Re: William Rees and his "ecological footprint" . Most people still don't "get" it. The Globe and Mail had an editorial yesterday ridiculing him and maintaining everyone's right to go to Florida for the winter and to drive a van. They see no limits to the size of the pie, as U.S. consumers who are now spending more than they earn to keep fueling their economy. The Globe's article ridiculed Rees for presuming to know that "happiness" does not depend on material wealth. To be rich is glorious. But to be happy? Melanie Steve Kurtz wrote: > Durant wrote: > > > At the moment it is a big enough pie, > > Not according to thousands of scientists including majority of living Nobel > winners. Not according to Wm. Rees & Mathis Wackernagel, _The Ecological > Footprint_. Their estimate is that 2Billion is maximum population > sustainable at the *current global average per capita consumption level*. > (NOT the western/northern/developed level) If you won't dispute their data > and calculations in a systematic way, you are merely indicating that you > wish it were otherwise. > > The DAILY loss of species, the daily net drop in aquifers, topsoil, trees, > marine life, ...are not refutable. Your plea is like a tape in a loop, > replayed ad infinitum without evidence. > > Mid-winter break for me; next episode in Spring. > > Steve
begin: vcard fn: Melanie Milanich n: ;Melanie Milanich email;internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-cpt: ;0 x-mozilla-html: FALSE version: 2.1 end: vcard
