To think all money directed at green issues should be re-directed to hiking the population down?

[Hammy02]

Surely most green issues are caused by over-population of the planet? If we don't resolve the population explosion, food and water will run out long before any climate change will take hold?

And it's so nice to have Thomas Malthus back after all these years. Tom! Baby! It's been a long time.

Climate change is sadly inevitable and the population size is determined by the limitations of the environment. Plenty of people will be wiped out by natural disasters, disease and man-made wars to secure territory. (Already are, in fact) No real need to reduce the population consciously on top.

Direct the money to combating the inevitable changes, I've often thought.... alternative energy sources, flood defences, relocation of at-risk communities....

I disagree. to some extent it's true, as over-population is obviously a massive problem, but there's plenty of single people taking flights everywhere and plenty of big but very eco-friendly families.

IMO it's businesses that need to change and the govt that needs to make them do so!

"use the money to bring down the population? In what manner exactly? Death Camps?"

Hmm.

people need money so they make money for other people and make them richer and richer

the only reason IMVHO the climate change recyle shit has taken off - is not becuase people with power are outraged at the planets decline, its because people in power realised theres a business in it and a tidy profit to be made being eco friendly

lets cut the shit here. we could have electric cars. there is the technology to run cars with much cleaner fuel

instead governments put into power by rich people who fund them, return the favour by sending our armies to fight and depose leaders in countries where we want to control the fucking pipeline - FOR OIL. oil that keeps rich people rich nd powerful people in power

How the hell do you use the money to bring down the population? Pay people not to have more kids?

What PeteTong said.

It seems fairly obvious to me that rich people consume far more of the planets resources than poor people.

Having 4 houses (filled with stuff-think how many teaspoons he has), 10 cars and a private jet for one guy (like Simon Cowell) is a lot of overconsumption

5 people in a suburban 3 bed semi will consume a lot less surely. Maybe only 6 teaspoons

I would direct resources at tackling the effects of climate change AND controlling the population.

It is hard to design policies that individuals find acceptable on family size. Look at China's one child policy and the consequences of that for example. But I still think it should be openly debated and solutions sought. As Chil says, nature will do the job for us if there are no proactive policies, but leaving nature to do our dirty work seems cruel to me.

How would you get the population down?

"we could have electric cars. there is the technology to run cars with much cleaner fuel"

Tell us where the electricity comes from in order to provide transport on that scale. Burning fossil fuel in power stations is madness compared to burning it in cars, so the choices are renewables and nuclear. Every time there's an attempt to build a renewable power source, soi-disant environmentalists protest against it (wind, wave, hydro, thermal) and nuclear's not a vote winner. Is there any source of power that environmentalists would sanction?

Actually, it may surprise you, but we have almost reached population peak, it will begin to come down naturally within the next decade or two.

As for fuel, we need a great deal of power within the next 5 years or we are going to see mass blackouts in the UK.

Due to the EU clean air directive, there are several major power stations that will have to go offline very soon, as they don't comply. Also our current nuclear power is reaching the end of it's working life.

Britain faces losing in the region of one third at least of power generating capacity within the next 5 years, and the best and cheapest option is still the new generation nuclear power.

With even Denmark, home of the Wind Turbine, admitting wind power is not what it has been touted as being, we have to be more hard-nosed about securing power supplies.

Of course I didn't mean killing existing people! I just don't understand the encouraging of people to have children through child benefit etc, when if anything, we should be rewarding people who aren't cluttering up the planet with loads of kids. Child mortality is not an issue as it was years ago so why do people feel the need to have more than a couple of kids? I am so glad I am middle-aged as I dread to think how things will be in 50 years time. I really feel for the children of the future.

Read this book

Population is not the problem that you think. Over-consumption in wealthy nations is a much larger issue

Oh FFS. Yes child benefit is the reason why people have children .

Agree with the posters who say it's not necessarily over-population, but over-consumption by wealthy nations. This is a map resizing countries to show their CO2 emissions

Beware of that website ... it's addictive.

What should be addressed, by all governments, particualrly developing ones, is as they become more developed/industrialised, do it in such a way that is more environmentally friendly. At present, as can be seen with China and India, as a country becomes more developed and prosperous, it consumes more. People start buying things like TVs, cars etc. These items need to be more environmentally friendly.

I suppose we could out poison in the water supply [hmm[ I guess that would be cheap.

Child benefit and free housing was the reason I had my 5 kids, oh and the excuse of not having to go to work so I can sit on my arse all day long, ignore the kids and watch Jezza Kyle on telly.

Ah - so you want the poorer people not to have kids?

You must have been incredibly wealthy to have had 5 children. I assume your circumstances changed? Unless your post was tongue in cheek.

Child benefit is £20.30p per week.
How far does that go?
I really do not see that that is encouraging people to have children.

Incredibly wealthy? No. I have 5 kids ranging from 23 to 6, I don't drive, we don't take foreign holidays, we rarely put the heating on, preferring to use the woodburner, I buy secondhand when I can....the list goes on. So there you have it, a family of 7 who manage to have a pretty small carbon footprint.

Overconsumption is, of course, a huge problem but so is 'normal' consumption. Everyone in first/second world countries impacts negatively on the planet to some extent, even 'eco- families', it is unavoidable in modern life (unless you forsake healthcare, travel, power, food etc. completely).

The faster we breed and use up non-renewable resources, the faster catastrophies and conflict will come. So we could limit population and live, at this standard, for longer but the scientific consensus (Lovelock et al.) is that we have grown in number too much to be sustainable and turning off light switches and recycling will not cure that, only dely the inevitable.

I worry about subsequent generations.