Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evaluation

[santosh10]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

We need a "Population Tax" on every 'additional' child of World

to be paid by India and rest of the world, both

with the suggestion of OCP (One child Policy) or TCP (Two child Policy), i favor 'Population Tax' on every child taking birth in world, after the first one. say, $1,000 for the second one, $10,000 for the 3rd child, and $1.0million+ each for the next ones.......

I mean, if someone wants to put any burden on the country, on the world as whole/ on the Environment-Climate Change/ high resource consumption this way, then that family would first pay for it :thumb:

I also favor, 50% of the "Population Tax" to be paid to the world bank, to handle the global environmental issue due to this 'additional' population. i mean, if any person of India wants more than one child, then half of the "Population Tax" to be paid to the Indian government to handle the related consequences on India, the nation, and half of the Population Tax to be given to World Bank to handle the environmental issues due to India's "additional" population.

and hence, the same we may demand from the rest of the countries too, pay "Population Tax" to World Bank to handle the related Environmental/High Resource Consumption issues, on every 'non-first' child taking birth in any family of world, based in any country. and yes, "Population Tax" for the non-first child must be the same for the people of whole world :thumb:

 

[santosh10]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

East African countries are dealing with the impacts of climate change

Ugandans are already noticing climate change making weather patterns unpredictable, and other climate impacts

//static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/3/30/1301497627955/Fishermen-near-an-oil-rig-007.jpg

Fishermen near an oil rig on the edge of Lake Albert in western Uganda. Photograph: Xan Rice

As I have written before, I have a particular interest in smart energy sources for the developing world. Issues of climate change and energy supply meet as countries try to provide basic services for their populace. Some contrarian climate scientists have claimed that developing clean energy sources is unwise for these countries – insisting incorrectly that dirty energy is the future. Most of us are smarter than that. Most of us realize that deciding the best pathway forward requires balancing the costs of inaction with the costs of action. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that countries are not already feeling the impact of climate change.

Part of my work involves helping countries chart wise energy pathways. My students also travel to developing countries and part of their work involves articulating the challenges and opportunities faced around the globe. This article is supplied by Ms. Lauren Vallez, a freshman student of engineering at the University of St. Thomas. This January, she was inUganda interviewing experts on the impacts and adaption strategies faced by that country. Here is what she found.

"This January, I found myself sitting across from Senior Human Resource Officer in the Department of Administration, Office of the President of Uganda. I wanted to know whether they were observing changes to their climate, what those changes were, and if plans for adaptation had been developed. Mr. Benon Twineobusingye, Senior Human Resource Manager in the Office of the President told me that they were already facing increased drought and changes to the hydrological cycle.

Much of the Ugandan economy is based on agriculture, a practice infused in their culture. Normally regular wet and dry periods have become more varied. He stated that they are, '"¦seeing drought. Serious drought that has not happened before. This drought has caused famine in parts of the country. In other parts, there has been too much rain.' He also told me, 'It has been very hot these days. Over the years it has gotten hotter with more unpredictable weather.' :ranger:

But, unlike many countries which are inactive, Uganda has plans. From the top levels of government, they have enacted policies which encourage reforestation. They also are taking steps to preserve wetlands. Will these steps stop climate change? By no means. But they will help insulate Uganda and its neighbors from the impacts.

His anecdotal perceptions matched with what scientists expect. Uganda, and many other countries in Africa are at or near the equator. Atmospheric circulation patterns provide regular rainy-dry seasons but the water cycle is being modified. This modification may be occurring because of large scale circulation changes, perhaps it is associated with increases in evaporation and water-holding capacity of the air. Regardless of the cause, people in countries like Uganda live close to the ground, acutely aware of changes to seasonal weather. They have cultivated an agriculture based on traditions that are now being challenged.

//static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/15/1394918799134/Figure_2.jpg

Tea harvesting in Uganda, a country dependent on agricultural productivity (courtesy of L. Vallez)

I also spoke to Dr. Walaga Charles (Executive Director of Environmental Alert) who works on sustainability in Uganda. He concurred with Benon's assessment by telling me that there have been more unpredictable rainy seasons. They've observed shortened rainy seasons with crop failures. Although he believes rainfall will in general increase with climate change, the regularity will also change. They expect more flooding and saturated ground. I even observed such flooding during unexpected rains this January.

//static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/15/1394918829154/Figure_3.jpg

Flooding in the streets of the capital Kampala after a brief but unexpected rain (courtesy of L. Vallez)

But Dr. Walaga also told me that increases in temperature are increasing animal diseases and pests. For example, coffee rust is a leaf disease that is now being monitored. It used to be common in warm areas of the country but now is being found in new regions. The same is being observed with malaria.

He told me that Uganda has developed a climate change policy and an implementation plan. The government has established a climate change unit and is working to upgrade that unit into a department. International organizations such as the United Nations and the Global Environment Facility are providing funds to aid adaptation. :thumb:

He also told me that Ugandan universities are performing research on climate change and are incorporating climate change into the curriculum. In particular, agricultural schools are developing climate change centers."

A Master's degree student, Mr. Denis Bazalirwa, agrees. He told me,

'I agree there are significant changes in my country's climate. When I journeyed back there in December 2013, I noticed a change in both daytime and evening temperatures. Rarely did I observe people sleeping with fans and air conditioners but the rise in particular of night time temperatures has forced people to control the unbearable heat. Also, Uganda has two main weather seasons each year. Their timing, however, has changed and it is harder to tell when the current season will end.'"‹

These comments show that on the ground, climate change is impacting peoples' lives, now. Not at some time in the future."

