I completely agree with Cecily's comment. It's the overall consumption of humanity that causes the problem so both individual consumption and population are important elements of the problem.

We in the West need to reduce our consumption. We use far more than our fair share of the Earth's resources. But globally, population growth is out of control and this is a ticking time bomb. We are currently at 7 billion people and we're forecast to hit 9 billion people by mid-century - that's enormous!

The direct carbon emissions in the developing world might be lower (coming mainly form wood fires and so on) but over-population puts pressure on land and water, leading to deforestation and habitat production. This problem is not as small as people like to think but it's not fashionable to talk about it because it sounds like we are criticising people who are poorer than us and the problems are harder to solve. This is a large part of the challenges that faced in many African countries.

Also, what happens when consumption increases for that large chunk of population? People in developing world have a legitimate desire to improve their own quality of life, something we see happening in China and India for example, both countries with more than a billion people.

To fight over-population, we really need to be teaching birth control methods and safe sex (helping fight AIDS at the same time), but we also need to be educating and empowering women to make these decisions for herself. Studies show that the better educated a woman is, the fewer children she tends to have. That's why birth rates are so low in every developed country except the US, with Scandinavia, Italy and Japan being the most extreme examples. On the contraception front, religion and politics often prevent good work that would improve the quality of people's lives and health.

We certainly need to reduce consumption too. Not just by 'using less stuff' but also by better energy efficiency.

It must depend how you measure it. China is now the world's largest single carbon emitter. You could argue that that they are primarily making stuff for export to the US and Europe but most people count these emissions as belonging to China, especially since the factories are not particularly clean or efficient.

Indonesia is the world's fourth most populous nation. It's a developing nation and very crowded. It's also one of the world's biggest carbon emitters, mainly from forest fires (which are often deliberately lit to clear land, resulting in deforestation and loss of species diversity).

We are all in this problem together and we need to act decisively on both fronts. Also it's not just about today's population and consumption - there's also the fact that the global population is still growing, and people in the developing world are starting to develop consumer societies.

While population is an issue, that is a horrible and ignorant thing to say. It sounds as if you would consider war and endless deaths as a result a good thing. I have said this before and will repeat it many times over in different genres for different reasons: women's rights will save us. Treating women equally in pay, in education opportunities, in sports and athletic training, in math and in science will develop women to do much more than have babies and be wives.

Further, we do have the technology to filter clean water, have clean fuel without the use of gas or electric. There are a myriad of fuel cells that do not emit carbon. It is ultimately the massive corporations and elite that refuse to give up the power and would rather women be mistreated and people to be enslaved and trafficked like cattle, rather than share or lose any wealth.

We will soon have no choice but to consume less because the economy is going to fall further and food and water scarcity will rise simply because the elite and corporations control and hoard it. They purchase aquifers and shares in lakes from other countries so that the native indigenous people do not have rights to their own water. Would it not be wiser to create and share real technology, and they do, it's called water privatization to the point that they overcharge and bankrupt countries to use there systems(which often don't work) through the World Bank. It is a ridiculous cycle that not only hurts people, it hurts the hydrological cycle and furthers global temperatures. In knowing that to be completely factual and true, I am inclined to believe that there is some accuracy also in the research Emily had read.

The nuance of the term "population growth" is different than that of the term "overpopulation". That is why the term "population growth" is preferable, since some people might infer from the term "overpopulation" that people who are already here should not be.

"Population growth" has one source--fertility. Worldwide voluntary stabilization and reduction of fertility will improve the lives of billions of people. It is unethical to--as Margaret stated--"consider war and endless deaths as a result a good thing".

Margaret, I totally agree with you about women's rights, however I think you've misread Charlie's comments. He wasn't promoting famine, disease and war as solutions to help us reduce the population; he was saying that these are problems that would be significantly reduced IF we had a lower population.

I know he didn't say it to the extreme that I think he meant it. He did say "I can not think of many problems that would not be resolved either quickly or at least slowly by a significant reduction in world population."

Saying world problems would be resolved quicky with SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION in WORLD POPULATION pretty much says that one would argue the benefits of war and genocide as being good things. I have heard people say that war is good because of population reduction and you may have as well. It is not as if people don't think that way, they do.

That whole concept needs to get out of people's heads because the reduction could be them.

However, the argument is leading in favor of the elite's usage reduction. They are the biggest polluters, far more than the over populated peasants.

OK, but Charlie does list "war" as one of the problems that curbing population growth would reduce.

I do agree that consumption needs to be curtailed along with population growth.

Humans have been adept at finding reasons to go to war for millennia, no matter the size of the population. 

Yup! We must be hardwired for war.

My apologies to Charlie if I am not understanding him correctly.

Rather than blame people for living, I think we need to force the elite to move over and let other technologies have a turn without us all give them a slice, a corporate share, or ownership rights. It seems that is what it is about, them getting money and frankly, I am tired of the games.  We are going to do a lot more if we want to curb the warming. We are going to give these technologies to the world's poorest tribes for free so we can make certain the population does survive, everybody.

Margaret, I'm not sure what Charlie meant or what he thinks. But what he SAID was that there would be fewer wars and less disease and famine if the population was lower. He didn't say that a lower population would be a welcome side benefit of wars, disease and famine. Some people probably do think that but it's not the argument he was putting forward here.

Emily, you are right that humans have been going to war for millennia but the scale and intensity of the wars has been increasing. Also many wars are are a result of competition for resources such as water and this probably will only increase with a higher population as well as the impact of climate change.

Okay, so I apologize and you are still arguing about what he said????

Further, you are still arguing about population being the problem and are completely ignoring the fact that the technologies to filter water, provide clean and sustainable energy and food are available NOW.

It is VERY arguable if global warming is even a result of human behavior or if it is a cycle of the sun's natural warming pattern. Do you think the big ball in the sky that provides free energy burns at a completely predictable and equal rate of consistency?

Lastly, you say the wars are a result of resource grabs, (mainly oil as we know); thus the elite again here win out as a far bigger problem than the population. Water wars are also a big issue, compounded by the tight grip of the World Bank, Suez, Nestle and many more of the ELITE!!!

We pay for bail outs(taxes), we get less services (education etc). This is a problem with an obvious fault of the massive corporates backed by our government.

You don't have to do a statistical data analysis like Yale to see where and who is at fault! 

Again, suggesting population growth is the issue at hand is not going to curb anything! If we argue about population issues without some kind of REVOLUTION against a government that supports and backs corporate interests by creating laws that give more rights to corporations than human beings and making our blood sweat and tears pay for these atrocities such as a war for oil; then you all deserve what you get because all the information on what these corporations, elite and institutions are doing is out there and fully available.

The problem is caused by both consumption levels and population growth. I agree that corporate managers, directors and investors should have more personal liability. It would also be helpful if campaign donations were limited severely.

Corporations sell products or "services". Their growth, and often their survival, depends on expanding current markets or finding new markets.
They expand the current markets by having a whole new crop of people to buy their stuff. If the population entered a gentle and voluntary decrease, this avenue for corporate growth would also decrease.

Margaret, I'm sorry that you feel that I was picking on you about Charlie's comment. That wasn't my intention. For the record, I'm not actually 'arguing' about anything. I'm contributing to a discussion. The cause of our problems is not one thing or another, ie population OR consumption, individuals OR corporations. It's all of those things. If I raise one point, it doesn't mean I'm trying to shout down all the other points.

The reason I raise population as an issue is because I don't feel that it gets enough attention. We're not just talking about the current population - we're also talking about population growth and the fact that it's likely to climb from 7bn to 9bn by 2050. I really feel that we need to reverse this trend as well as changing lifestyles in the West and using technology to create cleaner energy and better waste management. Any efforts to manage population are hampered by religious opposition and lack of women's rights in many countries but it doesn't mean it's not important or worth trying to change.

The current population is already quite a burden on the planet, even in poor countries where the problem might manifest in deforestation rather than the pollution from flat-screen TVs and SUVs. I've travelled quite extensively in the developing world. That said, I agree with you that we can't suddenly reduce the population in any fair and humane way and we need use both technology and basic principles of justice and fairness to support the current population.

I also agree with you that the behaviour of some corporations and the general trend of increasing corporate control of all aspects of life, including food and water supplies, is a big problem. Like I said, it's not one thing versus another. Population is not THE problem, but it's part of it, and it needs to be part of the solution too.

Are you kidding? In chemistry, which means the molecular structure of EVERYTHING, an equation will balance, but the output is not necessarily ideal. We cannot burn wood for heat and expect that water will be the end result. We certainly with not get pure oxygen. Plastic for example, made out of chemicals that could kill you, goes back to the Earth and chokes animals and maintains its basically useless to the ecosystem structure. Though on some level you are correct, the net loss is not zero, the net loss is a natural resource. If we use 286 liters of water for one liter of ethenol and that one liter of ethonal gets us five miles rather than a family's dinner or week's worht of water, than really the net loss starts to be human lives.

I struggle with this as well, it seems that given time it all comes back as long as it does not leave the planet. I guess the question is how long will it take the Earth to re-assimilate it into the ecosystem. According to most astronomers we have a few billion years before our sun eats Earth so maybe we should try not to speed that up?

Ha ha!

You are right in a sense. The lump of rock we call Earth will still be here, spinning in space, long after we are gone, regardless of how many flat-screen TVs we buy.

However, it may no longer be capable of sustaining life.

Are carbon emissions created by smoking cannabis?

Smoking pot creates carbon emmissions

The carbon offset from smoking is negligable, especially when you consider the carbon offset of importing goods such as hemp fabric and other things into this country when it could be grown right here.

I have sympathy for you and people in your situation - life can be tough when you are broke. I've certainly been there.

I don't want to tell you how to live your life but IMHO I think you can still do your part to help curb climate emissions. It feels good to take proactive steps to green your lifestyle, even if you are not the biggest culprit in terms of causing the problem. You would also be setting a good example to others and hopefully inspire them to follow your lead. Hopefully you'll do your health and wallet some good at the same time as helping the planet.

Many green measures are also frugal ones - for example, using long life bulbs and curbing electricity use, growing vegies or buying from a box scheme rather than plastic-wrapped industrial produce from a supermarket, cutting down or cutting out meat in favour of plant-based protein such as legumes, cooking from scratch and using up leftovers, mending clothes to prolong their life, and walking (or cycling if you own a bike) or taking public transport wherever possible.

It's worth considering that food production is one of the single biggest contributors of climate emissions so making wise choices about the food you eat is one way you can really make a difference. Also consider disposal of food you can't eat - if it goes into landfill then it rots anaerobically and emits methane gas whereas if you properly compost it then you'll be improving the soil and sequestering carbon at the same time.

By the way, gas prices in the US are still low by global standards and we really do need to wean ourselves off our cars. If you can lobby your policy makers to make US cities more pedestrian and bike friendly or improve public transport, that would be a big help.