Climate change

[Ymx]

The industrial use ultimately has an end consumer that is an individual. Even goods and services produced for companies should end up allocated against the consumer at the end of the chain. I can't think of a single example where that's not the case.

I agree and haven’t said otherwise.

So what is this industrial use then? Where does that get ascribed to individual consumers?

That would be the 38% globally, or 65% in the case of China.

As for allocation of that, I was wondering if these numbers might be used as a proxy for that split.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.EXP.GNFS.ZS

So in Chinas case 20% of their gross domestic product is exported.

Private consumption 35%
Industrial and internal consumption 52%

Industrial and exported 13%


China 87% of what they burn, they use.
Plus any extra of what they import (luxury goods)

So a fuckload. Although that 20% assumes a fixed ratio of energy used to price of good or service, and possibly other factors.

[Ymx]

Globally speaking it’s 30% GDP which is exported.

62% private usage
38% industrial - of which 11.5% export, 26.5% domestic (using the 30% above)

Which suggests on average 88.5% of energy burned by a country is consumed domestically, 11.5% for exported product.

Again, this is based on assumption that price of product (which it contributes to as GDP) is proportional to the cost of energy to make it, which is probably not a strong enough correlation.

[Sandstorm]

We had our 1st kid at 26 and 3rd kid when my wife and I were both 30 (and quickly got the snip afterwards ). We are both 33 now and literally no one we know our age has had 3 kids. A few have 2 or 1, but 50-60% of our peer group are still having lie-ins at the weekend (the cunts).

Given how much longer it is taking young people in developed countries to get onto the property ladder these days, I think this trend will grow even further, which is a positive for the population control argument.

In England if you don’t have 3 kids, everyone thinks you have medical problems.

[assfly]

In England if you don’t have 3 kids, everyone thinks you have medical problems.

Exactly. How else do you get a 3 bedroom council house?

[Mahoney]

The total fertility rate (TFR) increased to 1.61 children per woman in 2021 from 1.58 in 2020.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... wales/2021

[GogLais]

In England if you don’t have 3 kids, everyone thinks you have medical problems.

Exactly. How else do you get a 3 bedroom council house?

Council houses - have you heard of Margaret Thatcher?

[Hal Jordan]

The total fertility rate (TFR) increased to 1.61 children per woman in 2021 from 1.58 in 2020.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... wales/2021

Lockdown shagging?

[Mahoney]

More that it’s nowhere near 3 and dramatically below the replacement rate of 2.1.

[petej]

More that it’s nowhere near 3 and dramatically below the replacement rate of 2.1.

Anyone who thinks population growth is a problem really needs to look at demographics and understand how increasing life expectancy has played a huge role in population growth particularly with low birth rates in many countries. The UK has a problem that to get economic growth they can only do it via population growth hence the need to pretend to be tough on immigration while really having no intention of doing anything sensible about it. When you combine this with declining energy consumption and goods consumption for like 15-20 years you can see how generating economic growth is so tough without population growth. On western/northern consumption a significant issue is the super wealthy eg within a country like the uk the majority of flights are taken by a very small part of the population. With climate change you really can't afford the super wealthy due to their consumption habits.

[inactionman]

Relevant to the discussion:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... inds-study

[Biffer]

Relevant to the discussion:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... inds-study

I was just going to post that.

[Random1]

Anyone listened to this chap before?

He reckons the US, French and New Zealanders are the only ones that will see proper sustainable population growth over the next few decades.

Fun listen.

[petej]

Anyone listened to this chap before?

He reckons the US, French and New Zealanders are the only ones that will see proper sustainable population growth over the next few decades.

Fun listen.

Yes, him and others like Danny Dorling have noticed the same thing. The end of the great acceleration. Not unprecedented as look at the depopulation of Roman empire but unprecedented in terms of scale being pretty much global. As local regions become more important the UK decision to leave the EU was really badly timed.

[JM2K6]

Zeihan, notoriously, talks a lot of shit and overreaches hard, particularly about China. I beg people to stop being uncritical about pundits just because they were on Joe Rogan's podcast. He's not someone who's permanently wrong about everything and he's far from stupid, but he's definitely someone who reaches for the extreme explanation because it makes waves, and he is extremely confident on these big declarations despite the shaky ground.

Zeihan has been predicting the imminent collapse of China for nearly 20 years - it's always only 5-10 years away! He predicted recently that German manufacturing would be completely gone in the next 2 years. He made some very dumb statements about Bitcoin (how hard is it to be right about fucking crypto?!) that immediately bit him in the arse. He's repeatedly predicted that the U.S. will stop becoming "the world's policeman" and will stop protecting sea lanes, which is a very difficult claim to support. He's been talking up the emergency of a Japanese hegemon for a while (hey uh about that demographic crisis, Peter?) and saying that, among others, Argentina and New Zealand are going to have huge opportunities for growth on the regional stage, if not the world stage. I think he even predicted doom and gloom for Canada.

The guy has his pet theories but seems unable to (or refuses to) apply a dose of realism to them even when they don't pan out as expected. He seemingly can't see the wood for the trees, and he's incapable of avoiding a US-centric perspective. Geography and demographic changes are far from the only things that can determine the health and future of a nation. It's only very recently he even began to consider the impact of climate change, having ignored it for a very long time, and he continues to add his spin on it that just so happens to be negative for the USA's enemies but fine for the USA.

[Slick]

A mate has just seen the Edinburgh team getting on a plane to fly to Leicester. FFS

[Biffer]

A mate has just seen the Edinburgh team getting on a plane to fly to Leicester. FFS

That'll be a charter as well, there isn't a scheduled flight to East Midlands any more.

Better off buying a whole first class carriage on LNER to Newark and then a decent country hotel and an hour bus to Welford Road.

[Biffer]

Ok, let’s start with this

https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.co ... 920-en.pdf

And this

https://www.un.org/en/actnow/facts-and-figures

The full dataset sor the Stockholm institute is here if you want all the numbers

https://www.sei.org/projects-and-tools/ ... dashboard/

And remember this is on a population distribution basis, so applies internally to countries and externally globally rather than to rich countries vs poor countries. In other words an average income person in France will consume more carbon than an average income person in, say, Chad, and the footprint of the wealthy in China is responsible for a disproportionate amount of emissions in the same way as anywhere else. Country measures are not important when looking at this as an issue based on consumption.

Then remember that having an income above around $40,000 puts you in the top 10 per cent globally.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/cha ... worldwide/

Then consider this

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-econo ... ity-income

And realise that reducing population would be done by reducing fertility rates amongst the poor. Who are not the people producing the overwhelming amount of the emissions.

How about you pull out/aggregate the key numbers from these various reports.

How about you put a bit of effort in?

From 1990 to 2015, a critical period in which annual emissions grew 60% and cumulative emissions doubled, we estimate that:
• The richest 10% of the world’s population (c.630 million people) were responsible for 52% of the cumulative carbon emissions – depleting the global carbon budget by nearly a third (31%) in those 25 years alone (see Figure 1);
• The poorest 50% (c.3.1 billion people) were responsible for just 7% of cumulative emissions, and used just 4% of the available carbon budget (see Figure 1);
• The richest 1% (c.63 million people) alone were responsible for 15% of cumulative emissions, and 9% of the carbon budget – twice as much as the poorest half of the world’s population (see Figure 1);
• The richest 5% (c.315 million people) were responsible for over a third (37%) of the total growth in emissions (see Figure 2), while the total growth in emissions of the richest 1% was three times that of the poorest 50% (see Figure 6).

Strange there was never a response to this.

After he’d asked for numbers, got lots of them and then went ‘woah, too many, you have to do the work for me’.