As you can see, Ms. Vallez's essay has articulated steps being taken in this quiet country in East Africa. We can see that much of their efforts are focused on adaption rather than mitigation. Of course that makes sense. While everyone needs to work harder to reduce emissions and limit future climate change, from a practical standpoint, it makes little sense for Uganda to act alone in the face of inaction from others.

We also see the fallacy of arguments that suggest developing clean energy and using energy more wisely would hurt the poor and developing regions of the globe. These countries are being affected now, with tremendous economic and societal impacts now. Had we had a bit more forethought years ago, had we worked harder to make each gallon of gasoline do more, we would have ended up saving money for ourselves, and we would have made things easier for countries that are being affected by climate change today, like Uganda.

theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/17/east-africa-dealing-with-climate-change

 

[santosh10]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

Consumption dwarfs population as main environmental threat

A small portion of the world's people use up most of the earth's resources and produce most of its greenhouse gas emissions, writes Fred Pearce. From Yale Environment 360, part of Guardian Environment Network.

It's the great taboo, I hear many environmentalists say. Population growth is the driving force behind our wrecking of the planet, but we are afraid to discuss it.

It sounds like a no-brainer. More people must inevitably be bad for the environment, taking more resources and causing more pollution, driving the planet ever farther beyond its carrying capacity. But hold on. This is a terribly convenient argument — "over-consumers" in rich countries can blame "over-breeders" in distant lands for the state of the planet. But what are the facts?

The world's population quadrupled to six billion people during the 20th century. It is still rising and may reach 9 billion by 2050. Yet for at least the past century, rising per-capita incomes have outstripped the rising head count several times over. And while incomes don't translate precisely into increased resource use and pollution, the correlation is distressingly strong.
Moreover, most of the extra consumption has been in rich countries that have long since given up adding substantial numbers to their population.

By almost any measure, a small proportion of the world's people take the majority of the world's resources and produce the majority of its pollution. Take carbon dioxide emissions — a measure of our impact on climate but also a surrogate for fossil fuel consumption. Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world's richest half-billion people — that's about 7 percent of the global population — are responsible for 50 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions.

Although over-consumption has a profound effect on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts of our high standard of living extend beyond turning up the temperature of the planet. For a wider perspective of humanity's effects on the planet's life support systems, the best available measure is the "ecological footprint," which estimates the area of land required to provide each of us with food, clothing, and other resources, as well as to soak up our pollution. This analysis has its methodological problems, but its comparisons between nations are firm enough to be useful.

They show that sustaining the lifestyle of the average American takes 9.5 hectares, while Australians and Canadians require 7.8 and 7.1 hectares respectively; Britons, 5.3 hectares; Germans, 4.2; and the Japanese, 4.9. The world average is 2.7 hectares. China is still below that figure at 2.1, while India and most of Africa (where the majority of future world population growth will take place) are at or below 1.0.

The United States always gets singled out. But for good reason: It is the world's largest consumer. Americans take the greatest share of most of the world's major commodities: corn, coffee, copper, lead, zinc, aluminum, rubber, oil seeds, oil, and natural gas. For many others, Americans are the largest per-capita consumers. In "super-size-me" land, Americans gobble up more than 120 kilograms of meat a year per person, compared to just 6 kilos in India, for instance.

I do not deny that fast-rising populations can create serious local environmental crises through overgrazing, destructive farming and fishing, and deforestation. My argument here is that viewed at the global scale, it is overconsumption that has been driving humanity's impacts on the planet's vital life-support systems during at least the past century. But what of the future?

We cannot be sure how the global economic downturn will play out. But let us assume that Jeffrey Sachs, in his book Common Wealth, is right to predict a 600 percent increase in global economic output by 2050. Most projections put world population then at no more than 40 percent above today's level, so its contribution to future growth in economic activity will be small.

Of course, economic activity is not the same as ecological impact. So let's go back to carbon dioxide emissions. Virtually all of the extra 2 billion or so people expected on this planet in the coming 40 years will be in the poor half of the world. They will raise the population of the poor world from approaching 3.5 billion to about 5.5 billion, making them the poor two-thirds.

Sounds nasty, but based on Pacala's calculations — and if we assume for the purposes of the argument that per-capita emissions in every country stay roughly the same as today — those extra two billion people would raise the share of emissions contributed by the poor world from 7 percent to 11 percent.

Look at it another way. Just five countries are likely to produce most of the world's population growth in the coming decades: India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians.

Even if we could today achieve zero population growth, that would barely touch the climate problem — where we need to cut emissions by 50 to 80 percent by mid-century. Given existing income inequalities, it is inescapable that over-consumption by the rich few is the key problem, rather than overpopulation of the poor many.

But, you ask, what about future generations? All those big families in Africa begetting yet-bigger families. They may not consume much today, but they soon will.

Well, first let's be clear about the scale of the difference involved. A woman in rural Ethiopia can have ten children and her family will still do less damage, and consume fewer resources, than the family of the average soccer mom in Minnesota or Munich. In the unlikely event that her ten children live to adulthood and have ten children of their own, the entire clan of more than a hundred will still be emitting less carbon dioxide than you or I.

And second, it won't happen. Wherever most kids survive to adulthood, women stop having so many. That is the main reason why the number of children born to an average woman around the world has been in decline for half a century now. After peaking at between 5 and 6 per woman, it is now down to 2.6.

This is getting close to the "replacement fertility level" which, after allowing for a natural excess of boys born and women who don't reach adulthood, is about 2.3. The UN expects global fertility to fall to 1.85 children per woman by mid-century. While a demographic "bulge" of women of child-bearing age keeps the world's population rising for now, continuing declines in fertility will cause the world's population to stabilize by mid-century and then probably to begin falling.

Far from ballooning, each generation will be smaller than the last. So the ecological footprint of future generations could diminish. That means we can have a shot at estimating the long-term impact of children from different countries down the generations.

