David, =20 Your point is well expressed in a series published in the Sacramento Bee = several years ago that might be of interest to those follwing the = thread: =20 http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/news/projects/denial/index.html = <http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/news/projects/denial/index.html>=20 =20 Cheers, Michael Clary ________________________________
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of = David Bryant Sent: Sun 2/26/2006 2:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: What's the best energy source? - wealth and per capita = impacts On Feb 26, 2006, at 4:01 PM, Wirt Atmar wrote: > Regarding my contention that very poor human populations have a=20 > much greater > impact on the environment than do wealthy ones, Your evidence is compelling but I think we are making a typical error=20 that occurs frequently in ecological and sociological studies: =20 Drawing conclusions based on limited scale. It is true that wealthy,=20 western cultures place high priority on preserving aesthetic=20 resources. What is ignored in the analysis is that our wealth and=20 consumption are no longer limited to our immediate locale. We do not=20 protect our forests because we are wealthy, but because we can afford=20 to economically coerce third world countries into destroying theirs. The only simple trend I see in this pattern that the wealthier a=20 country becomes the farther out-of-sight (and consequently out-of- mind) their exploitation becomes David David M Bryant Ph D University of New Hampshire Environmental Education Program Durham, NH 03824 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 978-356-1928
