[Bored chemist]

I don't recall that being in any COP resolution. They all witter on about carbon dioxide, not people or their aspirations.

And then the politicians went home and faced their electorates.

And, for some mystical reason...

hey listened to the people who said " You don't really need to do anything; waiting for people to die is easier".

The question is who told the voters that "it will all work out OK anyway"?

[Bored chemist]

Good morning, BC. I made a similar point some time ago on a similar discussion: when one looks at the lengths infertile couples will go to, at huge expense, to have a child it gives one an idea of the strength of such desires.

It's not just the ones with fertility issues.

Every time a newspaper editor is short of copy, they run a story about how much it costs to raise children.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/money-mentor/article/starting-family-baby-costs/

Call it quarter of a million or so over 20 years
12.5K per year
It makes Alan's suggestion that 1000 a year will make a difference to many people's choices laughable.

But he still keeps making it.

Not that it matters; it's a guaranteed vote loser. It's just not going to happen.

[alancalverd]

I have a no smoking area in my house, and also ban the carriage of firearms. I don't give a damn what other people do in their own homes but if they followed my lead, they'd have a better life. I didn't wait for everyone else to move first.

I think you will agree that

1. Whilst the composition of  the atmosphere is pretty much the same everywhere, the climate isn't.

2. It will inevitably get hotter everywhere for the foreseeable future, but

3. We may disagree about the cause but it the effect may remain tolerable in the British Isles if we take measures to mitigate its effect here.

So why not do so, and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (and imported food) at the same time?

[alancalverd]

And then the politicians went home and faced their electorates.

and got re-elected.

The question is who told the voters that "it will all work out OK anyway"?

Nobody. They all said it is going to be a disaster, and nobody has done anything about it except blame the rich/poor/everyone else.

[paul cotter]

The birth rate in the British isles is down but can you realistically control immigration? Here in Ireland the population has risen 15% in a relatively short time, largely through immigration, and we now have an acute housing shortage. For some reason many migrants seem to think the UK is the ultimate destination with no capacity limitation.

[Bored chemist]

the effect may remain tolerable in the British Isles if we take measures to mitigate its effect here.

Or it may not, so it's sensible to try to halt the change.

and got re-elected.

Because they  had manifestos that didn't include a "one child" policy- because that's what it would get called.

[Bored chemist]

can you realistically control immigration?

The politicians could.
But most of them have at least a nodding acquaintance with economics so they won't.

If the birth rate is less than the death rate the average age will increase.
In the limit, that means most of your population are pensioners.
And even the fact that you can shift effort from teaching to geriatric care won't save the economy.

So the politicians stir up hatred by blaming immigrants for problems with the NHS (when, in fact, about 15% of the staff are immigrants without whom the problems would be a whole lot worse).

Then they say "only our party will protect you from the immigrants".
And then they make a big fuss about a boat which might some day house a tiny fraction of them.

Meanwhile, they don't actually stop them, because they know the economy needs productive people and the vast majority of immigrants are productive.

[alancalverd]

Or it may not, so it's sensible to try to halt the change.

By all means do so by any means you can afford. But remember that it is not possible to sustain the current UK population at its present level of energy consumption from local renewables, and the rest of the world will be competing for the dwindling food and any new energy sources it can find.

.
Because they  had manifestos that didn't include a "one child" policy- because that's what it would get called.

Both major UK parties are already committed to restricting child benefit to 2 children. Doesn't seem to have affected the election of corrupt and incompetent parasites any more than putting me in midfield in a black and white strip would stop people supporting Spurs - modern elections are about tribal loyalty, not logic.

[alancalverd]

can you realistically control immigration?

Immigration to the UK was effectively controlled from 1066 until 1995, so the answer is yes.

It is important to distinguish between visitors, migrants (seasonal workers who leave when their contract is complete), immigrants (invited with a view to permanent residence),  refugees (fleeing or rescued directly from a hostile territory), and invaders (anyone else).

[alancalverd]

Every time a newspaper editor is short of copy, they run a story about how much it costs to raise children.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/money-mentor/article/starting-family-baby-costs/

Call it quarter of a million or so over 20 years
12.5K per year
It makes Alan's suggestion that 1000 a year will make a difference to many people's choices laughable.

You have quoted the cost to the parents. Cost to the taxpayer is the same order of magnitude. I'm just offering an informed choice, with a considerable saving to yourself (13,000 per year) and the taxpayer (about 10 k per year) if you take my money. If you don't, your net costs will increase because there are no direct benefits (currently around 1.2k) payable after the first child.

