Population size is generally blame shifting tactics. It is true whether we were/are on the planet or not climate Change had occurred and would occur in short or long future. Examples of rubber collectors in Brazil and small fish and salt makers in Hondurans in the mangrove coastal areas areas where a large number of people were earning their livelihood sustainably without injuring environment are eminent ones. When logger started clearing forest and ranchers started encroaching these forests and when MNCs started to produce salt and over fishing, not only poor population was deprived of its livelihood, but environment is damaged beyond recovery. It is not the question of size of population or poverty, it is question of the way we are using our environment as life support system, resource field and throughput sink. If we have to support lifestyle of world population at the level of the US population we would need at least four planets Earth with all its functions. Naturally to maintain a high standard of life we have to plunder more and more and emit all type of obnoxious gases to hasten climate change. Gandhiji very rightly pointed out, "World is enough to feed all but not for greed of one."

In a few words, I think global climate change is part of the changing earth weather system that would occur weather or not we humans are present. After all, to assume that the weather system remain exactly as it is indefinitely is a rather naive assumption.

In my view, all we humans are doing is to accelerate this issue and amplifying the problems.

But in the same way that we can negatively affect this rate, we could also positively affect the rate of change, to maintain the weather at an acceptable range for a longer period of time and perhaps, sometime in the future, control global climate.

I agree with Garen that assumptions regarding an indefinitely unchanging climate system are naive. Nevertheless, the Vostok core strata show that we have surpassed the highest concentrations of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere measured over ~ 650 kyr B.P. If one can suggest how you take a world population of nigh on 7 billion humans and 'positively affect the rate of change', given the almost universal acceptance of the current worship and unchallenged dominance of global economic rationalist principles, I would like to hear it (the 2008 GFC should logically have led to revolution - why didn't it?). On a final note the 'future' is now. If methane does become a contributing factor as the atmospheric concentration of CO2 continues to rise then what? I wonder what to tell my children at times..does anyone else here??

@David, you speak the sobering truth. Perhaps that is the way the world is, can't fight it. After all, ever wonder why we still tend to use QWERTYs and not DVORAKs? Or why the U.S. still prefers pounds and inches over the SI units?

I think it is the human factor that needs to be overcome. But the IQ of society is lower than the IQ of an average human (surprisingly the whole is less than the sum of the parts) and that is the main thing standing in the way progress.

If we could all see, feel, experience and understand the type of world that we are potentially leaving to our children, and not just worry about the short term costs (as painful as they may be) perhaps there will be a chance for positive change. No idea how it will be done either, but hopefully, someone really smart in the world will figure it out, someone who understands both the science of climate change as well as how to move the hearts and wallets of society.

Yes it is surprising that humans are hastening their own demise. As a contribution to this debate I have recently had an article posted on an influentila blog in Wales, a small country of 3 1/2 million population but where it seems that we are trying our best to make a contribution to finding out how to "move the hearts (politics) and wallets (economics) of society." I would appreciate any comments on the blog comments page. Thanks. Alun http://www.welshindependence.net/

Population size is generally blame shifting tactics. It is true whether we were/are on the planet or not climate Change had occurred and would occur in short or long future. Examples of rubber collectors in Brazil and small fish and salt makers in Hondurans in the mangrove coastal areas areas where a large number of people were earning their livelihood sustainably without injuring environment are eminent ones. When logger started clearing forest and ranchers started encroaching these forests and when MNCs started to produce salt and over fishing, not only poor population was deprived of its livelihood, but environment is damaged beyond recovery. It is not the question of size of population or poverty, it is question of the way we are using our environment as life support system, resource field and throughput sink. If we have to support lifestyle of world population at the level of the US population we would need at least four planets Earth with all its functions. Naturally to maintain a high standard of life we have to plunder more and more and emit all type of obnoxious gases to hasten climate change. Gandhiji very rightly pointed out, "World is enough to feed all but not for greed of one."

Why did the original contributor to this post single out one nationality in a derogatory manner? Everything is just too complicated for such simplification. If you consider certain aspects of history, inventions, local attributes etc., no other type of lifestyle might work. Everyone might complain about everything. Leaders in more poor areas in association with people of other areas might not make the best decisions for anyone's longer term futures. If you factor in fear, limitations, initial conditions, fertility levels, weapons, specific societies, etc., I do not know what any one individual anywhere can do. Even the entire populations of a hundred countries working together to live in a conservative manner may not work any more to keep the earth stable.

Circumstances such as poverty, disease, occupation, authority, etc., has led to the polarization of IQ's. Many human beings do not really believe there is one universal reality. Others feel any demand on natural resources anywhere is acceptable. Some impose certain standards on others. There are people who do not believe in cause and effect. Few agree with every one or those they know well. I do not know if I can agree with someone who says grammer and spelling are the only things that matter in this world.

There might come a day soon when everyone who can think feels the world is not enough to feed all. I do not think the world feeds everyone well right now. The world is certainly not feeding most wild animals in their natural habitats. Conditions are difficult for flora also. Marine life is gravely stressed. Just look at the long and ever growing lists of extinct and endangered living beings. We can only guess at what has not been researched. The situation is the worst in tropical areas because that is where all the diversity exists. I do not know if what is defined as ecology even exists for long periods of time within the areas and contexts delinated when there is extensive human intervention. Human beings along with creatures associated with them have been doing very well for the past ten thousand years or so. I think people usually write we need five earths, not two, to maintain a US standard of living worldwide.

I think at the least, educated people have to agree with each other to some degree. I wish people were asked to move their brains and legs rather than their hearts and wallets. If the status, rights, economic viability, safety, etc., were not infringed upon those who took a more conservative approach to life, we would all have been happy with the limited earth we have and love.

I agree with Erick's assessment of the situation (i.e., we may not have the resources necessary to lift the entire global population to the level of the poorest Americans - I do not see how this statement could possibly be derogatory). I also agree with Garen's first comment, to whit that we humans are accelerating and amplifying climate change. More than this, we have also placed millions of people in regions that will be most affected by rising sea levels; increased flooding; more and stronger earthquakes, hurricanes and tsunamis; and other natural disasters associated with changing climate.

Instead of worrying about who is to blame, and instead of having more arguments about whether people really are causing climate change, we should model which regions will suffer the most, and think about what the global society can do to mitigate the problems.

