Overpopulation: The Truth In Numbers.

The Introduction is over. Argument starts now.--------------------------------------------------------------------Deforestation.Deforestation verb: To cut down and clear away the trees or forests from.1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...What defines a problem is that it can't, or isn't, being solved. Is Deforestation really a problem? Well no. Deforestation would be a problem if it weren't being solved, but it is.The world deforests what amounts to 4.5 billion trees a year (I averaged between 3-6 billion.)(2) According to NASA, there are 400 billion trees in the world.(3) This means that the forest population could last around 88.8 years. That doesn't sound very long, does it?2) http://understory.ran.org...3) http://www.npr.org...Think again. Actual deforestation estimates don't include the number of trees replanted. The US alone plants 1.5 billion trees a year from nurseries alone.(4) This alone increases the forest lifespan to 133.3 years. If the rest of the world planted 1/20th that amount per person, we'd be replanting enough trees to make the forest last 326.5 years. That's a little better.4) http://forestry.about.com...How many trees does the world grow, though? Well it's hard to tell. With Europe and (yes, shockingly) China, the number is far from small. This number also does not include the trees regrown in corporate Replacement programs, or volunteer programs. According to the UNEP Billion Trees Program, all the trees grown under the UN program equaled 2 billion in 18 months after launch.(5) If it kept up like that, we would see the program produce 1.33 billion trees a year. Has it kept up with that number? No. It's increased. The UN now plants 1.7 billion trees a year (12 billion total.)(6)5) http://www.grida.no...6) http://www.un.org...Between the UNEP program, and the US Nurseries, we replant 3.2 billion trees. Total number of plants planted would include this amount + all the other Replacement programs. Most companies that deforest have a Replacement Program, obviously they aim to keep their product growing. It also does not account for the trees that grow naturally on their own.How many trees do we think are grown each year, compared to the number of trees lost? Ask the US, whose forests are larger today than they were 100 years ago (when industry and war led the nation.)(7) The US's forest growth is 42% larger than it's forest harvesting.7) http://www.mnn.com...Food Supply.If everyone ate around average (2lb a day) than it would take 2,584,400,000 tons to feed them.That's good, because the world produces up to 4,000,000,000 tons of food.(8)8) http://www.theguardian.com...We could feed 11,000,000,000 people. The UN doesn't think we're reach that many by the end of TWO century from now (start of 2300). (9) This is good because you can feed that many people with just the land we are using for farms. Another good thing is that most city and town expansions do not intrude on the farm land we use. Most farmers in the world aren't using up-to-date technology either.9) http://www.un.org.... 27The UN's High Estimate is merely an extreme assumption. They stick with the Medium Assumption.It's important to remember that as population grows, so does farming technology and the number of farmers.ANOTHER factor... Arable Land.They believe 10.43% of all land is Arable.(10) Of all that land, they estimate only 37.5% of all Arable land is being used.(11) This means we could increase our population to 266.6% before needing a new way of farming (or better Technology, you have to remember that as time goes by, and number of people one acre can feed increases.) This is assuming we still throw away half our food. If we stopped throwing away so much food, we could increase our population to 514%. Of course some of that land is likely being used... But how much?10) https://www.cia.gov...11) http://data.worldbank.org...No more than 30%. You see, Urbanized areas (Cities, Towns, Villages) take up 3% of Earth's land...(12,13) If all of the Urban Areas was, by some odd chance, on Arable land, it would cover 28.76% of all Arable Land. Leaving 33.74% left open. This means you could still almost double the population (assuming technology doesn't increase and Urbanization growth doesn't take up more Arable land.) Of course it's highly unlikely urban areas take up that much Arable Land. In fact, the 10.43% of the land that's Arable might exclude urban land, but I'm not sure.12) http://www.livescience.com...13) http://www.earth.columbia.edu...To put this into realization for you... Off of open Arable Land, we could hold a population from... (I'm posting the year the UN's High Estimate believe we will reach this number.)2175 = 18,888,660,000 (if we wasted half of our food still.)2300 = 36,538,000,000 (if we used all our food by then)Again, the dates are based on UN High Estimate, and the population is assuming we are using the same technology. It also assumes the same portion of Farmers are using up-to-date technology. Under the UN's actual estimate, we won't reach that number until LONG after 2300, if ever.Could human's all eat like American's and us still sustain life on Earth? Yes. It'd take us not throwing away half our food, and increasing farming to 140%. Does that seem like a lot? To an extant... But that increase would leave Earth with 47.5% of it's Arable land left. We could still double our population.(14)Current Food Production = Around 5 bn tons.Production need to eat like Americans = 7 bn tons.14) http://www.npr.org...Of course, not everyone eats like an American, and America's eating problem is fixable. Only when you can't fix the problems, have Human begun to overpopulate.Global Warming.Is Global Warming real? Of course! Is it a problem? Not likely. Is it man-made? No.Temperatures have risen 1.33*F since the start of the 1900's.(15) Many people blame humans because... Well, who else could be causing Global Warming? Nature.Nature has been, in fact, for over 100's of millions of years (according to science.) In fact, in the past 1 million years, it's been very systematic.(16)15) https://www2.ucar.edu...;16) http://www.grida.no... As you can see, every 100,000 years, extreme heating pulls the world out of an Ice Age. Sometimes it takes only a decade. We already know that the prior Ice Age ended only 11,000 years age. As the chart shows, we are currently in the middle of the Global Warming cycle, in fact, our's appear to have been stopped short, being the coolest of the Warming Cycles. Only recently has it continued spiking up.Of course, this spike has a reason. CO2 emissions have increased 33% over the last century, and humans are to blame for... 3.6%.(17) 17) http://www.geocraft.com...Human's responsible for 3.6% of all CO2 emissions. To do the math for you, human's are responsible for 29 gigatons, compared to land emissions of 439, and sea emissions of 338. Well while human's increased CO2 emissions by 3.6%, total emissions have increased 33%, leaving 29.4% of the increase natural.Of course, with a GWP (Global Warming Potential) multipler of 1, once Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and Miscellaneous gases are added in, Carbon Dioxide ends up making up 72.369% of the Greenhouse Effect... If you leave out Water Vapor.Does Water Vapor really effect Global Warming? Well logically it shouldn't. It only has a GWP of 0.25, but there is so much Water Vapor in the air, that at any given time it makes up 95% of the Greenhouse effect. After adding this gas in, with it's tiny GWP, it has a maasive effect on human's total effect on the Greenhouse Effect.How much? Human's are responsible for only 0.001% of all Water Vapor (including boiling water, combustion, and nuclear power plants.) After adding this into the total, we get...GAS -- GREENHOUSE EFFECT -- HUMAN EFFECTWater Vapor ----- 95.000% --- 0.001%Carbon Dioxide -- 3.618% ---- 0.117%Methane ---------- 0.360 ------ 0.066%Nitrous oxide ----- 0.950% ---- 0.047%Misc --------------- 0.072% ---- 0.047%Total -------------- 100% ------ 0.278% A total of 0.28% of the total Greenhouse Effect, with GWP of each gas added in.So while Global Warming is real, it's very natural and very systematic. We are in the Global Warming period of the cycle. With only 0.28% of the total Greenhouse effect, human's are responsible for raising temperatures 0.003*F over the past century.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------With this, I conclude that Human's have not overpopulated the Earth. We are fixing any Deforestation we cause year after year, and has been for awhile. We have plenty of food, and are only responsible for 0.28% of all Global Warming.I pass it on to Pro.