How Many Feet in a Carbon Footprint?

[neil]

I'm one of those people who takes climate change seriously and who quietly does a lot of not-driving, and not-consuming, in order to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases I'm putting into the sky. I don't keep mathematical track of my use and impacts, I just refrain a lot.

By far the biggest thing I've done to lessen my impact on our planet home was back in 1971 when I decided that, given the mushrooming human population of the world, and seeing the corresponding increase in resource consumption and pollution, I decided, at the ripe age of 17, not to have offspring, kids of my own. And so it has been.

When we talk about a person's carbon footprint, shouldn't that include all future impacts by that person's offspring (and their offspring's offspring, etc.)? If we don't include offspring in the footprint measurement, then even if per capita greenhouse gas emissions decrease, total greenhouse gas emissions are likely to continue to rise. In plain English and because you have a choice about it, if you're still making and having babies, objectively-speaking you can't be very green, regardless of what else you may be doing or not doing. Reducing the size of the human population by not contributing to its continuing expansion, is, by contrast, very very green. Not having a baby makes a large and immediate difference compared to having one. It's conscious choice.
Neil

[PeriodThree]

I have a deeply held moral belief which is in about 100% conflict with your belief about having children.

Everyone has their right to free speech, but I believe that the current attempt to label people as anti-green because they have children is factually wrong and deeply offensive. It is also an amazingly divisive
way to divide the world into 'green' and 'bad' sides.

I feel it is offensive on the level of the other -isms which I believe most people who advocate conscious choices have long abandoned.

I am deeply confused that the Green community accepts, and sometimes promotes, this (hopefully!) fringe world view.

if you're still making and having babies, objectively-speaking you can't be very green

[Zeno Swijtink]

I have a deeply held moral belief which is in about 100% conflict with your belief about having children.

Everyone has their right to free speech, but I believe that the current attempt to label people as anti-green because they have children is factually wrong and deeply offensive. It is also an amazingly divisive
way to divide the world into 'green' and 'bad' sides.

I feel it is offensive on the level of the other -isms which I believe most people who advocate conscious choices have long abandoned.

I am deeply confused that the Green community accepts, and sometimes promotes, this (hopefully!) fringe world view.

I agree with you. If we follow the logic of this argument to its extreme it appears that the "greenest" thing we can do is to commit suicide!

The problem with global climate change and overpopulation is that while each/many individual cases (car trips/CO2, rice dinners/Methane, children, etc.) are a joy, all together, in the aggregate, there are just too many of them!

[Lenny]

I agree with you. If we follow the logic of this argument to its extreme it appears that the "greenest" thing we can do is to commit suicide!
The problem with global climate change and overpopulation is that while each/many individual cases (car trips/CO2, rice dinners/Methane, children, etc.) are a joy, all together, in the aggregate, there are just too many of them!

You are right. The "logic" is inescapable! Not only should we commit suicide, we should encourage others to do so! And the older we get the greater the Carbon Footprint (CF), so we should not only allow oldsters to bump off, but to legalize AND advertise. Even more so, we could start (or, in fact, are ALREADY doing it) allowing many on the planet to perish from lack of simple technology like clean water or enough food. We could even "purify" the race by knocking out all antibiotics and allowing nature to cull those that cannot survive infection, a la The Catholic Church around 1880 promulgated. The couple last week that "prayed" for their diabetic daughter to be cured when a simple medical procedure would have allowed her to live should be praised, but the media is castigating them!

So now we have Disease, Starvation, War, and then Death coming to rule over us.....glad I am only passing through!

[neil]

The problem with global climate change and overpopulation is that while each/many individual cases (car trips/CO2, rice dinners/Methane, children, etc.) are a joy, all together, in the aggregate, there are just too many of them!

Zeno, you state the complexity of the situation well. Babies are wonderful beyond description. But "all together, in the aggregate" the effect of our growing numbers on this planet is problematic. This really is half of my main point.

In my earlier post I used the phrase, "objectively-speaking". By that I meant that having more offspring has an objective impact on aggregate consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Whatever we do individually to reduce our "personal" carbon footprint, will be more than offset by the increase as a result of having additional offspring. And given that it usually is a choice whether or not to have more children, then that choice makes a big difference environmentally. That's the second half of my point.

