Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: k.ramesh who wrote (3091)	1/25/2004 4:16:44 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36918

No I am not a recent convert I have been singing this tune all my life. It's easy to call someone's pressing of the Alarm button a "high pitched rant" thus dismissing it. Unfortunately you have done a poor job of dealing with facts as presented. None who claim that population growth isn't a crisis on this thread has made any attempt to explain away the results of the third world becoming modern consumers and the devastating results on resources and pollution that simple arithmetic would indicate. <<Other countries, while mesmerized by consumerism, do not follow in lock step with the US, They also can come up with their own solutions that are less energy intensive or waste prone. >> Now let me get this straight you are telling me that when China comes into the 21st century with their 1.1B all will be OK cauz they will find a way to save energy and their use of resources will in no way parallel ours?....Are you saying that with the equivalent of 3 more America's ( population wise ) energy consumption and pollution thus generated will not be a problem? Increased resource use will not be a problem? Guess what? When the price of oil goes high enuff they gonna start using coal cauz they got a lott of it!...Do you doubt this? Whatda ya think that's gonna do? BTW there is no sign of China becoming more efficient energy to date . Not sure of the numbers here but I believe about 1/2 of the worlds most polluted cities are in China as it stands. Himmmm... Why is it I always get this every thing is gonna be OK crap with out any realistic explanation as to how this will be accomplished? <<I mean what is the big difference between, - ' the markets will take care of the problem' and ' God will take care of the problem' - both inherently pin faith on humans being adaptive enough to adjust to whateve>> Agreed both are simply saying all that's gonna happen later so I want what I want NOW!...I'll re-cycle it's easy ... I've done my part but don't ask me to give up something that I really want . <<If you want to have ZPG for the US, because an immigrant becomes a high consumer the moment he crosses over, you have a point, but a minor one that will get out voted every time against many entrenched lobbies that benefit from immigration,>> A minor one? "86.7% of the United States' population growth per year (and 100% in California, Maryland, New Jersey, and Illinois) results from mass immigration and children born to U.S. immigrants. Center for Immigration Studies" "Consider someone who migrates from a hypothetical country where the average ChloroFlouroCarbon (CFC) emission per capita is 0.02 metric tons. When that person comes to America emission increases to 0.52 metric tons. That person's resource impact has increased by 2500%." You know this applies up and down the line from resource use to pollution . When these simple facts are applied to bringing the third world's population into modern times no matter how much they conserve and the evidence so far is it won't be much if any it will not be enuff. This being an environmental thread this may be of interest to those of us who understand the importance of loss of habitat "One acre of natural habitat and/or farmland is converted into built-up space or highways for each person added to the U.S. population. Dr. David Pimentel, Cornell University" Quotes from carryingcapacity.org