The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#141  Postby laklak » Jun 10, 2019 1:52 pm

This Modern World, eh? It's the root cause of all our problems. The rental house was built in 1949, and had state-of-the-art 30 Amp electric service. Now it's got 100 Amp service and if I decide to upgrade it will go to 150. Modern conveniences - now with more Amps! And consequently more, you know, bad shit. Turn off the A/C and wash those dishes by hand, you eco-criminal!
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 19695
Age: 65
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#142  Postby juju7 » Jun 10, 2019 1:53 pm

Spearthrower wrote:


juju7 wrote:What effect did this have on the carbon footprint?


I'm not really sure how to answer that question because there's no way of knowing how many extra people there would have been if the one child policy wasn't in place, and China albeit a very populous nation, still only accounts for 20% of the world's population. In general terms, had Chinese people continued to have 3, 4, 5 or 6 children per couple per generation, then the effect on the ecological footprint would have been larger.


Wrong. It is precisely due to smaller families that Chinese parents invested more per child - in education, food, clothes and so on.
It created a new class of urban workers that were more efficient and also had greater desires for the material goods, so the economy grew. The output of China quadrupled in those years.
How much larger?

The economy might have doubled as it did in India that had no restrictions on family size.

Clearly the correlation between population growth and ecological footprint doesn't follow a simplistic population model.
User avatar
juju7
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 905

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#143  Postby laklak » Jun 10, 2019 2:00 pm

It's sort of like dieting. There are many factors in play, but bottom line is less food = less fat. There were no fat people in the Gulag, and there's no AGW on Ganymede.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 19695
Age: 65
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#144  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 2:01 pm

juju7 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:


juju7 wrote:What effect did this have on the carbon footprint?


I'm not really sure how to answer that question because there's no way of knowing how many extra people there would have been if the one child policy wasn't in place, and China albeit a very populous nation, still only accounts for 20% of the world's population. In general terms, had Chinese people continued to have 3, 4, 5 or 6 children per couple per generation, then the effect on the ecological footprint would have been larger.


Wrong. It is precisely due to smaller families that Chinese parents invested more per child - in education, food, clothes and so on.


Interesting. You declare it 'wrong' then proceed to attempt to substantiate that with a non-sequitur.

What exactly is supposedly wrong, and how does your follow up sentence have anything whatsoever to do with anything I wrote?

How did they invest 'more'? More compared to what? More per child than if they had 4 children? Perhaps. More overall? Are you sure? How would you go about substantiating that?


juju7 wrote:It created a new class of urban workers that were more efficient and also had greater desires for the material goods, so the economy grew. The output of China quadrupled in those years.


And in this notional world, were there 4, 5, or 6 times as many urban workers with greater desires for material goods, and consequently even larger economy, what they would have been the effect on the ecological footprint?

You can't have your cake and eat it. We can't hop between a notional world that never happened and the historical one that did whenever it takes your fancy. A whole suite of occurrences happened during the time of the One Child policy: you can't put them all down to that policy - or if you want to, then you're going to have to do a bit more legwork than asserting a single sentence.


juju7 wrote:
How much larger?

The economy might have doubled as it did in India that had no restrictions on family size.


Or trebled, quadrupled, or more.

juju7 wrote:Clearly the correlation between population growth and ecological footprint doesn't follow a simplistic population model.


Unfortunately, you haven't shown this. The correlation between numbers of humans and human impact on the environment is already established and hasn't been challenged or discussed in this thread.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#145  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 2:05 pm

a simplistic population model.


Incidentally, this is another strawman. How disappointing.

No population models have been discussed, simplistic or not.