I'm not impinging on anyone's rights. I'm not making moral judgments or compelling anyone to do something they don't choose to do. I am saying that, if "being green" means acting in accordance with what's good for the environment, then, objectively-speaking, bringing more kids into the world is not a very green act. And it would be some form of collective self-deception to go on thinking that there is no relation between how many offspring we have and our personal impact on the environment. How meaningful is it to measure an individual's carbon footprint if that measure categorically ignores what is likely the most impactful variable of all--reproduction?

You said, "If we follow the logic of this argument to its extreme it appears that the "greenest" thing we can do is to commit suicide!"

You seem to miss my logic, Zeno. I'm suggesting how we might avoid mass suicide by human-induced eco-system failure. I'm suggesting that we might keep from driving so many other species into extinction. The logic of my argument followed to an extreme would be that we humans "in the aggregate" actually learn to live in some kind of balance in the biosphere, and that our individual choices take into consideration how we "in the aggregate" effect the environment. Then maybe the babies who are already here could have a better time of it. Do you think it is anti-human to assert that human well-being depends upon a healthy environment and that reproductive choices have large and immediate implications for our aggregate impact on the environment? I'm just stating what should be obvious.

Neil

[neil]

[quote=PeriodThree;53693]

I believe that the current attempt to label people as anti-green because they have children is factually wrong and deeply offensive.

Dear PeriodThree

You are misrepresenting what I wrote. "Anti-green" is your words, not mine. I took no issue with people because they have children. I did say something pointed about having more children or not having more children, and that that is a choice, and that that choice has big consequences for the environment.

I am not dividing "the world into 'green' and 'bad' sides". Again those are your words, not mine. If you want to reinterpret what I said that's your business, but if your reinterpretation is way different than what I actually said, then it has the effect of distorting my meaning and confusing the whole discussion. And that is offensive to me. I respectfully ask you to read my post more carefully. It would be much better if you disagreed with what I actually said.

Neil

[PeriodThree]

I am sorry neil, I went and actually read your words, which were " if you're still making and having babies, objectively-speaking you can't be very green," and I made the mistake of thinking that what you wrote is what you wrote. I don't have the secret decoder ring to let me interpret your words so they mean something other than what you wrote.

I did not 'misrepresent what you wrote' I quoted exactly what you wrote.

I respectfully ask you to read my post more carefully. It would be much better if you disagreed with what I actually said.

Uh, neil, I'm sorry, but I'd respectfully ask you to write your post more carefully. You wrote something deeply offensive. Maybe you could take responsibility for your own words, because, you know, It's conscious choice.

[Valley Oak]

I like the idea that Neil has described (I think). I have one daughter and I feel that this is a step in the right direction, even though it is not zero children. If every couple on the planet had only one child, then the world population would be cut in half in 30 to 60 years. That would leave us with roughly three billion people alive, putting pressure on the globe's resources, by around the year 2070, or thereabouts.

Although having zero children is certainly a choice, and one that I respect, I still believe there is a fundamental need to keep the human species going. But if 3 billion folks 60 years from now is too little, too late, then we have a very ugly problem on our hands and we will pay the price one way or the other.

Edward

I am sorry neil, I went and actually read your words, which were " if you're still making and having babies, objectively-speaking you can't be very green," and I made the mistake of thinking that what you wrote is what you wrote. I don't have the secret decoder ring to let me interpret your words so they mean something other than what you wrote.

I did not 'misrepresent what you wrote' I quoted exactly what you wrote.



Uh, neil, I'm sorry, but I'd respectfully ask you to write your post more carefully. You wrote something deeply offensive. Maybe you could take responsibility for your own words, because, you know, It's conscious choice.

[MsTerry]

I agree with you. If we follow the logic of this argument to its extreme it appears that the "greenest" thing we can do is to commit suicide!

!

How interesting, because if we were all to commit suicide, who would we be doing it for???

[Lenny]

How interesting, because if we were all to commit suicide, who would we be doing it for???

NOW I know why we don't sentences in prepositions

[smithers]

In the not-too-distant future, all people will be green....

Soylent Green! (Cue the evil laugh)

... followed by a Splurm chaser (Futurama reference)

:)

I love it when people start drawing lines in the sand and making statements like, "If you don't support the war, you don't support the troops" or statements of what disqualify people as liberals, democrats, patriots, etc. You know, overly broad strokes of the Generalization Paintbrush, which you won't find in Photoshop.

Contest: Follow up this post with similarly inane statements that strike a chord of any sort, including the ironic, with you.

The prize is my admiration for the most inane but quotable.

