I know the question sounds strange. But what's even stranger, at least to me, is that it's something we don't talk about. It's taboo, even.
The human population was half what it is now when I was born. It was half that when my grandfather was born.
To maximize economic efficiency renewables need to supply more than 80% of the country's energy. We can do this with today's technology, and if we did, we'd solve climate change.
Population growth, development, and lifestyle choices have significant environmental consequences that affect issues like climate change, species extinction, food shortages, water availability, and pollution.
Slowing population growth could provide 16-29% of the emissions reductions necessary by 2050 to avoid dangerous climate change.
I've spent several hours over the last couple weeks interviewing Sandy MacDonald and his small research team from NOAA about the proposal MacDonald thinks can solve climate change.
Depending on how you choose to solve the trolley problem, Jack is either the villain or the protagonist of the narrative.
An extinction event does not necessarily have to be sudden and catastrophic. I learned from Kolbert that continual downward pressure, even gentle pressure, on a population will drive a species to extinction over the course of hundreds or thousands of years.
The two greatest threats the United States (and other nations) face could be solved by a single infrastructure project that could be done now with existing technology.