What the Rural Man who makes these statements leaves out is that we have buildings in our city’s with more tenants than some of these rural towns have in their whole zipcode. The tenants of the top floor pay more in taxes than the whole country town.
I agree, the Rural Man should keep his pittance/subsidy, because if there is 20% unemployment he’s going to need it more than anyone else.
Historically, when the poor greatly outnumber the rich and become desperate enough, there is a rebellion and the rich have their heads on a pike. The only way to insulate against that is to keep the poor controllable by the resources the rich have. So, there is an incentive to cull the obsolete unemployed.
In reality, you are correct IMO, that there is no global overheating crisis. However, a lot of people believe Bill Gates’ BS, perhaps including Bill himself. For them, there are eight more years to save the planet so that THEY can survive with it.
The point of this thread is to discuss what such people must view as the viable ways forward, if they regard Bill’s formula as correct, and eight years as correct.
If no miracle energy source appears in the next few years, what options are there which do not entail the deaths of billions, either by design, or as a consequence of a green new deal?
You are of course making that up.
Anyone making that much money isn’t going to need US to bail them out.
Your governors and mayors get to make choices and if they choose to kill their own economies hoping it helps them in November those who elected them deserve to pay the price, not the rest of us who went back to work.
I never said we had 8 more years. Nonetheless, I don’t expect a cataclysmic event like an asteroid, but climate instability first affecting some areas of the world before others. There will be future generations if food and water sources (somewhere) manage to be maintained.
I believe the fear generated by a few billion mouths derives from rising standards of living. Currently, if memory serves one child in America generates as much carbon as 50-150 in Africa per year. So, if any place needs reduction, it’s the first world.
Population control would be a better solution, granted it’s not a fun topic but even the non scientist can figure out more people equals more consumption and waste. I find it irritating that on one hand people are talking about decreasing global warming (Which is a noble pursuit) but at the same time ignoring the population explosion as well as calling for increased migration.
Not picking on Nigeria one could pick most countries outside of first world countries but just had read an article were there populations currently at 200,000,000 and expected to be 400,000,000 by 2050. That’s 200 million more people right there consuming, polluting, and emitting carbon. Sanders started speaking of population control at one point then quickly backed off. I think it’s a huge threat more mouths to feed and more co2 but not a comfortable conversation to have especially for a politician.
This number is particularly sobering.
“According to the United Nations Population Fund, human population grew from 1.6 billion to 6.1 billion people during the course of the 20th century.”
I get it. Given historical memory, it’s not a good look to speak of controlling the population of former colonies as a person whom those colonies were subservient to.
There was a plan presented that would allow developing nation’s to increase their carbon output to a certain cap while reducing carbon output in developed areas of the world. Of course it received pushback, even if it was equitable.
As for birth control, that can be rectified by international public health and domestically crafted strategies. The developed areas of Nigeria will adopt these measures (because kids cost money) far quicker than rural areas (where kids generate more money).
Yet we have the state capital, tech hub, leading universities and a global entertainment district. My neighborhoods property tax likely dwarves some county’s entire gdp. The last thing anyone here is asking for is the town of Bumblewherever’s pot-hole funds.
If they want to contribute, I’d suggest they stay out of our hospitals.
How do billions of acre feet of fresh water tied up in growing glaciers make more food available?
And your state was one of the two worst in the nation in responding to this virus with all that money and brainpower at their disposal.
I’m not sure I understand your question.
Apparently not.
During periods in which glaciers are building and through most of their interglacial period the bulk of the world’s fresh water is locked up in ice, completely inaccessible to the water cycle other than small, limited summer melt off.
There is nothing more essential to growing food than a constant supply of freshwater.
No matter the source, surface or sub surface, , reservoirs must be replenished with either huge amounts of melted snow each spring or spring, summer, fall, and winter rains or some combination of same.
That can’t happen when the bulk of the world’s fresh water is locked up in glaciers and ice flows.
The driest long term periods throughout the planets history over the last three billion years or so are when ice ages peak.
Ok, and?