John

[Lorrie]

I don't have any children. So I am green?
Actually, I am kinda white/tan in color....
I guess now I know why I am childless...to be green right?

I like the idea that Neil has described (I think). I have one daughter and I feel that this is a step in the right direction, even though it is not zero children. If every couple on the planet had only one child, then the world population would be cut in half in 30 to 60 years. That would leave us with roughly three billion people alive, putting pressure on the globe's resources, by around the year 2070, or thereabouts.

Although having zero children is certainly a choice, and one that I respect, I still believe there is a fundamental need to keep the human species going. But if 3 billion folks 60 years from now is too little, too late, then we have a very ugly problem on our hands and we will pay the price one way or the other.

Edward

[alanora]

Zero population growth is not a new idea. Perhaps this time folks will stop reacting to the idea and wholeheartedly grasp it, not as a judgment, just as the way to slow the whole overcrowding, lack of resources thing way down quicker than perhaps anything else. Does not require murdering of any ideas or beliefs or babies. Does the church still have a problem with contraception? Voluntarily? limiting each couple to one child as a way of saving our planet is simple, and we are insane to ignore the approach off handedly because we think we are insulted. Not reproducing raises suspicions of gender confusion in our culture, or a lack of nurturing skills or some imbalance or dysfunction, rather than being seen as a way to decrease carbon footprint over a lifetime and potentially increase the health and life of the very planet upon which we live. Choosing for the highest good, or any other reason, to not breed is a respectable option in my book. On the other hand, in childbirth and rearing, the soul growth potential is incredible. And, the urge to reproduce can be very strong at times, seemingly beyond control. Perhaps the pheromones in use for the moth will change that....Mindy

I am sorry neil, I went and actually read your words, which were " if you're still making and having babies, objectively-speaking you can't be very green," and I made the mistake of thinking that what you wrote is what you wrote. I don't have the secret decoder ring to let me interpret your words so they mean something other than what you wrote.

I did not 'misrepresent what you wrote' I quoted exactly what you wrote.



Uh, neil, I'm sorry, but I'd respectfully ask you to write your post more carefully. You wrote something deeply offensive. Maybe you could take responsibility for your own words, because, you know, It's conscious choice.

[Lenny]

Babies are wonderful beyond description. But "all together, in the aggregate" the effect of our growing numbers on this planet is problematic.
In my earlier post I used the phrase, "objectively-speaking". By that I meant that having more offspring has an objective impact on aggregate consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Whatever we do individually to reduce our "personal" carbon footprint, will be more than offset by the increase as a result of having additional offspring. And given that it usually is a choice whether or not to have more children, then that choice makes a big difference environmentally. That's the second half of my point.
I am saying that, if "being green" means acting in accordance with what's good for the environment, then, objectively-speaking, bringing more kids into the world is not a very green act. And it would be some form of collective self-deception to go on thinking that there is no relation between how many offspring we have and our personal impact on the environment. How meaningful is it to measure an individual's carbon footprint if that measure categorically ignores what is likely the most impactful variable of all--reproduction?
You said, "If we follow the logic of this argument to its extreme it appears that the "greenest" thing we can do is to commit suicide!"
You seem to miss my logic, Zeno. I'm suggesting how we might avoid mass suicide by human-induced eco-system failure. I'm suggesting that we might keep from driving so many other species into extinction. The logic of my argument followed to an extreme would be that we humans "in the aggregate" actually learn to live in some kind of balance in the biosphere, and that our individual choices take into consideration how we "in the aggregate" effect the environment. Then maybe the babies who are already here could have a better time of it. Do you think it is anti-human to assert that human well-being depends upon a healthy environment and that reproductive choices have large and immediate implications for our aggregate impact on the environment? I'm just stating what should be obvious. Neil

So many good points! How does the factor of economics in population growth work? The largest increase in populations are those poorer countries, mostly 2nd world. Disease keeps third world populations down. Clean water alone would raise their rates, and then their numbers would boom. The fertility rates of 1st world countries has declined, about where you indicate it should be, but the conundrum is that we are the ones with the largest CF! So one may infer that wealth lowers population growth. So do we encourage wealth world wide? But not at the expense of what is green? Can we live in harmony in nature without creating a huge CF? I fear the answer, as my view of "nature" is not all sunshine and light (April 1st allows puns)
However in MOST of the world having children is considered to be a great thing and is enculturated in their way of life, as it has never been a choice for them, in the main. We, the US, is rejected because along with the birth control pills which those women want, as I understand it, comes the crap that most of us don't like: Britney/Madonna and the entertainment industry, the treatment women, and several other issues of excess.
What a world!

