twfowler, on your general theme in the last paragraph, I think the mainstream environmentalist's aim is for 'sustainable' living. [I'm not even going to try and speak for the more extreme variants].
This means, using resources at a rate that allows - if not replenishment (since it's unlikely we'll ever be able to 'replenish' oil, for example] - at least use for the foreseeable future, with the likelihood of viable alternatives. At the US rate of consumption ~1994, the sustainable world population was about 500 million - so either consumption or population has to give... which horsemen do you expect?
Energy is certainly a key need: and will be until safe fusion becomes a reality, IMO [leaving out the even more SF ideas about solar mirrors, etc...]. However, you overlookthe point that although there is indeed enough land, food, and fresh water, for most if not all of the present planetary population - it is not distributed where needed, nor is it always usable.
And lastly...
In developing countries pollution might increase as they develop their economies, but as their people become richer they tend to start caring about the environment more, plus they gain the wealth to do something about it.
But can the planet really support 1.2 billion Chinese, 1.1 billion Indians (not to mention the other 3 billion in developing nations) living at US standards? I think not - But I wouldn't want to be the one to tell them so... or try to enforce that...
Meanwhile, talking of the richer nations reducing pollution, nor does the current US administration show signs of being overly eager to lean towards the environmental lobby. Even when it's already committed to doing so, for example on CO2 emissions - remember the Kyoto Treaty? - those obligations are being ignored. And probably will be until the entire topsoil of Texas is removed when the rains stop altogether.
<sigh> Not getting at you... but I think you're far too sanguine about real dangers. |