The best analysis of this phenomenon I have seen is by Paul Murtaugh, a statistician at Oregon State University. He recently calculated the climatic "intergenerational legacy" of today's children. He assumed current per-capita emissions and UN fertility projections. He found that an extra child in the United States today will, down the generations, produce an eventual carbon footprint seven times that of an extra Chinese child, 46 times that of a Pakistan child, 55 times that of an Indian child, and 86 times that of a Nigerian child.

Of course those assumptions may not pan out. I have some confidence in the population projections, but per-capita emissions of carbon dioxide will likely rise in poor countries for some time yet, even in optimistic scenarios. But that is an issue of consumption, not population.

In any event, it strikes me as the height of hubris to downgrade the culpability of the rich world's environmental footprint because generations of poor people not yet born might one day get to be as rich and destructive as us. Overpopulation is not driving environmental destruction at the global level; overconsumption is. Every time we talk about too many babies in Africa or India, we are denying that simple fact.

At root this is an ethical issue. Back in 1974, the famous environmental scientist Garret Hardin proposed something he called "lifeboat ethics". In the modern, resource-constrained world, he said, "each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in." But there were, he said, not enough places to go around. If any were let on board, there would be chaos and all would drown. The people in the lifeboat had a duty to their species to be selfish – to keep the poor out.

Hardin's metaphor had a certain ruthless logic. What he omitted to mention was that each of the people in the lifeboat was occupying ten places, whereas the people in the water only wanted one each. I think that changes the argument somewhat.

"¢ From Yale Environment 360, part of Guardian Environment Network

[theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/15/consumption-versus-population-environmental-impact]Fred Pearce: Consumption dwarfs population as main environmental threat | Environment | theguardian.com]

 

[santosh10]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

The size of the carbon legacy is closely tied to consumption patterns. Under current conditions, a child born in the United States will be responsible for almost seven times the carbon emissions of a child born in China and 168 times the impact of a child born in Bangladesh. :thumb:

biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/]Human Population Growth and Climate Change

the above, a good news about Bangladesh, at least, which may have a place here too. :ranger:

which also states about a country with over 170million population, more than total population of the largest country of world, Russia, filled with Islamic Fanaticism, and then they find India as the place they may run......

once i had demanded "Permanent Visa on Arrival" for Bangladeshi nationals in US/Italy, when i saw good support for these Bangladeshi Infiltrators in India during the last UPA government......


=>

An issue that is often played at us is that nations like BD will disappear under the sea with the steady rise in water levels. An alternative school thinks otherwise. With increase of water in the oceans/seas, the flow in our rivers will slow down. That will result in more deposits of sediments carried by the Brahmaputra and the Ganges. In fact our land-surface will see a rise.

look, there has been a discussion on many places to shift half of the population of Bangladesh in these circumstances too. 10% to Europe, 10% to North America, 10% to South America, 10 to 20% to Asia, and rest of 50% to African nations which would include mainly the very poor of BD. (just say, 1% to NA, 1% to SA, 1% to EU, 2% Asia and 10% to Africa in start.)

but things aren't so easy like how we talk on the forums. Bangladesh has every right to say that it contributes very less in Carbon Emission while its among those nations would be sunk first due to Climate Change, true.

but you can't just have as many population as you wish, who have enough religious fanaticism too. religious conflicts in even America, Europe has been a very frequent news, bombing on London, 9/11 in New York etc have been major examples. 'WOT's by US too have fueled these conflicts......

if you ask for help to shift half of the population as they may contribute good in that certain country, then there is a fair talk, a welcome approach. but we have now reached a state that people are now just killing each others on the name of religious fanaticism, like how we find terrorists of ISIS just killing non-sunni people of Iraq. similar news we have been reading about Pakistan/Bangladesh about attacks on the minorities too. and here it gets too complex.....

we would see enough help for BD in tough times of climate change, and yes, they would also be meant to be deserving for that. and a national level efforts on population control may be a good start in this direction. such a small country, limited resources and population more than the largest country of world, Russia? :ranger:

 

[santosh10]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

WH: Climate change fuels intense fire seasons
08/05/14

//thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/article_images/wildfire08052014getty.jpg?itok=yIsCTdtk

As California declared a state of emergency this week over growing wildfires, the White House played the climate change card on Tuesday to drive home the need for action. :ranger:

In a new video posted on the White House website, John Holdren, science adviser to President Obama, details the links between higher temperatures and reduced moisture in the soil to the increasing number of wildfires in the western U.S.

"While no single wildfire can be said to be caused by climate change, climate change has been making the fire season in the U.S. longer and on average more intense," Holdren said in the video.

"The influence of climate change on the wildfire regime comes not just from the higher summer temperatures and reduced summer soil moisture that go with global warming, but climate change is also bringing us more dead trees — kindling in effect — killed by a combination of heat stress, water stress and attacks by pests and pathogens that multiply faster in a warmer world," he added.

White House climate adviser to the president, John Podesta, sent out a letter on Tuesday about the subject as well, arguing that the devastation caused by raging fires in states like California, Oregon and Washington, make the case for expedited action on climate change policies.

The video resembles one the White House made during the "polar vortex" to push back at claims by climate skeptics that the severe cold snap meant global warming did not exist.

In the earlier video, like the one released this week, Holdren explains that while one wildfire, or one cold snap, does not mean climate change is occurring, together a growing number does.

In Tuesday's video, Holdren says that, on average, annual wildfires in the western U.S. have "increased several fold in the last decade," and the eight worst years on record for "area burned" by wildfires "have all occurred since 2000."

