|
Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but can anyone help me understand what Gates meant by this? How do vaccines and healthcare reduce population? This is one of the key things the conspiracy theorists' argument boils down to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
meowmeowmeowmeow posted:I think it's related to generally improved quality of life and reduced unexpected mortality (especially for kids) generally results in people having fewer kids. Yeah that sounds like it. So if people are comfortable and confident that their kids are likely to survive to adulthood (through vaccines and healthcare), they'll have less kids, and population growth rate will actually slow. I know that the conclusion of Project Drawdown, for example, was that by far and away the number one thing we need to do to slow climate change is to educate woman in developing countries, because that is the number one way to slow population growth. (In saying that now, I can understand why "conservatives" would be opposed to that too.) So I guess he's using "vaccines and healthcare" in the same way. Man he really could have taken an extra 20 seconds to explain that better.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2020 02:20
|
|
|
I went to check the numbers for natural emissions vs anthropogenic emissions, and found this paper that seems wildly inaccurate, can anyone tell me if I'm missing something? https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...%20earthquakes. quote:The results indicate that the global annual GHG emissions range approximately between 54.33 and 75.50 Gt CO2-eq, of which natural emissions account for 18.13–39.30 Gt CO2-eq, with the most likely value being approximately 29.07 Gt CO2-eq. According to the GCP report, the global anthropogenic emissions have increased from 22 Gt CO2-eq in 1990 to 36.2 Gt CO2-eq in 2016. The amounts of natural and anthropogenic GHGs emissions are roughly of the same order of magnitude. Anthropogenic emissions account for approximately 55.46% of the total global GHGs emissions (By comparison, these are the numbers I was looking for: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
Nothingtoseehere posted:No, that seems about right. Current human GHG emissions are around 42 Gt CO2, which given emission growth is not out of line with 36 Gt CO2 in 2016. The earth did sustain a 280 ppm CO2 level before industrial activity after all, despite many active sinks - those CO2 emissions came from somewhere. The scale of human emissions needed to outweigh natural ones is why we didn't start seeing climate change signals till the 1950s despite the industrial revolution starting in the 1850s, and up until the 1980s it was counterbalanced by a strong aerosol signal from all the air pollution. The other article you link is 2007, and human emissions have been growing since 2007 fairly consistently. Humans going from 36 to 42 is fine, but what is the size of the natural emissions, from land and sea? It should be about 700 Gt, right? The recent article is saying it's between 54 and 75 Gt. Which seems out by a factor of 10. I understand there are annual fluctuations, but that can't be it. What am I missing here? 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
https://x.com/LeonSimons8/status/1775363939192172779?s=20
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2024 07:11
|
|