Meaningful environmental impact

[Ron Scott]

The reality is though that our entire global economic system is based around population growth and transfer of wealth from young workers to seniors. As that balance shifts there will be substantial disruption. China is going through this now as they have a rapidly aging population with at most one child (with rare exceptions) to support a set of parents. And due to all the sex-selective abortions many of those male children will be unable to find a spouse and start a family - further reducing their ability to care for aging parents.

China is a perfect example of a government out of control. Forcibly limiting families to one kid is nuts and doing so in a country that strongly values males over females is a recipe the disaster they got. Gotta love communist dictatorships…

It’s also a warning not to get complacent at home. In America both the far right and wingnut progressives are keen on strong central governments that can crack the whip to get social change. Gross!

[namasteyall]

India has free/cheap and socially accepted birth control since 1960. Abortion, when safe, is available cheaply and everyone understands it can be a necessity. Southern states are on ZPG for years. Hinduism is fine with birth control and most kids born today are one out of two. India's Catholics also use birth control without any fuss. In short, anyone who limits kids to what they can manage, is doing just fine. So a much lower population in overpopulated countries is a great thing and improves everyone's life.

There has been NO difficulty or lack of social support with reduced births. To the contrary, most people are good savers and also more kids are now well cared for. Indians, lower middle class to rich,  expect to support themselves and their needs with savings, insurance and assisted living, formal and informal. FWIW, body donation is very acceptable, e.g Jains, a wealthy group, are EXPECTED to donate theirs! Their social camps promote this.

[namasteyall]

'Middleclass' in India means good, dependable access to food, clothing, shelter, education, leisure and healthcare and thus the ability to earn is valued. About 500 million have this. However few aspire to a wasteful way of life! Considered 'bad/distasteful' culturally due to Hinduism! Most Indians are high savers.
Reducing the population is a national goal: with birth control and has shown excellent results.

[afox]

I care relatively little for the environment, FYI.   I'm not interested in making individual sacrifices in the name of the environment, but I am strangely in favor of many sensible changes on a macro level.  I know that sounds like a strange contradiction.

I am all in favor of all laundry detergent required to be sold in powder form and coming in cardboard packing.  Liquid stuff is heavier to transport, likely takes more volume, typically shipped in plastic.  But, until something can be done about that on a macro level, I am not willing to spend a ton more to buy it myself.

Outlaw plastic bags at Walmart and Target.  We would eventually change our mindset and acquire and bring our own bags.  I have some in my trunk as we go to Aldi regularly - they have me trained - yet when I go to Target or Walmart I'm trained the other way, I only realize when I get to the checkout that I would like to have brought some bags but I haven't.  And I'm not going out to get them at this point.

I'm still going to take trips to Europe, if that needs to be discouraged it will need to come in the form of appropriate taxes - and I'm OK with that.  But again without a macro solution that will get everyone on board, no thanks.  Much higher gas taxes, I'm all for that - I suppose because I can pay them and because it would discourage pointless trucks and SUVs.  I still want to be able to go where I want, eat what I want, do what I want, more or less.

Ugh, well, a plastic bag is made from petroleum and has the equivalent of about 0.07 gallons of gas. You cant drive very far or fly very far for 0.07 gallons of gas.

[namasteyall]

Really enjoy the community here: mostly wise, caring folk with good ideas!
I do whatever I know to protect the environment. Almost zero garbage, after composting and recycling, e.g. plastic, paper bags go to street vendors. Low electricity/water usage. Almost zero food waste. Stopped buying anything unless I need it or really want it. I usually find a good home for whatever I throw out. Happy and (usually!) grateful. LOL! Also enjoy tipping in places where people make less, e.g. cheap restaurants.

[EchoStache]

I care relatively little for the environment, FYI.   I'm not interested in making individual sacrifices in the name of the environment, but I am strangely in favor of many sensible changes on a macro level.  I know that sounds like a strange contradiction.

I am all in favor of all laundry detergent required to be sold in powder form and coming in cardboard packing.  Liquid stuff is heavier to transport, likely takes more volume, typically shipped in plastic.  But, until something can be done about that on a macro level, I am not willing to spend a ton more to buy it myself.

Outlaw plastic bags at Walmart and Target.  We would eventually change our mindset and acquire and bring our own bags.  I have some in my trunk as we go to Aldi regularly - they have me trained - yet when I go to Target or Walmart I'm trained the other way, I only realize when I get to the checkout that I would like to have brought some bags but I haven't.  And I'm not going out to get them at this point.