[Valley Oak]

A lady once told me that the Earth could only support 2 billion people and still be a fully healthy planet, and even then we would still have to be environmentally conscious. If we take this statement as true (I don't have refereed academic articles to back it up) then we are overloading the planet with our 6 billion in population today.

Furthermore, following the same logic, zero growth is not enough. We have to reduce the population. For example, couples can only have one child for the next 50 to 100 hundred years until our population drops down to at least 3 billion.

Another concern is that it might already be too late and in the next 50 to 100 years what awaits us is an unspeakable horror of hundreds of international and civil wars, mass starvation by the billions, and very repressive dictatorships to maintain control. Not a pretty picture.

Heap on top of that the fact that most people find the idea of population control to be very offensive. This is a clear recipe for tragedy. We now have a president who is the Master of Disaster and he's only made things worse by accelerating the process of environmental, social, and economic decay. The current occupant of the White House has shortened our available response time impending chaos, probably by shaving off about 10 to 20 years, critical time that can make the difference in avoiding the worst.

Edward

Zero population growth is not a new idea. Perhaps this time folks will stop reacting to the idea and wholeheartedly grasp it, not as a judgment, just as the way to slow the whole overcrowding, lack of resources thing way down quicker than perhaps anything else. Does not require murdering of any ideas or beliefs or babies. Does the church still have a problem with contraception? Voluntarily? limiting each couple to one child as a way of saving our planet is simple, and we are insane to ignore the approach off handedly because we think we are insulted. Not reproducing raises suspicions of gender confusion in our culture, or a lack of nurturing skills or some imbalance or dysfunction, rather than being seen as a way to decrease carbon footprint over a lifetime and potentially increase the health and life of the very planet upon which we live. Choosing for the highest good, or any other reason, to not breed is a respectable option in my book. On the other hand, in childbirth and rearing, the soul growth potential is incredible. And, the urge to reproduce can be very strong at times, seemingly beyond control. Perhaps the pheromones in use for the moth will change that....Mindy

[Valley Oak]

I don't think that you are especially more or less green because you don't have children at the moment. And I don't go around telling people I'm green for any reason, and much less because I have only one child.

I do like Neil's thoughts very much because even though they are not perfect, they do address the very serious issue of overpopulation, which we have been consistently warned about since the 1960's. Now the wolf is at the door and we are just starting to go, 'Huh?'

The energy crisis, in particular with petroleum (which is a finite resource) is in part due to the 6 billion people putting enormous pressure on the planet's resources. The carbon foot print from such an immense overpopulation is extremely dangerous and most people are not aware of this. And many people whose ears and eyes and been reached by the startling message of overpopulation and unsustainability react with anger, denial, and feeling offended.

Edward

I don't have any children. So I am green?
Actually, I am kinda white/tan in color....
I guess now I know why I am childless...to be green right?

[MsTerry]

Edward,

China has that policy, one child per family
Is their environment cleaner than ours?

Furthermore, following the same logic, zero growth is not enough. We have to reduce the population. For example, couples can only have one child for the next 50 to 100 hundred years until our population drops down to at least 3 billion.

[Valley Oak]

No, theirs is a lot dirtier, but that is not the point that I'm most interested in underlining. Neil's initial post, the thread starter, deals with population control. And although I don't completely agree with all of the nuances of what he talked about I do like the essential idea very much.

My point in this discussion (and there are several) is the fact that 6 billion people living on the planet is unsustainable. This is different from a clean environment.

If you look at the Earth's ecological system as an economy, then there is simply not enough 'wealth' available in the planet's environment to permanently sustain 6 billion people...and growing! Again, this is a completely different 'animal' from issue of a clean environment, clean air, clean water, no pollution, etc.

Over the long run, let's say another 50, 100, maybe 200 years, the Earth's ecological system will be exhausted, ravished, spent, depleted, and destroyed. Deforestation will continue to climb at an alarming rate not only to provide wood for housing, fireplaces, furniture, and many other uses, but also to make room for 10 or 20 billion people or more! That's A LOT of mouths to feed, to house, to educate, to employ, to keep healthy, etc.

The Earth simply cannot economically/environmentally sustain 6 or 10 or 20 or more billions of humans living off of it and trampling all over it. And the result will be natural consequence of mass starvation, mass war, multiple pandemics, and bloody dictatorships right here in the U.S. and everywhere else.

