Ecology and climate challenge

220k more mouths to feed every day

 

Ecology and climate myths reviewed

(part3)  V1.0 april17th 2022

In the 1960s the big eco-challenge was the ballooning post-war world population growth, as reported by this Time Magazine cover. 

Pope Paul VI issued the Encyclical "Human Vitae" in 1968 that set the cat amongst the pigeons, since this was an instruction from Rome to its faithful to "go forth and multiply" and prop up the declining proportion of Catholics in the global population - especially in developed countries. It was a blunt intervention by a religious leader to governments and public authorities to create laws that uphold the natural moral law [according to Roman Catholic doctrine], and to refute those that oppose it, specifically rejecting population control policies and forced sterilization or abortion programs.  It was not well received in countries where the combination of improved medicine and hygiene had reduced infant and general mortality, where hunger had become the defining challenge to society. Nature's (God's) way of coping with a population that overtook the ability to feed itself was (and still is) death by starvation. Many 3rd world nations relied on infant mortality to contain their ability to feed the surviving population.

Back then, there were 3 billion people in the world. In less than three decades, the population surpassed 5 billion in 1987. Today, another three decades later, there are around 7.5 billion people in the world. Since 1975, the global population has grown by one billion about every 12 years. However, over the same period, the composition of the world population has changed and diverged from historical patterns.

The most populous countries and regions are changing

China and India – in that order – have been the most populous countries in the world through this entire period. Today, China has nearly 1.4 billion people, and India is a close second with 1.3 billion, and together, they represent every 1 in 3 people of the global population. In fact, China and India are individually bigger than Sub-Saharan Africa. However, recent population projections suggest that India will surpass China as the most populous country in the world in 2022, and that Sub-Saharan Africa’s population will more than double by 2050. More details here.

That the global population is presently increasing by 220k mouths to feed per day is not contested, it is still the only truly "hard" statistic in global ecology debate. At the risk of triggering howls of indignation, why is “carbon” now the problem? What has happened? The fact that population explosion is inexorably entwined with the “outbreed the infidel” doctrines of religious bigotry is a problem. But don’t expect mainstream media or politicians to admit it.

However, the UK in particular is fixated on "carbon" - a lazy shortform of Carbon Dioxide, which is one of the gases resulting of the combustion of hydrocarbon fossil fuels (oil, petrol, food etc)

The UK is responsible for 1% of annual global CO2 production, see the data at https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/

  

Of course, the climate is changing. Earth's climate has changed for 2 billion years. Let's ask an Expert...

https://youtu.be/-ZQ9ZpkEwr4

Dare we question the notion that CO2 is the primary cause of climate change. If it really is, what on earth are world leaders going to do about China, Russia and the US..? Anything the UK does about its meagre 1% contribution is plainly utterly futile! Now consider if the Sun might be a key influences on climate?

Maybe world leaders know the planet is going to be unavoidably wiped out by an asteroid in 10 years, so it’s all futile anyway? Of course the population could not be trusted with such information, so let’s distract them with something else… there are numerous conspiracies theories in this area– including the one we rather like, which is that Cold Fusion energy derived from persuading two hydrogen atoms to become one helium atom with the liberation of vast energy (remember, this is how the sun works) is just around the corner. But it’s been just around the corner for the past 20 years, and has proved to be stubbornly more awkward to tame than we had hoped. One big problem is that conventional nuclear fission energy can be controlled and stopped by various well-understood control schemes. The only thing we know about controlling a fusion reaction is to look at the stars and see how they eventually switch themselves off. Hmmm….

We do not deny that it is preferable not to waste a finite resource if it is possible to achieve the same power from renewable sources like wind and solar. Especially where the fossil fuel is under the control of unstable governments. Speaking of government, it is easy to tax fossil fuel consumption – and the various schemes to replace fossil fuels involve employing lots of people distributed throughout the community at a time when new employment opportunities are required for ballooning populations.

Governments can’t tax the sun so easily.

So what is the truth? Anyone daring to question the validity of "carbon" is buried in an avalanche of statistics and proof. But it is still a blend of circumstantial evidence, speculation and extrapolation.

Fanatics are willing to block motorways in order to force their beliefs and concerns on other they regard not sufficiently aware... their unquestioning beliefs in the evil of the Carbon bogeyman barely stops short of having heretics burned at the stake – in a carbon-neutral way, of course.

So what would be the consequence of the knowledge that fusion reaction is really about to become a reality.?  How would fossil fuel producers like Russia, Norway and Saudi Arabia adjust their economies?

 

## continually updated