Just like any animal species, we [humans] have an inbuilt desire to procreate to ensure our survival.
As I sit here in the 41°C heat, I wonder, do we f**k too much?
While I am typing this, Europe is suffering another consecutive year of heatwaves and the population is just passing 7,961,433,500—is there a theoretical maximum, and are these two items linked?
Because there are many variables to consider, such as food production, water availability, energy sources, and waste disposal, calculating a maximum number of people that the planet (yes, this planet—the only one we have right now) can support is very difficult. However, a 2017 study by the Global Challenges Foundation estimated that the maximum sustainable population of the Earth is 8.7 billion people. Let’s take this as a fact just for now.
There are several reasons the earth can only support a maximum of 8.7 billion people. Primarily, it is that the earth has a limited amount of resources. Once the population exceeds this number, the planet could not provide enough resources, such as food, water, and shelter for everyone.
But, this isn’t the only problem! Overpopulation would lead to a decline in the quality of life for everyone on the planet. The earth would become more polluted and there would be more competition for resources.
Overpopulation would also lead to more social problems, such as crime and violence.
Finally, an increase in Carbon Dioxide emissions is directly proportional to the increase in population.
Right now the population of the planet earth is growing at a increasing rate of about 2.5% per year, so the population of the planet earth will reach 8.7 billion people in approximately 31 years.
So what’s going to happen?
25 years from now:- Global warming causes sea levels to rise. Coupled with the increase in average atmospheric temperature, this will lead to more extreme weather events, and it will displace more people from their homes. Population growth will put strain on resources, and competition for these resources will increase.
50 Years from now:- The outlook for humanity in the year 2072 is bleak. Global warming has caused drastic changes in the climate, resulting in food shortages and mass migrations of people. The population will continue to grow, putting even more strain on resources.
100 Years from now:- The outlook for people in the year 2122 is absolutely dire. Global warming will have caused major disruptions to the Earth’s climate, leading to widespread famine and displacement of people. The world’s population will have grown to 9 billion people, massively straining resources. Land resources are scarce. Wildfires have scorched the planet, adding to atmospheric carbon dioxide and speeding up climate change. Between famine and global pandemics, population is falling – and not in a nice controlled way.
The common theme in these predictions is around global warming. Even if supporting such a population increase is possible, it can’t be done if we are losing arable land because of global warming. Whether it is because a rise in sea levels has reduced land area or if climate change has made the existing arable farmland incompatible with farming. Let’s not get into the complexity of climate change and insect migrations decimating crops!
But aren’t we offsetting our carbon emissions?
When an individual, company or country, emits carbon dioxide (CO2)—whether through burning fossil fuels, owning a car or flying in an airplane—this emission adds to their ‘carbon footprint’. A carbon footprint is a measure of the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by an individual, company, or country.
Carbon offsetting is a way of reducing your carbon footprint. It involves paying someone to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases on your behalf. For example, you might pay to plant trees which absorb CO2 from the atmosphere or invest in renewable energy such as wind or solar power.
The primary aim of carbon offsetting is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to help combat climate change. It can also offset emissions from activities which are difficult to avoid or reduce, such as flying.
But is this just a way for people to absolve themselves of responsibility for their emissions? Is it being used to ‘offset’ emissions from activities which are actually harmful, such as deforestation?
A carbon offset certificate represents a reduction in CO2. We use carbon offset certificates to “adjust” footprint emissions from activities such as flying and driving, and carbon offset trading is when businesses or individuals buy and sell these offsets in order to offset their emissions.
Third world countries are often the sellers in these trades, as they have lower emissions and can thus provide more offsets. However, there are several problems with this.
First, it can create a perverse incentive for companies to pollute more. If a company knows it can buy offsets to compensate for its emissions, it may be more likely to increase its emissions.
Second, it can lead to a false sense of security. Just because a company has purchased offsets does not mean that its emissions have actually gone down. In fact, emissions may have increased, even if the company has offset them.
Third, they can use it to avoid taking real action on climate change. If a company is buying offsets instead of investing in renewable energy or efficiency, it is not doing its part to reduce emissions.
Fourth, it’s unfair to the countries that are selling the offsets. These countries are often developing nations that are already struggling to meet their own needs. We should not expect them to bear the burden of reducing emissions for the developed world.
Carbon offset trading with third world countries is a bad thing for the planet. It can create incentives for pollution, lead to a false sense of security, be used to avoid taking real action on climate change, and be unfair to the countries that are selling the offsets.
It is important to remember that carbon offsetting should not be used as a replacement for reducing emissions. It is must only be used as a supplement to other measures, such as energy efficiency and switching to renewable energy. The reason for this is that the planet earth is effectively a closed system.
Who really cares if third world countries are only dumping a quarter of the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere that they are ‘allowed’? (allowed is a very loose term here based upon some quota developed by some authorised but barely capable body of some government who most likely stood to financially gain from making sure the calculations did not directly affect their bosses).
Using offsetting to move CO2 emissions from an industrialised nation to the third world country does not reduce the overall CO2 emissions. It just makes us feel better. It’s absolute crap.
There are many things that need to change to ensure our survival. First, if we continue with carbon offsets, then they must be offsets against real and tangible activities.
The reality of the situation, the reality of OUR situation is that if humans do not change the way they live, we could will most likely be extinct within 100 years, and that’s a sure way to be f**king less.