Across the three West Coast states, roughly 30 major wildfires are raging. California is currently battling over a dozen large fires during the worst drought in the state's history, forcing Gov. Jerry Brown to declare a state of emergency over the weekend.

The devastation to air quality, downstream fisheries, infrastructure, property loss and wildlife, is "too high a price," Podesta and Holdren said on Tuesday. :coffee:

"Make no mistake: The cost of inaction on wildfires and climate change is too high a price for Americans to pay, particularly when we have a chance to address this right now," Podesta said.

//thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/214362-wh-evidence-is-strong-climate-change-fuels-intense-fire-seasons

 

[santosh10]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

BASIC group refuses to budge on climate change stance

The four BASIC countries stick to their developing nation stand at a meeting to prepare for the next round of climate negotiations

Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) presented a united front and reiterated their stand on climate negotiations at the 18th ministerial level meeting held in New Delhi this week. Developed countries had been hoping that the four governments would at least drop a hint that they would be willing to take on legally binding greenhouse gas emission control commitments by 2020, but there was no sign of that. :ranger:

Instead, as the two-day meeting ended, host Prakash Javadekar, India's minister for environment, forests and climate change, stressed that "developed countries must walk the talk" and improve their emission reduction commitments.

In a joint statement released by the world's four biggest emerging economies, the ministers expressed their disappointment over the "continued lack of any clear roadmap for providing US$100 billion per year by developed countries by 2020." This was a commitment made by then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as far back as the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit.

The money is supposed to go to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to provide long-term finance to developing countries to help them mitigate their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapt to climate change. The fund has been set up, but is still mostly empty, and there is still a big question mark over how this money will be raised.

Calling for an immediate and substantial capitalization of the GCF, Javadekar emphasised that "people must contribute." The statement said that the "developed countries should take the lead in addressing climate change in accordance with their historical responsibilities, the latest available scientific evidence on climate change trends and the IPCC AR5."

The fifth assessment report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently reaffirmed that human activities are causing climate change, which is already affecting farm output worldwide, raising sea levels, and making droughts, floods and storms more frequent and more severe. The thousands of scientists from around the world who worked on these reports also reaffirmed that carbon dioxide continues to be the main GHG that was warming the atmosphere and causing climate change, and that the main sources of the extra carbon dioxide are thermal power plants, other industries and motor vehicles. :ranger:

The statement by the BASIC ministers also reaffirmed that the outcome of the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action must be in full accordance with the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) and respective capabilities.

Under the Durban Platform, developed countries have been pressing for emerging economies to make legally binding mitigation commitments, a departure from the earlier Kyoto Protocol under which only industrialized nations were obliged to reduce their GHG emissions.

Led by the US, developed countries have also been pressing all governments to tell the secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change the extent to which they plan to control their GHG emissions – what is called their intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) – as early as possible. Reacting to this, the four BASIC ministers said that given their social and development needs, INDCs of developing countries will also be based on "the extent of financial, technological and capacity-building support provided by the developed countries." :thumb:

When asked if India will stick to the deadline of submitting its climate contributions, Javadekar said, "India won't ask for more time." The deadline is March 2015.

Francisco Gaetani, Deputy Minister of Environment of Brazil, said, "We are proud of our efforts at emission reductions. But developed countries need to walk the talk. They haven't fulfilled their commitments yet. We don't feel obliged but the developed countries need to showcase their efforts first."

The four ministers unanimously stated that developing countries have done a lot more than developed countries to mitigate climate change and that the efforts can further increase if the developed nations – historically responsible for most of the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today – fulfil their commitments to provide funds, technology and capacity building support.

Asked about the bilateral agreement between China and the US on climate change, Xie Zhenhua, Vice Chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission of China, said that both China and the US – the top GHG emitters of the world – can enhance their domestic capacities to address climate change through cooperation.

Elaborating, Xie said, "There are two tiers of cooperation. There is exchange of information for the purpose of promoting the multilateral agreements forward and domestic measures to address climate change. Second, specific projects for promoting domestic actions to address climate change. These projects include energy savings, energy efficiency, renewable, smart-grids, CCUs (Carbon capture and utilization) and capacity-building programmes."

Xie did not think such bilateral talks would dilute the ongoing multilateral climate negotiations under UNFCCC. He said, "Multilateral agreement issues can't be solved by a small number of countries. Multilateral agreement rules need to be followed. China upholds CBDR, equity and individual capacity principles. Multilateral issues need to be resolved under multilateral framework."

India has also been holding bilateral talks with the US on the issue. Top American climate negotiator Todd Stern was in New Delhi recently as part of a delegation led by Secretary of State John Kerry. Stern and Javadekar held a long meeting, after which both chose to talk about bilateral cooperation under the India-US Joint Working Group on Climate Change – clean technology, smart grids, energy efficiency, adaptation strategies, sustainable forestry, water management, information-sharing on adaptation to extreme weather events and so on. :thumb:

On climate negotiations, the only official statement was for both countries to reaffirm their commitment to a successful outcome of the Paris summit.

Getting back to the BASIC ministers meeting, it was learnt that at a closed-door session, the four ministers and their officials discussed how to communicate the group's position to the rest of the world more effectively. China suggested that each of the four countries draft small flyers or short articles that can be distributed at the next climate summit – scheduled in Lima, Peru, this December – to tell the world what has been done by the BASIC group to mitigate emissions and the difficulties that they have overcome.

It was also suggested that representatives of other developing nation blocs, such as G77 and small-island developing states (SIDS) be included at the next BASIC meeting – to be held in South Africa this October – so that the group's position can be better understood. Developing countries officially carry out their climate negotiations under the G77 and China umbrella.