I'm still going to take trips to Europe, if that needs to be discouraged it will need to come in the form of appropriate taxes - and I'm OK with that.  But again without a macro solution that will get everyone on board, no thanks.  Much higher gas taxes, I'm all for that - I suppose because I can pay them and because it would discourage pointless trucks and SUVs.  I still want to be able to go where I want, eat what I want, do what I want, more or less.

Plastic bags are literally one of the dumbest, EASILY REMEDIATED environmental nightmares of our time.  A quick google search resulted in an estimate of 100 BILLION plastic shopping bags used by Americans each year.  What do we need to do to compel our elected leaders to ban plastic shopping bags?  Bring your own or pay $1(or whatever) at checkout for each reusable bag that you need for your stuff?  Boom.  100 billion plastic bags of plastic waste eliminated per year.

Gas tax.  Yes, double it.  Triple it.  This is a tough sell cuz too many "Merica....I'm gonna drive my 12 mpg F350 4 door 4x4 Super Duty alone to commute to work and get groceries" type folks would lose their minds.  Too much political backlash from oil and gas industry, automotive industry, etc etc.  But it would eventually drive people towards smaller, more sensible and economical transportation.  There are approximately 0 giant ridiculous pickups used for commuting in Europe where gas is much more expensive. 

Another pet peeve of mine....bottled water...this is just as asinine as plastic bags...perhaps even more so!  16 BILLION gallons of bottled water sold in the US last year.  So maybe 5x for the number of bottles.  OMFG, water is literally FREE!  Buy a !@#%$!# filtered water pitcher and a couple of metal water bottles and drink water almost for free forever.  This is another massive, glaring, easily remedied environmental nightmare.  Yes, the majority of Americans are literally too stupid to enact this change themselves that would not only be of great financial benefit to themselves, but tremendous benefit to the environment.  It's not just the plastic water bottles.....This massive quantity of extremely heavy water has to be trucked all over the country in 80,000 lb semis.  What the actual ^%$#.

What is a reasonable course of action to fix these two issues?  Seems to me like it would simply require legislation, but would require strong advocacy and there would be some pushback from those that sell bottled water, those that make plastic bags, and the ignorant masses who would consider these their God given entitled rights as an American.

Maybe the bag ban is slowly taking place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_bag_bans_in_the_United_States

[partgypsy]

The most meaningful thing I can do with the most impact on the environment is not having kids.

God's first command to man was to reproduce.  Far be it from me to let him down.

I enjoy life, and I'm happy to have children that can enjoy life.  It is possible for zillions of people to inhabit this planet, we just probably aren't doing a very good job of it from an environmental point of view.

when the quote be fruitful and multiply was written, it was when infant (and adult) mortality was high and estimates were 150-300 million people on the planet. There are now 8.1 billlion people on the planet. Think of the biblical times and the way people lived. Now think of taking that same amount of people 27 times over, and fitting them in the same world. You cannot. I do not think whoever conceived the Bible, wanted this as the outcome. Us humans have done an Amazing job at maximizing our resources (at the expense of pretty much all other life on this planet, save a handful of domestic and pest species). But now we are running into hard physical limits. The planets axis has literally shifted from the amount of fresh water taken out of aquifiers. This will end up causing mass suffering. The blue zones studies show that, quality and length of life is not based on material affluence and growth. It is related to a life full of regular activity, human connection and meaning (and less processed food).  We have had high human cultures before being dependent on fossil fuels. We need to at this point, be not so scared to do action because of economic repercussions, and think out of the box.

[partgypsy]

I care relatively little for the environment, FYI.   I'm not interested in making individual sacrifices in the name of the environment, but I am strangely in favor of many sensible changes on a macro level.  I know that sounds like a strange contradiction.

I am all in favor of all laundry detergent required to be sold in powder form and coming in cardboard packing.  Liquid stuff is heavier to transport, likely takes more volume, typically shipped in plastic.  But, until something can be done about that on a macro level, I am not willing to spend a ton more to buy it myself.

Outlaw plastic bags at Walmart and Target.  We would eventually change our mindset and acquire and bring our own bags.  I have some in my trunk as we go to Aldi regularly - they have me trained - yet when I go to Target or Walmart I'm trained the other way, I only realize when I get to the checkout that I would like to have brought some bags but I haven't.  And I'm not going out to get them at this point.