Grilo-Toupeira http://lelaorca.blogspot.com

Hello Malathi Govindaraju

I do not find anything derogatory in the original post. I don’t know how telling facts may be derogatory to any nation. If one non-Indian tells I that poverty and illiteracy abound in my country, I will not be offended. But there are always some people more loyal than the king. So far as leaders and the entire populations of a hundred countries working together to live in a conservative manner are concerned their position is unequivocally stated by the South Commission in its 1990 Report,

“A network of relationships has been built up among private entities banks, investment houses, transnational companies- in the leading developed countries. This has served to strengthen the influence of decisions made by private bodies on world economic activity, and to that extent to limit the effectiveness of governmental policy decisions. For the South the result is even further marginalization and greater powerlessness.”

History is my weak point and a tricky subject too. There are histories written by conquerors and their courtiers, there are histories written by conquered, there are histories written with mischief and hatred but with an aura of scientific objectivity and justification and there are also histories written by people to glorify the nation or race to which they belong contrary to all anthropological, archaeological, botanical and linguistic evidence. I do remember reading that a renowned historian had started work on the project of writing world history. In that connection he visited the city of one of his historian friend. He was awaiting his friend in a hotel room and watching down through the window. As the car of his friend approached the gate of the hotel some untoward incident occurred. When the friend met the historian they started talking about that incident. But both of them did not agree with each other in respect of the sequence of the incident. Then the renowned historian stood up and took the chapters of the world history which he had written so far out of the rack and tore them into pieces and threw them into the trash basket. The friend was startled and asked why did you do that? The historian replied that when we two historians could not agree with the sequence of an incident which we both saw, how we could be sure what really happened in the distant past and what was the chain of incidents. [Forgive me, due to old age I could not remember names and the place and exact incident which happened, but the lesson learned by me is clear in my mind.]

There are few serious attempts to explore scientific and technological development and its decline in the Orient. However, China is an exception in that there are authoritative historical accounts of development and decline of science and technology in that country by the western scholars. John K. Fairbank has attributed both rise and fall of scientific and technological development to the Chinese political system rather strict bureaucracy. On the other hand Joseph Needham has found cultural factors responsible for the fall of science and technology in China. It is difficult to agree with either of the two arguments. The same strict bureaucracy and same culture at a point of time promote science and technology and at other point of time during renaissance of Europe they become obstacles in the progress of Science and technology.

The first partial census of India taken by the British tells loudly that at that time India was at the verge of Industrialisation, while subsequent censuses show an increasing agrarian character of the country with steadily increasing proportion of casual labourers and beggars.

I often wonder why the rise of Occident coincided with the fall of the Orient. If history had taken its natural course, perhaps the world would have been a peaceful and better liveable place for all. Oriental culture had been based on cooperation what is called in Marxian parlance “Asiatic mode of production” as well as coexistence. Individualism, though very innocently defined in acceptable terms as “individual as an agent of society” always prevailed in the East but not in the form it is practised in the West.

Yes, You are right, "we need five earths, not two, to maintain a US standard of living". Well, is there hope in a world where some countries in multilateral trade talks ask developing countries to sell them their goods cheaper because they produce them employing cheap labour, in a world where poor countries whatever capital they form are in a perpetual state of giving that capital in debt serving to maintain the lifestyles of others and In world where poor countries in a way they are told not to develop or industrialise for betterment of their people as emission will go up, while people telling this are at liberty to emit greenhouse gases as much as they want?

A low energy economy with curbs on spiralling consumption in some parts of the world seem only viable solution to existing environmental crises.

Words of wisdom by R.Salisbury. There is NO debate. Copenhagen should have been an embarrasment to all. Is it true that the press room was often occupied by less than a few journalists? I would suggest they were not employed by one R. Murdoch & Co. The world's population reached 2 billion in the 1970s - that is ~ 7000 yrs of 'civilised development' to reach 2 billion and just 30 yr more to triple it. The curves speak for themselves. We must all look at ourselves now for the past is exactly that..gone. Must we all stand at the precipice before we start throwing a rope? History suggests yes..I would like to think no. Many here have stated that change has happened before and would happen regardless of human presence or population number. So bloody what? WOuld you toss a coin to decide your and your loved one's fate?

I Know no demographer or prediction of the UNO who or which has indicated that the world population would not stablise within the biophysical carrying capacity of the planet Earth at a standard of living at which everyone can get enough food and have enough to participate in social and cultural activities within limits [If justice to all is done]. We, in the poor parts of the planet toil day and night and find it difficult to maintain two square meals. People in these parts are dying of starvation and people in other parts are wasting money not even on luxury but in purchasing things absolutely unnecessary for a luxurious and comfortable life. We die daily and our dear ones are departed daily. It doe not matter we die of floods, droughts, cyclones, hunger, sea rise or whatever is in offing. It seems our destiny. Those who are afraid of being departed from their paradise gained, they should think and take steps to undo what has befallen on them of their doings. And they have options and means and as a consequence we would also have a lease to work for them as undeclared bonded labourers.

A young girl (18 - 19 yrs) recently approached me asking if I would contribute to a campaign to help protect a bear from the mountain regions of Pakistan that is often used in fights for entertainment. I asked her how she hoped to convince thousands of poverty stricken people to give a damn about a bear when they daily struggle to eat, let alone find some form of entertainment. I admired her passion but could not fathom her ignorance. I can't pretend to know what life is like for the majority of the worlds struggling population. Nevertheless, to apply a 'broad brush' to any population is a dangerous mode of thought, as history demonstrates. I can understand why Copenhagen was a failure..that doesn't mean I have to like or accept it. Is it true that people are 'wasting money not even on luxury but in purchasing things absolutely unnecessary for a luxurious and comfortable life'....Yes it is, many see it everyday including myself. To see ignorance at its worst is enough to make one very angry. The last 20 years have seen the greatest level of consumerism the western world has ever known. To some this seems wonderful..to me it is sickening because I know the real price of such folly. I know personally of many small business concerns employing few and earning little who have been pushed out of a market because of economic policies that have one end only..profit at any human cost. A company here employing 25,000 moves operations because it can exploit the labour resource of another country for a 10th the cost without the need to provide basic workers rights. We now exist in a global monetary sytem controlled by less than a few thousand individuals to which the world's - not just two thirds - are subject. If there is to be a solution then the girl who approached me along with every indivdual on this planet must know this. Or does it 'seem our destiny' to be forever exploited by so few. Maybe it is. To maintain justice and liberty in the face of global revolution...is that possible? I don't know. Maybe I am 'blame shifting'..after all it wasn't me who took the reigns off the global financial sector in the 1980s. So maybe I will just blame them and live in ignorant bliss apparantley.

