Open letter to UN Secretary General from 125+ Scientists

[TimG]

Yes if we decided to make it an absolutely overriding priority, we could probably eliminate around 90% of emissions within 10 years or so, but legislation draconian enough to force such cuts is a political impossibility as you well know.

I don't agree. Even if we agreed to convert all power to nuclear the required plants could not be built in 10 years.

Here is a more formal paper on Australia's target of 60% by 2050. It makes it clear why meeting such a target is impossible in 40 years with current technology (10 years is even more absurd):

http://rogerpielkejr...etables-of.html

Edited December 4, 2012 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Things are not looking good for the starving masses.

On the contrary - world hunger has been constantly decreasing from 20% in 1990 to about 16% in 2009. In 1970 it was 37%.

[Sleipnir]

I disagree with that. If we decide to make it a priority we could pretty much stop human co2 emissions even with technologies in development today.

Human emissions of CO2 will never stop no matter what technologies you come up with.

[TimG]

On the contrary - world hunger has been constantly decreasing from 20% in 1990 to about 16% in 2009.

Thanks entirely due to a fossil fuel driven economy. Stats like this are why developed countries owe developing countries nothing for historical emissions. Developing countries are better off today thanks to the technology, markets and capital created by the fossil fuel driven economies in developed countries. Edited December 4, 2012 by TimG

[Moonbox]

Well...not really Tim. In the past people starved or were still-born etc and the population stayed in check. What developing countries (save China and a few others) have to thank us for is the tools they needed to overpopulate and destroy themselves.

[TimG]

What developing countries (save China and a few others) have to thank us for is the tools they needed to overpopulate and destroy themselves.

WTF? Do you really believe that a short brutal disease filled pre-industrial existence was better than today?. People around the global are better off than they ever were and people to romanticize pre-industrial living need to give their head a shake. Edited December 5, 2012 by TimG

[Moonbox]

You need to chill out. I didn't romanticize pre-industrial living. I implied that the industrialization and modernization of the West removed Mother Nature's ability to keep populations in check. That's great that we can feed more people and stuff, but look what the results have been. Cheaper food and longer life expectancies are a recipe for disaster with no education to go with it. The industrial economy will NOT save Pakistan when the Indus Valley is over-farmed and the river starts to run dry. It's not saving the 160million (and growing) Indians who live in literally the most squalid conditions the world has ever seen. It's not helping Congo, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Angola etc. Don't act like things are good there or that people have the west to thank for their current lifestyles.

[TimG]

The industrial economy will NOT save Pakistan when the Indus Valley is over-farmed and the river starts to run dry.

Over farming triggered the collapse of civilizations from the Maya to the Romans. The industrial economy is the only thing that has a chance of preventing such a collapse.

It's not saving the 160million (and growing) Indians who live in literally the most squalid conditions the world has ever seen.

And what basis do you have to claim that the conditions are the 'worst the world has ever scene'? Edited December 5, 2012 by TimG

[Moonbox]

Over farming triggered the collapse of civilizations from the Maya to the Romans. The industrial economy is the only thing that has a chance of preventing such a collapse.

I know next to nothing about the Mayans, but I know a great deal about the Romans, and it wasn't overfarming that 'triggered' their excrutiatingly slow downfall (it took about 1000 years).

And what basis do you have to claim that the conditions are the 'worst the world has ever scene'?

Look up what a Dhalit (Untouchable) is in India. Take a look at the types of places they live in. If you can find an example of somewhere, anywhere, with filthier living conditions than that, now or anywhere over the last 1000 years, on anywhere approaching the same scale, I'll cede the point to you, otherwise I'm going to have to wonder at how rose-colored your glasses are.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Moonbox

[bleeding heart]

I make no claims about "worst ever," but Moonbox makes a good point about poverty in India.

Because attention has been focussed so fixedly on India's modernization and the changes in its economy, the truly astounding plight of the poverty-stricken there, which ranks among the worst on the planet, remains surprisingly little-known.

[TimG]

I know next to nothing about the Mayans, but I know a great deal about the Romans, and it wasn't overfarming that 'triggered' their excrutiatingly slow downfall (it took about 1000 years).

See:

http://en.wikipedia....he_Roman_period

The spread of the degradation of the soil was centrifugal from Latium itself outwards. Varro noted abandoned fields in Latium, and two centuries later Columella, about A.D. 60, referred to all Latium as a country where the people would have died of starvation, but for their share of Rome's imported corn. The Roman armies moved outwards from Latium demanding land; victory gave more land to the farmers; excessive demands again brought exhaustion of fertility; again the armies moved outwards. 'Province after province was turned by Rome into a desert,'

To say it was all due to over farming was an overreach but the decline in agricultural productivity was an important factor.