I am not sure what you're trying to do here Juju7, but it might help if you knew what you were trying to do.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#146  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 2:07 pm

Also, might be ideal to bring in some details about the One Child policy so erroneous notions aren't introduced with wilful abandon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

It was introduced in 1979 (after a decade-long two-child policy),[1] modified in the mid 1980s to allow rural parents a second child if the first was a daughter, and then lasted three more decades before being eliminated at the end of 2015. The policy also allowed exceptions for some other groups, including ethnic minorities. The term one-child policy is thus a misnomer, because for nearly 30 of the 36 years that it existed (1979–2015) about half of all parents in China were allowed to have a second child.



According to the Chinese government, 400 million births were prevented, starting from 1970, a decade before the start of the one child policy. Some scholars have disputed this claim, with Martin King Whyte and Wang et al contending that the policy had little effect on population growth or the size of the total population.[3][4][5] China has been compared to countries with similar socioeconomic development like Thailand and Iran, along with the Indian states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, which achieved similar declines of fertility without a one-child policy.[6] However, a recent demographic study challenged these scholars by showing that China's low fertility was achieved two or three decades earlier than would be expected given its level of development, and that more than 500 million births were prevented between 1970 and 2015 (a calculation based on an alternative model of fertility decline proposed by the scholars themselves),[4] some 400 million of which may have been due to one-child restrictions.[7] In addition, by 2060 China's birth planning policies may have averted as many as 1 billion people in China when one adds in all the eliminated descendants of the births originally averted by the policies.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#147  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 2:21 pm

As there appears to be some desired slight of hand in effect here, let's just take stock of the sequence of events so far:


An apparently straight-forward question:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2700341

Juju7 wrote:Can you explain how we go from 7 billion down to 2 billion?


An honest and sensible answer:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2700344


Spearthrower wrote:
How could we intentionally do it, or how it could happen regardless of our intent?

For the former, population growth rates are already in decline and have been for decades. So from a most banal method, simply by having less babies. If each generation produces only one offspring per couple, we would see very rapid declines in total population. Alternatively, as discussed in another thread, if tyranny were not an objection then policies could be formulated to disincentivize having more than 1 child. Whatever the case, if sufficient numbers of people were convinced through awareness of our impact on the Earth and its systems that our population is harming our ability to thrive on an individual and species-wide level, then we could intentionally lower our numbers consistently over decades. Is it likely? I am not sure as I don't have a lot of faith in humanity as a whole to act rationally, and there's always the problem of the tragedy of the commons motivating acquisitive behavior, but it's not completely unthinkable given some recent events where humans have chosen to forgo some immediate benefits in place of long term sustainability, i.e. the Montreal Protocol.

For the latter, there are numerous ways...


So the question was how a population of 7 billion might become a population of 2 billion, with options both for an intentional decline in population, and an unintentional decline in population. The former, I suggested might occur if people were convinced that our population is having a detrimental impact on the environment that they might seek to have only one child per couple per generation, and that this would eventually have the effect the question was asked to explain.

But now we're talking about China's One Child Policy (and what might have happened in an alternate universe had it not been or things that might have been some consequence of it), which the sharp-eyed among us might note a) didn't lower population at all (it grew by half a billion) because it wasn't really a one-child policy in anything other than name b) wasn't motivated by ecological concerns.

That is, of course, all by-the-by because the answer still stands as true. If the majority of humanity elected to have one child per couple per generation then population numbers would quickly stabilize then drop rapidly. The actual effect would be exponential... up to a point! :) Thus the question is answered: this is one (of many) ways that our population could go from 7 to 2 billion and no murders are required.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#148  Postby juju7 » Jun 11, 2019 5:49 am

Spearthrower wrote:


juju7 wrote:It created a new class of urban workers that were more efficient and also had greater desires for the material goods, so the economy grew. The output of China quadrupled in those years.


And in this notional world, were there 4, 5, or 6 times as many urban workers with greater desires for material goods, and consequently even larger economy, what they would have been the effect on the ecological footprint?