I consider the words "reach a development level of a low class american" to be isolating a single country and sounding derogatory. The word "development " is usually used to indicate infrastructure. The term "low class" is negative in the way it has been used. If the writer meant otherwise then I apolize for nit picking. It is still a poor choice of words. The word "noxious" might be better than "obnoxious" since the latter is usually used to express a human sentiment.

I have not come across any country claiming it has lost its soverign status. Please do enlighten us. If the British census of India confuses you, the past few census reports of India should make anyone wonder why it is taken. All types of changes have occured such that one cannot follow one census from another. Teachers in India have made videos bemoaning how they struggled to bring television (with the help of the U.S.) for educational purposes, and the uses it has been put to instead. In most countries people try to bring about the cheapest goods. In fact, it is usually the case that the people of western nations that try to bring a better standard of living for the hardest working, lowest paid workers anywhere. In "poor countries" the rich people of that country usually exploit the poor and prevent anyone from helping them.

If a renowned historian rips appart his life's work just because he could not agree with his friend on what had occured at a place alien to the both of them, I would say: emotions are not the over riding characteristics of the best writers, researchers, scientists, and intellictuals; after a passage of time, with or without the help of additional witnesses, either the two original people or an intelligent reader of the testimonies can often get quite close to the real truth. This might be true of the history of certain areas also.

If many more bears had been protected in hilly areas, hills would automatically been protected. This would have prevented so many floods common all over the world especially in the past decade. Nobody has "placed millions of people " anywhere.

Here are some references which help to understand and reply to this question :

• The seminal Article on Population is : from :

Paul R. Ehrlich & Anne H. Ehrlich, The Population Explosion, 1990.

Why Isn't Everyone as Scared as We Are?

http://www.ditext.com/ehrlich/1.html

• The Club of Rome have recently published an update to Limits to Growth to mark the 40 the anniversary of it’s original publication date. http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=3392

• John Lancaster writing on Climate Change in the London Review of Books :

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n06/john-lanchester/warmer-warmer

he refers to James Lovelock, "The revenge of Gaia"

you can see James Lovelock here

http://www.webofstories.com/play/52685

• On Faith, spirituality and political economy my favourite article is

• E.F. Schumacher : Buddhist Economics, a chapter in “Small is beautiful”

http://files.uniteddiversity.com/Money_and_Economics/BuddhistEconomics.pdf

• In general any writings from many of the personalities on the enrich list will be interesting on this subject : http://enrichlist.org/the-list/

My favourite is Hermann Daly (N°2) the father of contemporary Ecological Economics and authour of many books and articles which have so broadened my understanding of this subject. He has also written and collaborated on some books from a Christian Theological stance, particularly with the Cobb Bros.

There is a lovely podcast discussion with Hermann Daly here

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2007/03/ecological_economics.html

I would be particularly interested to receive any links written from the standpoint of other faiths (Muslim, Hindi etc) and their connection to political economy/ecology.

And finally this is me :

http://about.me/Alun_Wyn_ap_gruffydd

Population in itself is not the cause , but it is mans innovation and needs for a better lifestyle that is causing the problem of climate change and environmental deterioration.

Surly we need to start to link directly the economic prosperity of mankind with the damage caused by his activities on this planet.

Discussion has been about neutral Carbon Taxes, incentives for reducing obesity, direct environmental taxes on waste disposal, and their list goes on. The main problem with this tinkering with an existing system of taxation ,is to make it more and more complex which then leads to tax evasion , fraud and total misunderstanding how the system works , which has been shown up with all the recent scandals around the globe of politicians "not knowing they were doing wrong". What chance has the poor citizen to keep paying , or should i say find the legitimate ways of avoiding tax payments.

To this end i think we have to take a real hard look at the economic model we all use around the globe , which is very similar , whereby the indervidual and business is taxed directly. To my thinking we should remodel the whole taxation system globally from this old style system which only looks after the rich and powerful, to one that treat everyone equally and so each indervidual and business the same , where the tax needed to collect would be assessed on the damage caused to the environment at large , Indeed a Natural Resource tax or duty would replace all existing taxes, and would be levied at a rate consumerate with the damage incurred, The taxation collected at as near source as possible would be utilized in a similar manor as present except that there would be a vastly reduced bureaucracy in its collection and costs.

This would enable a mind shift in all people , as indervidual and as businessmen , as the choice in consumption would be decided on price and all goods and services would have a real cost of damage and pollution to the environment, embedded within the price directly. With the real embedded cost of pollution in all goods and services would then make people change their purchasing habits.

Over ten years ago, I wrote an introduction for the first Environmental law book in México. In it, I stated that when humans first started to populate the world, they needed no laws. Laws came to solve conflicts among people as numbers grew. Recently, we (humans) realized that natural resources have more than one use and that there are many interest over one single resource, and we invented environmental law to be able to make the best as possible use of resources. To make use of them but not to protect them for their right of existence.

What I take from the discussion generated by my previous contribution, it leads me to conclude that everyone seas the problem as an economic and political mater. I as a biologist sees it different. We are the result of natural evolution and are subject to the same laws of survival of any living creature. T are different strategies for survival and prevalence of a species. I think we (humans) have outnumbered the carrying capacity of the biosphere, and this is causing a progressive deterioration of the environment. Just as any plague affecting a crop or a disease affecting an organism. When that happens the crop fails, the infected organism dies and the numbers of the affecting plague or infecting organism are reduced. If we do not control our numbers, nature will.

I agree with Erick Baqueiro Cárdenas that nature will eventually rule the roost and win the day, however in the meantime we must make the best use of what we have and population control is one of these , but until this is realized , we must do as much as possible to make best use of all resources and try to redistribute them more equally around the globe,

As a Retired Farmer, I think I understand the issues involved both environmental and economic , so this is where i come from and think that man should regain the responsibility for his own actions and with the purchasing of goods and services he would then be paying directly for the damage caused by his actions, whether it be polluting the atmosphere with CO2 or sulfur dioxide, or noise oil spills,being just greedy with big cars, houses and gardens, or excessive consumption and making products with short lifespan and not able to be repaired.

There are so many thing to put right ! Is it up to the government to lay the law down with hundreds of new laws , or should the indervidual make the decisions? As a person who likes the incentives and challage's of the problems presented to mankind , I think it is the latter that will have the biggest and quickest effect on the planet.

To achieve this mindset change , we need to rewrite the ground rules of society and this can only be done when there is a crisis, and we are in a big one now , both financially and environmentally.

So now is the ripe time for change and at present the governments are just tinkering and making the situation worse until one day when we have a revolution then change will happen , totally unplanned, and unorganized, so the new regime will be what nobody will want , but there will be no choice, at present we have time to choose and prepare, and if we fail to take this opportunity it will be our children and grandchildren who will suffer most.

