Quote:If the only problem were global warming, then you would be right. However, I feel that this thread has gone beyond global warming to environmental issues in general.Perhaps. Global warming is the Al Gore topic, and to me, it's the elephant in the room of environmental discussions, but it's certainly not the only issue at hand.
Quote:Not entirely true. The wealth of industrial nations has permitted them to clean up their rivers, the population of the third world has turned many of their rivers into sewers. That is but one example.But follow the money. The wealth of rich nations has created demand, allowing other, downstream nations like China to become industrial by selling to them. The third world is just following suit, and as they one by one become richer, their rivers will also clean up. But unless we come up with clean technology, that just means some yet poorer country will industrialize and pollute their own rivers. Everyone gets richer (good) but the planet continues to deteriorate (bad).
Quote:I have absolutely no idea what this means.It means that, at present, generating an extra dollar per capita of wealth also means generating extra pollution. Those two things are "coupled" - the desirable outcome creates the undesirable one. With the right mix of technology, we might "decouple" the two - allow ourselves to create more wealth without the corresponding increase in pollution. That would then remove the emissions cap on the growth of our wealth, and solve the problem of how to solve global warming without mass impoverishment. It would give the first world a set of new technologies to develop. It would give the developing world a road to walk down that would improve their quality of life, without simultaneously ruining the environment. Nuclear is step one, but there are surely millions of inventions waiting to be made and improved.
(Heh, I write all that, and then check the Wiki, which has a good summary.)
Quote:Exactly. Which is why, in my analogy, I said it was good to treat the symptoms. Just not sufficient.I think I agree with you about the solutions, and half-agree about the problems. But I still don't see population as being the driver of this story.
I think the population problem will solve itself, slowly, given about a hundred years. Population will continue to increase until about 12 billion in 2040 or so, then start dropping back downwards. Educational and social efforts to speed this up are more than welcome, but I think coercion would backfire in most cases. If we manage to treat the "symptom" (pollution) effectively enough until that turning point, we're in the clear. If we don't manage to treat the "symptom", we're going to end up at >600ppm CO2, and it wouldn't matter if population growth stopped dead in its tracks right today.
-Jester