You miss the point completely. Lower population growth means greater economic growth:
https://www.theigc.org/blog/is-populati ... velopment/
Quantity vs Quality: How family sizes affect investment

At that time, the general view of economists was that high birth rates and rapid population growth in poor countries would divert scarce capital away from savings and investment, thereby placing a drag on economic development. They hypothesized that larger families have fewer aggregate resources and fewer resources per child. Larger families therefore spread their resources more thinly to support more children. This leaves less for saving and investing in growth-enhancing activities. It also reduces spending on enhancing the economic potential of each child (e.g. through education and health expenditures).


Read the entire article, and discover where you made the most basic of errors.

Image
User avatar
juju7
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 905

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#149  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 11, 2019 6:27 am

juju7 wrote:
You miss the point completely. Lower population growth means greater economic growth:


No it doesn't. It can mean that under specific scenarios, but you can't make such a simple extrapolation. There's also the problem of post hoc ergo propter hoc - you need to establish a causal link betwixt the two, not just say that one followed the other.

But it's still a by-the-by, a red herring with respect to what we're supposed to be contending. Even if I granted you this wholesale, you haven't established how 2/3 less people produce the same or greater economic output that results in a higher ecological footprint, i.e. the argument you're supposed to be making.


juju7 wrote:
Read the entire article, and discover where you made the most basic of errors.


I just read the entire article, but you're going to need to do a little more legwork than a 1 sentence assertion. You already did the 'wrong' thing before, and it's about as convincing now with a few more words padding it out.

I am not convinced you've read the entire article - did you read the final paragraphs, for example?

Secondly, you are reaching badly.

You've leapt into an aside of your own making, but you've yet to actually address the original argument at all. I think it's about time you set out an actual argument as to why you had a tizzy over me saying that 2 billion people would produce less environmental impact with same average standards of living as 7 billion people. Nothing you've produced has challenged that at all.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#150  Postby tuco » Jun 11, 2019 7:00 am

laklak wrote:This Modern World, eh? It's the root cause of all our problems. The rental house was built in 1949, and had state-of-the-art 30 Amp electric service. Now it's got 100 Amp service and if I decide to upgrade it will go to 150. Modern conveniences - now with more Amps! And consequently more, you know, bad shit. Turn off the A/C and wash those dishes by hand, you eco-criminal!


This is not a problem as long as electricity is produced sustainably and carbon-neutral. The question is: Is it possible? The answer is: Yes, it is.

As for being an eco-criminal. It's just becoming, at least I hope, not cool to waste. Just like it's not cool to honk at babes for example. And again, people who have kids should care the most. While they not gonna be here in 100 years, their genes will be. So if you want to call those who waste resources eco-criminals, then they are committing crimes against themselves. They just don't realize what kind of legacy they leave behind.
tuco
 
Posts: 15250

Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#151  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 11, 2019 7:05 am

Let's try a simplification.

There are 7+ billion people.

Let's make a really simplifying assumption and break them into 10 categories of 7 hundred million people each and then assign a number of units representing their impact on the environment. The category with the highest ecological impact produces 10 units, for a total of 7 billion units, while each consequent group produces 9, 8, 7 and so on units. The total units of environmental impact then is 37,800,700,000.

Now we engage the scenario where the human population is 2 billion. Let's just make it 30% for simplicity's sake so the population is 2,100,000,000, leaving 210,000,000 in each group. The groups have the same level of resource consumption (unlikely given the massive impacts of such smaller population, but to keep it simple), so then the top producer group is responsible for 2.1 billion units, and so on, for a total of 11,550,000,000 units produced.

Now, this is hardly rocket science... it's a third, or thereabouts, because 2 billion is a third, or thereabouts, of 7 billion.

But first of all it addresses one attempted contention you made which is that not all humans are equal in terms of their ecological footprint. True, albeit a red herring, because even if every single person on the planet under the notional scenario was in the top impact group, then that would be 21 billion units of environmental impact, which is still only just over half of current production. So even in the most extreme example, it would still represent a reduction of 16,800,700,000 units of ecological impact, or less than half current ecological impact.

