New Museum Head Says Lower Population Would Cut CO2 at Fraction of Renewable Energy Cost
The new head of the Science Museum in England has an uncompromising view about how global warming should be dealt with And that includes getting rid of a few billion people. Chris Rapley is certainly not afraid of offending anyone in his quest to cut the population, but "I am not advocating genocide," he says. "What I am saying is that if we invest in ways to reduce the birthrate - by improving contraception, education and healthcare - we will stop the world's population reaching its current estimated limit of between eight and 10 billion." And that, of course, means less CO2 heading up into the atmosphere as fewer individuals consume energy based on fossil fuels, driving the temperature up. His point is that doing this would take only a fraction of the money that it will take to bring about technological changes such as new nuclear power plants or renewable energy plants.
Of course, it's also not an issue that many people talk openly about, though there has been some significant discussion here on Treehugger. Especially when I posted about the fact that the Optimum Population Trust, a non-profit in England recently suggested that there should be an optional limit of two children for every citizen in that country who truly wants to go green, and then some parents of large families fired back that since some have none, they can have more with little net consequence. Now, in response to both global warming and flagging attendance at the museum itself, Mr. Shapley intends to focus on the issue as a way of educating people about the realities of a population increase while driving attendance at the same time. Sounds like an intriguing win/win to me