I'm still going to take trips to Europe, if that needs to be discouraged it will need to come in the form of appropriate taxes - and I'm OK with that.  But again without a macro solution that will get everyone on board, no thanks.  Much higher gas taxes, I'm all for that - I suppose because I can pay them and because it would discourage pointless trucks and SUVs.  I still want to be able to go where I want, eat what I want, do what I want, more or less.

Plastic bags are literally one of the dumbest, EASILY REMEDIATED environmental nightmares of our time.  A quick google search resulted in an estimate of 100 BILLION plastic shopping bags used by Americans each year.  What do we need to do to compel our elected leaders to ban plastic shopping bags?  Bring your own or pay $1(or whatever) at checkout for each reusable bag that you need for your stuff?  Boom.  100 billion plastic bags of plastic waste eliminated per year.

Gas tax.  Yes, double it.  Triple it.  This is a tough sell cuz too many "Merica....I'm gonna drive my 12 mpg F350 4 door 4x4 Super Duty alone to commute to work and get groceries" type folks would lose their minds.  Too much political backlash from oil and gas industry, automotive industry, etc etc.  But it would eventually drive people towards smaller, more sensible and economical transportation.  There are approximately 0 giant ridiculous pickups used for commuting in Europe where gas is much more expensive. 

Another pet peeve of mine....bottled water...this is just as asinine as plastic bags...perhaps even more so!  16 BILLION gallons of bottled water sold in the US last year.  So maybe 5x for the number of bottles.  OMFG, water is literally FREE!  Buy a !@#%$!# filtered water pitcher and a couple of metal water bottles and drink water almost for free forever.  This is another massive, glaring, easily remedied environmental nightmare.  Yes, the majority of Americans are literally too stupid to enact this change themselves that would not only be of great financial benefit to themselves, but tremendous benefit to the environment.  It's not just the plastic water bottles.....This massive quantity of extremely heavy water has to be trucked all over the country in 80,000 lb semis.  What the actual ^%$#.

What is a reasonable course of action to fix these two issues?  Seems to me like it would simply require legislation, but would require strong advocacy and there would be some pushback from those that sell bottled water, those that make plastic bags, and the ignorant masses who would consider these their God given entitled rights as an American.

Maybe the bag ban is slowly taking place:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_bag_bans_in_the_United_States

my very very small victory is, the guy I see used to buy 24 packs of bottled water. I guess he could tell it annoyed me. He recently told me, hey I stopped buying bottled water, instead just bring my own. YAY!

[SunnyDays]

Canada banned grocery plastic bags in January of this year.  Also plastic straws, stir sticks, etc.  If you forget your bags at the store, you have to buy cloth ones or just carry stuff out in your arms/cart.  Although, unfortunately produce bags are still available.  A downside ripple effect is now a surplus of cloth bags because lots of people just don't bother bringing their own and have to buy new ones.  Plus, curb-side pickup or grocery delivery now uses cloth bags - one couple in the news recently had amassed over 300 of them.  And if people used the bags for garbage,  they now have to purchase ones specifically for this purpose.  I'm not arguing that it's pointless to ban bags, but it's not a panacea either.

Bags are a drop in the bucket compared to all the plastic packaging food comes in.  It's bloody ridiculous.

[EchoStache]

I agree the packaging used for food and ‘stuff’ is ridiculous as well. Bags and bottled water seems like an easier starting point.  Sometimes difficult to purchase everything as a lifetime item..so many things nowadays have a service life of a few years and then they are garbage. Wife has been wanting a cordless vacuum and many of those have non replaceable batteries…so landfill waste in a few years.

[RetiredAt63]

We used to manage without plastic wrap.  Butcher paper, loose produce, paper grocery bags.  Of course that was when the milk came in glass bottles from the milkman, not the grocery store.  The only downside was using paper bags for wet garbage, but now with green waste collection I find my actual kitchen garbage is pretty dry.

I used to use "good" grocery bags for garbage, but most were so flimsy that they had at least one rip before they got home.  So buying plastic garbage bags as needed definitely means I use less plastic overall.

I'm not a big fan of grocery store fabric bags, they are bulky.  I have ripstop nylon (yes I know, nylon uses petroleum) bags that fold up small.  They fit in my purse with no problems.  I've had some for at least 10 years.  I'm about to make another one, so if anyone wants the pattern, I can post it once I have duplicated one of the bags and actually have a pastern.
 

[GilesMM]

...