While climate negotiators from various governments are now preparing for the next summit in Lima, they all realize it is a prelude to the next summit – to be held in Paris in December 2015 – where a global agreement on mitigation is expected.

The French government is learnt to be working on a "Paris Declaration" already, a move roundly criticised by a NGO representative who has been following the summits for years. "They are making exactly the same mistake that the Danish government made before the Copenhagen summit, trying to draft a declaration without sufficient consultation with other governments. If they do not change their stance, the Paris summit will end up with same fiasco."

The French foreign minister – who was in New Delhi recently – was however insistent that his government would consult every country in an effort to reach consensus.

Shades of this issue fell on the BASIC ministers meet. The group urged that the elements for a draft negotiating text for the 2015 outcome should be finalized and available for discussion at the Lima summit. Javadekar said, "The text must be ready one year before so that we can discuss and finalize it and not leave it for the last moment."

All developed countries are now looking anxiously at India, which has for decades been the champion of the equity principle under which industrialized nations need to do much more in view of their historical responsibility, while developing nations must have the right to bring all their citizens out of poverty. :thumb:

With the US, Russia, Japan, Canada, Australia and some European countries insisting that they will not make any legally binding commitments unless developing countries – especially emerging economies – do the same, this issue continues to be a potential deal breaker.

As foreign ministers, environment ministers and climate negotiators from around the globe keep jetting to New Delhi, Javadekar has been reiterating that India will not be a spoiler, but that developing countries must be helped through finance, green technology transfer and capacity building.

Earlier this week, inaugurating a meeting held to highlight the findings of the IPCC, Javadekar said, "We shall need a longer window before we're in a position to make a (legally binding mitigation) commitment, maybe 2040 or beyond."

The prospective Paris agreement envisages all countries – developed and developing – to make commitments for the post-2020 period. Still, Javadekar's position was a change from the earlier position of Indian negotiators who had shut the door from the country making any commitment at all. Right now, the door is slightly ajar. :ranger:

thethirdpole.net/basic-group-refuses-to-budge-on-climate-change-stance/

@Ray: Indeed, Ray, like everything, time will tell. But it is certainly a good idea in theory and I hope it is successful in practice.

@Ray

We First Need to Legally Bind High Population Countries on Population Control

here, as in he above article, its clear that High Population Density countries cant be allowed to emit greenhouse emission in match with the developed countries until they are agreed to reduce population to an acceptable level. and about India, i would say it to reduce its population to 700millon by 2050, and 341mil by 2100, same as its population at the time of freedom, in 1947.....

and yes, the same we may demand from our neighbors like Pakistan, Bangladesh too, to reduce population to 34mil and 36mil respectively by 2100, a target, same as in 1947.... and the similar target we may demand from rest of the world too......

you cant maintain living standard in match with the developed nations until you deserved for that, culturally/socially/politically etc. too, and before demanding similarity with the OECD nations, we demand some commitments from the developing countries in regard of population control

as per topic of this thread

 

[santosh10]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

We need to strike a balance or else we will run out of resources. And this needs participation of all communities.

look, it can't happen that Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Sikh communities are reducing population, and Muslims on the die hard struggle to increase population to outnumber rest of the communities, as this is what they can do. there is no meaning of democratic election, if few communities are increasing population just for the purpose to take over others, as this is what the Democracy finally means for...

and thats why i said in my last post, whether a part of the world deserves to emit greenhouse gas, because of their 'culture'/'social'/'political' etc background. are you "civilized enough" to discuss "equality" with rest of world, the Developing countries must answer this first, before they demand for "Equality" with the current OECD economies.

the equality in terms of using resources, whose higher price is applicable on the whole world if its consumption is higher due to high demands from high population countries.

the Equality in terms of Carbon emission, whose effect on the whole climate is same for the whole world.

and then we find Middle Class of India, China type developing countries paying high tax for the subsidy burden of poor, just because this excess population couldn't be controlled in India, while China did get some success to an extent. and then we also demand "Population Tax" for every 'non-first' kid taking birth in every family of world, to be paid to Climate Change organization/world bank, which must be same for the whole world. its simple means, if you want to have good life, you first need to pay for it, for the climate you taking birth :thumb:

here, i think my post as below may also have a place here too. and we must avoid this type of wrong approach to 'out-number' other communities by conversion etc :thumb:

=>

Brahmins/Pandit means for Those only who deserve for that

sir we heard RSS helping brilliant Dalits becoming Brahmin, thats a very positive step with reference to our history also, when the most educated people were only deserving to be considered as Brahmin Caste.

we hope to see further progress in this regard

Every Second Hindu Temple must have the main Priest from the most educated Dalit Caste

who would first be rewarded as Brahman Caste

sir, we must always push this type of positive step by RSS, to have a proper leadership in Hindu community as whole, by utilizing the most talented Dalit Caste people, as a talent pick up process, in fact. which is fit with the example of the history of India itself, where the the Hindu Kings used to reward the top most Brahmin position to the most competent person of society, regardless who are their parents, of any caste....

fore example, RSS's schools may pick the most Brilliant student of Dalit caste from the class 10th/12th itself, also from degree colleges, from every district of India as an religious efforts in whole India, and reward them as the status of "main priest" of at least every second Hindu Temple of a district. with putting the current one as the assistant to the newly elected Priest of those Temples.

and yes, if we dont get time to go to Temple frequently, then its not right to ask these brilliant students/graduates to divert them from education. but i sincerely believe, they may certainly have at least 2-3 hours a week for a certain day of a week. for example, the Newly elected Priest of a Hanuman Temple might be preparing for IAS exams, for example, but he may arrange at least 2-3 hours on every Tuesday, only? while pray's during the rest of the week would continue as it is, by the current one as the assistant of the newly elected main priest? these graduates/brilliant students of class 10th-12th, may also be offered to have a major share of religious charity of that certain Temple, to encourage their weekly appearance on the day when the religious charity would be highest.
(while i would advocate to have a tradition that if we have IAS/IPS officer of any District belonging to Dalit Caste, then he may simply be put as the main priest of the main Hindu Temple of Lucknow, for example. whats the caste of DM/SP of Lucknow?)

