We have already covered the population level issue, it certainly is a problem and will continue to increase its relevance to AGW, but there is not a direct correlation between population growth and carbon emissions. They are not two separate issues but they certainly have separate statistical causes. To suggest this is the only reason (or, at least for now, a major reason) we have a problem with carbon emissions is simply not backed up by evidence. It certainly will become more and more of an issue for AGW as so-called third world countries demand they are permitted to use equal resources to us to bring their populations' incomes up to speed (considering a great deal of the advantage "first world countries have had is from exploitation of other countries, it is difficult to question this. Difficult, but not impossible).
""renewables" are appearing to be just as dirty as coal," What data are you using to make such a claim? How are you defining "dirty" (though I can think of no defined example which would back up this claim)? Have you looked at the emissions (not just CO2) and damage coal mining and burning for energy produces? Are you familiar with decommissioning/remediation costs? You would need to be to make such a claim with any certainty.
- "We have already covered the population level issue, it certainly is a problem and will continue to increase its relevance to AGW, but there is not a direct correlation between population growth and carbon emissions."
Less population means less consumption. Less consumption equals less emissions. It's not rocket "science".
- "We have a problem with carbon emissions is simply not backed up by evidence."
Any evidence is stifled because it goes against the climate change mantra and agendas of those who propagate the hoax for profit.
- Renewables such as solar are "dirty" and burn fossil fuels to produce - namely in dirty China.
Aluminium, glass, silicon, plastics, electronics and copper does not grow on trees.
Ironically, coal comes from trees.
Evidence/data on how much carbon does it take to make a solar panel?
I'm still waiting on a response from Xi Jinping on that.
Whilst I'm waiting perhaps I can get a nice fat gubbermint grant to employ a plethora of dedicated quasi-scientists, Uni drop-outs, hippies and the odd Greta clone to collect and fiddle the figures to suit my employment tenure as required.
Actual data collected is either ridiculed, muted or the messenger is shot as evidenced already.
Coal is certainly not the answer to future world energy needs.
Neither is solar or wind.
Imagine if the same funding and hyperbola was made available to other energy technologies.
Tidal would be my first option.
3/4 of this planet's surface is covered in free, clean, regularly moving fluid.
I'll let the real scientists ponder on that. I might share my grant with them for R&D.