Look up what a Dhalit (Untouchable) is in India. Take a look at the types of places they live in.

I find it hard to believe that life as a slave in the roman empire was better but not having been there it is tough to say for sure. You also need to distinguish between the lives of the average person vs. the lives of people who were institutionally enslaved (i.e. roman slaves or dhalits). One of the biggest benefits of fossil fuels was an end to the economic justification for slavery. Edited December 5, 2012 by TimG

[Moonbox]

Tim the rantings of a bunch of enviro-dorks hardly counts as solid authority on Roman history. Rome, as a city, was a metropolis well before its time. The slaves, wealth and production of more than a full continent were being re-directed to one city, and that led to some logistical problems from time to time. People like to come up with all sorts of neat and clever theories about why Rome collapsed, but the reality is far simpler. Imperial Rome was too big to be ruled by one man, and leaders and wannabe leaders fought too many civil wars. Look at the list of emperors and how many short-lived emperors there were.

Anyways, getting back to topic, none of us can really say whether the life of a slave was better than the life of a Dhalit in India. It can certainly be said that slaves in Rome probably lived in less filth than slummers in India or large parts of Africa, but we're not really talking about war crimes victims here. I'm sure the life of a prison-camp victim in WW2 was worse than being an Untouchable in India, but that's apples to oranges. What I'm talking about here is the unbelievable mass of humanity the world has given birth to that lives in absolutely wretched poverty. In the past, starvation kind of worked the problem out itself. Nowadays, there's enough food to have these populations just explode.

[TimG]

It can certainly be said that slaves in Rome probably lived in less filth than slummers in India or large parts of Africa

I don't agree. In fact, it don't see how it would be possible in an age where excrement from animals would have been everywhere.

In the past, starvation kind of worked the problem out itself. Nowadays, there's enough food to have these populations just explode.

I really can't follow your logic. You are saying that people starved to death but the lived in better conditions? It makes no sense. If people have enough food to expand population then they must be better off than they were in the past.

[Moonbox]

I don't agree. In fact, it don't see how it would be possible in an age where excrement from animals would have been everywhere.

I think you need to travel more, because that's still the case everywhere that isn't using cars as the primary method of transportation (outside the major tourist areas of course). The rivers in Calcutta etc are pure cesspools. The world has never seen dirtier.

I really can't follow your logic. You are saying that people starved to death but the lived in better conditions? It makes no sense. If people have enough food to expand population then they must be better off than they were in the past.

I'm saying that without proper education, more food doesn't actually improve living conditions as much as you think in your happy little world. Without proper education and contraception, the extra food leads to an increase in population growth, which eventually just leads to more people living in squalor up to the point where it's not sustainable even WITH industrial agriculture.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Moonbox

[TimG]

The rivers in Calcutta etc are pure cesspools. The world has never seen dirtier.

I don't dispute your claim that the slums of large cities are cesspools. What I dispute is your assertion that things were better in the days of the black death. If things are so much worse then why hasn't the population been thinned out by plagues? Edited December 6, 2012 by TimG

[Moonbox]

The Black Death was a uniquely deadly disease and the world hasn't seen anything so deadly again. That's a curve ball so let's leave that out of the discussion.

You're not getting what I'm saying. I'm not saying that more food is necessarily bad. I'm saying that having the benefits of industrialization without the knowledge/education that goes with it leads to an unsustainable mess. India has 400 million people living in absolute poverty. Look up what absolute poverty means. It's not just being poor. These people don't have access to basic medicine. They don't have enough food to eat. They don't have access to safe drinking water. They live short, miserable lives, have as many babies as they can, and then die, if they're lucky, in their 40's. That's how the average person lived in the Middle Ages. Yeah. Let's give ourselves a pat on the back for that.

Interestingly, these are the people with the highest fertility rates, which makes it worse. With ~900 million people living in constant hunger (the vast majority of them being in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan), and this being the fastest growing population in the world, something will eventually give. It's going to be messy and dangerous.

[bush_cheney2004]

Smallpox in the Americas was very deadly. Thanks Europe !

[TimG]

The Black Death was a uniquely deadly disease and the world hasn't seen anything so deadly again.

