[Petrochemicals]

Now we have a temporary cease fire what is required is for all Hamas fighters like the al Qassam brigade with their families and supporters to hand themselves over to the UN and declare themselves as refugees for exile to a very distant refugee camp by UN.
Those peaceful people who stay on will become citizens of the new Israel/Palestine nation and be given citizenship of the new nation of Israel with full voting rights in the upcoming Israel elections.
 

Yes but China, population down, emissions up!

[alancalverd]

Due to increased prosperity -> more cars, more meat consumption, more space heating, more manufacturing industry. But more industry, more transport -> more prosperity. And why not? Is there any reason why the rest of the world should not enjoy the same standard of living as me? 

[Petrochemicals]

more space heating,

Or space cooling. In Kuwait there is virtually no building without comprehensive air con. This can be countered by solar panels as the sun is often out, but these also require an energy input that is coming for the most part from Chinese powerstations burning Australian coal.

[acsinuk (OP)]

The more people in the world the more energy we need to produce to sustain them comfortable
The average age of residents is nearly 40 so no wonder they are so wealthy.
Gaza refugees average age is in 20's so they are extremely poor in comparison
UN free food/medicine is necessary but is ruining their economy and job opportunities ..
 

[acsinuk (OP)]

The more people in the world the more energy we need to produce to sustain them comfortable
The average age of residents in Kuwait is nearly 40 so no wonder they are so wealthy.
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/kuwait-population/
Gaza refugees average age is in 20's so they are extremely poor in comparison
UN free food/medicine is necessary but is ruining their economy and job opportunities ..

[alancalverd]

It isn't immediately clear why wealth is related to age, but you have hinted at the important point that in most western societies, the under-20's do not contribute to the economy, which is why reducing the birthrate  is the best way to respond to climate change.

There is a minor complicating factor in that Kuwait has lots of oil and Gaza has no significant natural resources.

[Petrochemicals]

The more people in the world the more energy we need to produce to sustain them comfortable

You are missing the point.

https://ourworldindata.org/worlds-energy-problem

[alancalverd]

Beg to differ! The point is that people generally aspire to  something like a Western standard of living, with clean water on tap, adequate food safely stored and distributed, easy personal transport over significant distances, and control over indoor ambient temperature.

To  achieve this in a fertile, temperate place like the British Isles requires an average of 5 kW of "artificial" energy per capita. You might get away with a bit less in some subtropical coastal regions (say the north Mediterranean) but anywhere more continental, more polar, or more equatorial, demands up to twice that amount (see the date for Singapore - high rise buildings in a hot, humid environment need a lot of aircon).

Problem is that

(a) we cannot produce  400 GW sustainably in these windy islands

(b) even if you could generate an average of 5 kW per capita in the places where most people live, there is no storage and distribution infrastructure, industrial or transport powerplant for anything other than liquid fuels or coal.

But we can control the number of capitas that demand the power. By simply reducing births to one per female, you reduce the population by a factor of 5 in 100 years and everyone is better off.

[paul cotter]

Alan, I think you know by now that I agree 100% with your analysis re population. The problem I see is getting sufficient buy-in for such reduction measures, especially from the female of the species. China tried the one child policy which had mixed results, however being such an authoritarian regime it was relatively simple to decree but it led to abuses. In a free country it is much more difficult as a large cohort of females will value a bunch of sprogs above monetary gains.

[alancalverd]

There's a huge difference between compulsion and persuasion.  To implement the policy in the UK, we simply pay every woman UKP500 (why no sterling pound sign on this site?) every 6 months if she isn't pregnant, and abolish all child benefits. UKP1000 per year for doing nothing seems like a good offer to any teenager and 20 years of selfimposed poverty seems like an unacceptable alternative.

The Chinese experiment was confounded by an underlying cultural preference for male children,. which led to all sorts of infanticides and hidden children.

Whether anyone else follows suit is up to them, but the advantages should be obvious. It didn't take any persuasion to get the rest of the world to adopt the steam engine, jet engine, penicillin, pneumatic tyre, worldwide web......