Gas tax.  Yes, double it.  Triple it.  This is a tough sell cuz too many "Merica....I'm gonna drive my 12 mpg F350 4 door 4x4 Super Duty alone to commute to work and get groceries" type folks would lose their minds.  Too much political backlash from oil and gas industry, automotive industry, etc etc.  But it would eventually drive people towards smaller, more sensible and economical transportation.  There are approximately 0 giant ridiculous pickups used for commuting in Europe where gas is much more expensive. 

...

Have you not heard the hysteria over a fifty cent rise in gas prices?  Have you no idea what would happen to a politician who proposed raising gas taxes?  Not to mention the actual impact on the economy.  Gas prices greatly influence consumer sentiment about the economy and their spending on everything.

[Ron Scott]

It seems to me that that most productive efforts are those that are led by governments, and our efforts are best placed in getting them to push change. It’s hard because there are still vested interests encouraging harmful impacts (oil lobby, etc.), but its where change will come. Shifting from fossil fuels to electric, recycling intelligently, building codes, etc. all depend on government interventions.

Thoughts?

I think you are correct, but my concern with this way of thinking is that it tends to let people stop taking any action at all.

I agree with you, amom, but I also think the whole "indivual actions are not effective/meaningless" is a pernicous and meaningless trope circulated for questionable reasons and of dubious origin.

You know, it would actually move the discussion along if you’d stop trying to question other people’s intentions and deal with their content. Worrying about what’s “pernicious” or a “trope”, questionable, dubious, etc. is a sad world to live in when you could grapple with the underlying ideas instead. Whatever…

Here’s the point: We can all stipulate that individuals should behave ethically and consider the environmental impacts of their behavior—while grappling with the question of whether that will prevent catastrophe.

In addition to questioning the real effectiveness of individual action I also think many Americans hold the naive worldview that the planet is ours to save or ignore. The fact is there are other countries choosing economic growth—that saves and improves lives, at least in the short-term of decades—by engaging in environmentally harmful activity.

China is probably finished with its first phase of industrialization and will be struggling to escape the middle income trap for the rest of our lives. They will likely fail like most others have. India is not far behind. These massive populations will be burning lots of coal and oil to maintain their achievements and work on helping those who have so far been left behind.

It seems to me we will need unprecedented technological, political, and social breakthroughs to avoid perhaps hundreds of millions of environmentally-related deaths in the next 50 years or so. Immigration has already caused political upheaval in The West with the spread of far-right/reactionary politics. Imagine what will happen when 50 times the number of people need to flee heavily-populated low-lying coastal areas around the globe?

How about the effect of no more Amazon rain forest and related clearings worldwide?

And what will happen when the last third of the world’s population is lifted out of poverty and starts buying cars and heavy-manufactured shit?

So yeah, we should recycle our Coke bottles in Kansas. But let’s get real out the future. Because from where I sit the politicians aren’t up to it.

[NorCal]

I don't think the most effective actions are led by governments.

I think the most effective things are led by group action, which is inclusive of government, but also much broader.

Electric cars are an example.  We had decades of the automakers fighting efficiency standards and showing us a few crappy EV's they could build.

Then Tesla came along and created consumer demand for EV's.  By 2021, most every carmaker had committed to electrifying most production by the mid 2030's.  Government action did very little, although EV incentives helped somewhat (at least in the US).  A couple hundred people buying EV's in the 90's and 00's did nothing.  But EV's taking about 2% market share by 2020 completely flipped the market on its head.   

We're looking at a similar inflection point with building decarbonization.  Me installing a heat-pump water heater and a cold weather heat pump is a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.  But me showing my neighbors and giving advice on the topic has helped sell maybe a dozen to other people.  And government incentives are helping here.  But equally important to the government incentives is consumer demand.  Consumers need to demand it for HVAC contractors to learn new technologies.  HVAC contractors need to hire people that understand heat pumps for the training centers to take interest.  Manufacturers need to have enough confidence in demand to build the factories and invest in R&D.  This is a case of government action taking a lead, but government action will only work if consumer demand follows.  (You should really replace natural gas appliances over time btw).

One person buying a heat-pump doesn't make a difference.  And one person deciding to avoid plastic bags doesn't make a difference.  But it becomes world-changing when maybe 2-5% of people start making a similar change.  Sometimes it's the government forcing that shift, and sometimes it's consumers.  It's frequently a combination of the two that is difficult to tease apart. 

I can't say I have a rigid personal philosophy on this, but my general outlook on life follows this thought process:

#1. Don't be wasteful.  This is my general frugalness, and something I picked up from my parents outside of the above.

