I%26#039;m not interested in what%26#039;s %26quot;right%26quot; or %26quot;wrong%26quot; to do such as any self-righteous feel-good blaming rants about the morality (there%26#039;s a religious section on YA for that), just the mechanics of how it could (or would not) work.
For reference, I find this YouTube video very interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuO...
Although it%26#039;s about immigration, the points about global population and growth seem relevant to the discussion of whether or not a few people who currently manage keep themselves above the poverty/hunger level can really solve the problems in the countries that haven%26#039;t reached that point by now.
Is the problem in poor countries really global warming, or will it boil down to poverty/hunger and population carrying capacity? How many hundreds of billions (or trillions) have been spent on the problem over the past decades, and with what results?
Additional Details
5 months ago
thor - For the most part those are completely reasonable arguments (except that poor people in developed countries aren%26#039;t magically transported to poor ones where they might afford the staples they need, so they%26#039;re still stuck struggling).I wonder if the numbers would work, given the ratio of poor to comfortable ones, and global poulation rates.
Check out the video...
5 months ago
Here%26#039;s one of the problems that we might need to help developing countries with, in addition to GHGs:Black carbon pollution emerges as major player in global warming - PhysOrg
http://www.physorg.com/news125500721.htm...
%26quot;Black carbon, a form of particulate air pollution most often produced from biomass burning, cooking with solid fuels and diesel exhaust, has a warming effect in the atmosphere three to four times greater than prevailing estimates, according to scientists in an upcoming review article in the journal Nature Geoscience.%26quot;
%26quot;Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego atmospheric scientist V. Ramanathan and University of Iowa chemical engineer Greg Carmichael, said that soot and other forms of black carbon could have as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2.%26quot;
5 months ago
Lloyd K - Actually if you watch the video, the U.S. could increase immigration from 1 million to 40 million per year and not put a dent in poverty (80 million new births per year). Saving the world is a feel-good fallacy. We can%26#039;t even address unemployment, poverty and homelessness within our own borders (let alone healthcare, education, etc).5 months ago
Daniel C - Good point. I%26#039;ve always favored long term solutions (i.e. education) over single meal ones (food handouts).5 months ago
Dr. Know it All - I can tell you didn%26#039;t watch the video... it puts an interesting perspective on the numbers involved.5 months ago
Soundchaser %26amp; Ashley - Yes, not dealing with out own poor/homeless problems first makes it seem a little disingenuous to help other poor countries first, doesn%26#039;t it? Often it%26#039;s simply to buy some good will to keep oil flowing, while homeless people in U.S. cities have no oil to offer...5 months ago
kayman5150 - The evidence for global warming seems pretty solid to me, but I see no evidence that aid to developing countries in the past has done anything but enable them to overpopulate further.Someone show me some results: improving health and education and declining birth rates (since with improving food and healthcare people would no longer need to have 9-12 babies in order to have a couple survive).
Did %26quot;solving%26quot; poverty, hunger and disease work, and do we then take the next step (help them bring up their cooking, heating, transportation, etc.)? Doesn%26#039;t most %26quot;development%26quot; assistance result in a net carbon cost?
5 months ago
I completely understand the arguments for asking developed countries to be responsible for a greater share of the solution. In practice however the people who would be accountable for the cost, such as my children (currently in elementary school), did not create the problem and they will have their own survival challenges to face. They cannot carry ten (or twenty) developing country residents on their backs and carry everyone to safety. We%26#039;ll be lucky if any of us survives the food shortages. Developed countries aren%26#039;t some magic pool of global salvation (no matter how %26quot;rich%26quot; we look to developing country residents).5 months ago
Voice of Reason - I agree with you on this one.China%26#039;s growth in one year would wipe out a Kyoto-style reduction in the U.S., for every year from then on. Then the next year China grows again, putting the planet in a position of net increase, then every year after that multiplies that failure.
Who is the U.N. trying to kid?