[Bored chemist]

Immigration to the UK was effectively controlled from 1066 until 1995

It still is.

Anyone who has travelled abroad to and from the UK might have noticed a gate of some sort where they had to show a passport.
The folk checking documents are, in fact, part of the process by which we do control immigration.

Many of those travelling are tourists or "invaders" as you would put it.

But remember that it is not possible to sustain the current UK population at its present level of energy consumption from local renewables

I remember it, that's why I see that this

By all means do so by any means you can afford.

misses the point.

We can't afford not to reduce our impact.
Because we can't reduce our numbers quickly, so we have to do something else.

[paul cotter]

What happens a lot in Ireland is migrants turning up at ports having destroyed their passports in transit and then claiming refugee status. I don't know if this happens on your side of the pond. If we need new blood to keep the economy going to pay for pensioners( like me), it will be difficult to reduce the population.

[alancalverd]

Many people make the error of assuming that you need children to support the elderly.

Fact is that in a civilised society, children don't work and pay taxes, but consume social services and benefits paid for by the "working fraction". In these islands you can assume that the 0 - 20 cohort are not part of the active workforce. You can also approximate the age distribution by assuming that everyone retires at 60 and the cohort undergoes a linear decrease from 60 to 100. This gives you a working fraction of exactly 0.5, whose income and taxes support the other half.

Now if you reduce the birthrate to one child per female, the working fraction immediately increases and eventually reaches a maximum of around 0.6 whilst the total population decreases, thus making more tax revenue and natural resources available per capita. Some of the working fraction are of course employed servicing the needs of children: fewer children means more medical, nursing, social care and even education available for the elderly.

As for undocumented persons turning up on the shores of these islands, they can't be migrants (who would have a passport and work permit) or refugees (the only feasible sea crossings are from safe countries) so they must be invaders. Any visitor who has lost his passport in transit will at least have purchased a ferry ticket, so he can be put on the next return ferry to Spain, France, Norway or wherever he came from, and buy a new passport.

[alancalverd]

Many of those travelling are tourists or "invaders" as you would put it.

The literate will have noticed that I distinguished between visitors (who arrive through those gates) and invaders. (who don't).

[alancalverd]

Because we can't reduce our numbers quickly, so we have to do something else.

Who "we"?

Clearly not the rest of the world, who are mostly intent on increasing their consumption of resources and generation of carbon dioxide.

As you say, simply reducing the CO2 emission of the UK isn't going to make much of an impact globally though it might finally realise the Tory dream of destroying the economy.

[Bored chemist]

Who "we"?

What significant number of people can actually reduce their numbers fast enough to avoid a crisis?

[Bored chemist]

As you say, simply reducing the CO2 emission of the UK isn't going to make much of an impact globally though it might finally realise the Tory dream of destroying the economy.

Many people think progress can be quite profitable.

[Petrochemicals]

What happens a lot in Ireland is migrants turning up at ports having destroyed their passports in transit and then claiming refugee status. I don't know if this happens on your side of the pond. If we need new blood to keep the economy going to pay for pensioners( like me), it will be difficult to reduce the population.

Many people make the error of assuming that you need children to support the elderly

You do need the young to look after the old, in China in a few years there will be 2 parents 4 grand parents to look after from one worker, and possibly 2 children to support. Between a couple that is 16 people from 2 workers.

At present it is the flip side with 4 grandparents and 2 parents looking after 1 child so it has to right itself eventually, unless you believe in the continually inreacing populace model, where there are many dependants for each worker leading to poor education etc.

[Bored chemist]

The literate will have noticed that I distinguished between visitors (who arrive through those gates) and invaders. (who don't).

Plenty of illegal immigrants - who might be classed as invaders- arrive through the same gates on migrant visas or tourist ones- and then "overstay".

[alancalverd]

2 parents 4 grand parents to look after from one worker, and possibly 2 children to support. Between a couple that is 16 people from 2 workers.

What is the retirement age in China? Assuming the worker is aged 20 - 60, it is unlikely that he will be supporting all four of his own grandparents (don't they have contributory pensions in China?). AFAIK it takes a male and a female to make a child and assuming that 20-60 year old females work, that is only one child per worker, not 2. So at the most, each worker will be supporting himself and maybe 1 - 2 others, not 16. If he has more children, he will be supporting more, not fewer, people.

At present it is the flip side with 4 grandparents and 2 parents looking after 1 child

So which is true: do you need the child to look after his elders (unlikely) or are the elders supporting the child (pretty obviously)? Why would that change?