I helped carry out a 45 year unintentional experiment by working in the South Korean and Philippine Family Planning programs in the 1960s. Both countries had the same fertility rate (about 6 kids per family), the same per capita income (around or under $1,000/yr) and the same approximate population size of 30 million. Now, 45 years later, there is a huge difference, in fertility (Korea stopped growing), Population size (45 million vs 94 million) and poverty (Korea is a developed country, Philippines is a "never to be developed" country).

South Korea 1966 - In 1966 South Korea started its National Family Planning Program. At that point there was a Total Fertility Rate (TFR) averaging just over 6 children per woman during her lifetime. In 1966, there were about 30,000,000 people living in the South Korean peninsula. The average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) then was under $800 per year. South Korea set a target of replacement level fertility by 1988 and achieved that target with an aggressive national family planning program that had as its slogan “Boy or Girl, lets have two children and raise them well.”

South Korea 2010 - In 2010 South Korea had 49,000,000 people, and the average per capita Gross Domestic Product was $30,000, 25th in the World. Total Fertility Rate had fallen to 1.15 children per married woman, below replacement level.

Philippines 1966 - In 1968 the Philippines started its National Family Planning Program, enshrined in law in 1971. At that point there was a Total Fertility Rate averaging just over 6 children per woman. In 1966 there were approximately 30,000,000 people living in the Philippines. The GDP was about $612 per person per year. The Philippine Family Planning Program went through a “boom and bust” cycle, from 1971 through 1983 when it was essentially dismantled by the government.

Philippines 2010 - The Philippines in 2010 had 94,000,000 people, and the average per capita Gross Domestic Product was $3,737, 125th in the World. Total Fertility Rate is 3.19, per married woman, with a growth rate of 2.3 percent, implying a doubling of population in less than 30 years.

Where would the Philippines be now if it had maintained the momentum of the early years of the Family Planning Program? Where will it be in 2040 when the population doubles again to 188,000,000? The population structure is such that the parents for the next 90 million Filipinos are already alive and entering their childbearing years. When will this madness end? How will it end? Emigration of 100,000,000 Filipinos is not the answer. Neither is in-place development as saving is impossible when the growth rate and dependency burden are so high. Rising death rate? The eventual overthrow of the government and demise of the Catholic Church?

Perhaps, I need tutorials in English language. If one likes, one can replace words like “noxious” or “obnoxious” with greenhouse gases or ozone depleting gases or whatever one thinks appropriate words and construction of sentences. But, I do not need tutorials on hydrology or environment and ecology to understand importance of vegetation cover in headwaters and upstream as well as that of riparian vegetation. Fortunately I was born the year, the Constitution of India was implemented. But, I have come to know from my elderly ones that in their school days title of the first chapter of their language book in a particular class used to “Barkat-e-Hukoomat-e-Bartania” i.e., “Legacy of the British Government”.

------The main thrust of this chapter used to be on the maintenance of law and order (that is, annihilation of Pindaris and revolutionaries and suppression of other local/regional freedom movements and revolts by oppressed people due to exploitative policies of the British Government. Pindaris are still in history books described as thugs and nondescript groups of revolutionaries and freedom fighters as bands of dacoits).

------The second most emphasised point was the extensive railways network which is still essentially dendrite, main trunks of which starting from the three main port cities branches out in their hinterlands in spite of extension of this network. Apart from forest clearance for railways they were also cleared to provide wooden slipper for railway tracks. But, still a large number of scholars in my country fail to comprehend or pretend not to understand suppression of unrests and annihilation of so-called thugs and dacoits and development of the extensive railways network served whose end. However, for strategic, historical and the peninsular shape of a long coastline, the primate city could not develop in India as it is seen in several former colonies in Africa and South America.

----------It has been the philanthropist North which out of its love of humanity gave aid to the South, especially second largest agglomeration of human population in India. It is another point, it earned many times of its philanthropist aid out of patents developed there by scientists who went there for research and training and there were retained causing brain drain resulting in delay of India’s development by several decades. However, donors always put condition of bringing down the birth rates before giving aid to the developing or poor countries and never advised them to make this large population in their competitive advantage through education and training turning it into human capital in the service of mankind. As experience shows development itself is the best contraceptive. Recently, it is reported that gap in reproduction rate between the poor and the rich is significantly narrowed, but till late it was true that the poor around the world used to have higher fertility irrespective of the fact whether they belonged to the Eastern or Western cultural tradition. There developed several theories from culture of poverty through instantaneous gratification (no self-control) to their imprudent decision making.

---------This advice of birth control had also been interpreted from the conspiracy of religious dominances through dominance of superior race concept (which may be justified by actions of the NATO Armies in Iraq and behaviour of civilised NATO soldiers in Afghanistan) to have more to consume and live a more luxurious life in the absence of larger consumers in the South (Former President of the US, Mr. Bush’s argument of demand of more and better quality food in emerging economies of India and China for food crisis). However, this large human agglomeration is gradually turning into human capital and their nations are getting their “Demographic Dividends”.

--------In the case of the Club of Rome, it had been demonstrated in the case of its first report that if their model incorporating population size, growth rate, production capacity, pollution etc. had been true, the Britain could have experience doom in early or mid 19th century.

---------I know nothing with certainty about Pakistan. But, experience in my own country shows that poor or not conservers rather preservers of nature as their livelihood depends on natural renewable resources. Success of Chipko Andolan (movement) to save forests in the Himalayas from the axe of the capitalists was due to the poor especially women who used to collect dry wood for fuels from there not due to politicians or so-called green activists or those who show concern with the state of environment and degradation of services of ecosystems. And let me clarify here that when individualism becomes driving force of capitalism, people behave in same manner in any part of the world. Once, I used analogy of the last episode of the “ANIMAL FARM” to describe behaviour of my national political leaders and emerging capitalists. These are national and foreign MNCs which are mining and destroying forests beyond the allotted limits, these are not poor, hungry and shabbily clothed tribal people whose meagre livelihood depends on forest products. But, as a proud though not privileged, member of my nation, I owe responsibility for harms done to environment and exploitation of the people by politicians and capitalists of my nation within and outside the country.

-------However, before blaming others one should be aware of “preservation” and “conservation” debate in respect of forests in the US and should inspect the maps of forest cover in the US at the time of its European peopling and after intervals of each 25 years since then.

-------It cannot be proved conclusively that climate change has any link with population size or poverty. I can also cite literature and provide links where renowned experts altogether deny that the Climate Change is really going to occur. But, I dare not to deny because we in our part of the planet are literally feelings its heat.

