It doesn’t need to be, the core concept is simple. We are already overpopulated because we are failing to sustainably provide for 8 billion people. Doubling the number of people to provide for is not going to help.
I don’t have to. You’re trying make me argue inside your simplistic logic, which I refuse to do as it completely glosses over - among other things - the fact, that not every ‘capita’ contributes equally to emissions.
yeah no shit that’s the emissions per capita part. It was ‘oversimplified’ but I guess still too hard for you to understand?
Yes that means it’s less important to reduce birth rate in Eritrea than in the US or Australia or whatever. As long as you’re either not concerned about raising their HDI rapidly or you think it can raise without per capita emissions rising with it and good luck with that.
If you didn’t actually have a rebuttal you could have just not engaged instead of being a smug prick with nothing to add.
It doesn’t need to be, the core concept is simple. We are already overpopulated because we are failing to sustainably provide for 8 billion people. Doubling the number of people to provide for is not going to help.
That’s the beauty of it, every concept can be simple, if you simply oversimplify.
OK then explain how increasing population reduces demand for goods and lowers GHG emissions.
I don’t have to. You’re trying make me argue inside your simplistic logic, which I refuse to do as it completely glosses over - among other things - the fact, that not every ‘capita’ contributes equally to emissions.
https://climatefactchecks.org/worlds-richest-10-linked-to-two-thirds-of-global-warming-since-1990/
yeah no shit that’s the emissions per capita part. It was ‘oversimplified’ but I guess still too hard for you to understand?
If you didn’t actually have a rebuttal you could have just not engaged instead of being a smug prick with nothing to add.