I think you are right that Drawdown is doing good work, and trying to compare things that are quite difficult to compare. At the same point, the HN community should be aware that the data and models are neither open nor clearly identified, which means that we essentially have to just trust their conclusions. I work in this space [1], and when I see results with five significant digits (!) for prospective assessment it makes me very curious to see how these results were generated.

For an alternative, see the Big Open Network of Sustainability Assessment Information (BONSAI [2]; disclosure: I am chair of the board) which is trying to do similar work with open data and open science.

[1] https://chris.mutel.org/ [2] https://bonsai.uno/

That's a very good point. We recently had Chad Frischmann on a company seminar. I remember him talking about releasing the models. I'll try and reach out to see an ETA. We do need science and not well intentioned belief.

From a CO2 standpoint wouldn't it be good to stop subsidizing immigration to the first world? It's not just delta-population it's people moving from a low consumption environment to a high consumption one.

Won't do a thing. Developing nations are, well, developing. They're steadily increasing their energy use wholesale. Immigration is just a rounding error; a small amount of people who want to get slightly ahead of the progress curve of their home countries.

Is it possible that the outflow of people from a developing nation reduces population pressure in that nation such that population there increases?

More effective is educating women, getting them in the workforce and providing birth control. All will result in pop. stabilization.

Where did you get the idea that immigration was subsidized? It's often extremely expensive.

This is a good summary but since 1996 immigrants are generally eligible for the same government subsidies as citizens. https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeli...

"The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household. The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household. Housing costs are about the same for both groups." https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Welfare-Use-Immigrant-and-Native...

That does not take into account that said immigrant had their education paid for by another country and starts paying taxes on day one. Tax payers have to prep local population for 20 plus years before they start contributing.

Do you think they are paying more in taxes than recieving?

Having worked in the landscaping industry I know that paying under the table is not uncommon for immigrants.

The first link plainly states "After these laws’ enactment, most lawfully residing immigrants were barred from receiving assistance under the major federal benefits programs for five years or longer."?

Is this really "subsidising immigration?" I mean, immigrants have costs too, and most of the few remaining things they are eligible for are emergency assistance of one sort or another. What this argument turns into in practice is "people who have resided in the first world for years as workers who hit economic trouble should starve or be deported".

Hardly anyone comes to the first world to live off public assistance. It's either a matter of survival/safety or a search for opportunity.

> Hardly anyone comes to the first world to live off public assistance. It's either a matter of survival/safety or a search for opportunity.

This is objectively wrong though. If they were to use the actual law for refugees, they have to seek asylum in the first country they arrive in, yet they all travel onwards to the EU, to the 4th or so European country, and they do get on welfare and live off public assistance.

If they were seeking safety, they would stay in the first country, Turkey. But obviously, Turkey does not have generous free packages, so they - as you said -, search for opportunity to receive free stuff, i.e. move to far away countries where they would be eligible for welfare (public assistance).

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/non-citizens-u...

https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfa...

63% non-citizen households are on welfare. This is not hardly anyone.

Note: I realize that the statistics above are concerned with the US and not the EU, but it refutes the quoted statement.

---

This does not necessarily apply to immigrants from other European countries migrating to the UK, for example. They are the ones searching for opportunities alone[1], and not safety. There are many definitions of safety, and in this case I was referring to safety in terms of fleeing from war zones, and as far as I am concerned, those European countries these people (from this example) are migrating from are not a war zone.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7...

[1] Of course one could migrate to another country simply because they offer more free stuff. I do not deny that.

On the other hand, in Germany:

> In April 2018 more than half, at 55%, of the recipients of unemployment benefits had a migration background. According to the Federal Employment Agency (German: Bundesagentur für Arbeit) this was due to the migrants lacking either employable skills or knowledge of the language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany

http://www.dnn.de/Nachrichten/Politik/Jeder-zweite-Hartz-IV-...

Note that they may take into account people from other European countries, too, i.e. not refugees.

