[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment



In article <4vmt3k$ru7@igc.apc.org>, tomgray 
<tomgray@igc.apc.org> wrote:
>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.
>

If the population is still doubling every 30-50 years, the 
gains that you get today (which can't be expected to be a 50% 
savings in energy;  10-20% would be a reasonable goal) will 
be wiped out in 10-20 years.  The root cause of the problem 
will still exist - you will merely have postponed the day of 
reckoning.  Now do you get the logic of this argument?



Follow-Ups: References: