finnadrag

yeah no shit that’s the emissions per capita part. It was ‘oversimplified’ but I guess still too hard for you to understand?

Yes that means it’s less important to reduce birth rate in Eritrea than in the US or Australia or whatever. As long as you’re either not concerned about raising their HDI rapidly or you think it can raise without per capita emissions rising with it and good luck with that.

If you didn’t actually have a rebuttal you could have just not engaged instead of being a smug prick with nothing to add.

OK then explain how increasing population reduces demand for goods and lowers GHG emissions.

Yes that means it’s less important to reduce birth rate in Eritrea than in the US or Australia or whatever. As long as you’re either not concerned about raising their HDI rapidly or you think it can raise without per capita emissions rising with it and good luck with that.

It doesn’t need to be, the core concept is simple. We are already overpopulated because we are failing to sustainably provide for 8 billion people. Doubling the number of people to provide for is not going to help.

total emissions = emissions per capita * capita

Unless we figure out carbon neutrality without cratering HDI in the next year or two maybe lets work on reducing birth rates. ‘we could have 20 billion people if we all live like subsistence farmers’ is fucking stupid.