If you are serious about fighting climate change, what is the single most effective place to spend money?
My guess is: education for girls in Africa.
Why? Carbon emmissions per year come down to
(energy use per person per year)(carbon emitted per unit energy)(number of people).
In developed nations, all of these terms are stable or declining. In many developing nations, and Africa in particular, population growth is still exponential. Relatively small changes in the exponent of that growth have huge impacts on future carbon emission.
The pattern of decreasing fertility rate as modern societies develop is called "demographic transition". One of the biggest factors driving demographic transition is increased education levels for girls.
So to get the biggest multiplier on future carbon emmissions, look for the fastest growing term of the equation (population); look where it is growing the fastest (sub-saharan Africa), and look for the best way to reduce that growth (education for girls.)
This depends heavily on technological forecasting. There's a decent chance that, by the time those countries reach the level of development where their carbon footprint is a serious concern, they'll have skipped over fossil fuels and gone to solar, similar to how they skipped wired telephony and went to cell phones.
(Of course, education in poor countries is beneficial and worthwhile regardless. But if you have to decide between investments in education or public health in a poor country, I've gotten the impression there's lower-hanging fruit in public health.)
Even if your assumption is true, it doesn't negate the fact that [some people] in the western world need to stop spewing/believing inane lies about global warming, so we can all start doing our part, as a society and as a system.
Africa, really? The place that always gets screwed over. Slavery, colonialism and now artificially limiting population growth? I think tropical diseases like malaria and ebola already already limit population growth in Africa rather too well. Africa does the least per capita CO2. They transport trees by bicycle. They don't burn heating fuel because they don't have to.
Exactly. Education empowers girls to select better husbands, start their own businesses, and then push for better education for their own, fewer children.
A virtuous circle. And the same that's at work in all more-developed countries.
> If you are serious about fighting climate change, what is the single most effective place to spend money?
No where, to fight climate change the single best thing to do is curb your consumption and save money. Don't buy new gadgets every year, don't go on holidays far away, don't buy expensive meat, take public transport if possible, don't buy a huge house, don't use air-con. Do all that and you've prevented more carbon emissions than a small African village will ever produce and you'll save money.
The article says, "Earth's destruction" but it doesn't really mean that. It's more about the extinction of humans and other life.
How quaint. I have a sneaking suspicion that long after we've choked ourselves out of existence there will still be plenty of life flourishing. Nature will find a way without us. We'll just be a little nasty blip on the geological scale of time.
Could not resist mentioning "Save the planet" from Geroge Carlin:
The planet isn’t going anywhere. We are! We’re goin’ away. Pack your shit, Folks, we’re goin’ away. We won’t leave much of a trace either, thank god for that. Maybe a little styrofoam, maybe, little styrofoam. Planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake, an evolutionary cul de sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas, a surface nuisance. You wanna know how the planet’s doin’? Ask those people at Pompeii, who were frozen into position from volcanic ash. How the planet’s doin’. Wanna know if the planet’s alright, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia, or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. How about those people in Kilauea, Hawaii who built their homes right next to an active volcano and then wonder why they have lava in the living room. The planet will be here for a long, long, long time after we’re gone and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself ’cuz that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it’s true that plastic is not degradable well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allows us to be spawned from it in the first place: it wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it, needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old philosophical question, “Why are we here?” “Plastic, assholes.”
If the scientists don't convince people, I hope the massive droughts in some places, flooding in others, superstorms, and other massive weather pattern shifts will.
In the US, there's still a large group of people (or maybe just a vocal group) that cover their ears and won't listen to anything climate-change related, even in the highest places of our government.
I hope a healthy dose of "this is what climate change looks like" will scare people into believing. Even if you don't want to believe that humans are the cause, we still need to do something about it, and fast (something besides blaming everything on homosexuals).
Yet if your house gets flooded or blown away by a hurricane, the insurance company won't blame global warming- instead they literally claim that it is an "act of god"
I don't think that is necessarily true. I think the 'large group of people' do not deny that climate change exists. I find they come to a conclusion somewhere in the ballpark of: Sure, natural climate change exists, but manmade climate change is an insignificant factor in this, and/or humans have little ability to overpower natural climate change and turn it around (cooling it, even if we're in a naturally warming stint). Misinformed, perhaps, but rational.