-----There are also demographers and scientists who estimate biophysical carrying capacity of the planet Earth from 50 to 1,000 billion, of course, at different levels of living.

--------Climate change had occurred several times when human population either did not exist or existed in very small number. If it is conclusively proved that this time climate change is due to anthropological activities, then links invariably are with human carbon-footprints, water-footprints and several other footprints which ultimately point to energy consumption and spiralling consumerism. An analysis of consumption pattern and structure of commodities traded Between the North and the South will suffice as pointer whether a small or a large but poor population is responsible for the climate change. Natural justice is polluters should be punished or those who have damaged should mend it or pay for it.

-------Grammar Teacher Sir,

Dr. Eric knows English, French and Spanish. English may be his as well as your mother tongue but not mine. There is nothing derogatory in the post as what part of the post appears to you derogatory of a single nation has recently been in print media. Dr. Eric simply replaced word “ordinary” with “low class”. I am sure he did it intentionally to add gravity to the alarming situation which is central point of this discussion.

------But, there are always some to whom Iqbal in one of his couplets has described as:

“Gift of his finger ring as symbol of authority by Mahmood Ghaznavi to his slave, Ayaz had increased burden of chains of Ayaz's slavery.”

-----In the last I would like to share with you good news that we need not worry any more. In another thread in psychology of religion where a heated debate is going on whether science and religion can unite, some Norman Free has claimed that the NASA has power to create “planetary systems” and it is not fiction. So we all should send a request to the NASA to create a planetary system of five planets of the Earth size and after destroying the star of the created system, it should place these planets in the Earth’s orbit at suitable interval with their speed/velocity of revolution synchronised with that of the Earth. If the NASA can create planetary systems, it can do anything except cleaning the atmosphere of greenhouse gases.

What dissapoints me about this whole debate is that the poeple involved in it, with their many, varied, and sensible opinions, are not the ones being consulted about how to approach the problem and aid in providing ideas towards sensible solutions (exception David Stern...where is Ross Garnaut?). Instead we have a group of individuals (our 'elected representatives') taking what advice they see fit to win the next general election and in the process keep the majority of citizens of ALL nations at the lowest possible level of conciousness. Our education systems (Australia) in the 'developed nations' are currently on track to produce what one may call the Microsoft generation (something I am sure George Orwell may not have been too surprised by). A generation whose mantra that 'economic growth will solve all' makes me uneasy. A socially disconnected generation, despite the claims of the social media outlets, who will struggle to perform a days work (I have two teenage sons who despite my efforts with schools and others are the norm)I don't believe that humans are intrinisicly physcologically flawed or 'evil' in their intentions. I am sure the vast majority of humans start with good intentions, yet pride or the inability of some to admit their errors stalls or halts change towards positive progress. We always seem to end up in the same mess. be it war, mass global poverty, etcetera. As a result of the 'efforts' of governments like our own universities are now akin to commercial entreprises; degrees in history, theology, philosophy are frowned upon and almost impossible to obtain because of policies that must now focus the attention of a generation on how to care for the ageing population - a problem foreseen 50 years ago by goverments that could easily have been resolved over such a time scale - yet again we wait until we stand at the precipice.

What does not dissapoint me about this group is its very existence. Please keep it up. Opinions from all nations - be they poor, affluent, secular, or otherwise are now needed more than ever. Governments must be changed from a pack of gutless vote chasers who have lost the ability to receive grace in its most basic form - the educated opinion of the people with selfless good for all as their priority.

Even among the societal "Haves" in the world, I wonder if we aren't seeing a stretching of income/wealth. Children, inorder to compete within the gobal market will need to master technologies at home and in the school. The technology is expensive to acquire and out of the reach of many here in the United States. The lower class will sink lower here and will be buried in the developing world.

I think that the life style, more than the demographic increase, may have a relevant impact on climate change.

See for example the case of agriculture and livestock expansion for food production.

A change of consumption patterns of the soaring world population – particularly in new rich developing countries - is leading to an intensification of livestock and agricultural activities – both of them are important sources of non-CO2 greenhouses gases.

Livestock releases CH4, whilst agriculture – particularly conventional food production – is the main source of NO2, due to the high fertilization rate and soil management.

In the last years many mitigation strategies have been proposed to control GHG emissions from farmlands – they have been accompanied by incentives and subside to help the stakeholders to support the additional costs of moving to a more sustainable production system (see Cross Compliance measures in the EU27 CAP).

The development of energy crops – which have a lower climate impact than food production, because of the lower fertilization and higher carbon stock in the soil – may help reducing the fossil fuel combustion, but they may also have undesirable effects on alimentary market – an increase of food price could boost food importations, thus reducing or reversing the environmental benefits of biofuels.

The demographic increase heavily affects the transportation system, the energy matrix, the waste management and land use – most of them are the focus of national/international low carbon strategies.

Very true assessment of the situation. Particularly rice-wheat rotation is causing to green house gases. But have you ever thought of carbon footprint of industrialised nations in comparison to still agriculture dominated newly rich countries. If India has to meet its half of fuel demand in transport sector, it has to divert from agriculture an area equal to that of the state of Kerala. Why do executives of bankrupt financial institutions move in airplanes and short distance in luxury cars? In my country an overwhelming majority in rural areas and towns moves on bicycles and:

“Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I have hope for the human race.”- H.G. Wells

100% agree. I have not car and I got used to moving by bike :) .

We have already known very well the high socio-environmental cost of the life style of rich countries. But I am worried about the new tendencies in developing countries, which seem to want to follow the same irrational direction and focus only on economic issues.

I think experts like climate scientists will agree with me that climate change occurs, no doubt, due to the growing global population trends because emissions are generated by use of energy by human population, industry, and other activities like agriculture etc., though we cannot deny the natural cause of climate change. As the human population increases, the demand for more energy also increases. It is in this context that we have to understand the issue of poverty. Both (climate change and poverty) are closely related. As for instance, look at the pacific islands, people in the southern hemisphere like Bangladesh, just to name but few out of many other countries, which are among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. As contributors to the problem, each person/each country (human population) need to ask what is my role towards this problem of climate e change and poverty and do something about it.

Very good! We all should do soul-searching and mend our ways in our own ways because concept of "sustainable development" is perhaps kept nebulous (not rigorously defined and encoded) so that at every level in every nation it may be implemented according to social, economic, cultural and natural specificity. The nations which wield power to influence economic, social and other policies of other countries and dictate what to do and what not to do, they should at least set a precedent to imitate by others as the trend is. Or, at least avoid war games which are not only destroying human life of either sides but also destructing environment in the production of armaments.