and yes, these newly elected main Priest of a Temple, picked from class 10th-12th, degree colleges, who are first converted in Brahman Caste, must be married to a Brahman girl too. :thumb:

India Moving Towards Number Game in Religious Equation

@Ray

sir, im also running a thread for "Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evaluation", but we need to be more realistic, than idealism. and its a bottom line fact that we are moving towards the Number Game, and the winner, on the ground and in 'Democratic Election' both, will be based on the "number", who has how many????? India is not a communist country like CHina, its harder to impose One Child Policy type things forcefully, not very hard but its hard..... true

Congress has no right to destroy Hindu Community, if they know that the number game will finally put a question on the existence on the Hindu Society as whole .....

RSS is more realistic in this ongoing Religious Number game, regardless which party comes in power......

and as i have favored before also, we now need to promote the "Gandhian Caste", as the superior caste than any caste of India, the caste of Father of Nation. even Second PM of India, Mr LB Shastri adopted it as a follower of father of nation, joining the pride of nation as whole

and yes, as per my above post too, Brahman/Pandit would mean for only those who deserve for it, regardless in which family you took birth. and here again, i would strongly favor RSS to help the Brilliant Schedule Caste people getting top priest position in at least half of the Temples of India

 

[santosh10]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

double post

 

[santosh10]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

@Ray
Population growth biggest threat to India's development

Rising population is the greatest threat to the sustainable development in India, a policy maker has told a recent summit.

Rural areas in particular must receive better formal education on environmental issues to improve the quality of stewardship.

SP Singh, a planning advisor to the state of Uttarakhand said that the failure to manage population in the Gangetic plains of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand could lead to the disruption of natural resource management in Himalayan region. :ranger:

Singh called for improvements in society's understanding of the economic and environmental impact of ecosystem services.

He also said a system of accountability was required to prevent the indiscriminate use of natural resources.

At an international level, Indian politicians are calling for the right to use their resources to pursue development, without externally imposed constraints from the UN.

The Environmental concerns and sustainable development conference, organised by the Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development (IESD), Banaras Hindu University, also heard a plea for local knowledge to come to the fore.

"Wisdom emerging from the local community is a better method for sustainable development," said Professor PS Ramakrishnan, Jawaharlal Nehru University, who pointed to political conflict as the main driver of environmental degradation.

India is currently facing the "perfect storm" scenario of escalating climate impacts, rapidly growing population and increasing development all putting pressure on food security and ecosystem health.

Instilling sustainability concepts for developing nations, such as efficient cook stoves and clean lighting can have benefits for human health and the environment.

The Sundarbans habitat, which spans Indian and Bangladeshi territory is currently under is facing immense environmental pressures and could soon be home to a new coal power station.

rtcc.org/2012/03/07/population-growth-biggest-threat-to-indias-development/

 

[Peter]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

@santosh10 Thank you for copy pasting err I meant conducting such original research in this topic of world population. Jokes apart what you have posted unwittingly is quite correct and I wish @Mad Indian checks your invaluable thread. Also I earnestly wish that you keep on posting such topics before Interpol,FBI,MI6 get hold of you.

 

[santosh10]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

@santosh10 Thank you for copy pasting err I meant conducting such original research in this topic of world population. Jokes apart what you have posted unwittingly is quite correct and I wish @Mad Indian checks your invaluable thread. Also I earnestly wish that you keep on posting such topics before Interpol,FBI,MI6 get hold of you.

Don is wanted by police of over 80 countries, its a different issue, in fact....
.

 

[Mad Indian]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

@santosh10 Thank you for copy pasting err I meant conducting such original research in this topic of world population. Jokes apart what you have posted unwittingly is quite correct and I wish @Mad Indian checks your invaluable thread. Also I earnestly wish that you keep on posting such topics before Interpol,FBI,MI6 get hold of you.

This is a useless thread full of shit and you want to believe it. Well More power to you:thumb:

Stop having kids and help India

 

[santosh10]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

This is a useless thread full of shit and you want to believe it. Well More power to you:thumb:

Stop having kids and help India

@Peter @Ray

hmmm, the time has come when you need more females/daughters than males..... i think, One Child Policy would mean for male kids only, with allowing unlimited female kids...

 

[santosh10]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

self deleted

 

[santosh10]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

Seven Biggest Environmental Threats

The seven biggest environmental threats to the Earth are issues every person should understand and take action to see that these threats are eventually eliminated.

Examining the various threats to the Earth's environment must include the human impact on the planet. Catch phrases such as carbon footprint, global warming, deforestation, and other commonly used terms have become the everyday jargon for those concerned about the environment.

1. Human Population and Pollution

A growing world population might seem like an obvious threat to the environment that goes far beyond the debatable theory of global warming. The bigger threat is far more complex and directly linked not to the controversial idea of a carbon footprint, but to the unique system of supply and demand.

Consumers place more and more demands on the earth's natural resources as the population increases year after year. These demands leave pollution and waste in the wake of human daily activity. Compound this with each world government doing its own brand of commerce, many without environmental consciences, and you get the formula for environmental chaos and disaster. :meeting:

A prime example of higher consumption demands can be found in the fishery industry, where the world's marine life is being harvested with few to no renewable methods in place. Consumers are also responsible via industry for hundreds of hazardous chemicals used in the production of various products. Heavy metals continue to contaminate land, water and air.

