Hypothetically, if every couple only had one child (or none), would global warming cease to be a problem?

Question

Hypothetically, if every couple only had one child (or none), would global warming cease to be a problem?

Answer 1

No.  Global warming.....and Cooling......come in natural cycles.

Answer 2

Well no. because there really is not much of a problem. Yes man is causing carbon dioxide levels to raise in the atmosphere. That is only some of the cause fo global warming. Additionally the amount of doom that TV shows and movies portray is quite exaggerated to get a viewing audience. Yes sea levels will rise and weather patterns will change a bit, but it will be slowly over time and be of little consequence. So even if we were to have no children for a long time, and had some crazy population decrease, global warming would still just go along like there was no change.

Answer 3

I think if everyone stopped saying "global warming", it would cease to be a problem.

Answer 4

No, global warming would still be a problem because it's not really the amount of people that are affecting global warming, it can only take a few people's actions. Yes, the production of Carbon would decrease which is affecting global warming however major companies that use fossil fuels to create energy are still going to pollute the world.

Answer 5

yes,less people will mean less use of resources and less greenhouse gas emissions, but its not a viable solution. unless the population moves towards green energy it will just delay the inevitable.

Answer 6

I don't think so

Its more than that its how we live and what we do with things in our lives and what sort of power we use recycling solar energy.

It could help by just turning off all power plugs in your home that are not in use simple but it works and replacing  lights with the those green friendly ones we have been using them for many years down in Oz

Answer 7

I think it would only slow down the process. Even if the population was cut in half I would think we would still be creating harmful wastes at a faster pace than the planet can handle.

Answer 8

Instead of asking silly questions with nothing more than a vague quest for an answer . Why don't people regroup and try to really accomplish something.

Answer 9

no, good luck having that happen in china and india where they apparently dont educate anyone on managing their family.

Answer 10

No... but...

First you need to understand that even if there were suddenly NO people on earth, global warming would not cease to be a problem, and unfortunately, what we have already done will continue to damage the ozone layer for many years, so in other words, even if there were zero people tomorrow, global warming would increase for a while.  

For example, anyone remember CFCs?  They used to be in aerosol sprays and other things.  They have been banned for some years  But CFCs already released will continue to damage the ozone layer for many decades.  They bond with particles high in our atmosphere, making our protective layer ineffective. So, even if it were possible for humans to quit causing ANY further damage, the problems of global warming have yet to peak.  That is why it is so important for each of us, both individually and as a global culture, to do all we can NOW.

So no, having one child only would not stop the global warming problem, BUT... lowering the population definitely would help over the long term.  Each human being takes up space that used to be wilderness, not only for our home and workplace and roads and sports arenas and malls, but we also need to be fed with crops and for some also meat, and much of the land used for farming and beef used to be forest!  Forests, because they release CO2 into the environment, are a major influence on global warming.  They are what help keep our planet cool and the weather moderate.

We also, by living, take away habitat for animals and polute the land and seas.  We are killing the earth's abundant life, no doubt about it.

I could go on much longer in an explanation, but i have a suggestion for our readers here.

After a recent global summit, many governments made the commitment to lower non-renewable energy consumption nationally by 20% by the year 2020.  I think EACH of us, should find our own commitment for lowering our personal impact.

To give you an example, i have decided to lower my personal consumption of non-renewable energy by at LEAST 20% by 2020.  When my gas furnace dies, i'm going to replace it with a geothermal unit.  Because i live in the north, this will significantly slash my consumption of natural gas.  I am also going to insulate my home better, plant a garden this spring to grow some of my own food, and quit buying so much food that is shipped from far away (using petroleum to be shipped),  I am giving to charities that help wildlife and protect their habitat.  I am reducing how much meat i eat and hope perhaps to quit eating it entirely (raising beef requires much more tree-less land than growing crops).  And i am also going to plant a number of trees each year.