Answer to the problem is not in insisting to bring down population numbers. Do you think that in newly rich countries or emerging economies everyone is getting one's due. NOT AT ALL. A sizable proportion find it difficult to manage two square meals but their carbon footprint is the lowest as they have nothing else than their labour. It is not population number that is problem, it is high energy economy whether agrarian or industrial. As the quotation from H. G. Wells implies and I have emphasised earlier solution lies in low energy economy. But, there are few people who learn from their own follies. Who is going to compromise with one's lifestyle: Haves or Have-nots. After exploitation, misery, hunger and poverty under colonial rule over at least two centuries people who compromised their harmonious living with nature to meet needs of their masters would not given even a few years to a dignified life.

Donot be greedy,you will soon be needy...........

How many among us are really ready to change their lifestyle?

It is ironical that we talk about changing habits to mitigate climate change but we continue to consume

more resources.

The answer is an emphatic no. Nothing could be further from truth. Humanity is not causing climate change, it is completely natural and caused by factors external to Earth, such as secular cycles of solar activity and galactic cosmic rays.

IPCC continues to preach their pseudoscience, while the real climate has not warmed up for 15 years now, in spite of their catastrophic predictions? Come one, get real.

Greenhouse gases are not affecting climate to any noticeable extent - in fact, the more carbon dioxide we have in the atmosphere, the better off we are - agricultural production increases with atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Were we not wasting food on green fuels, we would be easily able to feed everyone and stop the 10 million people dying from hunger each year.

Read our paper for more information: http://www.naun.org/journals/energyenvironment/19-660.pdf

Perhaps, inadequate incomes (poverty) could limit the use of contraceptives or lack of information for reproductive health measures among the poor.- which will spur high population growth. The increasing population growing in developing countries, which mainly burns wood fuel from deforestation could influence climate change. Then partially we say ' the increasing human population and poverty are associated with causes of change in the ecosystem or is linked climate change.

This sort of discussion is not a new experience. man have been speculating about his destiny and quite a few celebrities had participated in these debates during the past several centuries, AD as well as BC. However, data based prediction of man's destiny started only some fifty years ago with the publication of Limits of Growth by the Club of Rome. However, despite the massive data crunching using elaborate computer resources during the past half a century has not improved the quality and reliability of predicting human destiny. We continue to be prisoners of Club of Rome.and a sort of technological pessimism continue to dominate our thought process. It is time that we strive to rediscover the spirit of the brave new world of yesteryear ie, the brave new world of internationalism!

K Vijayachandran .

Skepticism or Denial?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

I used to have the utmost respect for the geologist Ian Plimer when he put forth his views to the creationists deniers.

How many millions, perhaps billions, will perish if nothing were done on the basis of an overwhelmingly minority view?

This phenomenon will not distinguish between class, nation, ethnicity, or more importantly any bloody species of which we are just one more to adapt or perish. Do the seasonal ice melts from the Himalayan platuea 'know' in which direction they flow?

'Come one [sic]. Get real'.

When you use the phrases "overwhelmingly minority view" and "deniers" I think you shut yourself off from meaningful discussion. When we let politicians and "celebrities" lead the discussion, we have a serious impediment to honest conversation and debate.

I agree with regards to politicians and 'celebrities'. In fact one could not think of anybody less qualified to lead such discussions given the current Freidmanite economic imperative of most nations. This discussion arose from a question considering the relationship between human population and climate change. Up until the 11th of May that was the issue discussed. There is no discussion post on whether climate change is anthropogenic in origin or otherwise. On that point the "overwhelming" (98%) majority of climate scientists, the National Academy of Sciences, and the International Panel on Climate Change are in agreement. If one wishes to discuss this matter then they should post it as a discussion topic.

Since it is JUST sharing of thoughts.

I would be happy if it is made a platform of TRUE discussion and supported with scientific studies, data, etc. I would very much appreciate if anyone give some references of scientific studies to understand this topic/ discussion better, i.e., poverty is due to increase in human population and it is the cause of climate change/ land degradation/ desertification/ drought/ etc.

Hope it will help young and all.

i think its a true that ,Is the increasing human population the cause of climate change and poverty?.....The quality of ours ecosystem are getting deteriorated rapidly with the increasing human population , changing human life style i.e., massive industrialization and urbanization for developmental purposes. These developmental activities generate large quantities of waste. Beside these, the rapid industrialization and urbanization poses high pressure on surface resources which result their depletion and contamination. ultimatly today the result is seen.....

It's a pity that a very relevant question solicits yet more climate change denial garbage from the usual suspects! You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. At the turn of the century, about 96% of population growth up to 2020 was projected to come from developing countries and about 4% from developed countries. However in metric tonnes of coal equivalent, the energy use from that 4% would be roughly equal to that used by the 96%. The rapid emergence of the newly industrialising economies (China, India, etc) have changed the picture since then, but the basic conclusion remains valid - that population growth is equally as important an issue in terms of consumption for (over) developed as developing countries. We should stop lecturing developing countries when our own excessive consumerism is having just as, if not more, profound an impact on our diminishing ecosystem services. In country after country, the most effect way to address population issues has been to make progress towards gender equality, especially in educational access - something that is still shamefully far away.

The argument that climate change is mostly man-made has been challenged and disputed any number of times by a large number of hard-core scientists: The elaborate statistical models supportive physical theories and have failed to prove anything. The hypothesis on global warming continues to be supported by believers on one side, and disputed by skeptics on the other. There is plenty of scope for much more orderly and leisurely development, and for development that is far less demanding on nature. But the present generation of environmentalists is an utter failure, in reaching out to that type of culture. They continue to be the prisoners of Malthusian theories of an older century.

I would agree with the statement of Richard Ewbank with regards,"climate change denial garbage from the usual suspects" and that population growth is an important factor. Just for my own clarification can you provide examples, preferably not by politicians, but by academics (or just define what you infer with "We") when you claim developing countries are being lectured to by '(over) developed' countries. Did this happen at Copenhagen? If it did the 'lectures' must have had no effect whatsoever. China's response was anticipated long beforehand. Can anyone explain how China or India can continue to exist given their populations without industrial development - or some means of increasing living standards? China and India are big enough to listen to whoever they bloody well choose. As for Mr Patterson, why don't you read back through this 'discussion' and give your critique to the few who consistently make unsubstantiated, nationalistic, and in some instances possibly offensive statements - or was that the limit of your contribution??