Not unlike the apathetic feeling that causes people not not show up at the polls.
Convincing people this is real is only the tiniest first step. Even amongst über-liberals who fully acknowledge climate change is real—and that we're causing it—they're still eating their steak dinners, driving their cars, drinking bottled water, and flying to vacation in far-away lands. Until we each do our tiny parts of reducing our consumption, Earth's temperature will continue its steady march upward.
Getting political consensus here would be nice. But individuals can lead by example by living more sustainable lives.
Warming seems to be the most pressing issue that is causing the climate changes you mentioned. And, I think we can all agree it's probably too late combined with we don't really know what to do. Unfortunately, reducing our energy consumption is not a realistic option (because universally, humanity will never act accordingly). Which leaves me asking...
When does Mr. Burns' Sun Blocker [1] become the most realistic opportunity for us to actually control warming?
My brother works in the North West of Western Australia, as a geological surveyor. He said to me that they're having an 'apparent temperature' today of 48.9 degrees C - it's over 40 degrees in the shade where he is right now (Koolin Island, roughly 9,000kms north of Perth). It's so hot today that their rubbish dump just spontaneously combusted and bins on their site are doing the same thing.
When that starts happening in major cities, hopefully people notice before large numbers of the population have severe health problems from it.
We need a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 level event to drive people to action. However, the back-to-back world-wide coral bleaching events didn't do it, and the back-to-back record breaking storms in both the Atlantic and Pacific this year didn't do it.
By the time it gets destructive enough that effective mass action becomes possible, I fear it will be too late for us.
It's frustrating that no matter how strong the evidence, a large proportion of Americans insist there is nothing to worry about.
I have thought a lot about this and come to the conclusion it is to a great extent due to theological beliefs. A large proportion of Americans are evangelical Christians who believe the Bible is the literal world of God, and furthermore believe that the Bible says that unregulated free market capitalism is the right economic system.
So when scientists claim that unregulated capitalism is causing damage to the world that in turn is harmful to the human race, these people assume that this claim is wrong and the scientists are really atheists trying to undermine Biblical religion.
As for the libertarians and conservatives who just make scientific arguments, it seems to me they are assuming that the Earth was created such that unregulated capitalism can't possibly harm it,at least not in a way that would harm humans, no matter what new technologies corporations introduce, and on how large a scale. So they have a sort of implicit theology.
Why? Because nobody cares enough (or believes deeply enough) to make radical lifestyle changes.
Al Gore still have several huge houses. Leanardo DiCaprio still takes solo jet trips across the ocean. The richest people (of all political persuasions) continue to live lives that don't reflect an austere lifestyle at all.
Why should anyone make sacrifices if nobody else does?
> of the approximate 11 million scientists has signed....
A.) Is there a citation that accompanies your statistic?
B.) Does this number account for the type of scientist? Are you lumping non-Earth scientists (say, fiber optic researchers) in with your assesment that 15K is not a large number?
Best way to fight climate change, eliminate all vaccines. The human population will plummet thus ensuring we have reduced the amount of waste. Human remains can help bring nutrients back to the soil. Other species will be able to repopulate naturally.
This won't happen, because we want to live forever or that very least certain technological elites are trying to make that happen. We want to have all the latest technology regardless of the transportation costs (shipping containers). Be able to eat that latest restaurant. I could go on.
Climate change is real. How much is man-made? I don't know and I don't really care. On a personal level I attempt to keep my carbon footprint low, though I drive to work and eat meat daily - I bought half a cow and whole pig and store them in a deep freezer. At the same time I have had the same flip-phone for 3 years, and the prior to that I didn't have one. Have one TV in my house and a record player.
Reduce your consumption to your needs and a few wants, rib-eye steaks. Earth will prosper long after we are gone.
The enabler in the USA for continuing to believe that there is no link between pollution emissions and more pronounced extreme weather is the lack of education surrounding statistics and its analysis.
At this point I just ask what scientific statistic a person would need to hear in order to consider changing their mind. Unfortunately, I haven't ever gotten an informative reply indicating knowledge of the field, and am still open to hearing what exactly it would be.
