Ken Clarke’s article about climate change in the last Echo makes many valuable points. I think the whole issue is a fascinating challenge for humanity, with many aspects to consider. Some are little known.
Cement, for example. Cement is made largely by heating limestone, which is calcium carbonate, CaCO3, to drive off the CO2 and make lime, calcium oxide, CaO. Later water is added to harden the cement, and the CO2 remains in the air, along with all the CO2 from the fossil fuels burned in heating the limestone.
Cement accounts for about seven per cent of the CO2 in global warming. So whenever the population increases, and we have to make new houses and buildings, we make global heating worse.
Population impacts
Population increase is, I think, the most fearful factor in climate change. We not only have to decrease CO2 production, we also have to do it in the face of expanding needs.
It would be a lot easier to mitigate climate change if the population were stable or decreasing. But that would require a major shift in attitudes.
It is not easy to change human attitudes, even when the need is very clear. Take transport, for example. We could plainly reduce carbon emissions by driving less, or not driving in such big cars. But people have gotten used to driving wherever they want in whatever car they want. How many people would give up a trip or a much-loved petrol hog, just because they didn’t want to cause climate change?
What are you willing to give up?
Have you ever given up a car trip, or for that matter a jet trip, just to benefit the future of humanity? I’m not very good on this score myself, and I can’t say I’ve ever heard anyone say, ‘I’d like to do a trip, but I hate to produce all that carbon.’
Much less, ‘I’d like a baby, but climate change is such a worry’.
What is the chance that we can change the belief in Africa and India, much less here, that the way to happiness is having lots of children?
India already has twice as much solar electricity as the total electricity generated in Australia, but if they are to bring their standard of living even close to ours, they will need 500 large electrical plants built in the next ten years. Population pressure is a huge factor. The only likely scenario is to burn a lot of coal. (And where will they buy all that coal?)
Really to combat climate change, people will have to make adaptations and sacrifices for the future, but we human beings are not good at that. The philosopher David Hume believed that 75 per cent of human misery, in our personal affairs, comes from our inability to give up present pleasure for the sake of future good.
Don’t expect politicians to lead us
It’s no good expecting the politicians to lead us. In a democracy, politicians are supposed to do the people’s will. They get voted out if they don’t.
We could do a lot for the climate problem if we put a heavy tax on beef and other meats, because cattle and other animals produce a lot of methane, a much more serious greenhouse gas than CO2. But what is the chance that people will give up their burgers and steaks? And what would happen if politicians imposed the tax?
Plant foods are another worry. In the short term, climate change may increase crops, because of longer growings seasons in places like Russia and the northern US states. But hot places like Africa are already suffering lower yields, and before long many places will be so hot that corn and other grains will not produce at all.
It’s not just the meat in your burgers that is threatened. Before long we will not even be able to afford the bun.
How much can science do?
There is some hope that scientists will be able to save us from this mess. Solar electricity is expanding rapidly, and to some extent this is because of thoughtful people who want to do something about climate change. But mainly it’s because scientists have managed to make solar electricity cheaper than other sources.
Electric cars are very promising, but to me it is significant that no politician in the recent election even mentioned subsidies for electric cars. Indeed there was recently a movement for an extra tax on electric cars because they don’t pay highway taxes, which come mostly from taxes on petrol.
Many proposals for green cement have been made, but none are anywhere near as cheap as conventional cement. Maybe we should consider promoting green cement with a tax on conventional cement used in new buildings? Yeah, right.
Or a tax on babies?
Population stability is by far the change that would achieve the most. It would have the advantage that people would be much richer, without the expense of babies, and would be able easily to save money for their old age. They could prepare for the extra expenses that climate change is surely going to cause, like storm damages, coastal flooding, and food shortages.
Might help with the housing crisis too.
• Charles MacFarland is a former high school teacher of mathematics
with a Bachelor of Physics from MIT.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