#2. Be willing to invest in new technologies that show significant improvement in decarbonization, and are likely to be picked up by the broader market with a little investment.  My finances are in a spot where this is mostly a rounding error for my retirement plans.

#3. Don't personally purchase anything that is powered by hydrocarbons.  I go back to the original MMM article on "circle of control".  I can't control what other people buy, but I can control what I buy.  I have found reasonable alternatives in all aspects of life if I start with the assumption that hydrocarbons are not an option.  I've phased out my major users, but still own a few minor users.  This mostly overlaps with the two items above as the world is trending towards decarbonizing anyways.

[Ron Scott]

I don't think the most effective actions are led by governments.

I think the most effective things are led by group action, which is inclusive of government, but also much broader.

Government acting with broad support as an effective thing? I hold that truth to be self evident!

One of today’s most interesting examples is the current engagement of AI tech leaders like Sam Altman, Zuckerberg, Pichai (Google), Elon, et al with both the Biden administration and congressional committee heads to discuss how intelligent regulations can be formed for the technology.

It’s probably an understatement to say there are many in the AI community who believe the dangers of their tech make climate change and the plastic pollution problem look like easy cans to kick down the road. “Human extinction in our lifetime” could be a bummer.

When government acts it is all to often the result of special interests engaging outside the spotlights. This time, watching an entire industry plea for regulation, it’s both interesting and heartening.

[NorCal]

I don't think the most effective actions are led by governments.

I think the most effective things are led by group action, which is inclusive of government, but also much broader.

Government acting with broad support as an effective thing? I hold that truth to be self evident!

One of today’s most interesting examples is the current engagement of AI tech leaders like Sam Altman, Zuckerberg, Pichai (Google), Elon, et al with both the Biden administration and congressional committee heads to discuss how intelligent regulations can be formed for the technology.

It’s probably an understatement to say there are many in the AI community who believe the dangers of their tech make climate change and the plastic pollution problem look like easy cans to kick down the road. “Human extinction in our lifetime” could be a bummer.

When government acts it is all to often the result of special interests engaging outside the spotlights. This time, watching an entire industry plea for regulation, it’s both interesting and heartening.

While I don't claim to understand AI in depth, I worked in Silicon Valley for long enough to become cynical about it.

I guarantee they aren't begging for regulation due to altruistic motives.  They are begging for regulation that benefits them and will shift blame when something goes wrong. 

[Michael in ABQ]

I don't think the most effective actions are led by governments.

I think the most effective things are led by group action, which is inclusive of government, but also much broader.

Government acting with broad support as an effective thing? I hold that truth to be self evident!

One of today’s most interesting examples is the current engagement of AI tech leaders like Sam Altman, Zuckerberg, Pichai (Google), Elon, et al with both the Biden administration and congressional committee heads to discuss how intelligent regulations can be formed for the technology.

It’s probably an understatement to say there are many in the AI community who believe the dangers of their tech make climate change and the plastic pollution problem look like easy cans to kick down the road. “Human extinction in our lifetime” could be a bummer.

When government acts it is all to often the result of special interests engaging outside the spotlights. This time, watching an entire industry plea for regulation, it’s both interesting and heartening.

While I don't claim to understand AI in depth, I worked in Silicon Valley for long enough to become cynical about it.

I guarantee they aren't begging for regulation due to altruistic motives.  They are begging for regulation that benefits them and will shift blame when something goes wrong.

Also just good old fashioned protectionism. Most of the leading companies dealing with AI are tech giants and can afford the cost of compliance with new regulations. Those same costs will provide a moat keeping a lot of smaller startups from competing with them. It's why Amazon was on board with collecting and remitting sales tax for online sales. They can afford to comply with literally 10,000 different tax districts around the country. A smaller company can't afford to pay to file monthly sales tax returns in hundreds or thousands of jurisdictions.

[Ron Scott]

I don't think the most effective actions are led by governments.

I think the most effective things are led by group action, which is inclusive of government, but also much broader.

Government acting with broad support as an effective thing? I hold that truth to be self evident!

One of today’s most interesting examples is the current engagement of AI tech leaders like Sam Altman, Zuckerberg, Pichai (Google), Elon, et al with both the Biden administration and congressional committee heads to discuss how intelligent regulations can be formed for the technology.

It’s probably an understatement to say there are many in the AI community who believe the dangers of their tech make climate change and the plastic pollution problem look like easy cans to kick down the road. “Human extinction in our lifetime” could be a bummer.

When government acts it is all to often the result of special interests engaging outside the spotlights. This time, watching an entire industry plea for regulation, it’s both interesting and heartening.

