G7 Climate "Agreement" Kicks Climate Football 85 Years Down The Field

[hatrack]

During the hour that it took the world's elite G7 politicians discussing climate change to wander through an enchanting meadow of flowers in Germany's Bavarian Alps earlier this week, at least 800 people died prematurely from the impact of air pollution, most of it caused by the burning of non-renewable fossil fuels. Wanting to show the world -- particularly voters at home -- that they care about the seven-million people a year dying from various pollution and carbon related causes, the leaders of the world's richest countries, including Canada, signed a joint declaration calling for a global phasing-out of fossil fuels 85 years from now.

It's unlikely that, during their deliberations in the picturesque Schloss Elmau at the foot of Germany's highest mountain, anyone at the summit reflected on the World Health Organization's (WHO) report of a year ago that said in 2012 around seven million people died -- one in eight of total global deaths -- as a result of air pollution exposure.

Unfortunately, despite positive coverage in mainstream media in several countries, the section of the summit dealing with climate change must be considered an over-blown failure. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was disappointed that G7 members -- largely because of opposition from Canada and Japan -- wouldn't agree to a commitment to a low-carbon economy by 2050. Instead, the G7 agreed to what it called a full-blown, no-carbon economy, but not until 2100.

According to their declaration, the G7 countries say they intend to insist on greenhouse gas reductions of at least in the upper 40 to 70 per cent range by 2050. There's also a promise to cut emission by 17 per cent by 2020. But, despite the tough talk, no nation-specific targets were set, and the G7 declaration is not binding.

EDIT

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/06/11/G7-Kicks-Climate-Football/

[truebrit71]

1. Just pathetic...

Re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic...

[The2ndWheel]

2. What do you expect them to do?

Human progress and growth is at odds with physical reality. We're not going to voluntarily stop.

[LouisvilleDem]

3. Do you mean economic growth or population growth?

I ask because it is a proven fact that people in the first world have voluntarily chosen to have fewer children.

[The2ndWheel]

4. By increasing economic growth and pooling collective financial resources

It's all part of the circle. If the first world didn't have the access it has had to resources, we wouldn't be having fewer children. If the first world wasn't importing more people from the third world, we wouldn't be having fewer children, because our system requires more people. More consumers, more tax payers.

As long as there are physically more people on the planet every year, then it's all good. When population actually starts to physically go down, then we'll have some interesting issues. That's contraction, and the same way human beings don't like or accept limits, we don't do contraction well. Contraction means very difficult choices, which we don't like for moral reasons. Who is anyone to tell anyone else what they can or cannot have or do?

We have 4 options:
1) more people using more
2) more people using less
3) fewer people using more
4) fewer people using less

[LouisvilleDem]

5. Our system requires more people?

Says who?

For the last 20 years Japan has had both a nearly flat population levels as well as flat GDP levels, and yet it's still "around" and its people doing rather well.

[NickB79]

6. Concern as Japan's 2014 birth rate falls to record low

Experts warn the impact of the decline will harm Japan in various ways.

A lowering of the number of people aged between 15 to 64 is predicted to lower potential growth and shrink Japan's GDP.
A decline in the population is said by experts to have damaging consequences for Japan

That in turn is expected to harm the pension system and other elements of social welfare. The impact in rural areas is predicted to be especially damaging, putting the very existence of some communities in danger.

http://www.dw.de/impact-of-japans-shrinking-population-already-palpable/a-18172873

In what ways could this population decline impact Japan?

The impact is already palpable if one goes and visits peripheral regions in Japan. Depopulation is evident in many small towns where only a few elderly residents remain. A declining population of course also means less consumption, which in turn will affect the already slumping economy negatively.

As the aging population has a very long average life expectancy (86.6 for women, 80 for men in 2013), medical costs will inevitably balloon, consuming an increasingly larger part of the budget together with pensions.

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/graying-japan-tough-choices-population-dilemma/

Japan’s population began falling in 2011. According to the most recent estimate by the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research (NIPSSR), it will fall to 97 million by 2050 from 127.50 million in 2012, a figure that is based on the 2010 birthrate of 1.39 children per couple. By 2100, the population could fall below 50 million, says Ryuichi Kaneko, a population expert and deputy director of the institute. “But even if we are able to raise the birth rate to 2.07, our population will still continue to fall through 2050 and 2100.”

At the same time that the population is shrinking, it is also aging. Japan’s famed longevity coupled with the low birth rate will leave the country with a much smaller working-age population just as the number of elderly residents peaks. Those over 65 now account for about a quarter of the population. By 2050, the over-65s will account for 38.8% of the population, rising to 41.1% by 2100, according to NIPSSR. “The population problem is one of the most difficult and intractable issues that Japan has to deal with,” says Wharton finance professor Franklin Allen.

Hisakazu Kato, a population economics specialist and professor at the school of political science and economics at Meiji University in Tokyo, forecasts that the workforce will fall to 55.64 million by 2030 and to 41.30 million by 2050 from 65.97 million in 2013, reducing the number of taxpayers able to help support the huge burden for elder care. While some other countries face similar demographic crunches, “no other countries have ever experienced what is happening to Japan,” Kato says.

You were saying?

[LouisvilleDem]

7. Read my post again

I was disputing the idea that our system requires population growth. I offered up Japan as an example of a country that has had almost flat population levels for 20 years, and yet has seen an increase in per capita GDP. I said absolutely nothing about what happens when a country's population falls.

[The2ndWheel]

8. Nothing stays static forever

Japan is squeezing more and more out of what it has to work with. When their population does finally start to physically shrink, then I guess they'll have to increase the automation to stay ahead of death. Or, increase immigration. Or, start having more Japanese babies. Or, die.

What's 20 years when we're talking about the larger picture? It's not even a drop in the bucket. Nothing is going to disappear overnight, and certainly not an entire nation like Japan, because we have however many years/decades/centuries of history, momentum, and complexity built in. If we had zero population change right now, so one birth for every death, we'd still be able to grow economically because so many people on this planet don't have what so many other people do.

However, we don't have a lot of experience with populations that actually decline. Every institution we've built is based on the idea of more people. When a business doesn't have enough customers, it goes out of business. When a government doesn't have a big enough tax base, things start to not get paid for. Everything is still growing, even if just a little bit, in one form or another. When/If there are physically fewer tax payers and consumers, then what? Japan can get away with it for now because people around the world buy their stuff. We're in a weird place where we have a more global society, yet regional governments. We try to balance that, but it doesn't quite work.

Like anything else, it's adapt or die. If the Japanese population gets older, but they increase immigration, it won't be the Japan that we know, it'll just be a different Japan, which is fine. If they stay on the path they're on, it'll still end up a different Japan. Which goes back to nothing staying the same forever.

The life cycle of a society isn't that much different than the life cycle of a human being. Start out small, grow, mature, and then death eventually wins. Japan is in the mature phase. You can get some health care to prolong things a bit, but it gets tougher and tougher each time.

The US is an odd case. If you look at the largest populations on the planet, they're all from developing nations, except one. We have the population of a developing nation, but the economy of a developed nation. There's really no other country quite like that, which is why the US has it's own unique set of issues.

[LouisvilleDem]

9. Why do you assume that?

Yes, I agree that declining populations (especially populations that shrink rapidly) bring on a whole host of issues with which we have little to no experience with. What I do not understand is your insistence that populations must to either increase or decrease, that it is impossible for a population to stay at the same level in the long term. Why is it impossible to have essentially zero population change, with roughly one birth for every death?