The power of a consumer can be mighty when each person in the world realizes that action can be taken and changes made by carefully choosing how each consumer dollar is spent.

2. Earth Changes

The last major climate change was an ice age and the world is in the final stages of that event. The result is a rise in temperatures and the melting of glaciers and even the polar ice cap. Many highly-respected scientists disagree that global warming is the result of human-caused pollution any more than it can cause powerful hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, floods, and even solar flares. This school of thought views earth changes as being the result of the natural processes found in an evolving living planet and its sun. While the cause of global warming remains controversial, both sides agree that it's a very real environmental threat to the world as you know it.

3. Deforestation

When a region loses its biodiversity, it becomes more vulnerable to other environmental elements. Deforestation disrupts the natural balance of ecological systems in the area where the trees have been harvested and far beyond. Food production can be impacted due to drought and erosion directly linked to the loss of forests.

4. Ozone Deterioration

Chemicals and chlorofluorocarbons pollutants are created by industry and agriculture. They have a negative impact the ozone layer. The lack of strict enforcement of laws to prevent the use of such pollutants compounds the situation. World governments that continue to allow various pollutants into the environment impede the recovery of the ozone layer.

5. Acid Rain

Acid rain is created by excessive sulfuric and nitric acid being pumped into the atmosphere, rivers, oceans, and land. While some acid rain is the byproduct of the natural processes of decaying vegetation and volcanic activity, the current crisis comes directly from the burning of fossil fuels. Water becomes toxic when acid rain imbues the oceans or lakes with an absorption quality that cause the water to absorb soil-based aluminum and poisons the aquatic plant and marine life.

6. Dead Zones in the Ocean

Another harmful source of excessive nitrogen being dumped into the oceans can be traced back to agricultural practices of over-fertilization of crops, lawns and gardens. The end result has been the creation of over 160 dead zones throughout the world's oceans.

The oceans' eco-systems are dependent upon the natural process of organic ocean matter known as phytoplankton, which is found on ocean surfaces. This eventually breaks down and filters to the bottom of the ocean floor where it's broken down further by ocean floor bacteria. This process is called bacterial respiration.

When too much nitrogen feeds the phytoplankton, like any fertilized crop, it begins to overproduce. The bacteria are unable to break down the plankton fast enough and the chemical processes that convert carbon dioxide into oxygen can't keep up. The oxygen is used up quicker than it can be produced. The plankton chokes out the flow of water and oxygen so that marine and plant life die from the lack of oxygen.

7. Species Extinction

An alarming rate of species extinction is happening worldwide. As of 2010, the rate of loss is estimated to be more than 1,000 times the normal rate. Greater preservation tactics and strategies are needed with laws put into place to protect species. Once more, man-made pollution is the culprit along with land encroachment by developers. Both causes are created by consumer demands as people branch out into areas that were once remote habitats for various species.

An example of successful endangered species preservation is the American national symbol, the bald eagle. In the 1960s, there were fewer than 470 eagle nestlings. As of 2010, there were over 7,000 nestlings in the United States. This increase in the bald eagle population demonstrates how threatened species can be brought back from the brink of extinction. More and more animals and other forms of wildlife are being added to the endangered species list each year. It makes sense to become better land stewards, instead of encroaching on forests and wetlands.

While there are many other threats to the environment that have a significant impact, these are certainly the seven biggest environmental threats facing the world today.

//greenliving.lovetoknow.com/Seven_Biggest_Environmental_Threats

//greenliving.lovetoknow.com/Seven_Biggest_Environmental_Threats

 

[santosh10]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

now poverty of India is because of its over population. Most of the problems of India is because of its Over Population and India has to reduce its population only. otherwise India has around 350mil Upper Middle Class, more than total population in 1947, whose per capita income on PPP is similar to the Very High HDI countries like Argentina, Poland, Saudi Arabia etc. one day I calculated as below:-

Over-Population Notes

World is changing and few points everyone knows on the world platform in today's world, no need to read articles, as below:

1st; High Population means high consumption of resources, and hence its higher prices for the people of whole world.

2nd; high energy consumption and hence higher green house gas emission, hence increasing Climate Change threats this way

3rd; High Subsidy to feed poor below poverty line, especially in case of India. which is possible only until its Middle Class may afford it. and we must avid that breaking point :tup:

4th; and, we also encourage a "Population Tax" on every second kid taking birth in a family, which may be denoted to World Bank/ Climate Change Organizations to reduce its effects. i mean, if you can't reduce population then at least pay something to reduce its effects on the world's Climate Change. and yes, this "Population Tax" on the 'non-first' child would be same for the people of whole world. :coffee:

.
Few Key Points I always mention on this Topic as below:

these are my own ideas so it does require criticism by other members to make the topic interesting :thumb:

1st; if the poor of India ask the Western nations to share the burden of subsidies then they will simply kick these shiits of India, isn't it? and if its only Indian Middle Class who is generating money and running government and also paying heavy price for the welfare/subsidies for poor, then they do have a right to ask the Indian Government, "to what extent they will have to bear this burden of tax just to feed poor, and whether they will remain capable enough in future also to bear this burden on long run if the government doesn't control the population?????"

like the news as below, around 50% indian population is based in agriculture only, around 600mil, while even 200mil population may produce the same agriculture output? and the same in cities of India, around 50% people just try to earn a decent salary which they can't, simply because too many mouths and limited resources. and Indian Middle Class is just paying high price to feed these around 600mil 'excess' population, but still there is no effort to have a control on this growing population????

"As per statistics, India provides around Rs855 billion subsidy to its farmers to reduce their production cost, whereas Pakistan hardly spends Rs8 billion in this regard. India's agriculture production cost was around two to three times lower than Pakistan due to these subsidies," agriculture expert and Agri Forum Pakistan chairman, Ibrahim Mughal said.

