Children more polluting than Motorbikes!

C

ccmdr

100 W
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
204
Location
East or South UK, depends
Well after seeing the umpteenth 'give money it's Christmas advert' I thought I'd do some basic math of CO2 emissions and see what is more harmful, unplanned irresponsible use of your reproductive organ or an ICE motorbike.

Please do not take this post too literally, it isn't meant to offend and I know society wants everyone to be more politically correct, but hey thoughts happen :D.

Using the WWF CO2 footprint calc I calculated my annual CO2 footprint to be 8.8 metric Tonnes, ok quite high.
Now do the same calculation on WWF saying I don't use a motorbike 7.5 metric Tonnes.

So, 1.3 metric tonnes per year to commute on a motorbike.

But creating another human being beyond the balance of 2 children per couple, for each person you're creating they too will use 8.8 metric tonnes CO2 (hopfully lower with tech advancments and society changes).

So for example a family with 2 children, each member could 'pollute' the atmosphere with motorbikes and be societally shunned, but actually they are much more CO2 friendly than the a family with 3 children with no vehicles.

2 Adults 2 Children 4 Motorbikes
1.3 x 4 = 5.2 metric tonnes of CO2

2 Adults 3 Children no Vehicles
7.5 x 1 = 7.5 metric tonnes of CO2

Now the post does say children, but a child turns into an adult which is about at the same point adults learn to drive, so I think it is a fair referral.
 
I've been saying since about 1968, if you want to save the planet, don't reproduce. But then it seems useless, because somebody else had 6 kids. The solution to that is not nice.
 
Probably the single best thing we can do for the world is to stop reproducing faster than we die off. A world population of 1 billion would be sustainable with a high quality of life for all. We may hit 10 billion by 2050. In theory, that is sustainable, if everyone makes sacrifices. 10 Billion is at the limit for what the world can produce for food. (source) And that assumes a near even distribution of resources. Humans are greedy, food won't be distributed evenly. Some will be gluttons, others will starve.

So whats better, 1 billion people with more resources than they need, Or 10 billion people living on the edge of starvation?
 
Did it ever occur to you that we are supposed to frock up the planet? Once they got you believing CO2 is greenhouse gas, good luck trying to use your brain. I guess cavemen caused the last ice age BBQing Mammoths? See this line of thinking is where global warming leads- giant guilt trip. The Earth will take care of itself, humans can barley take care of themsleves let alone worry about the Earth.
 
Well said D-lo.
Love that link Drunkskunk *he says feciciously*; how fitting the picture (or PAINTING) is.

I'm seeing something like 16billion acres of non desert or mountainess land. 1 acre per person would be more than enough, probably even with this ridiculous multinational corporate system humanity has going on. Yeah, I didn't like the article, or your comment on 1 billion, or the idea that population will ever even be the root problem. They are only the problem in so far as how much bullsh!t they eat from the ruling class. Can't people see how everything is controlled and directed, and then blamed right back on the stupid sheep?

FYI Texas could be divided between all present population giving 1000sqft per person leaving the rest of world for support fyi.
And that's just based single story ground space
 
Maybe a tad heavy, without being preachy I hope, just scratching the old brain cell :wink:.

Isn't carbon the basis of most if not all life forms on Earth not just an element in the atmosphere (in different forms), and the misuse of that resource a pollutant or unnecessary waste? So excess children (population) are more damaging than the average household vehicle. But then that would lead us onto why do we really need to populate? Survival I guess (bar :twisted: ), the ingrained motive for all lifeforms? But by over population we will harm our species quicker than pollution from industry, a natural selection cull per say?

Not sure just how big Texas is, but looking here kind of indicates the most sparsly populated countries have 2 people per square km. Maybe I've read it wrong?

Do humans inherently want to mess up the planet? Why do we have pets, grow plants and have words like conservation, adventure and wonder? Self greed, ego inflation or do we just have a protective instinct and like to fight to protect what we like and believe in. Another example and sore topic, Religion.

Also, won't a shift in the earths magnetic poles cause an ice age? I watched a very old youtube clip linked from ES on electromagnetism.

The offsetting of the earths rotational balance by large areas of ice based land mass moving at either of the poles causing rapid and destructive climate changes that killed off the dinosaurs?

Climate is another discussion altogether :D.

Is global warming a guilt trip or our leaders/media looking to environmentally friendly living and blaming fossil fuels just as a way for the general populus to be blindsided, by the truth that the children of the future are infact the ones that will eventully cause the biggest problem of all? Obviously people of this generation would be to blame by creating those children and I don't think a living human cull would go down well, as it is it's still frowned upon that China limits families to two children!

Also, why do they all want boys? To pass on the 'Family' name? Surely thats a societal problem where people believe passing the male 'family name' is more important than a real and never changing fact of a bloodline, the passing of DNA along generation think of 'Genghis Khan'. But then that again leads onto, why to we take it personally if we can't pass on our genetic line?

Who likes to blame themselves and most of all who would have the courage or gall to say 'Live with freedom, privacy and the possibility to become whatever your goals are, BUT we are going to modify the human rights and chemically castrate you after reproducing twice because natures infertility and diseases that balance the world just aren't cutting it' :) ?

If you've read all this thank you :D. Any thoughts or misconceptions that need to be corrected?
 
Imo the problem isn't children, it's governments and the corporate structure giving too much away and feeding off the poor to pay inflated wages to the remainder. The more I see, doubt grows it's by accident.

There will always be a small percentage of the population clinically insane. Murderers, liers, cheaters- the most evil people essentially. Over time don't you think those people would end up sprouting some ambition too? Or are they all stupid for being evil? I think they would end up in control, and likely hidden if they want- after all, they would do ANYTHING to get and stay there. I'm not talking about the owners of walmart or the presidents or even dictators in most cases. The high up people in the shadows.

Texas has 7 trillion square feet= 7billion x1000
The other stuff is interesting, I suggest you not stop searching
 
Well, half of Texas anyway. The other half, like New Mexico, has no water. There's a real good reason it's sparsely populated.
But it's a good place to pave with solar panels so people can live elsewhere.

The problem is not so much a place to stand on the earth, but where you put you shit, and is there enough water to grow the food. So to expand the population more, we need to make our shit safe, (Co2, heavy metals, chemicals, and the poop). We can't live here if the water gets poisoned with chemicals or salts. It's all possible to do, but so far even in the USA and Europe, we only deal with some of our shit. Right now, they are talking bout making it illegal to go out in the bush and take a crap in India. Apparently, even now, half the population doesn't have even an outhouse, let alone a sustainable place to take a crap.
 
Yes people like to say its consumption that matters not population, but this is not true. It's population times consumption that gives you resource usage.
Meat on the other hand produces more GHGs than transport...if the world went vegan we would save as much GHGs as if we shut down all world gas transport including planes and ships.
Realistically we are not gonna pull outselves out of this climate situation...these conferences achieve nothing.
We are at the beginning of an abrupt climate change...this decade the Arctic will be ice free and we will start seeing large methane emissions.
Within the next 10-20 years methane could become the dominant forcer of climate change.
Then it won't matter what people do - have kids, drives cars, eat bbqs. The earth will have taken over the warming.
We can produce enough food to feed 10 billion using fossil fuel agriculture in a stable climate. But what happens when the resource is depleted, the soils are eroded and the climate has changed to flood and drought?
California's drought and the Syrian refugee crisis are just the beginning, all at 0.85C.
Scientists are predicting 6C now...
 
Go change a couple of years worth of dirty diapers and get back to us.. :mrgreen:

I know how to do it with with cloth diapers and pins, disposables are for wimps who don't care about the environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top