There is a lot of data, theories and opinions published about global warming. Numerous remedies and international ‘targets’ are set to reduce greenhouse gases-all of them expensive, unpopular, and leading to reduced standards of living. Some are simply futile, and nearly all will impoverish most of the world’s population.

What we never hear about is that excessive releases of carbon dioxide, methane, and various nitrogen oxides that are believed to cause global warming are all caused by humans, who are believed to contribute far more of these gases than what is produced naturally.

If the world’s population were, say, halved, wouldn’t most of the problem go away?

Well, if the half that remained continued to have electric toothbrushes, air conditioners, and refrigerators, and fly in hydrocarbon-fuelled jets, I doubt that 50 per cent of the problem would go away, unless the progress in developing emissions reduction accelerates considerably. That’s because if the programme were successful, all the remaining folks would be ‘higher income’ (folks that already practise birth control) who would continue to spend on their luxuries, whereas the 50 per cent who would no longer be present would all have been poor, probably starving, and would have made little contribution to greenhouse gases.

So probably we would have to aim at a 75 per cent reduction.

Sounds terrible? Not really, because by limiting births, the reduction would be absolutely painless, and the required attrition would occur naturally by normal deaths. Imagine a partial return to the beauty, tranquillity, and pace of our childhoods.

But getting there would obviously be quite a task, since humanity seems dedicated to a belief that they must replace themselves, create an increase in population, and prolong life, because all of our history has been of trying to offset deaths by disease, natural disasters, and war.

And economists always point out the difficulties of decreasing the tax-paying working population and the hardships, such as care for the elderly, to be experienced while this reduction takes place. Capitalist gurus would scream at the suggestion, since they believe we must always have ‘growth’ to pay off the debts we have incurred, while building population to the ridiculous levels that now exist.

I suggest that population reduction is painless and far preferable to the mass drownings, starvation, destruction of the natural environment, and fights for space that must occur when sea levels rise as predicted, and the wastage on impractical solutions, no matter what the gurus say.

So why doesn’t anybody want to talk about it?

Reg Potter Glencoe