Or perhaps we could limit population growth where it is exploding, limit mass migration to countries with high per capita emissions, let populations shrink where it is naturally occurring and then ask people to forgo affordable energy.
How do you propose to do this? Genuinely interested in the answer, as this is probably the most practical if we can figure it out. Especially considering that nations retain sovereignty over their own policies, what's in it for them? They would lose economic growth.
> limit mass migration to countries with high per capita emissions
Again, can you clarify? Are you going to tell people they must remain in third-world undeveloped poverty? That's how you get wars.
> ask people to forgo affordable energy
Again, good luck. Most people aren't amenable to the idea of returning to a stone age.
Africa still has yet to industrialize, but it's coming, and with it a huge population boom. It would be a massive challenge to stop this, especially since it would likely economically cripple an already poverty-stricken continent and prevent or seriously inhibit economic growth. They are arguably the biggest concern here; not sure what we can do to stop it. Much of what you're saying seems premised on the "I'm-king-for-a-day" way of thinking.
Simply reverse everything many countries once did to encourage children and growing populations.
Which translates a tax break on each child into a tax penalty on each child after the first. Free family planning becomes free contraception and sterilisation for those who want it. Instead of advertising campaigns encouraging families a campaign discouraging larger families, and perhaps nudging it to be socially unacceptable. Make any fertility treatments an entirely private sector activity.
I'm a little worried about the economic implications of something like this. Population shrinkage might lead to an economic collapse worse than any global warming problem. Government-funded sterilization also sounds like a political third rail. If it didn't take off, what would the next option be?
I'm in the UK, with the NHS. There's already government funded fertility treatment and government funded sterilisation. I imagine much of Europe enjoys similar. Doesn't seem that untouchable. :p
Population shrinkage will be a rounding error in the face of climate. We already had the AQ9 oil company document from 1980 on the front page today. That predicts the end of all economic growth by 2025. Sure they might be a out by a decade or so, but not a bad guess for 40 years ago! Growth has been trending down for decades. Think about that. Recession becomes the normal state of things. A downturn tips into a major depression if you start at recession.
I know much of Europe has treatments like that; to be clear, I was referring to America. Maybe in time, but it probably won't happen now (if for no other reason than because no one wishes to expend the requisite political capital to do so).
I'd hesitate to believe all economic growth will end by 2025. I just don't buy it; all but the UN low projections show continuing growth through at least 2100 [0]. How will we cope if that's true, any way? It will be tough when there are more old, retired people than young, working people to support them; I don't see the numbers adding. Recession being the normal state of things is not really a great outcome... if that happens, you will get a war, sure as shooting. Not just one, but lots. And a rise of authoritarianism. Liberty is good in good times, but most people are fair-weather patriots and will turn to a hitler-2.0 if things get bad enough. That ought to worry us all.
Sure, America and other countries will take longer or find it more difficult, but like most things if it becomes pressing enough... In truth I doubt we'll see effort to constrain populations - we've shown no willingness to take group action on other major issues that are clearly more pressing.
Maybe not 2035 as the margin for error was wide, but I don't buy the idea of growth through to 2100. That doesn't feel at all credible. We're already spending billions cleaning up fires, floods, healthcare for problems of air pollution and often times not accounting them as the drains on productive activity they are, but as benefit.
The rest of your outcomes are exactly why I see climate and some of the other issues as pressing, as yes in depressions and austerity people do turn to more extreme places for answers, and reject the moderate. We're already seeing a huge rise of the far right, of right wing populists, of authoritarian populists, of racism and xenophobia, and migration across the world... Coincidence? I sure hope so.
America's population is mainly growing from immigration, according to the Brookings Institute's synthesis of census data [0]. Is government-funded sterilization the most productive solution for us, or even necessary, if most of the new people are being born in other nations?
I understand you don't buy the idea of growth continuing through 2100, but I don't buy the idea of it ending beforehand until I see a citation. I found at least one estimate that supports my position; I haven't seen significant evidence to support the idea of growth ending that soon. All the things you list keep people employed.
I wouldn't just point to the "right wing" as authoritarian; that seems like needlessly politicizing a social problem. Dictators have no values or political alignment but their own moral gain.
With respect to your earlier comments around advertising, I don't know about Europe, but America has never advertised having a large family or a small one. Not sure it's the role of government to try and shape social norms; that's generally referred to as brainwashing.
> Simply reverse everything many countries once did to encourage children and growing populations.
“Simply” is the most ironic formulation I can imagine, as I’m aware how many religions state as the explicit goal for their believers to have as many children as possible (and also avoid contraception). Moreover in most of the world, including developed, not having children translates in not having anybody to care for you once you’re old.
Religion doesn't seem to have discouraged much of formerly catholic Europe introducing laws permitting abortion, sterilisation, or availability and use of contraception.
For countries that still have religion front and centre in their politics, sure it might be an issue... the consequences of ignoring an overpopulated world or country will still affect them, and sooner. Wars will start instead...
Formerly catholic Europe is not enough directly influenced by these Catholic church views, but the when the church is actually doing the politics about these topics it looks like this:
Direct cash payments to not have children, with the value based on lifetime carbon emissions next of kin would’ve emitted (regardless of where you live in the world). Eventual goal is funding from carbon markets.
Disclaimer: I am funding a non profit startup to bootstrap this. We are working very hard to ensure it’s operating as ethically as possible.
That's a pretty interesting idea. I hope you don't mind if I pelt you with a few questions; I'm curious to know more.
* How are you calculating value based on carbon emissions? I assume you are compensating according to some well-known figure for cost of negative externalities?
* Have you done any market research, and have you validated that your estimated payment can overcome the "my children are the most precious thing" issue?
* How do you verify people are not hiding their children for money?
* You mentioned this is a global program, but different people emit different amounts of carbon. Do you estimate by current per-capita emissions in the nation of the person? Do you factor in growth over time for the estimated next generation?
* Where can I read more, as I understand you probably don't want to copy-paste from wherever the information already exists and I've got a few more?
Email for details. We haven’t launched yet, we want to make sure the math, the ethics, and the approach are bulletproof before going public. With that said, I’m happy to privately discuss the model we’ve built.
There is a natural fertility rate decline you’re seeing around the world, we’re simply trying to tighten the feedback loop (while operating with as much transparency and ethical consideration possible).
While I think this is a good approach given population pressures have major consequences (wilderness shrinkage, land use, overuse, resource depletion, desperation, etc) education is a big factor as well as opportunities for women (there are countries where underemployed women are forced to barter sex for goods). Also changing customs is important. Many men push back on condoms, though not other forms of prophylactics, so it’s important to make other birth control widely available and change perception around them.
Want to make a difference on climate change as a technologist? Feel free to join these communities actively looking for support and with ongoing projects (that are alive):
Not to worry there will be a big war/virus that wipes out a large population. Failing that a large population will die of climate change related pressures.
This will prompt certain genes to be more present in the remaining population. This will allow our kids/kids to survive.
Just a thought.