Phil Randal wrote:
> On Dec 26, 10:36 pm, Alastair <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The "elephant in the room" or to put it more explicitly the real
>> problem is over-population. If the population of the world was 650
>> million, and not 6,500 million, then there would be no problem with
>> global warming. The global emissions of CO2 would be reduced to a
>> tenth of their current values and this is the level that scientists
>> claim is neccessary to prevent "dangerous global warming". But the
>> reason for the booming population is the scientific advances achieved
>> by the Western World!
>
> An alternative take is that those 650 million, unconstrained by
> competition for resources with the other 5850 million, would each be
> consuming more than your current average American citizen.
Nice idea, but I don't believe it. USAians (and many of us in the west)
can only consume so much because of what the others produce. There is
also a limit to how much we can reasonably eat, and not that many
obvious alternative uses for the land that would not need to be farmed.
James
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
