore that people from Third World nations already are accustumed to a consumption pattern far less than ours here. You may argue that once emigrating here all bets are off and they enter a mode of consumption/emission like the many 'natives' here already do... but I think you should consider more the economics of said consumption when many of these immigrants start out not being able to afford such a high rate of consumption as others. Its simple logic, really.

[slim 1,533]

Its simple logic, really.

Simple logic is that all people are greedy and will use as much as they can whenever they can. China and India don't use less because they're accustomed to using less... it's because they can't!

To say the U.S. will use less per capita as technology advances and we figure out better ways to improve.... ah, has that been historically the case? Are we using less energy now than we did 50 years ago? Are we using less than we did 5 years ago?

Why would we use less 50 years from now if it's inherent among all human beings to use as much as we can possibly afford and have access to? That's not a uniquely American trait, is it?