It's the Population, Stupid





Annual global energy consumption (GEC) can be estimated by

         GEC = n1*c1 + n2*c2







          = 10,409 billion KGOEs.



          = 12,824 billion KGOEs.







          = 13,325 billion KGOEs.






Share This


Carl Milsted, Jr.

If we allow the developing world to emit equally, then we need to cut our net carbon emissions by 80% overall to maintain the current rate of warming.

Lest anyone panic, keep in mind that we can decrease emissions for electricity and home heating by 100% and set our thermostats to 80 degrees in the middle of Montana winters if we see fit and use incandescent lighting as well. The technology is a half century old to do it: nuclear. Liquid thorium breeder technology gives us thousands of years of energy at higher than current levels.

Furthermore, electric vehicles do make sense within cities. If need be the railroads could be made electric as well. Air travel and long distance road travel is still best done with hydrocarbon fuels -- which can be synthesized from renewable sources using technology that goes back at least to World War II.

Jon Harrison

It may only be middle-school algebra, but in a world awash with news, blogs, commentary and the like, few readers will pause to absorb the equations Mr. Murphy provides.

I agree 100% that population growth trumps any reasonable program to control Co2 emissions. And the problem rests above all with the ever-increasing population of the developing world -- an important point that is all too often ignored (or denied) in the name of political correctness. But the math goes mostly over the head of the non-scientist. The over-reliance on algebra takes a lot of the steam out of Murphy's arguments.



It's been pretty well established that once a country passes a threshold per-capita GDP, population rise falls off pretty drastically. As far as I know, this trend cuts across all cultures.
So the solution is to allow those 'developing' countries to develop. History shows the best way to accomplish that is freedom and liberal economies.
In other words, get the governments out of the way and let the populations solve that 'problem'.

Steve C.

When the Kyoto protocol was first introduced I knew intuitively that it was doomed if they were only requiring the developed world to reduce carbon emissions. The other piece that supporters of anthroprogenic climate change is what percentage of annual carbon emissions do humans contribute? I have read anywhere between 5-10%. Supporters won't even discuss it from the things I have read. One could do a similar analysis of carbon emissions and the human component.


Hey, we're only losing a dollar per unit! We'll make it up in volume!

© Copyright 2013 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.