I guarantee they aren't begging for regulation due to altruistic motives.  They are begging for regulation that benefits them and will shift blame when something goes wrong.

There is no need to impune motives here; no altruistic US vs. bad business boogiemen THEM. They are simply getting ahead of the curve and establishing their positions as insiders on the long road to regulation. OF COURSE they want to benefit from regulation. They are serious people…

There are 2 things going on:

1. They do not want fast-buck investors to blow up their industry by going rogue and making a mess in the short-term that long-term players have to live with. This wild-west shit is a pain for smart money and regulations help.

2. No C-Suite or Board wants to be investing heavily on a strategy and have their legs shot out by surprise legislation. It is very difficult and expensive to plan for unknowns in the competitive playing field. Again, regulations/guidelines help. They want to have some power of the pen in this.

We are not going to see unanimity among competitors in this play. Google and IBM have already indicated their opposition to regulating in the dark against possibilities that don’t exist. And others are concerned about the usefulness of American regulation of AI in light of AI development in adversarial countries.  But engaging in the process is the way to go.

[namasteyall]

Himachal Pradesh, India, was the first state in South Asia to ban coloured polythene recycled bags (in 1995). In 2011, plastic cutlery was banned.
In 2013, the High Court banned single-use chips packets, wrappers, other packaging, plastic plates, cups and glasses but this was challenged....
Locals followed this and most plastic, excluding packed material, was phased out. Thermacol cutlery was banned in 2018. So all is well? NO! Travelers brought in plastic, choking gutters, drains, etc.!

[index]

The best thing you can individually do is not have children.

Couple A: two houses, a pickup, a sedan, a boat, and frequently travel internationally and domestically by air.
Couple A dies with two houses, two cars, a boat, and lots of travel

Couple B: has one house, one sedan, stays close to home and has two kids
    Couple B kid 1 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home and has two kids
    Couple B kid 2 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home and has two kids
          Couple B grandkid 1 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home
          Couple B grandkid 2 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home
          Couple B grandkid 3 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home
          Couple B grandkid 4 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home
Couple B dies with 7 houses, 7 cars, and only local travel.

It sure seems making the individual decision to not have kids, even if maintaining a very small footprint, will have a significant environmental impact.

[GuitarStv]

The best thing you can individually do is not have children.

Couple A: two houses, a pickup, a sedan, a boat, and frequently travel internationally and domestically by air.
Couple A dies with two houses, two cars, a boat, and lots of travel

Couple B: has one house, one sedan, stays close to home and has two kids
    Couple B kid 1 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home and has two kids
    Couple B kid 2 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home and has two kids
          Couple B grandkid 1 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home
          Couple B grandkid 2 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home
          Couple B grandkid 3 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home
          Couple B grandkid 4 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home
Couple B dies with 7 houses, 7 cars, and only local travel.

It sure seems making the individual decision to not have kids, even if maintaining a very small footprint, will have a significant environmental impact.

Couple C - Plots to and successfully murders an entire school's worth of children . . . thereby preventing hundreds of houses, cars, and useless travel trips.  They are clearly the most environmentally conscious of the three.

Not feeling so smug now are we Couple A?

[index]

The best thing you can individually do is not have children.

Couple A: two houses, a pickup, a sedan, a boat, and frequently travel internationally and domestically by air.
Couple A dies with two houses, two cars, a boat, and lots of travel

Couple B: has one house, one sedan, stays close to home and has two kids
    Couple B kid 1 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home and has two kids
    Couple B kid 2 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home and has two kids
          Couple B grandkid 1 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home
          Couple B grandkid 2 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home
          Couple B grandkid 3 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home
          Couple B grandkid 4 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home
Couple B dies with 7 houses, 7 cars, and only local travel.

It sure seems making the individual decision to not have kids, even if maintaining a very small footprint, will have a significant environmental impact.

Couple C - Plots to and successfully murders an entire school's worth of children . . . thereby preventing hundreds of houses, cars, and useless travel trips.  They are clearly the most environmentally conscious of the three.

Not feeling so smug now are we Couple A?

genius!

[Scandium]

The best thing you can individually do is not have children.

Couple A: two houses, a pickup, a sedan, a boat, and frequently travel internationally and domestically by air.
Couple A dies with two houses, two cars, a boat, and lots of travel

Couple B: has one house, one sedan, stays close to home and has two kids
    Couple B kid 1 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home and has two kids
    Couple B kid 2 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home and has two kids
          Couple B grandkid 1 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home
          Couple B grandkid 2 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home
          Couple B grandkid 3 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home
          Couple B grandkid 4 has has one house, one sedan, stays close to home
Couple B dies with 7 houses, 7 cars, and only local travel.