@ Norman Free: Why are you so worried such trfles like climate change. By now you might have requested the NASA to create a planetary system for the super race that is bent upon to reduce Islam to a cult so that it does not face barrier/challenge of any tye cultural, religious and resource restriction to protect lifestyle of a miniscule population of the world.

May be you are a good researcher have thousands reference books and research papers to your credit but your big mouth [with due and unconditional appologies for using this expression to describe you] and metaphors destroroy whatever intellegible there may be. Metaphor of spaceship sounds good but mmetaphor of a room before you running out of oxygen has holes as we may make holes (windows) to refresh inside air through natural exchange rocess.

"Natural History has proven over and over again extinction due to over population." My dear philosopher-scientist friend you are again wrong. It was not over poplutation of species rather "natural selection" or random processes of random genetic mutations resulting in speciation or may be small populations of could not copy their genetic stuff quickly and establish through quick reproduction. There is no evidence that species extincted due to their large number. A lay man will tell you that these are small population of any species that are always endangered. The UNO's Red Data Book on biodiversity is based on this principle. The predator to prey ratios are always in balanced to maitain balance of ecosystem. Excess of predators will itself result in their extinction in the absence of the prey. To the best of my knowledge none has used this analogy with respect to mankind and the Earth's biophysiacal capacity (resources) to support it.

I do not believe in stories or individual claims in the absence of hard evidence. Whatever you have stated above fits best in science fiction as your claim of capability of the NASA to create planetary systems. If one interfere in serious and informed discourse with one's imagined facts, sometimes it becomes irritating, therefore, please shut up if you cannot say something rational and convincing.

human population is also a reason for this problem. but here we have to clarify how ancient ice ages were formed. there are some predictions but not yet proved. not only the human population. there are some thing more than that. more works are needed on different aspects of climate change especially role of human beings in that. Nature also have its own effect on changing its"nature".........

also suggest measures/ methods to quantify these human-induced changes so that these can be verified. Otherwise, it is just archaeological, historical and mythological exercise.

The original question asked if man is responsible for climate change.

The Answer is yes. Everything we "mine" or extract from inside the planets surface

will end up in one of four places: in the atmosphere, on the land, in the land , or in the oceans.

The volume of the Atmosphere is increasing, so the pressure and temperature of the atmosphere is also increasing, and the composition of the atmosphere is changing.

The volume of the oceans is increasing and has been doing so for the last 10,000 or more years. One of the by-products of combustion is water, and it ends up in the oceans, and one of the by-products of erosion is increased sedimentation, and it ends up in the oceans.

We know that when we remove excessively from inside the land, the land subsides,

as has happened for example in Venice, and Mexico City.

In the last 400 million years, nature has used various methods to sequester

carbon by taking swamps and making coal deposits. In the last two hundred and the next two hundred years we will consume all of the coal ever produced and sequestered by the planet. The average consumption rate will then be roughly

1,000,000 times the natural sequestration rate, so the carbon dioxide production

rate will also be roughly 1,000,000 times the natural production rate.

One of the means of sequestering carbon is through forests, but we are cutting down , and have historically cut down all of the forests across the world, for human needs, such as housing, ships, wood burning for cooking and heat, and just burning the wood to clear the land for agriculture.

In the 1300's the black Plague killed 2/3 of the population of Europe, and by the 1600's Coronado rode his horses across the ice of the Rio Grande River at

Albuquerque N.M.

I pushed the wrong button

The last time the river froze over in Albuquerque was 1715. The death of the people in Europe in the 1300's translated to a re-growth of forests in Europe and a 2 degree C

average temperature drop world wide. When the European population recovered and cut down the forests again, the temperature rose, and the rivers in the western US stopped freezing over any more.

We must remember that if we change things the other forces on the planet (plants) will change them back after we are all gone. The term unsustainable is a misnomer

as it does not impart the full understanding of the impending change that is inevitable

if we do not change how we obtain and use energy on this planet. We need to stop

using carbon of all types as a fuel if we do not want to go extinct.

Because Extinction of nearly all species but ours will be the result, followed

by our extinction. remember Extinction is for ever.

And the Plants are just waiting patiently to take the planet back over.

They were here more than 420 million years ago. They will be here when we

are all gone.

I have watched and participated in this 'question' session over many months. This is a research site - for those within the profession. As such it would be really bloody lovely if nobody except those holding a PhD in climatology could refrain from expressing their often ill-informed, socio-economically influenced, religously biased (and you know damn well who I mean), completely useless responses - while continuing to send the questioner's RG score through the roof for what has been a fruitless 'debate'. Where is the damn RG co-ordinator on this? Or will RG end up like linkedin - a forum for those who should be on Facebook.

Increase in world human population which is mostly occurring in the developing countries is the result of the increase in their comparative use of better and developed technology which has made their life expectancies higher. China, India, and Russia are examples of the countries which send huge amount of pollutants to atmosphere with their justification of their need for economic progress. So, population increase could be considered as a reason for climate change. On the other hand, the lack of responsibility of those countries in which production and consumption at any cost is justified is also another major reason for sending pollutants to the atmosphere, causing climate change. However, other geological and climatological reasons reasons exist which are explained by the respective experts.

Maybe I have misinterpreted the purpose of the question. I understand that reasons do exist that can be explained 'by the respective experts'. Those reasons must be based on empirical evidence within the realm of the scientific method. They can not be rationalist' ponderings and conjecture influenced by underlying dogma. Research Gate asks that questions be kept to fashion a short direct reponse from those within the scientific field of interest. This question, while an interesting one, should be about the evidence alone. Reduced to its basic form the question asks if the number of humans has any proportionality to the phenomenon of climate change. So far it has provoked much vitriol and wasted much time while providing very little actual evidence. As it stands, the question is really a question of justice and ethics. On that basis some of the answers given here are appropraite. It is true that the developed nations went down a path that has caused this event. Yet the knowledge needed to define the question regading climate change, let alone apportion blame was not hinted at until the late 1960s. The fact that develop nations NOW continue to increase emissions is unjust. My country is one of the worst per capita polluters in the world. Our government has tried to legislate a tax on carbon emissions and has just managed to have it written into law. However, the conservatives in this country like so many others avoid the scientific consensus on the subject and reduce the so called 'debate' about climate change to a media propagated circus. A circus in which everybody thinks they can play a part - including the election of a government that would seek te reverse such legisaltion. One only has to look at the U.S at present with a mormon ( a lying fool who believes in the teachings of another lying american fool) leading a party who will ignore what must be a just future and return to a past that is nothing more than a nostalgic memory. Sorry if I have fallen victim to my own humanist tendencies.

