Our species is living collectively far beyond the carrying capacity of our beleaguered planet. A lower population is essential if we are to balance the ecological books. Otherwise, the planet will survive – but not in a way that facilitates human habitation.
The recent report by the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) concluded that there was “unequivocal” evidence that human activity was warming the planet. It is now very probable that the Earth’s mean temperature will rise by more than the critical IPCC ceiling (1.5C above pre-industrial levels) by 2040. Heatwaves, droughts, floods and other examples of ‘extreme weather’ will become more frequent. Sea levels could rise by over 2m by 2100.
The report was deemed ‘code red’ for humanity. However, this is no excuse to give up. Fatalism is as dangerous as denial because the considerable cost of decarbonising will be negligible compared to the cost of inaction.
Ominously, with climate change and environmental destruction accelerating globally, there is still a reluctance for governments to spell out the economic costs and unpleasant lifestyle constraints required to tackle this problem. Consequently, the prospects of national governments making a commensurate response are poor.
Cutting emissions significantly is technically feasible but very expensive.
It would entail measures such as the wholesale replacement of coal plants with alternative energy sources, ceasing to use natural gas, improving the energy efficiency of buildings and switching to electric cars. These reforms would trigger stiff opposition from the powerful fossil fuel lobby. Consumers would resist higher energy charges, as in France, where a minimal increase in the price of diesel led to months of sometimes violent protests.
Yet, a recent and potentially transformative development in this bleak landscape has offered a source of possible relief.
Population decline has been identified in many of the more affluent, western countries. Instead of viewing this as a ‘demographic nightmare’, as some do, it should be seen as a golden opportunity to effectively challenge climate change.
Population management allied to the other methods of radically cutting emissions could significantly mitigate the more damaging consequences of climate change. The planet’s natural systems in terms of biodiversity and habitat preservation would then be given enough time and space to regenerate themselves once more. A planet with a greatly reduced global population would be one in which everyone could have adequate resources to enjoy an environmentally clean, fulfilling, high-tech lifestyle.
Population imbalances in the western world, skewed towards older people, could be rebalanced by immigration of younger people from the developing world. The great exodus of people fleeing the various war zones could fill the western population vacuum without any global increase.
This is also the most effective way to redistribute income from the rich world to the poor via the remittances sent from the economic migrants and refugees to their families back home.
Population decline could indeed prove to be the serendipity factor in this apocalyptic struggle for survival.
GEORGE WORKMAN
Mornington, Co Meath
Contorted language
In my view the English language is becoming increasingly corrupted. Recently on Radio 4 the spokesperson for elderly care and how it is to be funded mentioned, I believe, possible increases in income tax or national insurance to pay for elderly care and the economic effects of ‘the pandemic’. This latter phrase was a fleeting reference, but this is enough to justify later confirmation in reflection. Such meanderings would imply that the revenue gathered in will not be ring-fenced for elderly care, as it should be. This was confirmed when the media spokesperson asked about ring-fencing for elderly care responded, in a contortion of the language, that they might have to ‘ring-fence the ring-fenced’; it would be up to the government.
No clarification was asked for. Now, there’s fencing for you… and parrying. It should be remembered that social care has many other demands and that it applies not just to the elderly. All age groups are involved in care needs. Billions have to be found to look after people with addictions and weight problems, learning difficulties, disabilities and other health and social concerns, children and young people in care etc. Now it may be argued that these come under different budgets, but I’m not sure that that is how it pans out in practice. Being free to juggle the money here and there may be the real reason for such obfuscation around the idea of ‘ring-fencing’.
It now seems that National Insurance will be increased and, since party manifestos can be dispensed with, some would prefer an income tax hike, but then it’s too hard, apparently, to ‘nab’ certain elements and make them pay up.
I CORR
Greyabbey, Co Down
Avoidance of hard questions
I have followed Mr Cushnahan’s letters about his perceptions of the Troubles and the subsequent events following. His latest offering – ‘False statement on violence only attempts to undermine my integrity’ (September 1) – though is something different. He felt that his integrity was impugned. I believe that Mr Cushnahan’s letters are statements of integrity. He is forthright in arguing about the supremacy of law and order. He claims there have been some bad apples – few of these deserved support.
Yet in that forthrightness the issue of objectivity becomes worth examining.
Beginning with a premise that ‘the rule of law’ is paramount can cause one to amplify arguments in favour of some and diminish arguments against. Now if one, based on personal experience or whatever, concludes that the rule of law is not paramount and makes the argument, I ask Mr Cushnahan are both arguments valid? Is it possible that there is room for both cases to be argued out? Some common ground maybe. So much heartbreak and loss might have been prevented if establishment absolutism had not been defended so robustly. As well much argument about honour and integrity would have been seen for what they really were about – avoidance of the hard questions.
MANUS McDAID
Derry City
Affordable match tickets
It is extremely ironic to learn that Gary McAllister, chairman of the Amalgamation of Official Northern Ireland Supporters’ Clubs, is bitterly complaining about the hike in the cost of admission tickets to Northern Ireland home matches.
This is the same person who fought tooth and nail against the 38,000-seat national stadium at the Maze which could have led to much cheaper tickets compared to the 16,000 capacity at Windsor Park.
Perhaps he might next consider urging the IFA to utilise the 34,000 Casement Park stadium when it is completed in order to keep ticket prices at an affordable level.
RONNIE CRAWFORD
Dromore, Co Down