Edit: Granted, at this point, most people on both sides seem to have given up learning about the fundamental literature driving this debate. See John Oliver's "It Just F*ing Is" on his recent show.
> At this point I just ask what scientific statistic a person would need to hear in order to consider changing their mind.
None. Your are trying to use reason to influence an emotional behavior. It won't work.
The day geeks understand, accept and practice this simple truth, everything will get easier. For everything. Love. Work. Politics. Raising children. Everything.
[+] [-] dzdt|8 years ago|reply
My guess is: education for girls in Africa.
Why? Carbon emmissions per year come down to
(energy use per person per year)(carbon emitted per unit energy)(number of people).
In developed nations, all of these terms are stable or declining. In many developing nations, and Africa in particular, population growth is still exponential. Relatively small changes in the exponent of that growth have huge impacts on future carbon emission.
The pattern of decreasing fertility rate as modern societies develop is called "demographic transition". One of the biggest factors driving demographic transition is increased education levels for girls.
So to get the biggest multiplier on future carbon emmissions, look for the fastest growing term of the equation (population); look where it is growing the fastest (sub-saharan Africa), and look for the best way to reduce that growth (education for girls.)
[1] https://www.wu.ac.at/en/press/press-releases/press-releases-...
[+] [-] jimrandomh|8 years ago|reply
(Of course, education in poor countries is beneficial and worthwhile regardless. But if you have to decide between investments in education or public health in a poor country, I've gotten the impression there's lower-hanging fruit in public health.)
[+] [-] croon|8 years ago|reply
Even if your assumption is true, it doesn't negate the fact that [some people] in the western world need to stop spewing/believing inane lies about global warming, so we can all start doing our part, as a society and as a system.
[+] [-] petre|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] everybodyknows|8 years ago|reply
A virtuous circle. And the same that's at work in all more-developed countries.
[+] [-] trumbitta2|8 years ago|reply
I previously wrote "racist". This is worse. I don't know the word for what this is.
[+] [-] flukus|8 years ago|reply
No where, to fight climate change the single best thing to do is curb your consumption and save money. Don't buy new gadgets every year, don't go on holidays far away, don't buy expensive meat, take public transport if possible, don't buy a huge house, don't use air-con. Do all that and you've prevented more carbon emissions than a small African village will ever produce and you'll save money.
[+] [-] jamez1|8 years ago|reply
I'd wager getting out poverty causes both education and fertility to improve and that is the real driver in this study.
[+] [-] conanbatt|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trumbitta2|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] redleggedfrog|8 years ago|reply
How quaint. I have a sneaking suspicion that long after we've choked ourselves out of existence there will still be plenty of life flourishing. Nature will find a way without us. We'll just be a little nasty blip on the geological scale of time.
[+] [-] badosu|8 years ago|reply
The planet isn’t going anywhere. We are! We’re goin’ away. Pack your shit, Folks, we’re goin’ away. We won’t leave much of a trace either, thank god for that. Maybe a little styrofoam, maybe, little styrofoam. Planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake, an evolutionary cul de sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas, a surface nuisance. You wanna know how the planet’s doin’? Ask those people at Pompeii, who were frozen into position from volcanic ash. How the planet’s doin’. Wanna know if the planet’s alright, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia, or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. How about those people in Kilauea, Hawaii who built their homes right next to an active volcano and then wonder why they have lava in the living room. The planet will be here for a long, long, long time after we’re gone and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself ’cuz that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it’s true that plastic is not degradable well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allows us to be spawned from it in the first place: it wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it, needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old philosophical question, “Why are we here?” “Plastic, assholes.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
[+] [-] LeifCarrotson|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orthecreedence|8 years ago|reply
In the US, there's still a large group of people (or maybe just a vocal group) that cover their ears and won't listen to anything climate-change related, even in the highest places of our government.
I hope a healthy dose of "this is what climate change looks like" will scare people into believing. Even if you don't want to believe that humans are the cause, we still need to do something about it, and fast (something besides blaming everything on homosexuals).
[+] [-] evv|8 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God
It's interesting how a lack of accountability over the weather is so deeply ingrained into our culture like this.
[+] [-] raker|8 years ago|reply
Not unlike the apathetic feeling that causes people not not show up at the polls.
[+] [-] the_gastropod|8 years ago|reply
Getting political consensus here would be nice. But individuals can lead by example by living more sustainable lives.
[+] [-] conductr|8 years ago|reply
When does Mr. Burns' Sun Blocker [1] become the most realistic opportunity for us to actually control warming?
[1] http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Sun_Blocker
[+] [-] King-Aaron|8 years ago|reply
When that starts happening in major cities, hopefully people notice before large numbers of the population have severe health problems from it.
[+] [-] steanne|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] viggity|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rcthompson|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] en-us|8 years ago|reply
By the time it gets destructive enough that effective mass action becomes possible, I fear it will be too late for us.
[+] [-] woodandsteel|8 years ago|reply
I have thought a lot about this and come to the conclusion it is to a great extent due to theological beliefs. A large proportion of Americans are evangelical Christians who believe the Bible is the literal world of God, and furthermore believe that the Bible says that unregulated free market capitalism is the right economic system.
So when scientists claim that unregulated capitalism is causing damage to the world that in turn is harmful to the human race, these people assume that this claim is wrong and the scientists are really atheists trying to undermine Biblical religion.
As for the libertarians and conservatives who just make scientific arguments, it seems to me they are assuming that the Earth was created such that unregulated capitalism can't possibly harm it,at least not in a way that would harm humans, no matter what new technologies corporations introduce, and on how large a scale. So they have a sort of implicit theology.
[+] [-] scooby2018|8 years ago|reply
"Supplementary data are available at BIOSCI online including supplemental file 1 and supplemental file 2 (full list of all 15,364 signatories)." https://academic.oup.com/biosci/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/b...
[+] [-] RickJWag|8 years ago|reply
Why? Because nobody cares enough (or believes deeply enough) to make radical lifestyle changes.
Al Gore still have several huge houses. Leanardo DiCaprio still takes solo jet trips across the ocean. The richest people (of all political persuasions) continue to live lives that don't reflect an austere lifestyle at all.
Why should anyone make sacrifices if nobody else does?
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fyrstenberg|8 years ago|reply
(ps: down-voting this post doesn't change this fact...)
[+] [-] mojomark|8 years ago|reply
A.) Is there a citation that accompanies your statistic?
B.) Does this number account for the type of scientist? Are you lumping non-Earth scientists (say, fiber optic researchers) in with your assesment that 15K is not a large number?
[+] [-] vita17|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] riot504|8 years ago|reply
This won't happen, because we want to live forever or that very least certain technological elites are trying to make that happen. We want to have all the latest technology regardless of the transportation costs (shipping containers). Be able to eat that latest restaurant. I could go on.
Climate change is real. How much is man-made? I don't know and I don't really care. On a personal level I attempt to keep my carbon footprint low, though I drive to work and eat meat daily - I bought half a cow and whole pig and store them in a deep freezer. At the same time I have had the same flip-phone for 3 years, and the prior to that I didn't have one. Have one TV in my house and a record player.
Reduce your consumption to your needs and a few wants, rib-eye steaks. Earth will prosper long after we are gone.
[+] [-] programmarchy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cjslep|8 years ago|reply
At this point I just ask what scientific statistic a person would need to hear in order to consider changing their mind. Unfortunately, I haven't ever gotten an informative reply indicating knowledge of the field, and am still open to hearing what exactly it would be.
Edit: Granted, at this point, most people on both sides seem to have given up learning about the fundamental literature driving this debate. See John Oliver's "It Just F*ing Is" on his recent show.
[+] [-] orthecreedence|8 years ago|reply
"Climate change is bullshit! I demand to see evidence of it actually occurring!"
<is presented volumes of data>
"I don't recognize these sources! These were payed for by liberal media! I demand to see real data!"
Rinse and repeat.
[+] [-] sametmax|8 years ago|reply
None. Your are trying to use reason to influence an emotional behavior. It won't work.
The day geeks understand, accept and practice this simple truth, everything will get easier. For everything. Love. Work. Politics. Raising children. Everything.