It sure seems making the individual decision to not have kids, even if maintaining a very small footprint, will have a significant environmental impact.

Couple C - Plots to and successfully murders an entire school's worth of children . . . thereby preventing hundreds of houses, cars, and useless travel trips.  They are clearly the most environmentally conscious of the three.

Not feeling so smug now are we Couple A?

genius!

Ok, so we've established that genocide of the entire human race is the best path forward? Sounds good, I'm glad we got that figure out!
(plot of Rainbow 6 checking in)
By that logic Couple A could do even better by burning their house down and killing themselves (as young as possible)..

I tried asking google's ai thingy this, but it chickened out! I think it's refusing to answer..

[RetiredAt63]

Index, let's look at another scenario.

If Couple B have those 2 kids in their 30's, and their kids have their kids in their 30's, that spreads things out.  If couple B sells their house and moves into a house/condo in a dense urban area they also reduce their effect.

Think of Couple D, who marry young and have lots of kids, it is their culture/religion/family tradition/whatever.

Let's start them in the year 1980, they are all born.

In 2000 Couple D get married at age 20, over the next 10 years they have 6 kids.
In 2010 Couples A and B get married at age 30.
We know Couple A has very little impact so I am dropping them.

In 2020 at age 40 Couple B have a 5 year old and a 2 year old and are done.  They have a moderate house, and one, maybe 2 cars.
In 2020 at age 40 Couple D have 5.5 kids, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1 and one on the way, and a really big house and a big minivan or equivalent and at least one other car.

In 2030 Couple B are still in that house with a 15 and a 12 year old.
In 2030 Couple D are still in that big house and have 6 kids, 19, 17, 15, 13, 11, and 9 and have that big van and at least one parent car plus 2 beater cars for the 2 older teens.  Plus all the extra resource use for 8 people versus 4.

In 2040 Couple B have moved to a city apartment since the kids are now 25 and 22, first is done university and is working, second is about to graduate and start working.  Since their careers are just starting the two B kids are going to be living in apartments with roommates while they get their careers started.  City living means Ubers and car shares.  So Couple B and offspring are 4 people and 3 apartments and no cars.

In 2040 Couple D's kids are 29, 27, 25, 23, 21 and 19.  Since in their family you get married at 20, that means 5 of the kids are married.  Kid 1 at 29 has 5 kids already, kid 2 at 27 has 4 kids, kid 3 has 3 kids, kid 2 has 2 kids, and kid 5 has 1 kid.  Kid 6 is planning their wedding.  So Couple D now have 15 grandchildren, plus those 5 married kids all have houses and most have 2 cars because of all the grandchildren


Overall, Couple B are not a huge problem, because having 2 children is still below replacement rate because of couples like Couple A.  With a long generation time,  Couple B's approach also means that population decline is gradual with no weird social implications.
Couple D are a huge problem - the large number of children and the short generation time are massively resource intensive.  And odds are a lot of couples like them won't stop at 6.

And I know that people used to have lots and lots of children.  They also lost lots and lots of children to disease and starvation. 

[GuitarStv]

Couple C are still far and away the greatest environmentalists.

[RetiredAt63]

Couple C are still far and away the greatest environmentalists.

I deleted all my snarky relies.  Really it was only funny (sort of) once.  The 4 horsemen of the apocalypse are not really fun neighbours.

[Michael in ABQ]

Index, let's look at another scenario.

Think of Couple D, who marry young and have lots of kids, it is their culture/religion/family tradition/whatever.

Let's start them in the year 1980, they are all born.

In 2000 Couple D get married at age 20, over the next 10 years they have 6 kids.

In 2020 at age 40 Couple D have 5.5 kids, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1 and one on the way, and a really big house and a big minivan or equivalent and at least one other car.

Couple D are a huge problem - the large number of children and the short generation time are massively resource intensive.  And odds are a lot of couples like them won't stop at 6.

Have you been spying on me?

Add a few years to everything but we're pretty much exactly Couple D. 6 kids in 10 years (currently 5-15) a minivan and a full-size van. 2,600 SF 5-bedroom house. We don't expect our kids to marry quite as young as 20 (we didn't), but probably early-mid 20s instead of the current societal average of close to 30. "In 1980, the average American male married at 25, and the average woman at 22. Today, the average first-time groom is 30, and the bride is 28."


