Did China's one-child policy save the climate?

[ScienceNostalgia101]

For the record, I say this as someone who believes China needs to be called out more on its disproportionate role in foreign overfishing, in ozone depletion, etc... yet finds it odd that people deflect criticism of American greenhouse gas emissions by comparing them to total Chinese greenhouse gas emissions, instead of per-capita ones. Why is it that the total country's emissions matter more than the per capita emissions? Wouldn't it be more meaningful to compare the USA to, let's say, a randomly selected region of China containing a comparable number of people to the USA?

 

For that matter, China's "one-child policy;" though implemented more for economic reasons than for environmental ones, is estimated to have prevented hundreds of millions of births. Why, then, are the same people who deflect criticism of American greenhouse gas emissions with references to Chinese greenhouse gas emissions therefore in turn crediting the one-child policy with cutting China's greenhouse gas emissions by double-digit percentages? If it's because they're climate change denialists, how come they aren't saying so outright? If not, why is it?

[joigus]

Because one country can be worked into one unit of awareness and political action. If that country happens to have 1.5 billion people --or thereabouts-- in it and a concerted action can be taken so that they all --or most-- do their part of the deal, the situation will improve considerably.

It's not like the ice of Greenland is gonna say: "Wait a minute, don't melt just yet; that CO₂ is Chinese!"

China is not only very highly populated. It's very densely populated as well, when compared to, eg., Russia and Canada.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

For the record, I say this as someone who believes China needs to be called out more on its disproportionate role in foreign overfishing, in ozone depletion, etc... yet finds it odd that people deflect criticism of American greenhouse gas emissions by comparing them to total Chinese greenhouse gas emissions, instead of per-capita ones. Why is it that the total country's emissions matter more than the per capita emissions? Wouldn't it be more meaningful to compare the USA to, let's say, a randomly selected region of China containing a comparable number of people to the USA?

The temperature increase depends on the amount of CO2, not CO2 per capita. That’s the climate science impact (where this was posted)

CO2 per capita is more of a political issue of who is taking action and who isn’t. As is shaming the US for insufficient effort.

 

[ScienceNostalgia101]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

The temperature increase depends on the amount of CO2, not CO2 per capita. That’s the climate science impact (where this was posted)

CO2 per capita is more of a political issue of who is taking action and who isn’t. As is shaming the US for insufficient effort.

 

Right, but perceived culpability for climate change; and whether or not the response is just; affects people's motivations to act on the issue, or they wouldn't bring it up. Even if the people bringing it up are being disingenuous, that still leaves voters they're pandering to whose willingness to act on climate change hinges on "who's pulling their weight" and who isn't, for real.

 

So why CO2 per person isn't considered the relevant criteria; yet China preventing fewer potential future polluters from being born isn't either; is still a question worth considering.

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

Right, but perceived culpability for climate change; and whether or not the response is just; affects people's motivations to act on the issue, or they wouldn't bring it up. Even if the people bringing it up are being disingenuous, that still leaves voters they're pandering to whose willingness to act on climate change hinges on "who's pulling their weight" and who isn't, for real.

 

So why CO2 per person isn't considered the relevant criteria; yet China preventing fewer potential future polluters from being born isn't either; is still a question worth considering.

!

Moderator Note

These are political issues, and you’re not posting in the politics section, so I’ve moved it.

Discussion should now be limited to politics

 

[CharonY]

2 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

For the record, I say this as someone who believes China needs to be called out more on its disproportionate role in foreign overfishing, in ozone depletion, etc... yet finds it odd that people deflect criticism of American greenhouse gas emissions by comparing them to total Chinese greenhouse gas emissions, instead of per-capita ones. Why is it that the total country's emissions matter more than the per capita emissions? Wouldn't it be more meaningful to compare the USA to, let's say, a randomly selected region of China containing a comparable number of people to the USA?

 

For that matter, China's "one-child policy;" though implemented more for economic reasons than for environmental ones, is estimated to have prevented hundreds of millions of births. Why, then, are the same people who deflect criticism of American greenhouse gas emissions with references to Chinese greenhouse gas emissions therefore in turn crediting the one-child policy with cutting China's greenhouse gas emissions by double-digit percentages? If it's because they're climate change denialists, how come they aren't saying so outright? If not, why is it?

First, I want to preface that often it is often problematic to assess policies on a single dimension. However, I cam across a paper a while ago, indicating that overall  the population growth pattern in China might have not been that affected in composite. I should add that there is not a singular policy in China, but there were several approaches. The first in the early 70s encouraged later marriage and fewer children, which had almost immediate impact on fertility, and then the one-child policy enacted at the end of the 70s. The study that I have in mind argued that the latter had little impact on fertility and that overall the trajectory would have been very similar even without that particular (i.e. one-child) policy.

If interested, let me know and I can try to dig out the reference.

[ScienceNostalgia101]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

First, I want to preface that often it is often problematic to assess policies on a single dimension. However, I cam across a paper a while ago, indicating that overall  the population growth pattern in China might have not been that affected in composite. I should add that there is not a singular policy in China, but there were several approaches. The first in the early 70s encouraged later marriage and fewer children, which had almost immediate impact on fertility, and then the one-child policy enacted at the end of the 70s. The study that I have in mind argued that the latter had little impact on fertility and that overall the trajectory would have been very similar even without that particular (i.e. one-child) policy.

