Some positivity from SkyNews, good on the global warming front as well.
March 27
The forecasts in the report are in contrast to UN predictions which show the population reaching 9.7 billion in 2050 and peaking at 10.4 billion in the 2080s.
The global population could fall to six billion by the end of the century if there is "unprecedented investment" in tackling poverty and inequality, researchers have said.
In a report assessing how different policies would have an impact across the world, the population could peak at 8.5 billion in 2040 before declining by 2100 - but only if "extreme poverty is eliminated" alongside the adoption of "successful policies for economic development".
On current economic trends, the experts said the population could peak at 8.6 billion in 2050 before dropping back to 7 billion in 2100.
Experts said economic development is associated to a fall in fertility rates because it improves access to education and health services.
The study was commissioned by the Club Of Rome, a non-profit organisation which addresses "the multiple crises facing humanity and the planet" - but its figures are in contrast to UN forecasts which show the population reaching 9.7 billion in 2050 and peaking at 10.4 billion in the 2080s....
....MUCH MORE
Speaking of The Club of Rome, while I think they meant well, you can draw a straight line from their 'predictive modeling' in The Limits To Growth to Imperial College’s Neil Ferguson's criminally awful covid modelling about whom Professor Gellman, this Professor Gellman:
Andrew Gelman is Professor of statistics and political science at Columbia Uni., the guy who tells the other social scientists how to get their numbers right so they can at least give the appearance of being a science. He has a very tart tongue which, combined with a high level intellect is fun to watch taking on sacred cows and shibboleths. As long as you aren't the target of said intellect and/or sharp tongue.
wrote, May 30, 2020:
“So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?”
Regarding the poverty paper, spending money this way is probably more effective at reducing carbon emissions than putting up wind turbines. Firstly, because fewer people should (note should) result in fewer emissions and secondly because if/when those impoverished people move to higher income societies, their carbon footprint grows dramatically to more closely resemble that of their new host countries.
