I don't have any data on these cities, but there seems to be a growing
consensus that city dwellers have a smaller footprint than people living in
the countryside. On a per capita basis I suspect that these two "dense,
hi-tech masses of humanity" are not doing too badly, especially since in
wealthy cities there is more incentive to find good ways to dispose of
waste. Landfills are expensive, and in cities you are more likely to find
old cars recycled than dumped in a field.
Sure I agree with all of Joe's comments about being careful and not trusting
incompetent economists, but I do think that people can often manage to live
better without requiring more resources per person. Is this economic growth?
I'll leave that to the economic semanticists.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "joseph gathman" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What's wrong with growth, (was: ESA position on
sustainable growth)
By the way, you mentioned Hong Kong and Singapore. What is the ecological
footprint of those two dense, hi-tech masses of humanity?
