------=_Part_27023_24719627.1139943216361
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
------=_Part_27023_24719627.1139943216361
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from dc-umail04.myinunison.com (dc-umail04.myinunison.com [10.2.6.44])
by dc-umail01.myinunison.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1B928057
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:47:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from DC-UPORT03.MYINUNISON.COM (DC-UPORT03 [10.2.6.32])
by dc-umail04.myinunison.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 7DF28E81DC; Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:47:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 07:48:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Leah Gibbons and Brandon Yarborough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Wayne Tyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ENERGY CONSUMPTION IMPACTS Re: What's the best
energy source?
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-Sensitivity: Normal
The good news is that alternative, sustainable, environmentally-
responsible energy sources are being developed and implemented
throughout the world. The truth is, we have the capability right
now of stopping global warming, stopping habitat destruction, and
living sustainably and in harmony with the environment. But this
would require massive changes in paradigms and practices, and not
many people like change, even if it is good for them. Some people
understand that this is the only way we will have a future on this
earth, and they are making these changes. Believe it or not, China
is doing this. If only our government were as forward-thinking and
innovative as the Chinese government. China is able to implement
these changes quickly because of their government structure. In
our democratic government, things don't work as quickly, which
will probably be to our detriment. Big businesses are also
changing their ways. Businesses understand that to continue to
make money, they need to stop destroying the environment and their
consumers (e.g., with toxic substances in almost everything we
consume). For the doubters out there, I can give you specifics
about who is doing these things and about where our hope for the
future lies.
Leah Gibbons
==========================================================
On 02/09/2006 04:25 PM GMT-08:00, Wayne Tyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Well, the discussion is inevitably sliding into "sociology," but
it
is a sociological question in the ultimate sense. Branching is
ok,
but I agree that we should stick to the point until that is
resolved. I've taken the liberty of re-titling the subject lead,
while retaining the initial one to signify the branch.
"Impoverished" is the key distinction. The "rich" have elbowed
the
truly frugal into marginal habitats for millennia. The result is
a
trashing/impoverishment of the already marginal system
carrying/productive. The "footprint" of the rich is the force
behind
the transition from frugal subsistence into impoverishment.
This underlies the mythical aspects of the "population bomb." The
frugal, even the impoverished are not responsible, primarily, for
being forced into cooking and heating with smaller and smaller
stick,
or cowshit. If the rich lived in frugal luxury (needs rather than
demands, aka whims), the "poor" would not be forced into the
marginal
habitats, consequently impoverishing them. Let's face it--this
earth
was not designed for luxury consumption.
The true challenge for progress (and ecologists are, or should be,
the prophets here) is not how to support unsupportable demands for
energy and other resources, but how to reconcile them with the
"renewable" capacity of the habitat to sustain a smaller
population
at a more stable level or a higher population at greatly
fluctuating
booms and busts--consumption-wise.
No species can sustain a boom forever. Adapt or be adjusted.
(But
what the hell, I'll be long dead when the shit really hits the
fan! At least that's the attitude of we, the rich.)
WT
At 12:49 PM 2/9/2006, Sebastian Luque wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 16:32:33 EST,
>Wirt Atmar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
> > find new and better ways to feed and fuel our demands. We live
better now
> > than we ever have, and yet we're leaving a smaller footprint
on
> the earth than we
> > ever have before on a per capita basis.
>
>I don't mean to divert this discussion from what the OP asked in
the first
>place, but this statement is misleading. Whether we live better
now than
>we ever have depends on who "we" is. If "we" means people
consuming 90%
>of the world's energy, then yes, that statement might be true.
But if
>"we" means >90% of the world's people, then that statement is
false by
>almost any chosen statistic.
>
>[...]
>
> > As an engineer myself, I tend to have a lot of faith in our
future. I do
> > believe that we will work through most of our problems with
some
> ease and grace.
> > And as a biologist, I tend to believe the perhaps startling
> conclusion that
> > wealthy, urbanized, well-educated populations are the only
real hope for
> > maintaining the biodiversity on the planet. Impoverished
> populations take a terrible
> > toll on the environment as they grow, either as they did in
East
> Germany when
> > they were under Communist rule or as they do in Africa now.
>
>I'd be interested in knowing what evidence there is to say that
poor
>people make a larger, negative, impact on the environment,
compared to
>rich people.
>
>
>--
>Sebastian Luque
------=_Part_27023_24719627.1139943216361--