What you decide for yourself is up to you.  But as individuals we really CAN have a significant impact on global warming... either for the negative, or for the positive.  Please don't let yourself get discouraged about the enormity of the problem.  Each of us can help, and the more of us that try, the more other people will join in!  :)

Answer 11

Don't really know if it would cease to be a problem but it might slow it down.

fewer people means less energy consumed, less water wasted, etc.  Fewer people = fewer resources consumed

so it just might work in the end - but it would still take years because there are still many people living at this point - and how do you actually stop the population from having more than 1 child.

but it's an interesting thought.

Answer 12

You need to learn about GW and how we got here:  We have the technology to move past the carbon debate. We do not have time to go through the government red tape, government has to change. Without governments mandating renewable resources that do not harm the environment, we are doomed. We have to take the time to get it right. With oil on the decline, we have to make massive changes, swiftly. But we can not do this twice, or three times - like in the past; we have to put our money in the best return on investments and where we get multiple benefits. We can not redo this one. We have had most of this technology for 20 years but have not implemented it. We know what is cost effective; we know where we need better technology. The fossil fuel depression with global warming will be the worst economic downturn in world history. But this is not doom and gloom; we have the ability to fix our mess and enough time. Solar Concentrating Electric Power Plants, wind, wave, small hydro-electric, geothermal, and nuclear energy are what we need. We must have a pollution surcharge where we pay the real price (health effects, global warming and cleanup) for oil, natural gas, coal, cigarettes, cooling towers, cars, trains and airplanes. Raising the price of fossil fuel today gives us more time to solve these problems and helps pay for the 20 Trillion Dollars worth of renewable energy over the next 10 years. Remember knowledge is power and this information is very powerful. Humans have 50 trillion dollars worth of stuff that runs on cheep oil, natural gas, or coal.

I attended the Focus the Nation at Sierra College on. The event was the 2% Solution, a 2% reduction over 40 years to solve global warming. Oil is a nonrenewable resource and we are running out-but not soon – anyone willing to pay $30 per gallon for gas. The problem is the oil will be gone in less than 30 years at present rates of consumption without projected increases and shortages (gone at least to run cars, heat homes, power electric plants or air travel). The 2% Solution is ok for the USA for a 10 year plan to cut 20%, but I would prefer a 5% Solution over the next 10 years for a 50% reduction. At the same time, we have to be building renewable energy so at the end of 10 years we can cut an additional 20%. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, peak natural gas in the 1990’s, having mined cheep coal, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, and the peak of uranium in the 1990’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. Global warming projects over the next 90 years that carbon dioxide will skyrocket as human’s burn more fossil fuels, but where is this fuel? We have to come up with what will take its place and cleanup our mess. One of the big problems we have is at some time Yellowstone will blow its top again, as the magma move closer to the surface, creating a nuclear winter. After that we will not have to worry about the destruction of the ozone layer, global warming or pollution.

Many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more dramatic destruction.  Blacktop and buildings (roads, roofs and parking lots-heat cities), deforestation (air pollution, soil erosion), duststorms (increase hurricanes and cyclones, cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's) and solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels and increased lung and other diseases); these human problems we must fix to keep life on earth sustainable! Humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain and other forests, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms.

The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes (where and when). Look beyond the hype, beyond the weather, beyond a quarterly report and beyond today. President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected. The fact is Bush wants to buy food from out side the USA to send to starving people since our grain is not available.

But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with current evidence! But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and it forms clouds cooling earth but sometimes causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and we are far behind).

Now what USA Presidential candidate is giving you the facts so you can make an educated decision of which one to vote for?

Education is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight where you can learn more about earth, the atmosphere, and how to sustain life on earth’s surface. Watch for changes in the sight coming soon.

Answer 13

No, even if the population continued to drop we would still have billions and billions of people for at least several hundred years.

If all these people kept consuming (includes our eating habits) in a wasteful and carbon emitting manner global warming would still continue to increase.

In fact global warming is going to continue for at least matter of decades even if we completely stop all CO2 emissions right away.

Momentum has been built and it is going to take some time to rein it back in.

Answer 14

It would decrease, but not enough to make a true impact.  It's all these factories and c**p that really have an affect on global warming.

Answer 15

Maybe it depends because population doesn't affect global  warming , our behaviour does. if the people start conserving more energy than we normally do global warming would decrease but it isn't very likely that global warming will dissapear