If interested, let me know and I can try to dig out the reference.

I would very much like that. I used to outright condone the one-child policy, (now I'm less sure what to think of it, other than considering the objections semi-hypocritical in light of the OP) but my contempt for the Chinese government has lately been growing for obvious reasons and I would love anything that could justify considering this criterion as valid a criticism of them as all the others.

Edited December 11, 2020 by ScienceNostalgia101

[J.C.MacSwell]

Has the climate been saved?

[ScienceNostalgia101]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Has the climate been saved?

Not yet, but if it's "urgent just barely short of too late" now, it might've been simply "too late" if not for the hundreds of millions of potential polluters prevented from being born.

 

That said, this whole notion might be re-evaluated based on the case CharonY's source has to make.

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

I would very much like that. I used to outright condone the one-child policy, (now I'm less sure what to think of it, other than considering the objections semi-hypocritical in light of the OP) but my contempt for the Chinese government has lately been growing for obvious reasons and I would love anything that could justify considering this criterion as valid a criticism of them as all the others.

The paper I had in mind was from Gietel-Basten et al. published in Plos one (2019). I think you should be able to find it by googling the name and journal. It is open access, but let me know if you have trouble getting it. 

I should add that there other papers trying to assess the potential environmental impact of the policy but I think most are making rather rough assumptions and have been criticized for that. This does not mean that there is no other lit around, I just did not come across it, which should not be very surprising as these is way outside my area of expertise.

[ScienceNostalgia101]

Got it, thanks! The abstract looks very promising and I'll read the rest of it when I get a chance.

[ScienceNostalgia101]

Revisiting this thread after finally having finished the article (okay... text-to-audio thereof) I am taken aback by how recurring is the theme; and how strong a case is made; that the likelihood of children living to adulthood is tied to parents not feeling the need to have as many children.

 

I'm kind of left wondering one thing, though.

 

Why, if the case against population control is so strong, is the first instinct, of the vast majority of its opponents, to either say something like "what if you were never born" or to request the suicide of the person advocating population control? The former is a weak argument if only for the case for population control attracting people who perceive themselves; rightly or wrongly; as caring more about the environment than others do, hence the "need to not be born" lesser than that of others (hence eco-fanatics like David Suzuki having several children and telling others not to do the same) and the latter has the additional flaw of all the time and money that already WAS spent raising and educating oneself going to waste, if only because one dies before one can contribute to the economy and/or environment, let alone before one can experience the later stages of life.

[Sensei]

On 12/12/2020 at 1:06 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Has the climate been saved?

People who eat too much, and are overweight, think "I will go on diet, will lose some kilos". Even if they succeed, most of them return back to their beloved previous diet.. Which ends up gaining kilos back..

Actually the same is with climate crisis. If humankind will make some radical movements to reduce climate change and go back to e.g. XVIII or early XIX century levels, and then after years of relief, will return to "good old times and actions", anthropocentric climate change crisis will return like yo-yo effect..

From current perspective you can only make computer simulations "what would happen if Chinese would not introduce one-child policy in the past". e.g. estimate amount of people who would live in China more than now without this policy. What is amount of additional CO₂, CH₄ , NOx etc. and other pollutants per capita, and multiply them together. Integrate it over years.

It reminded me of "good"/"unexpected" effects of COVID-19 on climate change crisis:

https://www.google.com/search?q=shutting+down+factories+china+coronavirus+climate+change

There should be also available on-line similar map of China with CO₂ emission from Feb'19 and Feb'20.

With renewable energy sources used to make energy, the map from the right will be "forever" true, as long as no coal & oil are used by drivers to run their cars, buses, devices, power plants..

 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-climate-change-pollution-emissions-china-a9427356.html

"Coal consumption at power plants has fallen by 36 per cent and restrictions have led to a 25 per cent drop in energy use and carbon emissions, according to the Centre for Research and Clean Air (Crea), which is based in Finland."

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Sensei

[Sensei]

On 12/11/2020 at 9:09 PM, joigus said:

China is not only very highly populated. It's very densely populated as well, when compared to, eg., Russia and Canada.

Bad example..

Find out what the population density in Japan is: the equivalent of what the Earth will have if 50 billion people live on it at the same time.

https://www.google.com/search?q=japan+density+of+population

https://www.google.com/search?q=earth+area+in+sq+km

https://www.google.com/search?q=percentage+of+land+and+water+on+earth

~ 510.1 millions km^2 * 334.62 people/km^2 (average density in Japan in 2020) = ~ 170.7 billions * 0.29 (land area of the Earth) = ~49.5 billions of people.

 

China has ~153 people per sq km (2020):

https://www.google.com/search?q=china+density+of+population&oq=china+density+of+population

 

It is basically "Calhoun's experiment but with human"..

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Sensei

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Actually the same is with climate crisis. If humankind will make some radical movements to reduce climate change and go back to e.g. XVIII or early XIX century levels, and then after years of relief, will return to "good old times and actions", anthropocentric climate change crisis will return like yo-yo effect..

Doubtful. There is a financial incentive to get away from fossil fuels - "green" energy is cheaper.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

Doubtful. There is a financial incentive to get away from fossil fuels - "green" energy is cheaper.

 

Isn't that currently still dependant on green subsidies and carbon taxes?

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Doubtful. There is a financial incentive to get away from fossil fuels - "green" energy is cheaper.

Building "green" house costs more than regular one (e.g. specially prepared walls and roof, which lose less energy winter).

In capitalist environment, you have to have money or borrow them. In my post, I imagined hypothetical situation after centuries without climate crisis, in which people started using coal again to heat houses.. Use imagination a bit.. There have been many "dark ages" in the past. You have e.g. solar panels, electronics just because of globalization and transportation of goods from Asia. After shutdown of globalization, existing solar panels won't last forever, after dozen of years they will stop working. More and more countries make their own independent closed Internet networks. Many countries already are able to shutdown transmission from them, or to them entirely. Without exchange of knowledge, information, ideas people will have no idea how things work. They won't be able to fix existing broken things. They won't even understand how things work. Actually at the moment majority of computer and smartphone owners have no idea how these things work. The only reliable way to fix computers and smartphones and other electronics is replacement of element from second broken unit. The number of units produced is limited. So after a few dozen to a few centuries nobody will be able to run these devices anymore..

Edited December 23, 2020 by Sensei

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Building "green" house costs more than regular one (e.g. specially prepared walls and roof, which lose less energy winter).

Up front, perhaps, but what about lifetime costs?

And I was talking about energy generation. 

 

Quote

In capitalist environment, you have to have money or borrow them. In my post, I imagined hypothetical situation after centuries without climate crisis, in which people started using coal again to heat houses.. Use imagination a bit.. There have been many "dark ages" in the past. You have e.g. solar panels, electronics just because of globalization and transportation of goods from Asia. After shutdown of globalization, existing solar panels won't last forever, after dozen of years they will stop working.

So in ~20 years when you want to replace solar panels, will solar be cheaper, or more expensive than it is now? Will fossil fuels be cheaper or more expensive?

Further more, what will be the incentive to go back to e.g. internal combustion engine vehicles if a robust EV infrastructure is developed in that time? Why would companies resurrect such manufacturing? Already we're seeing the shift to electric vehicles from major automakers. 

 

Quote

More and more countries make their own independent closed Internet networks. Many countries already are able to shutdown transmission from them, or to them entirely. Without exchange of knowledge, information, ideas people will have no idea how things work. They won't be able to fix existing broken things.

This particular dystopian scenario is purely guesswork.

Quote

They won't even understand how things work. Actually at the moment majority of computer and smartphone owners have no idea how these things work. The only reliable way to fix computers and smartphones and other electronics is replacement of element from second broken unit. The number of units produced is limited. So after a few dozen to a few centuries nobody will be able to run these devices anymore..

Not seeing the connection with climate change.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Isn't that currently still dependant on green subsidies and carbon taxes?

Subsidies have been getting reduced in the US, AFAIK, and we have no carbon tax. Fossil fuels are still subsidized.

It's not clear that a carbon tax would subsidize solar or wind, but it would make the hurdle for fossil fuel even higher

[J.C.MacSwell]

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

Subsidies have been getting reduced in the US, AFAIK, and we have no carbon tax. Fossil fuels are still subsidized.

It's not clear that a carbon tax would subsidize solar or wind, but it would make the hurdle for fossil fuel even higher

Yes. It wouldn't be necessary that the carbon taxes go to subsidies. Simply make them appropriate to the damage they cause. (not an easy calculation, and every country or state would look at it differently, with some preferring to have the environment "subsidize" their industries with a lack of it, to give themselves a trade advantage)

The problem is the political will to do it, for all 7+ and growing billion of us.

Edited December 23, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

not an easy calculation

It kinda is... 

The political will, depends on who has the most... 😉

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

It kinda is... 

What is even the average cost of the environmental damage produced by  extraction, refinement, transportation, and use of 1,000 litres of gasoline?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What is even the average cost of the environmental damage

Cost is the operative word

[J.C.MacSwell]

41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Cost is the operative word

No kinda easy calculation for that operative word?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Yes. It wouldn't be necessary that the carbon taxes go to subsidies. Simply make them appropriate to the damage they cause. (not an easy calculation, and every country or state would look at it differently, with some preferring to have the environment "subsidize" their industries with a lack of it, to give themselves a trade advantage)

The problem is the political will to do it, for all 7+ and growing billion of us.

It's slightly easier for areas that are not replacing infrastructure because they don't have the limitations in place from legacy systems (similar to areas that installed wifi from the start, not having to replaced wired systems). Distributed generation, for example, is probably easier when you don't have a centralized distribution system already in place. (easier both logistically and politically)

That means that the folks who aren't currently part of the problem are less likely to become part of the problem.

[iNow]

I’m reminded of the outcry about how the economy would be damaged by replacing horse drawn carriages with cars