[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment
charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>In article <4uo7pp$8lv@igc.apc.org>, tomgray
><tomgray@igc.apc.org> wrote:
>>charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>
>>>The best way to decrease the human influence on the
>>>environment is to decrease the size of the human
>>>population.
>>>Period!
>>
[me]
>>What is your program for accomplishing this? Why is it
>>likely to be more popular and easier to do than reducing
>>greenhouse gas emissions?
>
>It is likely to be impossible to implement. That is why I
>have been "anxiously" defending the status quo. Until we can
>find a way to get population down, we are merely stalling the
>inevitable.
Sorry, I don't follow the logic here. It's better to cut
population than greenhouse gases, but you acknowledge that
cutting population is not possible. So, why is this an argument
against cutting greenhouse gases?
What I have in mind is pretty simple: a significant effort to
encourage the use of energy efficiency and renewable energy
technologies. We could get a good start on such an effort
for something like $20/person/year, and probably would see
the effect in emissions cuts almost immediately. We need to
do this whether population continues to increase or whether it
doesn't.
Tom Gray
Director of Communications
American Wind Energy Association
PS Support renewable energy! Visit the Electronic Lobbyist For
Renewable Energy Web Site:
http://www.netcom.com/~stevie2/budget.html
Interested in energy and the environment? The free electronic
edition of _Wind Energy Weekly_ reports on energy-related
environmental issues, energy policy, and wind industry trade
news. The electronic edition normally runs about 10kb in length.
For a subscription, send me an e-mail request. Please include
information on your position, organization, and reason for
interest in the publication.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Gray <tomgray@econet.org>
Follow-Ups:
References: