[LdSGSgvupDV]

I have a mind-blowing idea. Don't have children...?

Birth rate decrease -> demand decrease -> CO2 decrease

If we have the same birth rate as Korea or Japan, the population would drop more than 20% in 50 years according to the population prediction in these two countries. This means lots of demand would not need anymore, and might be the best practice which could be done by individual.

[hoseja]

Get replaced by people who don't have such unfit qualms, great idea!

[adrianN]

We don't have to reduce carbon emissions by 20% in 50 years, we have to reduce them by >100% in less than thirty years. Reducing birth rates is both, much too slow, and not sufficient (unless you propose reducing population to 0).

[LdSGSgvupDV]

At least, workable and easy.

Is there any solution could really reduce around 20%? (Not to mention more than 20% and not to transfer the emission to other countries)

[adrianN]

Sure, replace fossil fuels for electricity generation with renewables and/or nuclear. Replace fossil fuels in cars with batteries. Replace fossil fuels for heating with electricity.

Each of those saves on the order of 20% of emissions and could be done in less than a decade if we put maximum effort into it.

I really doubt convincing a sufficient number of people to not have children is easier than any one of those measures. Just imagine the political backslash if the government suggested not to have kids for the climate. It's a lot easier to convince people to stop eating meat for the climate and even that is essentially impossible.

[LdSGSgvupDV]

Uh... I replied to OP which is for individual.

In the scale of country, East Asia did quite well without any policies (exclude China, they have a special policy on it). Just keep raising the price of estate, and then birth rate would drop and never come back.

For the part of energy, according to the EPA report[1], the emissions by electricity and heat are around 25% in total. If we want to reduce 20% in total, we need to close 80% of fossil plants. For me, it is nearly impossible. There are some countries may not have the land or safe area to place nuclear/renewable plants. (e.g. Singapore...) I know there is a plan for Singapore to buy the clean solar energy from Australia, but it only covers 1/5 of the consumption. Also, there must be security issues for transferring power between countries.

[1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...

[nico_h]

There's also a Singaporean project in Batam Indonesia for a solar power plant (it's only 50km away from Singapore).

https://www.sunseap.com/SG/newsroom/2021/sunseap-signs-MOU-w...

[adrianN]

Global numbers are not representative of industrialized countries. E.g. in the US electricity is about 25% of GHG emissions. Many individuals too can choose to use an electric car (or even no car at all), to install solar panels (or at least pay for greenwashed electricity), and improve insulation and switch to electricity for heating (if they own a house).

[phtrivier]

"Workable" is arguable, "easy" is a bit of a stretch.(assuming you're not trolling.)

I suspect most westerners are not going to be thrilled when receiving the government email about their mandatory sterilization.

Usually the idea floats in circles of people convinced we'll reduce the birth rate of "other" people (wink wink dog whistle yeah they're thinking of Africans)