A clean environment is a separate discussion.

Edward

Edward,

China has that policy, one child per family
Is their environment cleaner than ours?

[MsTerry]

.

A clean environment is a separate discussion.

Edward

I am afraid not!
A clean environment is the key to sustainability, not just a side issue.
Population control will do nothing to make life more available.( think of all the cheap labor we might loose )

two non-caring consumers will do a lot more damage than a hundred caring and environmentally aware people.


Plastic remains a HUGE problem

[Valley Oak]

I'm afraid we're going to stay in disagreement on this one.

The problem of overpopulation has been around a lot longer than the 'green' issue. Although they certainly are parallel, one is not the other and they are not interchangeable. One issue is the environment, the other is overpopulation.

We need to deal with overpopulation. There are too many people on the Earth and she cannot sustain us. We need to bring our numbers down to about 2 billion people or so.

Edward

I am afraid not!
A clean environment is the key to sustainability, not just a side issue.
Population control will do nothing to make life more available.( think of all the cheap labor we might loose )

two non-caring consumers will do a lot more damage than a hundred caring and environmentally aware people.


Plastic remains a HUGE problem

[Lenny]

Often told I am wrong, so nothing new BUT:
the overpopulation notion could be a myth! Some preacher 200 years ago says "we ain't going to make it 'cause there's too many people" and "predicts" the end of mankind within a couple of decades. Ain't happened. Part of his stuff was based on food production. We don't produce like that anymore, and yet sustain even greater numbers. In a short order we will grow corn using sea water, without pesticides, nor petroleum based fertilizers, yet the "over population" idea is still promulgated. Those of us over 30 read Erlich's book predicting that by 1970s there would be mass starvation and by the end of the decade we wouldn't be alive in America.
Seems those with a political agenda use "facts" to further their own point. Could be the planned political utilization and mismanagement of resources is the crux, no?
A person once told me that this ball of Earth could support up to 15 billion more people.

[MsTerry]

Edward, we need to raise consciousness !!!!
6 billion vegetarians makes a whole lot of difference as opposed to 6 billion meat-eaters.
unbridled consumerism is a HUGE problem!
Plastic, Ed, think PLASTIC
tell me tmw how often you touched PLASTIC

I'm afraid we're going to stay in disagreement on this one.

The problem of overpopulation has been around a lot longer than the 'green' issue. Although they certainly are parallel, one is not the other and they are not interchangeable. One issue is the environment, the other is overpopulation.

We need to deal with overpopulation. There are too many people on the Earth and she cannot sustain us. We need to bring our numbers down to about 2 billion people or so.

Edward

[PeriodThree]

I hesitate to touch this issue, but the problems of plastic seem solvable and overrated when compared with our other issues.

The problems that I understand are:
1. General resource use in production.
2. Health and environmental effects of production.
3. Health effects of use of some (but by no means all) plastics
4. Environmental effects of disposal

Am I missing something?



Plastic does many things very well, it seems a shame to damn a material just because it has long chain polymers.

Plastic, Ed, think PLASTIC
tell me tmw how often you touched PLASTIC

[Valley Oak]

I don't believe that 6 billion vegetarian humans solves the problem. Six billion people is still too many no matter what they eat or how little. Overpopulation is still the problem. There are no excuses or justifications for so many people on the planet. None. Our grossly overextended population density is defenseless.

Edward

Edward, we need to raise consciousness !!!!
6 billion vegetarians makes a whole lot of difference as opposed to 6 billion meat-eaters.
unbridled consumerism is a HUGE problem!
Plastic, Ed, think PLASTIC
tell me tmw how often you touched PLASTIC

[Valley Oak]

I still think that overpopulation is the real issue here, more so than efficient resource use in production or the environmental effects of production or plastics or our aggregate waste.

I think that we might be touching upon an unspoken 'holy grail' of sorts here. I'm beginning to get the feeling that there is something that deeply disturbs people about population control. My guess is that there is a profound, almost unconscious reaction to telling people to control their birth rate. Am I wrong?

Identifying population control with China is a strong, knee jerk reaction, which has an important religious connotation to it because China is a godless country. There is also a political, Cold War animosity toward Chinese public policy because it is a Communist nation and therefore an ideological rival to the U.S. Patriotism plays an important role as well as religiousity does.

