I can understand why governments would push for something like this after 9/11, though it of course goes without saying that this is a totally unacceptable violation of someone’s basic rights. It also goes without saying that governments always want more control over their citizens, but what exactly are they so worried might happen, right now, in 2025 or the near future?
We are realistically looking at losing between 200 million and 1 billion people over the next 20 years due to climate-change induced famine and heat stroke. Those are realistic estimates. More optimistic scenarios could make that number less, more pessimistic ones could reduce it. We are on the eve of what future histories may refer to as the Great Hunger.
Even for those lucky enough to not live in regions being rendered uninhabitable, the quality of life for the average citizen is collapsing. The developing world will experience mass famine. The developed world will experience food prices not seen since the advent of mechanized agriculture. Home prices will continue to become more unaffordable, as more and more homes are destroyed by rapidly increasing natural disasters. In the US, tens of millions of homeowners are going to have their primary asset, their homes, rendered completely worthless after they become uninsurable. Governments can try to prop up the insurance market if they want, but not even national governments have the resources to subsidize an insurance market in an era of spiraling natural catastrophes.
Leaders around the world see a future of chaos, famine, and strife. Really all the Four Horseman are coming out. In developed countries, leaders fear millions of desperate poor people from developing countries trying to cross their borders. Internally, they fear violence by their own populations, who are seeing their standard of living rapidly collapse.
The borders are being locked down. The walls are going up. People everywhere are being increasingly surveilled and controlled. Political leaders might be cynical enough to deny climate change for political gain, but that doesn’t mean they’re ignorant to the actual future we’re running headfirst into. Technology is also advancing, allowing “mass shooter” type individuals to potentially cause much larger acts of destruction in the future.
Most governments would prefer to maintain power by actually improving the lives of their citizens. That’s the safest and most moral approach. But in a world of rapidly spiraling climate change, governments simply are not capable of on improving the lives of their citizens. They can’t even maintain the standard of living their citizens already have. So, the leaders have to turn to more brute force methods to retain control. Best to be loved. But if you can’t be loved, then at least be feared.
Who’s “we”?
https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/population
“The world’s population is projected to continue growing for the next 50 to 60 years, peaking at approximately 10.3 billion by the mid-2080.[sic]”
Those projections assume agricultural yields have no effect on human well being or numbers. They don’t factor in climate induced bread basket collapse.
Oh I don’t dispute that we can only reach and sustain such vastly inflated populations without significant fossil fuel inputs, I just want to know your source. Are you implying the UN forgot to take agriculture into account?
Yes. That’s exactly it. They assume business as usual. And your source is a landing page, not an actual source. And even then, that site doesn’t discuss any effect of climate change on population projections. You just blindly linked to the UN’s population agency.
For every degree of Celsius warming, farm yields of major staple crops decline 16-20%. We’re already at 1.5C warming, and the rate of warming is rapidly increasing. We’re looking at another 0.5-1.5C increase by 2050. There’s no way this doesn’t lead to mass famine on a Biblical scale.
This paper in Nature predict 4-14% in total global food production by 2050 due to climate effects. And these are using the RPC models, which we’re learning are far too conservative in their predictions. I’m sure if everyone in the world went vegan tomorrow, we could absorb a 10% decline in agricultural production, but not a chance in Hell of that happening.
As far as the UN, they do work on climate change, but their population projections don’t factor it into account. Here is a link to the 2024 population prospects summary
When you pull open that PDF, you won’t find mention of climate change being incorporated into their methodology at all. As far as I’m aware, the UN’s figures are purely based on population pyramids, demographic factors, birth rate projections, etc. Demographers don’t like looking at factors beyond just population numbers, gender mixes, and age distributions. Other things, like war and economic policy, can certainly affect population numbers, but those are generally considered too unpredictable to properly model. The population projections you see are purely demographic models.
As far as I know, agricultural yields are never even part of their methodology. They look purely at what ages people are and how many children people of different ages have. They generally assume that resources will be available for those who want to have children. Do you have any evidence that they do take climate effects on agricultural yields into account when making their numbers?