how much co2 does a average human produce during a lifetime and would a decrease in population help environmen

Answer 1

I believe God has already got a plan in action.

Answer 2

Decreasing the population size might help the environment, but not because we would be breathing less. On a big scale, the amount of CO2 that we breathe out is too small to worry about - it's less than 5% of all the air that we breathe out and does not amount to much given the volume of our atmosphere - so don't think that kill all humans to protect the planet is a good idea!!! What we really need is to plant more plants, esp. trees, and to stop using other chemicals that are even more damaging to the environment than CO2 - use less cars etc. would be a good start! A decrease in population size might help to reduce these as more people = more cars/factories etc. etc. - the amount of co2 we breathe is tiny compared with this!

Answer 3

a descrease in population would help but it depends where you decrease it. The average north american produces 20 times more co2 than the average indian (due to lifestyle and wealth). Therefore you would only have to reduce the north american population by a 20th of the indian population to get the same effect. So its about quality not quantity.
Makes you thibk eh?!

there are websites where you can calculate your co2 emmisions such as www.bestfootforward.com, www.carbonfootprint.com etc.

Answer 4

I am not sure amounts but i know it takes two large trees (think rain forest) to produce the oxygen needed by one human being, of course a decrease in population would help conserve our natural resources, probably the best and only thing that could save the planet from its destructive course at present. Horrible to say but the planet could do with a epidemic on par with the black death

Answer 5

i know that this answer is a bit too long but i have given the correct and accurate answer.

As a part of a class during the fall of 1997, data on world population and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration were analysed to see if a well defined relationship exists between them. It is found by methods of least squares inversion that there is in fact a very well defined relationship. The following equation (eq 1) accurately fits the population growth since 1950 :

Eq. 1. Population(billions) = 2.54*exp((year-1950)*0.0183)

(standard deviation between eq.1 and census data = .045 billion, or 45 million).

Atmospheric CO2 data from Hawaii is related to population by the equation:

Eq. 2. CO2(ppmv) = 264.77(ppmv) + 16.55(ppmv/(billion persons) * population(billions) + 2.8(ppmv)*cos(2*pi*f*year -1.75)

where f = 1 cycle/year, and the concentration of CO2 is given in parts per million by volume (ppmv). The cosine term in equation 2 describes the annual variation, which is thought to be due to seasonal activity of land biota (trees, people etc.) and the constant term 264.77(ppmv) describes the background CO2 level. The standard deviation between the Hawaii CO2 data and equation 2 is 0.95 ppmv.

Figure 1 shows the data and the CO2 calculated from equation 2.

These data show that there is a very well defined empirical relationship between the growth in Earth’s human population and the growth in atmospheric CO2, at least for the last 40 years. From a simply mathematical viewpoint we can invert the problem and say that the atmospheric CO2, after removing the annual variation, is a very good proxy for the human population. This simple and rather naive approach overlooks the extreme complexities involved in the chemistry and physics of the processes controlling CO2 interchange, and the implications for the processes. However lack of a complete understanding of the processes is not an impediment to exploring this empirical relationship. The equation relating population growth to CO2 is then:

Eq. 3. Population(billions) = (CO2(ppmv) - 264.77(ppmv)-(annual variation))/16.55(ppmv/billion persons)

There are two other features of the data worth noting. The first is that the seasonal changes in atmospheric CO2 are not phase shifted with respect to the seasons by more than a few months, indicating that the atmosphere is rapidly affected by the terrestrial activity. We infer from this that human activity will also be rapidly communicated to the atmosphere. This implies that changes in population, or CO2 production by human activity, are reflected in the CO2 data with a time delay of order months. The second is related to the atmospheric CO2 production per person per year. Moore and Bolin (1986) calculate that a CO2 concentration of 346 ppmv is equivalent to a global atmospheric content of 740 billion metric tons of CO2 . Using this relationship and the time rate of change of the population from eq. 1 we get that on average the activity of each person produces 0.65 metric tons of CO2 per year.

now we can very well multiply the number with the number of years he lives

thank you

Answer 6

A decrease in population would also involve a decrease in the animal population, (food animals, work animals,pets) with a corresponding decrease in methane production as well as CO2,
less air pollution from cooking, cars, factories, home heating.
There wasn't much air pollution in the Garden of Eden.

Answer 7

Actually, your question is rather interesting. I'm not sure how much carbon dioxide an average person produces in their lifetime, but more than likely, since our planet is very over populated anyways, a decrease would help the environment imensley. Hmmm...

Answer 8

I think NASA assumes each person needs 1.9 pounds of oxygen per day. I calculate that would produce about 2.6 pounds of carbon dioxide per day. If a person lives 70 years, that would be 70 * 365 * 2.6 = 66,430 pounds of carbon dioxide. However all that CO2 was produced by eating plants (or animals that fed on plants) that had previously recycled CO2 out of the air. So our net biological contribution of CO2 is zero. The real problem is that each person burns coal, oil and gas, which releases CO2 that was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago. This CO2 would have stayed out of the atmosphere if we had not dug up the coal, oil and gas and burned it. In comparison, burning wood is only returning CO2 to the air that was taken out of the air by a tree a few decades ago. Burning wood has no net long term effect on CO2 levels, as long as we plant trees as fast as we burn them.

Answer 9

when you delete one mature human, you can probably delete one car, half a house/apartment, a chicken, half a cow, several acres of agricultural land, small parts of many industries, a small part of a power station, etc. you can add a few trees in a forest and some other vegetation.
the amount of CO2 this mature human produces by breathing is insignificantly small compared to these other sources.

Answer 10

look, in case you do not favor to trust almost all of scientists in this undertaking, be my concentrated visitor. CO2 is an element, and a lot of your factors actually instruct that. declaring that it really is a hint gasoline contained in the ambience factors to ameliorations contained in the ambience which have surpassed off through the years. At one aspect in Earth's historic previous, the ambience changed into usually methane. that replaced at the same time as photosynthetic organisms began secreteing oxygen and nitrogen in gaseous sorts into the air. CO2 is an identical element. the reason we haven't imploded yet is because CO2 takes a lengthy time period to boost. you're perfect, lots of the elements of CO2 are organic, yet all of them happen in large bursts. The bursts of CO2 are ultimately dissippated. they don't impression a lot. human beings, in the interim, are continuously exuding a smaller quantity, and that would not change on an afternoon after day foundation. the reason it really is mandatory, as hostile to decaying vegitation freeing CO2 and the sea, is because it disrupts the ambience. usually, those elements of CO2 are ate up through flora of their own respiratory. after we upload ours, it pushes the gadget out of stability, for the reason that flora can not use all of it. yet no matter if you're perfect, there are nevertheless subject matters of alternative gasses, like methane and ozone. those have led to negative the ozone layer. in reality, the damage and tear has been severe sufficient to reason heating over the polar ice caps. Why's that an issue on the on the spot? because extremely some those ice caps contain extremely a lot of gaseous methane. That methane is released at the same time as they melt, going immediately into our environment, and compared to CO2, it would not split at without caution.

Answer 11

You probably guessed that fat folk are good CO2 Sponges, throughout their lifetimes. So consume more, and pledge your corpse to a biomass fuel company so you can power some other fatty's car; continuing the evermore intriguing carbon cycle.