Religious faith and patriotism are two very powerful motivators. They are like holy cows in India, where people will rather starve to death before killing and eating a cow. Americans, it appears, will rather starve to death and go to war before controlling their population.

Any ideas?

Edward

I hesitate to touch this issue, but the problems of plastic seem solvable and overrated when compared with our other issues.

The problems that I understand are:
1. General resource use in production.
2. Health and environmental effects of production.
3. Health effects of use of some (but by no means all) plastics
4. Environmental effects of disposal

Am I missing something?



Plastic does many things very well, it seems a shame to damn a material just because it has long chain polymers.

[PeriodThree]

Americans, it appears, will rather starve to death and go to war before controlling their population.

The United States currently has Sub-replacement fertility. US Population growth is from Immigration and (hopefully!) extended life spans.

Neil did not argue for decreasing birth rates, he argues "if you're still making and having babies, objectively-speaking you can't be very green."

[MsTerry]

Am I missing something?
.

Yes, you are and it is the size of a continent.
https://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a...06233509990001

https://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Oce...cificNov03.htm.

[Valley Oak]

If so, then I stand corrected. Do you have any sources? I know I did not provide any sources for my statements. Citing sources always adds a great deal to a debate because there is a real opportunity to learn and for the dialog to reach a higher level.

Here are parts of what Neil posted:

"...the...thing I've done to lessen my impact on our planet...was...when I decided that, given the mushrooming human population of the world, and seeing the corresponding increase in resource consumption and pollution, I decided...not to have...kids of my own...

When we talk about a person's carbon footprint, shouldn't that include all future impacts by that person's offspring (and their offspring's offspring, etc.)? If we don't include offspring in the footprint measurement, then even if per capita greenhouse gas emissions decrease, total greenhouse gas emissions are likely to continue to rise... Reducing the size of the human population by not contributing to its continuing expansion... Not having a baby makes a large and immediate difference compared to having one...
Neil"

The part you made reference to is the following quote from Neil's post:

"...if you're still making and having babies, objectively-speaking you can't be very green..."

In my opinion, and I need Neil's confirmation on this, the central issue in Neil's post is overpopulation, not 'being green.' Neil's use of the term, 'green,' is a proxy for the main theme of controlling our population size and continued growth. Being 'green,' per se, is not the issue, but a way of pointing a finger at the problem of current, world overpopulation.

Another important observation in Neil's post (and again, I need his confirmation) is that he is not singling out the U.S. Neil is talking about global overpopulation and this includes all nations. I'm the one who mentioned the U.S. but not because the U.S. alone has the population or attitude problem. I mentioned Americans because the Wacco List audience is composed primarily by Americans. My bad, if only for obfuscation of the real issue of WORLD overpopulation.

Thanks for the comment,

Edward

The United States currently has Sub-replacement fertility. US Population growth is from Immigration and (hopefully!) extended life spans.

Neil did not argue for decreasing birth rates, he argues "if you're still making and having babies, objectively-speaking you can't be very green."

[PeriodThree]

I have known about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch for a while, we wrote about it in out second book, and created this Google Maps hack which lets you see how big that really is by allowing you to drop Texas into the Pacific (arguably where it belongs :-) and see how big it is in context:

https://mappinghacks.com/projects/gmaps/size_of.html

With that said, I asked 'Am I missing something?' with respect to the problems of plastics, and you responded that I was missing a continent sized problem.

In the pedantic department, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is not the size of a continent, and more importantly, I listed "4. Environmental effects of disposal" in my list of problems with plastic.

Clearly we need to improve our full-lifespan management of trash.

Yes, you are and it is the size of a continent.
https://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a...06233509990001

https://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Oce...cificNov03.htm.

[Zeno Swijtink]

If so, then I stand corrected. Do you have any sources? I know I did not provide any sources for my statements. Citing sources always adds a great deal to a debate because there is a real opportunity to learn and for the dialog to reach a higher level.

The US Census Bureau has a great website at https://www.census.gov/

Some of my favorite pages are the dynamic population pyramids.

https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/i...=7&Submit.y=11

Compare different countries by starting at

https://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/summaries.html

You'll see how some countries like Japan and Italy have already a top heavy pyramid, relatively many older people. In the US this phenomenon is postponed by the influx of emigrants, and the higher birth rate among emigrant families. A while ago there was a news story of an Italian town that started offering bonuses to couples to have another child.

(Sorry if this repeats some info that people have already given - I'm not following this thread closely.)