
We’ve already built too many power plants and cars to prevent 1.5 ˚C of warming - alex_young
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613900/weve-already-built-too-many-power-plants-and-cars-to-prevent-15-c-of-warming/
======
milsorgen
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.

Just a thought.

~~~
bin0
> limit population growth where it is exploding

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.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
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.

~~~
bin0
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?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
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.

There's another page for men...
[https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/female-
sterilisa...](https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/female-
sterilisation/)

~~~
bin0
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.

[0] [https://ourworldindata.org/exports/comparison-of-world-
popul...](https://ourworldindata.org/exports/comparison-of-world-population-
projections_v3_850x600.svg)

~~~
NeedMoreTea
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.

~~~
bin0
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.

[0] [https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/12/21/us-
popu...](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/12/21/us-population-
growth-hits-80-year-low-capping-off-a-year-of-demographic-stagnation/)

------
martincollignon
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):

\- [https://climateaction.tech/](https://climateaction.tech/)

\- [https://techimpactmakers.com/](https://techimpactmakers.com/)

\- [https://www.tmrow.com/](https://www.tmrow.com/)

------
wolco
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.