So you're going to need to walk through why you contend this is flawed, wrong, etc. when it simply follows that less emitters results in less emission.

Now, appealing to scenarios where there is some corresponding growth in production with a lower population is fine and dandy, but there is still a vast, gaping gulf you need to bridge (26.25 billion units) to contend against the original argument which you declared 'simplistic' and 'wrong'.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2699565

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2699591

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2699822


You are right I do not understand your argument. I thought you were saying that fewer people would mean a lower ecological footprint.


So it's over to you to show how 2/3 fewer people would result in the same or higher ecological footprint given the same average standards of living, and profligacy of consumption.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#152  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 11, 2019 8:59 am

I'm a little perplexed by Juju7's responses here. Perhaps someone else can shine a light on them.

Why are we now discussing population growth rate's relation to economic growth?

Initially, we were talking about population, as in the total number of people, and its relation to ecological footprint.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#153  Postby juju7 » Jun 11, 2019 10:12 am

Spearthrower wrote:
juju7 wrote:
You miss the point completely. Lower population growth means greater economic growth:


No it doesn't. It can mean that under specific scenarios, but you can't make such a simple extrapolation. There's also the problem of post hoc ergo propter hoc - you need to establish a causal link betwixt the two, not just say that one followed the other.

But it's still a by-the-by, a red herring with respect to what we're supposed to be contending. Even if I granted you this wholesale, you haven't established how 2/3 less people produce the same or greater economic output that results in a higher ecological footprint, i.e. the argument you're supposed to be making.


juju7 wrote:
Read the entire article, and discover where you made the most basic of errors.


I just read the entire article, but you're going to need to do a little more legwork than a 1 sentence assertion. You already did the 'wrong' thing before, and it's about as convincing now with a few more words padding it out.

I am not convinced you've read the entire article - did you read the final paragraphs, for example?

Secondly, you are reaching badly.

You've leapt into an aside of your own making, but you've yet to actually address the original argument at all. I think it's about time you set out an actual argument as to why you had a tizzy over me saying that 2 billion people would produce less environmental impact with same average standards of living as 7 billion people. Nothing you've produced has challenged that at all.

You're the one reaching.

2 billion people in the West, and other developed countries produce most of the world's ecological footprint.
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/the-worlds- ... ost-carbon
Image

I've given you an article which explains precisely why.
Last edited by juju7 on Jun 11, 2019 10:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
juju7
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 905

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#154  Postby juju7 » Jun 11, 2019 10:14 am

Spearthrower wrote:I'm a little perplexed by Juju7's responses here. Perhaps someone else can shine a light on them.

Why are we now discussing population growth rate's relation to economic growth?



It was yourself that suggested that restricting birthrates was the way to get to your magical figure of 2 billion.

Did you forget that?

I've shown that it won't work. What more do you want?
User avatar
juju7
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 905

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#155  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 11, 2019 11:01 am

juju7 wrote:You're the one reaching.


Another content-less one-liner.


2 billion people in the West, and other developed countries produce most of the world's ecological footprint.
https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/the-worlds- ... ost-carbon


And?

This has what to do with anything that's been discussed?


juju7 wrote:I've given you an article which explains precisely why.


Err no. You cited an article that discusses the relationship between lowered population growth rates and impact on economic growth.

Neither of these are explicitly relevant to the topic being discussed.

Population growth rate =/= population
economic growth =/= ecological footprint

So it's about time you tried to actually formulate a coherent position.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#156  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 11, 2019 11:03 am

2 billion people in the West, and other developed countries produce most of the world's ecological footprint.


And as bad as that may be, are you trying to say that their footprint alone - without the other 5 billion lesser polluters - is unsustainable?

Again, it might help if you could work out what it is you're trying to argue.

Beyond that, you're reaching again. Your own graphic doesn't support your claim - lifestyle consumption emissions =/= total emissions.