The Bubonic Plague was a regular coinsurance. The last major outbreak filled 12 million people. See http://en.wikipedia....plague_pandemic

What is interesting is the plague hit India in 1994 and caused a mere 52 deaths. Is it because the strain was milder or perhaps because even people living in squalor benefit from modern medical and public health techniques?

Here is some evidence:

http://www.nytimes.c...the-plague.html

Other medical experts at the lunch said that the medical databases had reassured them that India, experiencing its first plague outbreak in 30 years and the worst anywhere for decades, was not bungling its handling of the epidemic by sticking to outdated remedies.

I think this corroborates my assertion that even the poorest of the poor have gained from modern technology.

They live short, miserable lives, have as many babies as they can, and then die, if they're lucky, in their 40's. That's how the average person lived in the Middle Ages. Yeah. Let's give ourselves a pat on the back for that.

The assertion that you are defending is that their lives are *worse* than they were in the middle ages. Edited December 6, 2012 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

...I think this corroborates my assertion that even the poorest of the poor have gained from modern technology.

Agreed...as this is how the very term "poverty" is defined.

[Keepitsimple]

Whoa guys....stand back and look at the evolving picture of mankind. It used to progress over millenia, then centuries, now decades or less. Look at the difference between 1800 and 1900 and then 1900 and 2000. How about 1950 to 2000. How about 1980 to 2010. Technology is moving ahead at light speed. Information and knowledge is available to almost everyone and with that comes a demand for a better life - keeping up with the Jones'. The last bastions of ignorance - the Middle East and Africa - are being overwhelmed with facts and knowledge Of course they are struggling and there will be constant warring - but the human quest for knowledge and freedom will not stop. Look ahead another 20, 30, 50 years. The fighting will die off (perhaps literally). That's why Islamists like the Taliban fight so hard to keep their people ignorant - they can't LET them learn about democracy and freedom - they need them to hate. It just takes time. In 50-75 years we'll have access to unlimited energy through Fusion generators. Access to power means more de-salination plants for water - among many other things. A more prosporous planet means the natural progression to smaller families and moderates population. Technology, education....and some time. Things aren't so bleak.

[Moonbox]

The Bubonic Plague was a regular coinsurance. The last major outbreak filled 12 million people. See http://en.wikipedia....plague_pandemic

What is interesting is the plague hit India in 1994 and caused a mere 52 deaths. Is it because the strain was milder or perhaps because even people living in squalor benefit from modern medical and public health techniques?

First of all, there have been all sorts of Plague outbreaks that had minimal consequences. More often than not it was a small, isolated set of incidences. Only three times in history have we seen the large Plague-induced population culls that the world fears.

I think this corroborates my assertion that even the poorest of the poor have gained from modern technology.

The assertion that you are defending is that their lives are *worse* than they were in the middle ages.

You're really not getting it. I'm not saying that more food or medicine makes the life of the wretched poor person worse. I'm saying that more food and medicine, without accompanying support (ie. education, clean water etc), has led to out-of-control population growth among that demographic, which has led to more and more people living in unbelievable squalor. It's no secret that malnurished areas generally have the highest fertility rates. All other things being equal, by increasing their food supply all you do is balloon the population until you reach a new equilibrium where resources are just as strained, people are just as malnurished, and any shock to the system will produce even greater consequences.

[Pliny]

You're really not getting it. I'm not saying that more food or medicine makes the life of the wretched poor person worse. I'm saying that more food and medicine, without accompanying support (ie. education, clean water etc), has led to out-of-control population growth among that demographic, which has led to more and more people living in unbelievable squalor. It's no secret that malnurished areas generally have the highest fertility rates. All other things being equal, by increasing their food supply all you do is balloon the population until you reach a new equilibrium where resources are just as strained, people are just as malnurished, and any shock to the system will produce even greater consequences.

As you say, "it is no secret that malnourished areas generally have the highest fertility rates." So is it "scarcity" that increases the fertility rate?

I believe it is. The introduction of technology in the form of more food and medicine is simply the first step in the reduction of population growth it isn't what leads to out of control population growth. Out of control population growth is prior. "Plenty" will not balloon the population.

Indeed there is still much poverty in India so population will continue to grow but the relation between scarcity and plenty regarding population growth cannot be ignored. It isn't necessarily more education, as the people have to have time for education, that will taper off population growth. It is the perception of the future and the level of anxiety connected with it that determines the level of population growth. Has China's one child policy curbed the population growth of the Chinese? Planned Parenthood probably hails itself as the main reason western population growth has slowed but really they foster the concept of scarcity because of overpopulation and in that way are a self-perpetuating service.