That's part of the concern, yes.
It's all linked, burning fossil fuels produces CO2 it's a direct relationship.
People hate change no matter what, there has been push back against just about every technology you can think of and there are always negative consequences. Automation and computers certainly put a lot of people outta work but I don't think many would argue that it's a net positive. Now I'm not saying force everyone to get EVs but certain amount of disruption is simply inevitable.
You are forgetting the fact that young people working is what allows old people to retire and collect pensions and such. This is going to be a massive problem for China very shortly due to one child policies.
Sure, but I'm questioning the financial aspect. Do you have a citation that the amount spent on green energy would be recovered through decreasing health care costs?
Of course, but it's naive to expect people to be happy about it or accept it without resistance. There will always be pushback, it's only natural. People will latch on to any speculation out of simple self interest.
I'm not forgetting that at all. People always want to have their cake and eat it too. If we were the least bit intelligent, we might try implementing retirement plans that are actually sustainable. The point is simply that the same people pushing for greener energy are also pushing policies that will negatively impact the climate. Each person produces a lot of pollution throughout their lives, so it should be a good thing that our populations are evening out, without authoritarian population controls. It looks like a gift horse to me...
I do think people care about the environment, but in a more superficial way. People don't like deforestation, for example, or littering. Examples of the environment being ruined in very clear and very obvious ways are a very easy sell to the vast majority of people. Things people can see with their own two eyes. The problem with global warming/climate change is that we cannot see it. We watch the weather report each morning and see the record high was set back in 1963. It's a tough sell trying to convince people that there is an immediate and devastating threat.
CO2 is not the only thing released during those processes, also I couldn't quantify healthcare costs but I could tell you that asthma is much more common now, especially in urban environments, than it used to be even 20 years ago. Also you don't have to feel bad to the point of needing healthcare but just not 100%.
Hence the need to "cram it down their throats".
It's nowhere near as simple as that, economies require workers to function, progress requires inventors and scientists, they require people who can carry out their instructions, etc... Sure automation and robotics are progressing but we are still not quite at the point where dropping population is a good thing. There is also the fact that young people tend to take more risks than old people meaning that they are more likely to start their own businesses or come up with disruptive ideas.
Going back to the original point though, you said we would spend money either way. Either we spend it on green energy or we spend it on healthcare. But which would be more expensive? It's like spending $10k extra for a hybrid version of a car, over the normal gas version. How much better is the fuel economy and how long would it take you to save $10k on gas? Longer than the projected operational lifespan of the car?
Any reduction in population would be small. Most of the numbers I've seen from western countries seem to hover right around 2 children per woman, which would sustain the population. It's not as though we have an insignificant population as it is. There are still going to be millions of births each year. Plenty of potential scientists and inventors.
If the issue is purely economical then yes it would be relevant however CO2 output is a symptom of a larger problem, see Shanghai for an extreme example of that. IMO it's worth to spend some money for a cleaner environment even if dealing with consequence would technically be cheaper.
Certainly but the amount of impact matters, if currently per person impact is 100 and we reduce it to 1 then you can have 100 people w/o any increase in impact. I'm not really advocating for population increase, just saying it's not that simple.