---

> I mean, immigrants have costs too

Do immigrants who work have a cost? I could migrate to the US from a non-warzone and I believe it would not cost the US anything, but would make money off of me.

Safety and opportunity, perhaps? I'm not entirely sure that Turkey will count as "safe" in the medium term either, especially not for non-Muslim refugees. There are several million Syrians there already.

> receive free stuff

I do with people who said things like this had to live on the actual level of public assistance for a month or so. It's really not a lot. £37.75 a week in the UK, just under £2k a year, not including housing.

Yeah, I edited my first post. There are many ways to define safety and I really do not wish us to talk over each other so these definitions need to be laid out before we proceed into a preferably non-heated argument. :)

I agree that Turkey does not necessarily count or be perceived as safe to non-Muslim refugees. I am not sure of the percentage of such refugees either. Regarding safety, I can only assume that it is safer living in Turkey than living in an actual war zone, even if you are a non-Muslim. So since Turkey is not a war zone, if you are looking for a way out of a war zone, for safety, then you will settle down in the nearest safe place, unless of course safety is not the only criteria.

I would also like to say that Syria is safe outside of certain areas thanks to the Syrian army and Russia liberating it from the "moderate" rebels (terrorists). If I am wrong, do not hesitate to correct me.

Asylum is to protect someone from immediate harm, they do that by going to the nearest safe place, otherwise, if they want to pick and choose, unfortunately they need to apply for a visa like everyone else and likely would not be entitled to public assistance (free stuff) down that route, so it is not attractive to them. Especially considering the migrant-intent visas or dual intent visas have a high threshold for skills which they likely would not meet and would have to rely on the other visas that prohibit seeking permanent residency, so instead these people from non-war zones just go to whatever country they want, burn their fingertips, and apply for asylum in the place that gives them the most free stuff. EU knows this, hence why they are now paying said economic migrants a way back home where it was safe in the first place.

People are fleeing safe countries, to very specific countries based on their high benefits payout. Such as: being in some areas of Syria is safe, travelling to Turkey, safe, travelling all the way up the EU area to France where they were safe at all points, endangering everybody on a raft to illegally enter the UK, etc. There is no other reason than welfare. If they had family in that country, they can apply for a visa on that.

We also have to note that "immigrants" and "refugees" are not exactly the same thing, but seemingly have used it interchangeably. :/

> The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is a non-profit organization and think tank[3] "that favors far lower immigration numbers and produces research to further those views."[4]

Looks like the report in your second link is more propaganda than science.

Do you have any evidence to back up that statement?

In any case, I do not think that UK records the information in terms of non-UK and UK citizenship (or from European countries vs non-European countries), but if you can find it, please let me know.

Per capita, Developed countries produce a lot more CO2 than Developing and Undeveloped countries.

Given the Developed countries have the money and the means, the best thing from a global CO2 standpoint would be if the Developed countries led the way on reducing their emissions.

My gut feeling is that people entering a middle class lifestyle in their own countries far outnumber those doing so by migration. I might be wrong though.

The current paradigm in the US was to encourage immigration from the third world and then provide them subsidy for living expenses and making a bigger family. The goal of this appears to me to be about increasing consumption in the US and I would think this enables a much higher level of CO2 emission vs what would be generated under the different economic conditions in their home country.

But still, people who do so are far outnumbered by those entering middle class in other countries. It's not about migration. Fighting global warming by limiting economic growth is simply not going to work.

My idea of a solution to global warming is no solution: accept that the global warming will happen, discover its consequences, and make them a part of economic planning on both government and corporate level. Make people educated about it. That's it.

I also agree that other countries are improving their economic situation and increasing consumption there adds up to global warming, not migration.

what regards "no solution" this is so shortsighted that it's even difficult to decide where to start in disagreeing :)

it's easy to say "screw it, let's see what happens" but take this angle: let's say EU will make everything to reduce climate change effects, but other regions not. In event of radical climate change people will start migrating to more safe regions, including EU, so EU will pay partially price for those regions who did not do any effort to reduce climate change. I don't want to pay price for sea level rising just because USA wanted to gain some short-term gains.

also trading your life safety for economic gains sounds ridiculous.

