[ericmay]

I enjoyed your comments, but my biggest point of contention would be your declaration that “banks, billionaires, and neoliberals” have been crying wolf. I find that it’s mostly MAGA and similar who have been crying wolf or downplaying the threats from climate change, demographic changes, and other related elements. Banks for example hedge risk to make money. Billionaires - which ones? Maybe we should tax them, etc.

[throwawaylinux]

I'm not quite sure what MAGA and similar is, or really concerned about the power or influence the lunatic fringe might weild. High level "experts" and "officials" from neoliberal economic and political institutions like the the IMF have been saying these things for a long time.

And it seems to be often times very pro-climate action positions that take this contradictory position that population must continue to increase. I don't know what to make of that other than either they don't really care about climate change, or they want commoners to have a dwindling piece of the pie while the top end continues to get richer, but either way they don't seem to really care about environmental impact of humans.

[geysersam]

I agree with much of what you say, but I think you overestimate the effect reducing population would have on the environment.

It's one of the slowest ways to reduce our carbon emissions. If by 2070 population (in some country) is 30% lower than today that's a dramatic change. But the effect on the environment (land use, carbon emissions etc) is likely not more than 30%, and that's not much!

By 2070 most developed countries in the world are supposed to have net zero carbon emissions. That target is not going to be significantly easier to reach with 30% lower population.

[throwawaylinux]

> I agree with much of what you say, but I think you overestimate the effect reducing population would have on the environment.

I don't think I estimated it anywhere, so I don't think I am. And in fact I was not just talking about CO2 emissions and climate change, to the contrary I explicitly said actually that climate change is one of a long, long, long list of massive environmental problems we're facing. That's the thing, even if we do "solve" climate change somehow, we're not remotely in the clear.

Reducing (or just not growing) population makes everything easier. CO2 emissions. Land required for food, lithium and other minerals and metals required for cars and computers and batteries and buildings, farming and housing footprint, clean water. Everything. No other measure is as staggeringly effective in reducing the human footprint on the environment as not increasing population.

> It's one of the slowest ways to reduce our carbon emissions. If by 2070 population (in some country) is 30% lower than today that's a dramatic change. But the effect on the environment (land use, carbon emissions etc) is likely not more than 30%, and that's not much!

It's compounding and it certainly is an issue. US CO2 emissions peaked 50 years ago if population was stable.