Her thinking was that there were rich deposits of metals just beneath the surface. (Why dig deep into the ground to produce ore?)
Personally, I dont think that any type of messaging will save us. Weve tried multiple approaches and still, we hear Drill baby! Drill! What we need is a way to travel back in time to create compelling messaging in the post-war period.
While, clearly, the population explosion helped get us into this mess, I dont see birth control getting us out of it. Heres the way I see it, using back of the envelope reasoning here, Lets assume:
- average life expectancy is 70 years, and always will be
- age brackets are even
- persons of every age are responsible for the same level of emissions
- (To celebrate the New Year) everyone stops having babies, Jan, 1, 2025
- After 7 years (Jan 1, 2032) our population will have decreased 10% and emissions will have been cut by the same amount.
- After 35 years (Jan 1, 2060) our population will have been reduced by ½ and our emissions will have been cut by the same amount.
The stated goal is to achieve Net Zero (a 100% cut in emissions) by 20
50.
Thats a problem.
Do you see where Im going with this? Cuts in population and emissions like that, while
dramatic are not sufficient to
decrease global heating let alone
reverse it.
We need much more dramatic cuts than that, much sooner. Net Zero is not enough to stop the heating. We need
Net Negative and you will not achieve that through birth control alone, if it is achievable at all. To achieve Net Negative will require
a lot of work, and, well
Sr. Citizens are
notoriously unproductive.
Now, if a miracle occurs, and we discover some very easy, very effective, very
quick way to remove
phenomenal amounts of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and the oceans, then,
in theory, we could just do that
faster to make up for the population,
if that population were willing to live in a more sustainable fashion.