> enforcing worldwide policy for CO2 reduction

This is what things like Kyoto were intended to be.

> Machinegun the boats

This is the kind of thing we executed Nazis for at Nuremberg. It's called a crime against humanity for good reason.

To not tackle population increases is to acquiesce in the suffering of greater numbers of humans as global warming really kicks in. Population control is the kind thing to do.

Population increase is already tackling itself except for the Sub-Saharan Africa where people produce almost no CO2 anyway coz they are dirt poor. It is safe to say that increased consumption decreases reproduction rate by itself simply because people have other things to do.

I don't think there's any country in Central or Southern America that's a third world country (except for Haiti?).

And for me, as an outsider, it seems ridiculous to consider the US as a country of "subsidies for living expenses". Isn't the US notorious as being basically the only developed country without a welfare state? :)

>And for me, as an outsider, it seems ridiculous to consider the US as a country of "subsidies for living expenses".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_S...

>Isn't the US notorious as being basically the only developed country without a welfare state? :)

The US spends $10,203 per capita on public expenditure. That's dead set with Switzerland ($10,412), not that far behind Finland ($11,858), and much higher than Canada ($7,352).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#Effects_of_socia...

Glad I could help you become a little less ignorant :)

If it's the same situation as for pharma in the US (the US spends a ton on it, medical expenses are way higher than in most of the world), my "ignorant" comments are still warranted. I've never seen as many homeless people in France or Germany, for example, as I've seen in the US. I have seen fewer even back in Romania.

I'm glad for your expenses, but you're not getting your money's worth.

A major component of the homeless issue was Supreme Court decisions making it extremely difficult to involuntarily commit mentally ill people into residential treatment and compel taking of medication for their conditions. A good summary can be found at https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/ivc/involuntary-commitment-c...

This has led to a spiral self-medicating with alcohol and illegal drugs and of dealing with the mentally ill through the criminal infrastructure or through rampant homelessness.

There are other drivers of course, but I believe the vast majority can be traced to the inability of the state to force treatment on those who are obviously ill.

Sure. It would also be better, from a CO2 standpoint, for developing countries to stop developing.

These are obvious non-starters. It’d be rich people saying “fuck you, got mine”.

Would it really be better? It takes money to do all of things people want to do to reduce CO2. That's what developing produces.

I think a lot of people view money as a way to buy stuff. That's true but they'd be better off view money as magic. Making it creates problems but on the upside: magic.

But you're also moving people from a low productivity environment to a high productivity one.

Better option regarding both CO2 and immigration, IMHO:

* Global programme to drastically reduce birthrate.

* Global development programme based on good governance and actual results, not just "sending money".

Global programmes to drastically reduce birthrate already exist. They accomplish it by educating women.

Considering the growth of the world's population they don't seem to be accomplishing much...

totally agree here

there should be a global program to give welfare payments for those willing to participate in a birth control program

How is this different from eugenics?

Unless you believe that poverty is genetic, encouraging the poor not to have children has nothing to do with eugenics.

Birth control has nothing to do with eugenics.

It depends how you do it. Giving money to the poor to not have kids kind of sound like eugenics.

Educating them (especially women), giving them contraceptives, etc., is the positive approach to this, in my opinion.

Nothing to do with eugenics. Eugenics is about selection to improve the gene pool.

The issue here is to make those who have a lot of children have less children. Giving money, and contraceptives, and free sterilisation, and education should all be done.

I agree that giving money, contraceptives, free (voluntary) sterilization and education would be a good idea, but to make the money contingent on either sterilization, the use of birth control or even a promise to not have children would have a disproportionate effect on the underprivileged and would lead to the effects of eugenics based on economic station.

Edit: Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#Affec...

> Funding of welfare mothers by HEW (Health, Education, and Welfare) covers roughy 90% of cost and doctors are likely to concur with the compulsory sterilization of welfare mothers. Threats to cease welfare occur when women are hesitant to consent.

