EnviroLink Forum

And this still applies, even more:
http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress. ... d-decline/

this, too;
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 06484.html

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Finally, some major media sees the elephant in the room!
L.A. Times Runs Provocative Series on Overpopulation
By Maria Fotopoulos, CAPS Senior Writing Fellow

If you haven’t read the five-part series, “Beyond 7 Billion,” that ran recently in the L.A. Times, I’d encourage you to do it now.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... .htmlstory
The newspaper’s staff writer, Kenneth R. Weiss, along with photographer Rick Loomis, traveled to Afghanistan, China, India, Kenya, the Philippines, Uganda and other countries in Africa and Asia for a first-hand look at why population is still growing rapidly in some places and what the repercussions are from that growth. Weiss does an excellent job of telling the broad population story through the lives of families and their very real and daily challenges.

The series is provocative, compelling, fascinating and shocking reporting that’s backed up by lots of stats and charts, plus still and video images. The first article, “The Biggest Generation: Fertility rates fall, but global population explosion goes on,” leads off with the story of a couple in India who married at the ages of 10 and 11. (Yes, 10 and 11!) The union soon produces a child, followed by another. But what’s surprising in this young couple’s story is that the husband rebels against strong family and cultural traditions and stops at two children. “We cannot afford it,” he says.

How population growth has been absent in public discourse is discussed, along with the often limited access to contraception in areas where it’s most needed and the bitter battles over family planning in the United States. The articles cover “covert contraception,” camel caravans that deliver medical supplies (since camels are common in Kenya, men are more likely to trust the health counselors that come on them) and the population youth bulge that, combined with lack of economic opportunities, helps fuel civil strife.

As well, it addresses the persistence of hunger and starvation, the limits of the Green Revolution, the impacts of China’s one-child policy, how Earth has been most altered through intense population growth and how public policy can dramatically influence population growth, among many other topics all tied to growth.

There are more than enough cautionary tales in this series to silence even the overpopulation deniers – you’d think – but the deniers persist, as seen in some of the reader comments in response to the articles. That said, the important takeaway for me is that the Times committed the resources to this most important issue facing humanity and, by doing so, is helping to get overpopulation back in mainstream discussion.


Read it and share it!


Click here to read other timely blogs by CAPS writers.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Thanks for keeping the population issue updated. It's not just global warming deniers who are in denial about how serious the problem of 7 billion humans on Earth is; I've found a frustrating complacency in the past among those who claim to be concerned about the environment, and consider a U.N. Report predicting a peak of 9.5 billion in 2050...followed by a slow decline...as meaning that world population is an issue that will take care of itself. Apologies for the long sentence, but I had to fit that all in there somehow!

From my understanding, ecological footprint is measured by population X the average individual resource use. So, more people means less available energy, natural resources, water and arable land per person. And, I don't see a lot of moderates or liberals, who are casually concerned about the environment, taking serious consideration of that problem either. It seems like we have the worst of both worlds: a human population that is already too large and needs to be reduce + a global economic system that is centered around continuous, exponential growth in energy use and consumption of natural resources.

Ultimately, I would say that if the human race is not going to become extinct within 200 years as predicted by Stephen Hawking, we will have to come to terms with both issues and bring the human species back in line with what the natural environment can produce sustainably.

