[alancalverd]

Or use a tractor: huge per capita emission (one bloke burning umpteen gallons of diesel per day)

Or...
https://www.thescottishfarmer.co.uk/news/23270318.cow-poo-power-revs-tractor-ground-breaking-initiative/

I was a member of a community intending to return to horsepower and save the planet, until I calculated the CO2 emission of a horse. Standing still in a field and doing no work, it emits as much CO2 in a year as a small car covering 8000 miles, or a tractor feeding a few hundred people. And unlike the tractor, it eats much the same stuff as people.

[Petrochemicals]

f the animal thing doesn't eat the plant thing, plant thing rots, producing co2 and methane. If we remove all life from earth the co2 should drop, maybe global warming will end and everyone will be happy.

Not true. Not all plant material degrades to CO2 and CH4 - coal, oil and sedimentary rocks were all derived either directly or indirecltly from atmospheric CO2 by photosynthesis. Geology shows us that the primordial atmosphere was mostly CO2, and plant life is responsible for reducing it to the current negligible concentration..   

On the whole, since the carboniferous, microbes are able to deconstruct wood.  But I do take your point, peat bogs are able to store much carbon, but then again volcanos are able to issue it forth.

[acsinuk (OP)]

The link between CO2 increase and population increase is not coincidental but how do we encourage people tto have smaller families??
Well, if a country produced X million $ of goods and halved its population then the per capita standard of living would double and in fact treble because there would be no need to spend money on new houses, roads, water, sewage expansion etc.
So should world aid to poorer countries be conditional on that country openly agreeing to encourage contraception?

[alancalverd]

I've offered this solution previously, and it kills two birds with one stone.

Since it is the richest countries that generate most CO2, if you want to reduce anthropogenic CO2 you only need to address the richest 10% of the world's population to make the biggest impact.

Two things determine how the rich behave: how much they earn, and how much service they get for their taxes. So we cut all child benefits and pay every woman $600 every 6 months if she isn't pregnant. Thus there is an incentive to limit the number of children they produce. Consider the effect in the UK:

If every woman has one child, the population will decrease to 10% of the present level over 100 years, and in the interim the working fraction (age 20 - 60) will increase from 50% to about 55%, so we have more working people paying less tax (since we will be saving on maternity, infant and child care,  education, policing, etc,  at about $4 - 600,000 per child not conceived) and getting more space, with indefinitely sustainable energy and agriculture,  and a bigger pension. What's not to like?

As with the steam engine, television, penicillin, radar, computers, lasers, constitutional monarchy, and just about every other useful invention, other nations will probably follow suit. Problem solved. 

Note: I have used $ because this forum still doesn't recognise the sterling currency symbol!

[Bored chemist]

how do we encourage people tto have smaller families??

We already did.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/2022/11/12/the-stats-guy-peak-baby/



The problem is that all of humanity wants to live like rich westerners.
You can hardly blame them.

So the important thing to do is created a "rich westerner" lifestyle without trashing the planet.
A big part of that is low carbon tech.
Other energy savings etc are also important.

[alancalverd]

Agreed. And the only way you can do that is by maintaining population density at a sustainable level everywhere. It seems  sensible, practicable and indeed essential to run a demonstration project in the UK. 

[Bored chemist]

Agreed. And the only way you can do that is by maintaining population density at a sustainable level everywhere. It seems  sensible, practicable and indeed essential to run a demonstration project in the UK. 

Sounds good to me; let's start with decarbonising the economy.
Changing to renewables is a pain in the neck, but the sooner we start, the sooner we finish.
(Ironically, I recognise that it's going to take a while and I don't think you and I will see the end of it)

[paul cotter]

I don't have any data for my argument but I believe renewables will fall well short of our energy needs. Unless nuclear achieves a renaissance I see dire times ahead in 40-50years. Population growth has stalled in the western world but it is still surging ahead in many poor countries. 

[Petrochemicals]

Not in the UK Germany France or the states, australia.in the UK electricity is a fifth of our energy use, renewables are 25 percent of that.

I don't have any data for my argument but I believe renewables will fall well short of our energy needs. Unless nuclear achieves a renaissance I see dire times ahead in 40-50years. Population growth has stalled in the western world but it is still surging ahead in many poor countries. 

[Bored chemist]

I don't have any data for my argument but I believe renewables will fall well short of our energy needs.

Then the species will die. (There's some wriggle room on the timescale)

Which is why I think we will get renewables sorted out.

[alancalverd]

The problem with all-renewables is that
they can only supply about 10 - 20% of the UK's current energy demand at best,
there is no incentive for any electricity producer to invest in grid storage, and
an all-electric future will also require an enormous investment in power distribution (more taxes or current charges) and
replacement of practically every industrial and domestic heating system (more capital investment to stand still, so no competitive advantage).

But reducing the population to reduce demand to a sustainable level will only require 10 - 20% of that investment.

[paul cotter]

Nature itself may sort the problem out. With the current global population and air travel connecting virtually everywhere conditions are ripe for devastating zoonoses, most likely viral. In addition bacterial infections long thought to have been conquered are making a comeback, largely due to overuse of antibiotics. All organisms without a predator eventually overrun their environment and then collapse- I don't see humans as being fundamentally different in this respect.

[acsinuk (OP)]

I agree with both the last 2 posts by Paul and Alan that if we just let things drift on some calamity natural or not will reduce the population substantially..
.
Just look at Indian sub continent and south/central America though;  we are seeing riotous unrest because the local people there are looking for someone to blame for not developing their economy and increasing their standard of living quickly enough.  But our/their politicians are ignorant or not telling people the truth that we ourselves might be to blame.
 
.
Why should we blame ourselves??
.Well, if we only had 2 surviving children per family then there would be no requirement to build extra houses, roads, water/electric infrastructure;  just a case of passing on our own houses/land to our children.  This in fact has always been the way normal inheritance has worked but families had to be larger then as there was no medical backups.. 

[Bored chemist]

But reducing the population

How do we do that quickly?
In the UK the birth rate is already less than the death rate.
So, messing with that's not going to do much,

Are you proposing a cull?

[Bored chemist]

The problem with all-renewables is that
they can only supply about 10 - 20% of the UK's current energy demand at best,

https://news.sky.com/story/britons-paying-hundreds-of-millions-to-turn-off-wind-turbines-as-network-cant-handle-the-power-they-make-on-the-windiest-days-12822156?fbclid=IwAR3vfPknEgAf6pxK934zG0P7Mia18wfSdUvsI8kt9qVfO52p3IQz6COe__U

[acsinuk (OP)]

The sky report shows clearly that no point in building more wind turbines until the 400kV grid line over the border is reinforced.
The nat grid have at least a100 foot servitude for the existing  line so immediately they must build an extra 2 quad lines one each side of the existing line. There is no time for worrying about planning consents and the government should insist on the grid starting immediately and offer to pay all pre-ordering costs upfront to avoid delays. 

[Bored chemist]

the government should ... pay all pre-ordering costs upfront to avoid delays. 

Many land owners are already very rich without your proposed plan to hand them a blank cheque backed by the taxpayer.

[alancalverd]

But reducing the population

How do we do that quickly?
In the UK the birth rate is already less than the death rate.
So, messing with that's not going to do much,

Are you proposing a cull?

No cull necessary, and panic solutions are never advisable.  Adoption of my plan to cut child benefits and pay women for not being pregnant should result in a smooth decline in birthrate with a corresponding reduction of treasury costs and increase in tax revenues.

[Bored chemist]

Adoption of my plan ...should result in a smooth decline in birthrate ....

The birthrate is less than the death rate.
We have already achieved the goal  you seek.

[alancalverd]

The problem with all-renewables is that
they can only supply about 10 - 20% of the UK's current energy demand at best,

https://news.sky.com/story/britons-paying-hundreds-of-millions-to-turn-off-wind-turbines-as-network-cant-handle-the-power-they-make-on-the-windiest-days-12822156?fbclid=IwAR3vfPknEgAf6pxK934zG0P7Mia18wfSdUvsI8kt9qVfO52p3IQz6COe__U

Sadly, this is partly BS. If it were entirely true, there would have been serious blackouts in the recent past, but there haven't been.. Subsidies are paid whenever potential supply exceeds demand, and thereby hangs a significant problem.

If we had 100% windpower and adequate distributin capackty the installed genrating capacity would have to support full demand on the least windy days, so we'd need at least 900% overcapacity to cope with, say, last week's weather (or lack of).

The logical solution is either to require that every renewable installation is accompanied by 5 days' storage capacity, or to build enough nuclear stations to meet peak demand when the wind doesn't blow. Neither makes economic sense, and getting rid of all fossil fuels (assuming everyone can afford to  replace his bus/car/boiler/furnace/oven/truck/locomotive)  will increase electricity demand by a factor of 5.

Reducing the population reduces demand smoothly over maybe 100 years, to a sustainable level.