Yes... It can stimulate the change.

https://pai.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/PAI-1293-Climate-Change_compressed.pdf

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-growth-climate-change/

I endorse Hamit what he has said through certain links. In another thread on climate change, there is a graph in circulation that shows a neat almost perfect positive relationship between [World} population and emission of CO2 into the atmosphere over two centuries. One should say very cunning. World population size and carbon dioxide emitted may be correlate by chance, if population size and CO2 emission are plotted against each other by levels of development, one would find, the most populous region with moderate development had recently contributed heavily CO2 to the atmosphere, but their combined emission by these countries is less than by a least populated advanced country with smallest emission among advanced countries. Most countries with large population size and high population growth in the least developed realm or emitting almost nothing in comparison to advanced small populations with replacement or negative growth rate.

In fact, argument to relate population and environmental pollution and resources depletion is misuse of Kuznets Curve in the form of

Environmental Kuznets Curve which implies that countries which have reached a certain level of development are capable to deal with environmental pollution and resources scarcity, the poor nations cannot. Therefore, [my inference] they should and may be by use of force cease to grow and eventually cease to exist so that a supreme race has the planet to itself.

According to me, population growth is definitely affecting the climate change. Elaborating on this, I would say if we go by the statistics given by Intergovernmental Panel of Climate change it shows that from last few years the changes occur in climate is not what according to the pace which was happening from the last few decades and the main reason of this is the emission of gases such carbon-di-oxide, carbon mono oxide and other gases which are mentioned in the Kyoto Protocol, 1997.

Climate change is not a myth, it's a reality. We can see the sea level is rising rapidly, melting of oceans and other various impacts on the over all planet. However, the major impact of climate change is the increasing number of refugees. Now the new term which has come "Environmental Refugee" anyone can research upon that.

Coming to the point of population, so yes our planet and it's climate is a "Common" and developed and developing countries are emitting gases, polluting the environment without concerning on the consequences, which led to the 'tragedy of common' which has been wonderfully explained by 'David Harvey'.

Because this problem is the serious concern for all over the world there was a conference where we discussed the issue of climate change for the first time that is United Nation Framework on Climate Change, further Kyoto Protocol, 1997, where the methods to reduce the harmful gas emissions are discussed now the Paris Agreement. Every year Conference of Parties are meeting to discuss this serious issue of Climate Change. In these meetings they considered population growth as the cause of climate Change.

In conclusion, Yes the population growth does have a impact on climate change. Strong example would be India and China.

Yes, it may be, but what is logic. Is it population or spiralling consumption, one must distinguish between size of population and level of resource consumption.

It will be interesting to see if humans are smart enough to switch from mostly fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, like wind, hydraulic, tidal, and solar, or will we continue on our present course and use up all of the methane, coal, and oil inside the Earth

As of today, the wild fires in Australia have burned up more than 1 billion animals.

We had better wise up, and change how we do business, or we too will face the fires in the future.

MWC

If the big population centres were using non-fossil fuel methods of energy production, there would be no climate change. Unfortunately, pollution is still galloping along. In my area, we are swamped with "humidity clouds" in the last 3 months and no weather reports are mentioning them, probably trying to hide this new alarming phenomenon.

Yes, maybe! These could be potential and significant causes.

Yes!

Please see the following RG link.

Article The implications of population growth and climate change on ...

Maybe...!!!

Humans have excellent hindsight in that they are good at doing what they grew up with and know about. This includes the use of all fossil fueled as a means of movement, heating, and air conditioning. They minimally insulate their houses, use tremendous amounts of water to water crops, throw away resources, and refuse to recycle. However, fortunately, there are a few that are willing to change,

and use electric cars, motorcycles, or bicycles. Use wind, solar, wave, or tidal energy sources, super insulate their houses, plant trees, and recycle most of what they use. It is not the total number of humans that is the climate problem. It is the lack of knowledge from the very earliest age of humans, and, the lack of common every day experiences while growing up that reinforces non-conservative choices of energy uses.

The solution is so simple. Train the young, and, train the old to use alternative energy sources, make them available, and then, make them compulsory.

If you look at the enormous amount of wasted resources in the act of driving to a work site every day because the work site, and, the home site are many miles apart. Consider the waste of manufacturing in China, and then shipping the goods to America to be used, and, discarded into landfills. And, China did not get all its resources locally. Many resources were shipped into China from all around the world. And china is just one of 208 countries moving making and moving goods.

The problem is the world economy, and the ever increasing distances that people, manufacturing, goods and services move to increase economic efficiency, while decreasing all the simplifying processes of localized manufacturing, and distribution.

As I enter my 30th year of building roads and bridges, I am staggered by the sheer number vehicles on the roads, not just at the rush hours, but at least 20 hours of each day. The Volume, and the rate of increase in the Volume of traffic on the roads is mind numbing.

Baker built simple elegant electric vehicles in 1906 that used two groups of 6 volt batteries, one in the front, and one in the back, went 23 miles per hour, and could go up to about 100 miles on a charge. Look at : Jay Leno's Garage on U-TUBE.

They now have electric motorcycles that go a lot faster, have fewer batteries and can go up to 100 miles , or more, on a charge. Cars can get upwards of 200 miles on a charge. We also have Hybrids that can get over 40 mpg. There is no reason that Hybrids should not approach 100 mpg on the highway.

The solution is to change the way humans think, and, change the way the world economy works. Do raw resource redistribution world wide, followed by mandatory localized manufacturing of goods, and mandatory localized recycling of materials. Robotic mining of landfills. Mandatory, compulsory environmental education from age 6 on up in all schools.

MWC

To me,

Population growth is not a big deal in bringing soaring climate change and poverty in many developing countries. Instead, scarcity of natural resources management is a smearing trigger to these probles! I also share that the utilization of non-renewable resources aggravate the ill-magnitudes of climate change and poverty in the developing countries.

Depends on which society you are studying. If it is a tribal or 'undeveloped', close-to-nature society which lives close -to-nature, then population numbers are not a burden on the carrying capacity of the ecosystem they are a part of.

On the other hand if you are considering a Urban, 'developed', industrialised society, then owing to higher wants, luxury and wastage, added to access to technology, there is more degradation of the environment in the process of extraction of resources and can cause havoc to the balance in the environment/society.

(Impact on the environment)=Population X Affluence X Technology(Ehrlich and Holdren equation)

Regards

Article Population, Poverty, and Climate Change

Follow this paper

Population over all is not responsible for climate change, a man borns with two hands and an intellectual mind, how to survive with carrying capacity of the resource of the region but man' victorious nature may bring change!!

I think it's the cause of climate change, not poverty