From a quick skim of “hey, the one child policy was totally a great idea, right?”
we relied on a study which quantified future emissions of descendants based on historical rates, based on heredity (Murtaugh and Schlax 2009). In this approach, half of a child’s emissions are assigned to each parent, as well as one quarter of that child’s offspring (the grandchildren) and so forth. This is consistent with our use of research employing the fullest possible life cycle approach in order to capture the magnitude of emissions decisions.
As well as almost their entire discussion section being “people won’t do stuff anyway”, this is very much category 2. Having fewer children reduces emissions because the study is misleading rolling all lifetime emissions into the child regardless of any other mitigation strategies that don’t involve implementing the hellscape China has had for decades. To oversimplify a bit, they basically measured out 100% of the data, then added another category that doubles up on all of that. And 100% is obviously greater than 5% (because it includes it).
You can just as easily say “What if we nuke a few countries?” or “What if we Thanos snap the planet?” is more effective than people taking fewer flights… because there will be fewer people to take flights. It is the end goal but with less personal responsibility and more babies being murdered for not being the desired gender.
I don’t understand why you have having such a hard time understanding that more mouths to feed, house, clothe, and provide energy for increases co2 emissions. No one is suggesting murdering children here. Having fewer children can be accomplished easily by using birth control such as condoms or the pill or any other method available.
First and foremost: This is literally the rationale behind the one child policy. A policy that caused incalculable pain and suffering in China and continues to haunt the populace.
Second: Because it is just a bad “solution”. It only works on the order of generations (and since we may not even have decades at this point) and it is inherently just piggy backing off ACTUAL solutions.
And third: Because it isn’t even a solution to begin with. All the actions that it allegedly is so much better then are actually the actions being taken. Just not in any meaningful timespan because it is your hypothetical child 20 years down the line taking one less flight to DC.
For example: You can choose to have fewer children and when they grow up and that will reduce the amount of fuel you spent driving to the store repeatedly, driving them to school every day, catching a short flight one state over, etc. Or… you can just prioritize riding bicycles and using public transportation for day to day. And if the time it would take to drive to your destination versus fly are about the same (common on the East Coast)… just drive (it is also generally cheaper).
The former accomplishes nothing in the short term. The latter accomplishes all of what the former did, and then some because you are actually lowering YOUR emissions too, while having immediate benefits.
It is a bad study built on faulty premises. And it is being used in a misleading manner to push a narrative that justifies people not changing anything.
Because:
Food: If only there were more sustainable diets. Like eating less meat and more vegan protein sources and the like.
Shelter: Multi-family housing and mixed zoning allow for MUCH more efficient construction and reduce the need for cars. Also, existing housing can be retrofitted with more efficient insulation and the like
Energy: if only there were some form of clean energy…
And the best part? You can do that. Your kids can do that. And the entirety of the cast of The L-Word can do that. So even people who might not be planning on having children can do their part to maybe prevent humanity from being wiped out before those hypothetical kids even get their learner’s permits.
You’re latching on to what China did as an example and it forms the majority of your argument. I dont see anyone here suggesting we adopt a one child policy like they did, only reduce the amount of children being born.
Yes one could arguably bike everywhere and it would reduce your stress on the environment than if you drove everywhere. One could also argue having fewer people also reduces stress on the environment as well. Both will do the same thing, one to a greater degree.
It honestly sounds like you have children and are trying to justify your behavior despite knowing the negative impacts.
No, I don’t have children. In large part because I don’t think my generation has a future, let alone the next.
But one last time (maybe you’ll read it this time rather than just intentionally plugging your ears to be smug over whatever you are on): Even if we ignore that every single benefit associated with “have fewer kids” is something that can and should be done right now. Those metrics are based on lifetime CO2 production by the child. So you MAYBE are making a difference in 20 or 40 years. But you are doing jack all in the timeframe where… we probably still can’t stop the upcoming disaster. But we can at least try.
I think the problem is, lets say 20 years from now, we now have a carbon negative economy. If we just look at the past trend lines, we would have to look at the future trend lines “each kid you have reduces carbon output by…”
In the long run, its an over simplistic representation.
Thanks.
From a quick skim of “hey, the one child policy was totally a great idea, right?”
As well as almost their entire discussion section being “people won’t do stuff anyway”, this is very much category 2. Having fewer children reduces emissions because the study is misleading rolling all lifetime emissions into the child regardless of any other mitigation strategies that don’t involve implementing the hellscape China has had for decades. To oversimplify a bit, they basically measured out 100% of the data, then added another category that doubles up on all of that. And 100% is obviously greater than 5% (because it includes it).
You can just as easily say “What if we nuke a few countries?” or “What if we Thanos snap the planet?” is more effective than people taking fewer flights… because there will be fewer people to take flights. It is the end goal but with less personal responsibility and more babies being murdered for not being the desired gender.
I don’t understand why you have having such a hard time understanding that more mouths to feed, house, clothe, and provide energy for increases co2 emissions. No one is suggesting murdering children here. Having fewer children can be accomplished easily by using birth control such as condoms or the pill or any other method available.
First and foremost: This is literally the rationale behind the one child policy. A policy that caused incalculable pain and suffering in China and continues to haunt the populace.
Second: Because it is just a bad “solution”. It only works on the order of generations (and since we may not even have decades at this point) and it is inherently just piggy backing off ACTUAL solutions.
And third: Because it isn’t even a solution to begin with. All the actions that it allegedly is so much better then are actually the actions being taken. Just not in any meaningful timespan because it is your hypothetical child 20 years down the line taking one less flight to DC.
For example: You can choose to have fewer children and when they grow up and that will reduce the amount of fuel you spent driving to the store repeatedly, driving them to school every day, catching a short flight one state over, etc. Or… you can just prioritize riding bicycles and using public transportation for day to day. And if the time it would take to drive to your destination versus fly are about the same (common on the East Coast)… just drive (it is also generally cheaper).
The former accomplishes nothing in the short term. The latter accomplishes all of what the former did, and then some because you are actually lowering YOUR emissions too, while having immediate benefits.
It is a bad study built on faulty premises. And it is being used in a misleading manner to push a narrative that justifies people not changing anything.
Because:
And the best part? You can do that. Your kids can do that. And the entirety of the cast of The L-Word can do that. So even people who might not be planning on having children can do their part to maybe prevent humanity from being wiped out before those hypothetical kids even get their learner’s permits.
You’re latching on to what China did as an example and it forms the majority of your argument. I dont see anyone here suggesting we adopt a one child policy like they did, only reduce the amount of children being born.
Yes one could arguably bike everywhere and it would reduce your stress on the environment than if you drove everywhere. One could also argue having fewer people also reduces stress on the environment as well. Both will do the same thing, one to a greater degree.
It honestly sounds like you have children and are trying to justify your behavior despite knowing the negative impacts.
Jesus wept.
No, I don’t have children. In large part because I don’t think my generation has a future, let alone the next.
But one last time (maybe you’ll read it this time rather than just intentionally plugging your ears to be smug over whatever you are on): Even if we ignore that every single benefit associated with “have fewer kids” is something that can and should be done right now. Those metrics are based on lifetime CO2 production by the child. So you MAYBE are making a difference in 20 or 40 years. But you are doing jack all in the timeframe where… we probably still can’t stop the upcoming disaster. But we can at least try.
I think the problem is, lets say 20 years from now, we now have a carbon negative economy. If we just look at the past trend lines, we would have to look at the future trend lines “each kid you have reduces carbon output by…”
In the long run, its an over simplistic representation.