Do many of you think that over-population is a Major source of our Global Warming Problem?

Question

I know that most of this temperature rise is caused by human activities that releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Okay, but aren't there way too many humans to be supported by our earth's

natural resources?? Do you think we should do what China did for different reasons and allow 2 children to each family?

Answer 1

It's time that we all realize what the scientist say. Carbon dioxide does NOT drive global warming. Man made or otherwise. The single greatest contributer of Co2 in the atmosphere are the oceans. When the oceans warm they give off Co2. When they cool they absorb it. It happens on a small scale roughly every thirty to forty years and is driven by the sun. It happens on a larger scale over hundreds of years and greater still over thousands of years. Over tens of thousand of years we have ice ages and huge warming periods when Co2 levels have been much higher and much lower than they are now.

  I personally believe that we should eliminate the use of fossil fuels for economic and security reasons. I do not, for one minute think that we should give in to the fear mongers that claim doom for us all if we don't stop consuming oil now.

  Scare tactics are used by the scoundrels who are now selling the worthless " carbon credits " !

   As an avid environmentalist, camper, sailor and hiker. I believe in the old credo, Take only pictures and leave only footprints.

  We will use fossil fuels until we find a better way and we will find a better way. We just haven't yet.

  See.... "Doomsday Called Off" at youtube or google video

Answer 2

yes

Answer 3

no, just educate women. more educated women are more likely to have less children then less educated ones.

Answer 4

No I don't...most of our Global Warming Problems (as well as our other issues) are born of GREED!

Answer 5

Overpopulation isn't that main issue, it's overconsumption and exploitation of natural resources.  

The planet could probably provide easily for as many people as exist now, it just can't do it and with each person having a personal auto, meat for every meal seven days a week, and enough personal conveniences that 2525 by Zager and Evans becomes a reality.

Answer 6

If global warming were caused by humans, then yes, reducing the population would be a good start. However, as someone else said, most of the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from the oceans, and there's not much we can do about that.

As far as limiting family size, I say no. That would be a major civil liberties violation. I personally feel people should only have one or two kids because overpopulation does cause a lot of other problems for the environment. I also do not believe that people can effectively parent more than one or two kids. I feel so sorry for kids in big families, because they never get the parental attention they need. However, it's not the government's job to control someone's reproductive choices.

Answer 7

If we grew our food without fossil fuel, warmed ourselves, clothed ourselves, and transported ourselves without fossil fuels, and in addition did not spend a lot of fossil fuels on manufacturing garbage, then the food we eat will have absorbed all the CO2 that we emit after eating it.

That is, our presence on earth would not add to atmospheric CO2.

That does not imply that CO2 would not rise, nor does it imply that there would be no global warming. We have had periods of global warming in the past, and it has been associated with high CO2 levels even before human presence.

What is does imply is that we would not be causing it if we were not burning fossil fuels, unless we were in rapid deforestation mode.

Every bit of our contribution to global warming is a result of our burning of fossil fuels. Eating plant or animal life that has had to absorb CO2 to feed us does nothing.

Anyone who wishes to take a long walk on a short pier to save the planet is of course free to do so.

Answer 8

How many family's do you really know that has more than two kids anymore?  We'd have to make it one child here in the USA to make a difference.  It's not the engery that we are lacking in,  It's the way we produce and burn it is what causing all the problems with global warming

Answer 9

We could do better with the world birth rate.  Thailand has had success with lowering their birth rate, using education and distribution of birth control products.

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Watch this video to get an idea how consumerism wastes resources and exagerates our impact on the environment.

It would help a lot if we weren't quite so materialistic.  

If Jello's right and we each get 20 acres of the earth, I wonder if he would like his in the middle of the Sahara or Antarctica or the Gobi desert, maybe Siberia.

Answer 10

There is a direct correlation between human population and pollution.  The green house gases that are contributors to global warming are included that pollution.

The greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming have a direct correlation to human population.  Reducing the problem to its simplest terms, "The more people the faster the global warming."  Although that oversimplifies the problem as standards of living vary, and with it, a person's environmental footprint.  For example, a person making a living as a subsistence farmer without an automobile and modern conveniences will contribute less to greenhouse gases than a person in a large home with air-conditioning who drives a gas guzzling SUV.  The correlation still holds true.  Reducing the human population of the earth will reduced greenhouse gas production.  

Your first question asks "Do many of you think..."  It is a wonderful question because it causes awareness of the problem in that, as is obvious from your prior answers, not many people think overpopulation is a source of global warming.  People's lack of awareness is in and of itself an obstacle to solving the problem.  From the desire for cheap labor from capitalist greed and the power base of institutionalized religion, there are many powerful forces which benefit (in the short term) from excessive human population.  Because of this, there are social taboos that inhibit people from directly addressing the correlation between population and global warming.  Not many have the forthright insight you present.

Your next question asks if there are too many humans to be supported by our earth's natural resources.  Yes.  It does not appear the current population can be sustained.  From resource depletion to environmental destruction, even the earth's current standard of living is unsustainable.  Of course one can depend on human ingenuity to find a solution, but already our population is excessive considering that damage to the natural world as species extinction.  The rate of extinction of other species is excessive and is a result of human activities.

Your last question asks if we (I assume you mean the United States) should adopt a two child per family or one child per family policy as in China.  Socially that would be difficult in the United States.  However, the average number of children born to non-immigrant families in the United States is less than two.  If legal immigration were reduced and illegal immigration enforced, the population of the U.S. would be on the decline.  However, overpopulation and global warming are world problems and need to be addressed globally.  

You may find additional resources at

http://www.npg.org/              

http://www.populationconnection.org/

Answer 11

Of course not.  The current population density is one person per 5 acres of land.  Every family of 4 can live on an equal 20 acres of land.

More than enough to support the family.

Answer 12

I say who cares if it does I don't want to live in a non free country anyway so if the only way that would fix it is for you to tell me how many kids I can or cannot have then I say let us have as many as we want and let the world end.  

Also didn't really see the reason for you adding who has more kids then others do poor kids effect the global warming more then rich ones?  

Talk about brains where is yours to add that makes no sense at all what so ever.  

And no I'm not poor and I have no children and I still think that was the dumbest point I have ever heard.

Answer 13

No I think we just stop taking so much care of old people.  When people turn 50, throw em in a furnace...  You just start going backwards in time anyway.  We weren't naturally designed to live this long anyway.

Answer 14

no

Answer 15

No the freedom to reproduce might be one of natures true virtues when it comes to survival.If you look on a world populace map it's readily noted that most habitation occurs in just a few zones.There's still viable farm land available for agriculture and homesteads.But who wants to live in isolated and destitute places? In today's market place it's nether consumption nor exploitation...it's allocation.Once government subsidies were imposed the curtailing of food production was reduced.This created a fix priced system in the market place.Not only were farmers getting paid not to produce but the conglomerates step up to the plate.In third world countries it's a different story.Those who have the machine guns win.

Answer 16

Yes, population, and the resultant man-made goods growth is the root cause of all pollution. It is also the root cause of so many countries not having enough food and water. The earth can only support so many of any animal that uses its resources.

It is a serious problem and we must not continue to put our heads in the sand. Do you realize only a few countries can actually produce more food than they need to exist? With today's technology, it takes on average about one acre of growing soil per person to make enough food. Many countries cannot even feed themselves. Water is running out all over the world.

Maybe GW is just natures way of assuring survival of the species.