The crash, that starts circa 2030(probably in Nigeria), with peak population mid to late 2040s, and bottom late 2060-70s, will have the survivors facing progressively worse CAGW and ecosystems collapsing variably around the world. I doubt that humans will go extinct as early as 200 years from now. During methane turnover(tundras first), the oceans will take longer to warm to depth and release their methane. The rise in temperatures will be too fast for most species to adapt and the ELE will complete sometime around thermal maximum, probably as early as 2300AD and as late as 3500AD. Most probably around 3000AD. There will be several groups of human survivors living in stockpiled underground fortresses, nuclear powered, with grow light farms and over remote aquifers(like N. Paraguay). The 200,000 years to re-sequester the carbon and several million years to develop new species and ecosystems will be far too long for those underground colonies to last. With breeder type reactors they could last quite some time. For all practical purposes humans will go extinct around AETM.
The bottleneck is so much longer than the Toba one, and even longer than PETM. The possibility that humans could make it through is very unlikely. However, even with people continuing their evil ways of overpopulation to crash and continuing business as usual with slash and burn and fossil fuel burning, there are other possibilities.
There 'could' be a limited nuclear war that leaves enough aerosols and dead people to stop AGW and overpopulation, and still not cause a radiation extermination nightmare. There 'could' be a disease(man made or natural) that goes around the world much worse than plagues of the past and reduces population and their emissions enough in time to stop thermageddon. Yellowstone super-volcano 'could' erupt causing enough aerosols to stop CAGW and enough winters to drastically reduce human population. Another possibility is if a large natural disaster collapsed the world economy enough to where money was worth a lot less and governments could not pay their workers, precipitating walkouts from coal plants and mass starvation in many areas. Cascadia 'could' be a game changer, and soon. None of these are very nice or palatable, and have only a possibility of avoiding extinction.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Spongehead; Most of what you have posted is "its a natural variation" type of denialist rhetoric. Show me where I spout national socialism when you name call me a fascist. Whereas, even if you do live a carbon zero lifestyle, why do you persist in denialism of AGW??? If you really are living a solar life, show some pictures as I have done. Plus, explain why you went solar/no children, geothermal, if you don't believe human activities are causing terminal pollution effects. I didn't see any intro.
From 'right to left'; "I've heard some of the older scientists like E.O. Wilson and James Lovelock mention that the present carbon absorption of the world's oceans could start slowing down without giving us a warning."
Yes, I have read where the oceans are near saturation point with CO2 absorption, which will raise atmospheric levels higher and faster. That was taken into account with the need for humans to reduce fossil fuel burning and slash and burn farming 90% within this decade. Once the tundra methane, representing the equivalent of 150% of the carbon in fossil fuels, goes into self-release heating, its breakdown into CO2 will not be absorbed either. Then as the oceans geometrically warm in a delayed manner, another amount of methane will explode to the surface, eventually even more than the tundras. The total will be even higher than PETM, and much faster.
Bored Wombat, I recognize the name from TES. It used to be that it would take 1000 warheads to cause nuclear winter. Later others said 200. I suppose it depends on the size, but getting rid of say the 500 highest population cities and maybe not causing a nuclear winter, or global radiation poisoning, would only reduce population about 2 billion when it needs to get to whatever the new long term sustainable level is. It is unlikely anything will stop the crash. It is also probably unlikely that people will reduce HGHGs 90% this decade, so extinction of human and most other species at AETM in 500 to 1500 years is most likely.
Cockroaches will survive, and ants, too. Plus all the deep ocean thermal vent lifeforms, deep underground bacteria, etc.
Here you go, spongy!;
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 06484.html

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

What have I spouted about it being natural variation Johnny, go back and re-read some of my posts to double check very carefully.

Am glad you have gone solar, you have your reasons and I and my sig other have ours and it is not to be "carbon neutral" because that is the biggest crock of all. For us it is because we disagree with the system in place and want to be as self sustaining as we can, 1 payment +servicing (which we won't have to pay for after the initial guarantee but parts could get tricky) for certain things instead of being under the thumb of multi national corporations.

Have you any references about the tundra methane?? Would seem we would have to warm quite a bit more for it to be released if it is still trapped in massive quantities as you suggest and at the last interglacial temperatures were 2-3C warmer than in the 90's and seeing as since then it has re-froze over the tundra and it is still there, same with the methane in the ocean floor in places, it was warmer then, but it is still there after all this time.

One can see this issue in light of ecological footprint vs biocapacity:

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/inde ... shoot_day/

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein