I don't agree with your logic if it is what I think it is, "let as many migrants into the 1st world as you can because the 1st world will provide more environmentally friendly energy and if they stay in the 3rd world they will be using energy more harmful to the environment" What you're showing and based on human population trends only speaks to how f**ked it all is. Not everyone will be able to move to the 1st world. The population of the 3rd world is exploding and will be demanding cheap energy. Whether a small % of them move to the 1st world or not, the massive problem of exploding energy demand in the 3rd world is still going to be there.
That’s why organizations such as the UN, IMF, and World Bank are. They certainly aren’t perfect, but you need a mechanism to invest in developing countries to prevent a mass migration. Or you could just prepare to deal with a bunch of consequences and pray a semblance of democracy remains here.
Not really. Keeping people in third world developing nations is better than bringing them here and creating more large first world carbon footprints that are the enemy of the climate at this point. Think of the polar bears we could save man. Also the ecological footprint should be taken into account. I may seem sarcastic about polar bears, but I do actually care about saving this world.
Our carbon footprint is large because we are a developed and are net consumers due the nature of a developed nation. These third world countries are in a transition stage where the local population will eventually be that but the major difference is we have infrastructure in place such as natural gas pipelines, dual cycle power plants that are more efficient systems. Look up heatrates( btu/kwhr) of coal plants vs natural gas dual cycle plants. So these developing nations will eventually have a population that will consume modern goods as much as us but on a power generation infrastructure that is far less efficient than modern already developed counties.
Way to just revert to the very point I debunked. That is not the overall contributor to carbon emissions and it's definitely one factor. Bringing them here only adds to the problem. Taking their population doesn't magically fix those country's need for power and their usage. If anything it may make it cheaper, and people will just use more on an individual level since they have access to more per person. There are a lot of things that could happen regarding that. Overall though, your argument doesn't address the larger picture. Also let those countries develop, but they won't be near the U.S. level of footprint. That's really not a good comparison.
You just keep ignoring the fact that African and Asian nations are in an accelerated development phase where they will be consumers like populations in first world nations hence their energy demand will signficantly increase and on an infrastructure that is far less efficient in providing that energy. Your entire argument relies on current underdeveloped nations not developing when they are rapidly developing. Energy consumption is one of the main variables in "carbon footprint" along with where that energy stems from. Energy consumption is rapidly increasing in developing nation and their source of energy as I've discussed earlier comes from less efficient systems relative to current developed nations .
Well the asian and african world is different and I'm not ignoring just because I didn't bring it up. Doesn't change much though when it comes to our current energy use, our economic impact per capita, and our current immigration patterns. Those other issues, I hate to tell you man, there is little we can do about. What we can do is try to get our companies to stop putting manufacturing in countries with little regulation. That is a huge part of the CF right there. I fear the world may actually be screwed when it comes to climate change anyway. But if you want to start somewhere, start by culling the population growth at home. There is little we can do in those other countries and the idea that taking their population is going to fix that is not cutting it man.
I wasn't making a claim but rather dismissing a claimed solution that preventing immigration from underdeveloped nations would solve the problem.
Make airships tremendous again? You require less energy to travel through the air, and you can always meet a nice blue eyed blond with a red ornament around her arm.
Your graph doesn’t indicate what year this is or what the trends are. Or how the hell “New Ecomomics Foundation” decided disposing of industrial waste straight into a waterways in developing countries doesn’t give high ecological footprint. The US is also a major agricultural producing country, perhaps the largest. I just dont see any reason to prevent immigration just because the US is a major industrial power, that itself is becoming more efficient.
Yeah the environmental situation is complicated which was my point. The graph, which is a map, doesn't show those things. But it demonstrates my point well enough and even if the info was 10 years old it wouldn't make a huge difference from showing us the difference between the USA and the countries where our migrants, especially illegal ones, come from. And my point, which underlies what you said, is that we can't look at one thing like carbon from energy production. That was the point of posting that. It's not the only story and nor is the map. There is no one silver bullet to climate change, but taking people from a low CF and making them into Americans who have large CFs is counter intuitive. You can bemoan that all day, but it will never change that reality.
Just trying to make sure I am characterizing someones argument/point correctly when I'm quoting them. I thought it was good manners. Some of us try and have some class.
He's right to some degree. They analyzed the ice cores and found that the extreme climate changes happened rapidly over a matter of a few years or a few decades versus the slow change we are currently experiencing. Things like astreoids and massive volcanoes can impact the climate much faster and there isn't a damn thing we could do about it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be proactive in our efforts to protect our environment, but mother nature could throw us a curve ball tomorrow that kills us all off.
Yea I don’t think your graph is very helpful, just seems like a flimsy excuse to reduce immigration. Trends are very useful to determine what you are trying to justify... and the other world is increasing their carbon foot rapidly while the US is plateauing.
Like an asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs or a super volcano dropping the temperatures 8-17 degrees celsius which climate scientists modeled as what could have happened 74,000 years ago in the Toba eruption. For some perspective on the Toba eruption.... "Depending on the assumed size of the eruption and the processes included in the models, the maximum global mean cooling was 8-17°C. This is an enormous change, roughly 10-20 times the size of the warming since pre-industrial times and about the same magnitude as the transition to an ice age." https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_12/
That ignores the fact that we are Top consumers and our CF is huge. Just because some places have rising footprints, doesn't mean they will ever hit our level. You are assuming that fact, which you can't prove and I highly doubt.