However, the reality is that only 1.2% of households in the US are 7 or more. So for every couple like us having 5+ kids, there are dozens having 0, 1 or 2 kids (all below replacement rate). Some of those households of 7+ may include other relatives so they may not even represent 5 or more kids.

[RetiredAt63]

Index, let's look at another scenario.

Think of Couple D, who marry young and have lots of kids, it is their culture/religion/family tradition/whatever.

Let's start them in the year 1980, they are all born.

In 2000 Couple D get married at age 20, over the next 10 years they have 6 kids.

In 2020 at age 40 Couple D have 5.5 kids, 9, 7, 5, 3, 1 and one on the way, and a really big house and a big minivan or equivalent and at least one other car.

Couple D are a huge problem - the large number of children and the short generation time are massively resource intensive.  And odds are a lot of couples like them won't stop at 6.

Have you been spying on me?

Add a few years to everything but we're pretty much exactly Couple D. 6 kids in 10 years (currently 5-15) a minivan and a full-size van. 2,600 SF 5-bedroom house. We don't expect our kids to marry quite as young as 20 (we didn't), but probably early-mid 20s instead of the current societal average of close to 30. "In 1980, the average American male married at 25, and the average woman at 22. Today, the average first-time groom is 30, and the bride is 28."


However, the reality is that only 1.2% of households in the US are 7 or more. So for every couple like us having 5+ kids, there are dozens having 0, 1 or 2 kids (all below replacement rate). Some of those households of 7+ may include other relatives so they may not even represent 5 or more kids.

No, I haven't been spying, just remembering what I read on the forums.  You aren't the only one with a large family, btw.

Most (all?) First world countries have below replacement rates.

I really don't think policies for one child families are smart policies. Look at China and the unbalanced sex ration.  India has done it much better, encouraged small families, and their demographic changes are not inviting major issues.  If couples have 0 or 1 child by choice (or unfortunate circumstances) that is a very different situation.

What I think is really important, and keep saying over and over becasue no-one seems to get it, is the generation time.   Delaying children slows the whole growth rate down, while people still have the children they want.

Of course the other part of this is educating women (and having good birth control available), so that their future in old age isn't dependent on having lots of children.  That also delays age of marriage and age of first child.

[Scandium]

Couple A lives in an off-grid tiny-house in the woods. Dies of dysentery at age 25, saving the world 25 gajillion tons of CO2.

Couple B live in a 6500 sqft house with 4 Hummers, has 12 kids. One of them invent cold fusion, giving the world infinite, zero-emission energy forever.

Which is better for the planet?

[Ron Scott]

Couple A lives in an off-grid tiny-house in the woods. Dies of dysentery at age 25, saving the world 25 gajillion tons of CO2.

Couple B live in a 6500 sqft house with 4 Hummers, has 12 kids. One of them invent cold fusion, giving the world infinite, zero-emission energy forever.

Which is better for the planet?

Corollary: Do we expect the planet to be saved from climate change by people who are FIREd and live frugally or people who work diligently on the problem through traditional careers?

[Arbitrage]

Couple A lives in an off-grid tiny-house in the woods. Dies of dysentery at age 25, saving the world 25 gajillion tons of CO2.

Couple B live in a 6500 sqft house with 4 Hummers, has 12 kids. One of them invent cold fusion, giving the world infinite, zero-emission energy forever.

Which is better for the planet?

I think it's a question of strategy vs. outcome.  We know that couple A is not contributing more than their "fair" share of planet destruction.  That will remain the case for the couple A or 1 million similar versions of them. 

Couple B will, in all likelihood, be one of the million versions of themselves that are hastening climate change.  I don't laud a Powerball winner for their excellent financial decision making, despite it actually achieving the best possible result for them.

[GuitarStv]

Couple A lives in an off-grid tiny-house in the woods. Dies of dysentery at age 25, saving the world 25 gajillion tons of CO2.

Couple B live in a 6500 sqft house with 4 Hummers, has 12 kids. One of them invent cold fusion, giving the world infinite, zero-emission energy forever.

Which is better for the planet?

Corollary: Do we expect the planet to be saved from climate change by people who are FIREd and live frugally or people who work diligently on the problem through traditional careers?

What about the most likely option - we don't save the planet.  Human population drops because we continue doing what we have been doing all along . . . making it more difficult for humans to live on Earth in the future for short term or immediate present gain.