You seem to be looking for imaginary excuses and reasons not to do anything...

If we don't make things happen, education by itself might take 20 years for the first results. We need to change things very quickly. We're already very late and made things worse by improving survival rates without enforcing birth control.

Well, the thing is, someone has to actually do it. I, for one, don't want to be the one that imposes how many kids someone can have. So knock yourself out if you want to do that ;)

You seem to be looking for imaginary crusades. There are already a number of organizations who are actively helping in effective and thought-out ways. Planned Parenthood is a great organization which provides actual help rather than fear based, reactionary responses.

I don't understand the point of policing birth control. Just introduce a flat child tax instead of handing out child benefits.

They keep out of it from a human rights perspective and I agree. It obviously would help, but what's the end state in that world? Haves and have-nots? That's quite Hunger Gamian / dystopian.

An important note is that they use a global perspective rather than individual perspective in their solutions. While food is a bigger issue than energy when taking a global perspective, it comes down to the fact that a lot more people eat food than uses energy. For the individual a change in energy will create a bigger impact than a change in diet, assuming the person is using energy in the first place (ie transportation, travel, heating, appliances).

Or to put it in an other word, if we can get the full population of earth to stop eating meat it will do more good than getting the few percentages of the population that benefit from burning fossil fuels to switch to more Eco-friendly alternatives. A single flight with a plane represent quite a few eaten goats of C02 for people living in the poorest places in the world, but there is a lot of people in the world.

As Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh could have said, making the transition to a plant-based diet may be the most effective way an individual can stop climate change as long they already go by bike and don't travel beyond the range of said bike. They should also make sure that heating isn't created through coal, oil, or gas. Heat from burning garbage is an complicated issue, but I suspect it should also be avoided.

On the delta people, is the current projected sigmoid good enough or way too slow?

That's one in the podcast. Some African countries do the full demographic transition within a decade (!). That means bringing girls from the home to school, increasing their wealth creating capacity and hence less and later children. That's very hopeful. Let's say that with all the (religion based) wars for parts of Africa and Asia things are looking less hopeful. You can only include females in human capital when there is relative peace. I think their focus and girl development for the ultimate goal of less CO2 ppm was the first time I grokked some of the more modern gender discussion which I usually cannot relate to (mostly because of terminology and fervour, not for a lack of basic instinct of trying).

Is there any work being done on developing low carbon foods that people actually want to eat? It seems to me that the real obstacle to more sustainable food is that most people don't like eating it.

If by developing you mean already exists, then yes. We already know what foods are high carbon, and it is mostly animal agricture, specifically ruminants due to their high energy input to calorie ratio, and methane emissions.

We also know there are tons of ways to eat plant based. Have you had Ethiopian, Chinese or Indian dish without meat? Ever subbed meat for beans in a burrito? A great homemade black bean burger, or a snack of hummus? It's easier than ever to eat plant based and cook a whole planet's worth of cusine without resorting to processed fake meats

Good point. Maybe it's more of an educational thing. I'm currently trying to reduce the amount of meat that I eat and until someone told me, I honestly didn't realize that rice + beans = a complete protein.

I know this sounds dumb, but a lot of the difficulty I'm having now is figuring out how to structure plant based meals when I'm used to the structure "a piece of meat with some vegetables on the side or as toppings". Its not so much that I miss meat as much as it is that I feel like my meal is missing something and I'm not sure what non-animal thing should fill that role.

I agree with everything you've said. We really need fewer people and won't get there fast enough. This planet can only sustain about half the people we already have.

We are acidying our oceans at an alarming rate and the consequences will come like a tsunami. We're on pace to completely drain the Ogallala Aquifer in the very near future and our main food production capabilities will disappear along with them. The C02 tax will happen but it will be built into very limited food and drinkable water supply and their absorbent prices. We will slowly starve ourselves out first from the poorest countries and the richest ones last. It will be a very painful process. Thanos would be a mercy.