I think I know the solution to Global Warming?

Question

Can the solution be if we control our human population? If everyone were to only allowed to make 2 or less children then we would definitely save a lot more energy in many ways.

Would this help/save our earth?

Answer 1

I'm pretty sure the only solution is nuclear winter.

Answer 2

Humans have no effect upon solar activity (the driving force of climate change).  We have no effect at 6 Billion strong, at 24 Billion strong, or 500 million strong.  However, a regulation in the US governing reproductive rights would DEFINITELY reduce the national population...just not as the authors of such regulations would intend.

Answer 3

In short, yes it would. is it practical? no.  However, the Chinese have a one-child only law. It has made a difference in controlling population and all the food and energy requirements that come with it.

Answer 4

They  do that in China.  One child per family.  Most parents in China want boys instead of girls,  so girls are aborted.  Makes me wonder what all the extra boys are going to do.  They will probably start a war. Keeps young men busy  and removes them from the gene pool during their prime reproductive years.

Answer 5

No it wouldn't,,,,there are too many people on Earth already.

Answer 6

yes lets start with getting rid of al gore and all of his hot air.

Answer 7

if global warming doesnt kill us population will. every creature on the planet has a maximum holding level in their habitat, if this level is passed then the poulation does an almost straight down decline.

the human population is the same, the world pop stayed under bout 100 million and was always bout the same for hundreds of years, we hit the industrial revolution, not long after the first billion people then rose almost straight up to where it is today, aprox 6.5 billion. these directly upward trends continue within our life time and certainly our childrens life time it will hit 12 billion. 12 billion is the approx max holding capacity for humans on this planet. we will quickly run out of food, and quicker then our pop rose from the first billion to 6.5 billion which is less then 100 years, our pop will suddenly drop faster then it rose back to under 1 billion before leveling off again.

only the absolute strongest survive this. destroying out planet and killing off animals is turning around to bite us in the ***.

makes me hapy we will get our *** kicked by the planet.

Answer 8

Tired old idea.  

Already published as the "population bomb", 1968.

If global warming were real, the solution is obvious, put the stuff back in the air that was supposed to cause global cooling in the 70's.

Air pollution was a genuine problem, then, and has been cleaned up.

Now supposedly are all going to die because of global warming.

Obviously putting some of the pollution back into the air would be the solution, if there really were a problem.

The people who promote global warming know this, they are the same people who promoted global cooling.  They do not want the problem solved, it is how they make their money.

You do not honestly believe people can control the climate.  Do you?

Answer 9

No , we would still pollute anyway maybe the rate would go down but the global warming would stay.

Answer 10

There should be a limit on the number of Liberals that are born every year.

Answer 11

YEAH!

Answer 12

i agree with you, those people who lived in china and in singapore are very strict when it comes to giving birth, they are only allowed to have one child. i hope there will be a rule so that we can minimize the global warming.

Answer 13

YAY FOR CONDOMS!

Answer 14

All you have to do is look to China.   They have the one child rule and the worlds worst pollution.

So that would tell you that would not be the solution.  The control of items that polite and polluters would be the solution.

Of course the fewer people we have the less people there would be to make the pollution.

Answer 15

It would absolutely help, but has been ignored by people advocating different policies to control global warming because it is so controversial. I don't know about other countries, but the tax policies of the United States encourage people to have children, which just seems insane. Obviously we stress Earth's environment less with fewer people.

Answer 16

Plants have already taken care of that. GW is a scam and it is costing us plenty.The left wants all working people to walk...Study photosynthesis so U might understand.

Answer 17

Unfortunately everyone forgets about biology when it comes to self preservation. This is one area that really concerns me about mindsets.

Answer 18

How 'bout if the alarmists don't have children and the rest of us do?  That would eventually solve it.

Answer 19

If your way of thinking is corect,why not stop having children alltogether.

Answer 20

Yes!  the planet's population has doubled in less than 30 years, and anyone who has more than two children is adding a real burden to the planet.

Those who have fewer than two should be getting tax credits and other incentives!  It is the kindest way to lower the burden of humans on the earth.  The other ways are war, famine and pestilence.

Answer 21

It might help in regards with population control.  This is largely because that when we have children, then where would we live?  But just with CO2, no.  This is because the fuel we use comes from plants to begin with.  And so the CO2 we breath is then recycled by plants.  And with us having to destroy plants just because we want a place to live, then our ability to recycle CO2 is diminished.

Answer 22

It depends on how much and in what ways the remaining human population was "allowed" to consume. If every people on earth where allowed to have the same habits like for instance the average American have today, then no, it wouldn't be enough.

On the other hand, if we did find ways to reduce our dependencies on fossil fuel AND limit human population growth, (and the right way to do that is actually to reduce poverty and increase education levels in third world countries) then we're on the right way. And really, it doesn't have to be that hard to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel. For instance Sweden has managed to lower the use of oil with 30% since the 70th. A fact that also makes us less vulnerable to the high oil prices we see today. However, the longer we wait, the longer we're heading in the wrong direction and this mission will be harder to achieve.

Answer 23

according to the latest scientific studies, there has not been any global warming in the past 2 years, and none is expected for the next 4 years.

This has all been a scare tactic that Al Gore used to make enough money, to pay for enough energy for his fuel hog house.

Answer 24

It would help in the future but what about now what do we do with all the people we have now?? I say lets hold a lottery and the winner gets millions of dollars but must commit suicide within a month after!!

Answer 25

What a cruel idea! Forbid humans the joy of having children for the sake of some elaborate hoax!!!

Why don't you start using your time coming up with more productive things rather than contemplating the depopulation of the globe?!!!

Answer 26

Before man started interfering with things, like improved heath care, agriculture, etc. the natural order :war, pestilence, disease, famine kept population on an even keel.

Al Gore's charts clearly show that CO2 is increased as human population increases. If CO2 increases are really the problem:

Does this imply we need more war and less medical care?

Answer 27

GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REAL!!!! THE EARTH IS NOT WARMING!!! THIS HAS BEEN ONE OF THE COLDEST WINTERS AND SUMMERS I HAVE EVER EXPERIENCED!!!! WARMING DOES NOT MEAN COLD WEATHER!!! HELLO!!!!