So odd, but I guess this is why you're writing so little and leaving so much ambiguity, because I am beginning to think you wouldn't actually be able to write a cogent sentence on whatever position it is you're trying to formulate.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#157  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 11, 2019 11:07 am

You know who your style of 'discourse' reminds me of?

Rainbow.


EDIT:

Ooh, there's a fancy coincidence.

Rainbow's last post was Jun 01, 2012 3:00 pm

Juju7 joined on Jun 02, 2012 2:12 pm


EDIT II:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... d#p1340303

Rainbow was banned for being an intractable troll. He repeatedly demonstrated a lack of willingness to engage meaningfully in threads that he joined, despite taking a large role in them and leading members into derails.

...

went to absurd lengths to misrepresent others (whilst maintaining that he had not done so) on a regular basis, had a habit of playing word games to twist the meaning of written text out of all proportion



It's funny, because that's what I was seeing in this thread that made me think of him. :whistle:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24839
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#158  Postby juju7 » Jun 11, 2019 11:24 am

Spearthrower wrote:
2 billion people in the West, and other developed countries produce most of the world's ecological footprint.


And as bad as that may be, are you trying to say that their footprint alone - without the other 5 billion lesser polluters - is unsustainable?


The graph I provided shows this very clearly. These 2 billion provide 80% about of the ecological foot print. The remaining 7 billion are responsible for only 20%.
How did you not see this?
User avatar
juju7
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 905

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#159  Postby juju7 » Jun 11, 2019 11:27 am

Spearthrower wrote:You know who your style of 'discourse' reminds me of?

Rainbow.


EDIT:

Ooh, there's a fancy coincidence.

Rainbow's last post was Jun 01, 2012 3:00 pm

Juju7 joined on Jun 02, 2012 2:12 pm


EDIT II:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... d#p1340303

Rainbow was banned for being an intractable troll. He repeatedly demonstrated a lack of willingness to engage meaningfully in threads that he joined, despite taking a large role in them and leading members into derails.

...

went to absurd lengths to misrepresent others (whilst maintaining that he had not done so) on a regular basis, had a habit of playing word games to twist the meaning of written text out of all proportion



It's funny, because that's what I was seeing in this thread that made me think of him. :whistle:


Sounds like a fine fellow how do I contact him?
User avatar
juju7
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 905

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#160  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 11, 2019 11:35 am

juju7 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:You know who your style of 'discourse' reminds me of?

Rainbow.


EDIT:

Ooh, there's a fancy coincidence.

Rainbow's last post was Jun 01, 2012 3:00 pm

Juju7 joined on Jun 02, 2012 2:12 pm


EDIT II:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... d#p1340303

Rainbow was banned for being an intractable troll. He repeatedly demonstrated a lack of willingness to engage meaningfully in threads that he joined, despite taking a large role in them and leading members into derails.

...

went to absurd lengths to misrepresent others (whilst maintaining that he had not done so) on a regular basis, had a habit of playing word games to twist the meaning of written text out of all proportion



It's funny, because that's what I was seeing in this thread that made me think of him. :whistle:


Sounds like a fine fellow how do I contact him?


Are you sure you want to? That guy was a championship-calibre masturbator. Just the same, it's up to you if you think you need lessons.

Your cover's a bit blown at the moment, juju, and you're just making it worse. I've seen more coherent arguments than yours from theists who were only trying to convince themselves they're right. Come to think of it, juju....

Whether or not you eventually get banned as a sock, this is going to follow you around for the rest of your career, here.

juju7 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
2 billion people in the West, and other developed countries produce most of the world's ecological footprint.


And as bad as that may be, are you trying to say that their footprint alone - without the other 5 billion lesser polluters - is unsustainable?


The graph I provided shows this very clearly. These 2 billion provide 80% about of the ecological foot print. The remaining 7 billion are responsible for only 20%.
How did you not see this?


You seem a bit rattled, there, juju. 7 billion plus 2 billion equals 9 billion.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Jun 11, 2019 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28477
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest