Large: 17-08-30_GarrettMurtaugh-CNFamPlanning


Tim Garrett: Only Collapse of Industrial Civilization Dieoff will Prevent Climate Catastrophe

Tim Garrett is a physics professor and climate change researcher, at the Atmospheric Sciences, University of Utah. He is also Co-Founder and President, Particle Flux Analytics, Fallgatter Technologies.

Dr. Garrett is the author of the study that concludes that only civilization collapse can stop climate catastrophe: Are there basic physical constraints on future anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide? Climatic Change, 2011, News Articles; No way out? The double-bind in seeking global prosperity alongside mitigated climate change, Earth System Dynamics, 2012.

Dr. Tim Garrett says civilization must collapse to avert devastating climate change – Radio EcoShock: The Big Picture: Like it or Not [SQ Copy].

In a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist argues that rising carbon dioxide emissions – the major cause of global warming – cannot be stabilized unless the world’s economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day. – Utah University News Center: Is Global Warming Unstoppable? [SQ Copy].

We are trapped between mindless consumerism and the thoughtless destruction of the environment. Tim Garrett calls our dilemma a double bind. The only thing that will save us from a deadly warming of the planet is the very thing that will destroy most of us if it happens —the complete crash of the global economy and its CO2 emitting process of “building wealth.” Homo economicus is too busy converting his rich environment into monetary tokens to think about the consequences of what he is doing or perceive the impending crash of the earth’s biosphere that will take care of the human overshoot problem and all the transient material wealth that has been covetously accumulated and guarded. Rising oceans, floods, fire, drought, and various superstorms from a damaged biosphere will take it all back and destroy it. For a species that has created a throw-away society, such an end is fitting. With every loss we inflict upon biodiversity, extinction creeps ever closer toward us. The consequences of ignoring the hard laws of physics, chemistry, and biology will be dire. – Collapse of Industrial Civilization: Say Goodbye to the Holocene Epoch.
» SS DEFCON: SQSwans: Timothy Garrett.


Paul Murtaugh: Every Child Increases Parents Carbon Footprint by a Factor of 20

Paul Murtaugh is an Emeritus Professor in the Statistics Departement at the University of Oregon.

In “Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals,” [PDF] statistician Paul Murtaugh and others from Oregon State University argued that a person’s reproductive choices must be considered together with his or her everyday activities to work out that person’s impact on the global environment.

In their 2009 paper, Murtaugh et al proposed a mechanism to quantify the consequences of the childbearing decisions of an individual.

Their premise is that a person is responsible for the carbon emissions of his or her descendants — each parent is responsible for half of the emissions of their children and a quarter of the emissions of their grandchildren, and so on.

Under this scheme, the consequences of reproduction have a huge impact on an individual’s long-term carbon legacy. The potential savings from reduced reproduction are dramatic compared to that achievable by lifestyle changes.

The authors found, for example, that a woman living in the United States who implemented certain lifestyle changes over the course of her life — including increasing car fuel economy, reducing driving distances, replacing old windows, light bulbs and refrigerators with energy-efficient models, and recycling — would save approximately 486 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

By having two children however, that same woman would contribute almost 40 times more carbon dioxide to the air.

Put another way: [w]hen we set the size of our families, we are, each in our own small way, determining how the world of the future will look. And we’re doing this not just for ourselves and our own children; we’re doing it for everyone else’s children, too.
– Family Planning: A Major Environmental Emphasis [SQ Copy].
» SS DEFCON: SQSwans: Paul Murtaugh.


China’s One Child Policy

Deng Xiaoping introduced China’s one child policy in 1978-79, to halt – an average of 6 children per family – population growth. On 25 Sep 1980 an official public letter called on all citizens to adhere to the one child policy. The One Child policy was enacted and managed by the National Population and Family Planning Commission, through incentives, persuasion and coercion. Unofficial figures claim approximately 300-400 million births were prevented between 1978-2015. A 2008 survey reported that 76% of the Chinese public support the law. Less than 10% of Chinese families have taken advantage of the Chinese governments relaxation of the law to a two child policy; citing environmental and economic reasons for their adherence to the one child policy rule.
– Mojo: 10 China’s One-Child Policy Facts; Suzanne Transki: One Child Policy Documentary; ASPO: Al Bartlett on China’s One Child Population Policy.

Al Bartlett: China’s One Child Policy: China has reduced its population by preventing an estimated 300 million births, which is a far greater contribution to climate change reductions; than any other country. – ASPO: Al Bartlett on China’s One Child Population Policy.

The one-child policy, a part of the family planning policy, was a population planning policy of China. It was introduced in 1979 and began to be formally phased out in 2015. The policy allowed exceptions for many groups, including ethnic minorities. In 2007, 36% of China’s population was subject to a strict one-child restriction, with an additional 53% being allowed to have a second child if the first child was a girl. Provincial governments imposed fines for violations, and the local and national governments created commissions to raise awareness and carry out registration and inspection work.
According to the Chinese government, 400 million births were prevented. This claim has been called “false” by scholars, because “three-quarters of the decline in fertility since 1970 occurred before the launching of the one-child policy; and most of the further decline in fertility since 1980 can be attributed to economic development.” Thailand and Iran, along with the Indian states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu, have had similar declines of fertility without a one-child policy. Although 76% of Chinese people supported the policy in a 2008 survey, it was controversial outside of China.
On October 29, 2015, it was reported that the existing law would be changed to a two-child policy, citing a statement from the Communist Party of China. The new law became effective on January 1, 2016, following its passage in the standing committee of the National People’s Congress on December 27, 2015.
» IG: 17-08-21_jbrent-humansendspecies-1child17-08-28_danapittard-fplanning-2.


Practice Birth Control/Implement Family Planning for the Revolution

Implement [EoP – breed & consume below ecological carrying capacity
limits – Intnl Law] Family Planning for [orderly & humane de-population
& de-industrialization race, religious & cultural planetary] Revolution!

Practice Birth control/Implement Family Planning for the Revolution, 1974

Designer: Xiang Yang (向阳)
1974, March
Carry out birth planning for the revolution
Wei geming shixing jihua shengyu (为革命实行计划生育)
Publisher: Shanghai renmin chubanshe (上海人民出版社)
Size: 53×76.5 cm.
Call number: BG E12/608 (IISH collection)
An intensive campaign for birth control is started in the 1970s. Contraceptives, such as the pill, are free.

Contraceptives became widely available only in 1962, coinciding with the reaffirmation of the need for birth planning work. It was seen as key component of the exonomic recovery strategy following the grain and food crisis of the failed Great Leap. Even during the Cultural Revolution, and in particular after 1969, steady progress was made with setting up an administrative framework for planning policies. Yet, family planning remained voluntary until 1970. In that year, and again with Mao’s explicit blessing, a beginning was made with a sustained attempt to implement family planning as part of a policy to reduce the birth rate to 2%. – Chinese Posters:Population Policy: Birth Control for the Revolution.
» IG: 17-08-29_eopaxis-famplanningrevcomm.