There's no great hurry. The climate will become unacceptable  for most folk within the next 100 - 500 years, but a significant reduction of population will at least mitigate the harm for our successors and in most cases will lead to a sustainable economy that is not entirely beholden to foreign scum. 

[Bored chemist]

we simply ... and abolish all child benefits.

In anything like a democracy, that's not going to be simple is it?
You seem to have forgotten that children already exist.

[alancalverd]

We no longer have a recognisable democracy in the UK, just a series of unelected presidents. As long as you can sell your policy to the Daily Mail and Telegraph, or just the 80,000 people who select the next president, it will become law.

Only an idiot (or a Tory government) would abolish benefits for people who already exist.

In the unlikely event of any alternative government being formed, they would simply introduce the non-pregnancy payment, and abolish benefits for any child born more than 21 months later. 

I pointed out in another thread the obvious fact that the people who will suffer most from climate change aren't born yet. So why make more of them than could live comfortably? 

[acsinuk (OP)]

Yes, I certainly support your idea Alan.  Financial incentive to reduce over population is ideal for the UK.
But, Gaza and Cox's Bazaar refugee camps demonstrate the real problem that over population can cause and although I originally blamed the UN for unfortunately making the problem worse;  it is surely the Security Council that needs to act and advise UN and aid agencies/charities to only provide free food aid that has been treated with a contraceptive.
All refugees of course are free to grow or buy their own food if they want a family; so we are not denying them their rights.

[paul cotter]

It is not ethical to force medication on anyone, regardless of motive.

[Bored chemist]

it is surely the Security Council that needs to act and advise UN and aid agencies/charities to only provide free food aid that has been treated with a contraceptive.

And again...
Is ACS too stupid to realise that many refugees are children.
Why does he want to poison these children?
How many times does he have to say it before he gets banned?

[Petrochemicals]

Yes, I certainly support your idea Alan.  Financial incentive to reduce over population is ideal for the UK.
But, Gaza and Cox's Bazaar refugee camps demonstrate the real problem that over population can cause and although I originally blamed the UN for unfortunately making the problem worse;  it is surely the Security Council that needs to act and advise UN and aid agencies/charities to only provide free food aid that has been treated with a contraceptive.
All refugees of course are free to grow or buy their own food if they want a family; so we are not denying them their rights.

But israel has an ever increasing population, plus I imagine that those in gaza and the west bank have the lowest emmisssions, if some of the Jewish population emigrated the carbon footprint would be far lower. Again I must bring your attention to China, population down and emmissions up.

[alancalverd]

I'm never in favor of compulsion, and certainly not enforced medication. Not sure I'd call contraceptives poison, but female contraceptives have an embarrassing effect on males, and male contraceptives apparently increase the toxic effects of alcohol, so that's a no-no too.

My plan is to lead by example, and if nobody else follows, that's not my problem.

Other problems can be solved by a worldwide ban on religion. It's something humanity has been crying out for, for at least 2000 years, and would be as beneficial as eliminating malaria, at much less cost. 

[acsinuk (OP)]

"I'm never in favour of compulsion, and certainly not enforced medication.".  Exactly correct.  But think about the women in the Sahara desert living on the edge. They have no money or even chemists to go and get free contraceptives from.

Surely these ladies should have the human right to avoid becoming pregnant; many of whom have 4 children by the time they are 20 years old.  These children are doomed to poverty and likely become refugees looking to UN to feed and relocate them.

The UN Security Council must take action to reduce the problem of refugees and limits the effects of climate change

[Bored chemist]

Not sure I'd call contraceptives poison, but female contraceptives have an embarrassing effect on males,

Children are more susceptible and eat more in proportion to their weight.
In that scenario, I'd call them poisonous.

[Bored chemist]

"I'm never in favour of compulsion, and certainly not enforced medication.".  Exactly correct.  But think about the women in the Sahara desert living on the edge. They have no money or even chemists to go and get free contraceptives from.

That's grounds to provide contraception to those women in the Sahara.

It's not a reason to force it on children in a refugee camp, is it?

So, why did you repeatedly suggest that?