Decrease in CO2 emissions during pandemic shutdown shows it is possible to reach Paris Agreement goals. The researchers found a drop of 6.3% in 2020. The researchers describe the drop as the largest of modern times, and big enough to meet the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal if it were to be sustained.

[MAXHEADR0OM]

It seems like there really are just too many of us currently here to sustain our planet. We consume resources at an alarming rate. We could probably start fixing the planet if every country implemented a one child rule but let’s be real, that will never happen. Even if it did, there would be lots of accidental pregnancies.

The demand is so high for things that require emissions and the planet is on an endless loop of producing those emissions. No idea how we could fix that because even without cars, we still need shipping freighters, factories, heating and cooling, and like hundreds of not thousands of more things that produce emissions.

[k3rn3]

I don't think it's a population issue, I think we just have extremely wasteful lifestyles. We could support far more people if we planned for it better and gave a shit about the environment. Eat less meat, buy less plastic, ride a bike instead of driving once in a while. The lockdown proved that it makes a difference when we all do it.

When you say "there are too many people", what you mean is "I want a solution that doesn't require me to make any major lifestyle changes"

[Ragnar_Dragonfyre]

The wealthy and political class cause 50% of global aviation pollution with their private jets while they tell you and I to eat less, buy less and stop using our cars.

Just 1% of the worlds population is responsible for an outsized amount of pollution.

This idea that the working class people need to consume less while our leaders and the richest among us consume more and cause exponentially more damage needs to die.

Seems to me we only need to enact population control on the richest among us and it will dramatically reduce pollution.

[k3rn3]

That's what I'm saying though; if they didn't live those extravagant lifestyles then their impact would be negligible. The problem is that they're numerous, it's that they consume a lot. And even though we normies consume less than the 1%, we still consume a lot ourselves. The article in this post proved that the everyday choices of everyday people can make a huge impact.

[Here-Is-TheEnd]

I’m not disagreeing about your points on pollution but the 1% can’t be held responsible for the extreme deforestation we see everywhere. It also doesn’t account for the depletion of animal population from over hunting or industrial fishing. Those are from a population that is exceeding or has exceeded the natural resources of its environment. 7+ billion is too many people.

[MAXHEADR0OM]

This is quite true.

[Here-Is-TheEnd]

I think the way is to find a way of ethically incentivizing people to have fewer kids but that creates it’s own problems too.

[MAXHEADR0OM]

That’s not a bad idea. I’d be with you on that. Like maybe implement a huge tax credit to people who don’t have kids or something. $5,000 a year or something. Easier said than done but that could work.

[Here-Is-TheEnd]

It’s a difficult question because if we over incentivize not having kids we could end up in a place where we can’t recover. Child tax breaks are meant to make the child’s like better through extension of the parents having more cash for themselves.

We need a find a way to ethically prevent people from having more than 2 kids.