[agricorner.com/mfn-status-to-ruin-agriculture-industry-alike/]MFN status to ruin agriculture, industry alike | Agriculture Corner]

2nd; here for example of Pakistan and Bangladesh, right now overly populated Pakistan is full of target killings, simply because too many mouth and no resources to feed them. its also similar to 'genocide' itself?????? and Bangladeshis just want to run from Bangladesh, mainly to India. its the worse to see people dying without dignity than controlling population by force........

Don't hold your breath: during a recent DPC rally in Karachi, speaker after speaker made it clear that their real enemies are India and America. This assembled galaxy clearly failed to notice the uncomfortable fact that over the last decade, well over 30,000 innocent civilians and 5,000 security personnel have been killed in terrorist attacks launched by jihadi militants.Such mundane truths often escape our religious brigade.

[dawn.com/news/696249/save-us-from-our-defenders]Save us from our defenders - DAWN.COM]

3rd; many economists of India advocate "food security"/ "free medicines"/ "right to get a job" etc in India which is not possible until the Indian government may control its population. they simply can't feed 1.25bil population from the limited natural resources they have . USA is 3 times bigger in area than India but population of India is 4 times to USA? and on the top of that, Indian government wants to give welfare/ heavy subsidies to its people? if India face a sudden fall like ASEAN in late 90s and South America like in 80s, all these they will have to withdraw after that so better they keep habit to live in less and get rid off the unnecessary subsidies/welfares . for example, we always find Pakistan increasing petrol and diesel prices as per market prices as they can't afford to give subsidies while the people of Pakistan are poorer than India, but Indian government always hesitate to do so? but the day India will reach level of Pakistan, just one good economic fall is required, and India will learn all by themselves.

4th; here we have report from world bank that around 60% people of India are living with income less than $2.0 per day, as below

here, how is it wise to have high population if you can't give them good life? how is it advisable to have more population this way???

=> [//data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.2DAY?order=wbapi_data_value_2011+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=asc]Poverty headcount ratio at $2 a day (PPP) (% of population) | Data | Table]

5th; Population of India was hardly around 341 million at the time of freedom, in 1947, and we can't have more than 700 million people, and we need a national consensus on it.

and as Overpopulation of India is directly related to consumption of natural resources of the world. as, higher International price of natural resources, due to high demands from the high population countries, is applicable on whole world. high pollution and hence Climate Change due to high consumption of energy. reduced water level has also been caused in India due to the same high population and hence high demand reasons, hence India is directly answerable to the rest of the world about the measures it is adopting to reduce its population to 700 million, say by 2050

we can't let India become one of the reason for the destruction of this world, as the Earth belongs to every person of the world, regardless any nationality

6th; and here, first there is no control on the population, as much as India can have, and on the top of that, they want to feed them for nothing too

=> [//articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-07-09/news/40469205_1_food-security-bill-foodgrain-subsidies]At Rs 1,25,000 cr, Food Security Bill largest in world: Implementation a challenge, says Morgan Stanley - Economic Times]

 

[santosh10]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

double post

 

[sgarg]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

@santosh10, the population of India should be around 10 crore if natural resources have to support a wealthy lifestyle.

There is no doubt that population of India is unsustainable. The land can be forced to feed so many people, but only by degrading the land, rivers, and lakes and eventually causing disaster of a monumental scale.

To stop the growth of population is the single largest challenge facing India.

 

[santosh10]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

@santosh10, the population of India should be around 10 crore if natural resources have to support a wealthy lifestyle.

There is no doubt that population of India is unsustainable. The land can be forced to feed so many people, but only by degrading the land, rivers, and lakes and eventually causing disaster of a monumental scale. :ranger:

To stop the growth of population is the single largest challenge facing India.

hmmm, i would favor population of India to reduce to its pre-independence level at 341million, it had till 1947, say by 2100.

and the first target would be to reduce population to 700million, say by 2050. which is more realistic, considering current Indian population at around 1.3billion at present..


we have a news as below too in this regard :thumb:

@Ray
Population growth biggest threat to India's development

Rising population is the greatest threat to the sustainable development in India, a policy maker has told a recent summit. :ranger:

Rural areas in particular must receive better formal education on environmental issues to improve the quality of stewardship.

SP Singh, a planning advisor to the state of Uttarakhand said that the failure to manage population in the Gangetic plains of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand could lead to the disruption of natural resource management in Himalayan region. :ranger:

Singh called for improvements in society's understanding of the economic and environmental impact of ecosystem services.

He also said a system of accountability was required to prevent the indiscriminate use of natural resources.

At an international level, Indian politicians are calling for the right to use their resources to pursue development, without externally imposed constraints from the UN.

The Environmental concerns and sustainable development conference, organised by the Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development (IESD), Banaras Hindu University, also heard a plea for local knowledge to come to the fore.

"Wisdom emerging from the local community is a better method for sustainable development," said Professor PS Ramakrishnan, Jawaharlal Nehru University, who pointed to political conflict as the main driver of environmental degradation.

India is currently facing the "perfect storm" scenario of escalating climate impacts, rapidly growing population and increasing development all putting pressure on food security and ecosystem health.

Instilling sustainability concepts for developing nations, such as efficient cook stoves and clean lighting can have benefits for human health and the environment.

The Sundarbans habitat, which spans Indian and Bangladeshi territory is currently under is facing immense environmental pressures and could soon be home to a new coal power station. :ranger:

rtcc.org/2012/03/07/population-growth-biggest-threat-to-indias-development/

 

[santosh10]

Re: Sustainable World: Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evalua

double post