There is only one goddess Gaia and Al Gore is her only prophet...

[kandrathe]

What is wealth, but consumption? (Well, savings. But people only save so much.) People consume the vast majority of their income, and they consume it buying things that cause pollution - fuels, uses for fuels, products that require fuels to make.

People consume their income up to a point until they feel comfort, then (for most people) the ratio of consumption decreases and investment increases. That investment is what builds infrastructure, including pollution free power plants, and pays the wages of the employees who work at the Green power plant. That is normally how it works, unless you subscribe to the socialist model.

If 6 billion people burned wood for cooking and heat, there would be a problem, but it would be a pretty small one compared to what we have today. Poverty simply does not generate the scale of emissions that wealth does, so long as the wealthy are using coal and oil as primary fuel sources.

You have very little idea what you are talking about then. 6 billion people would deforest the planet in a very short time, while filling the atmosphere with many tons more carbon particulates, sulfur oxides, nitrous oxides, creosote, and various other volatile organic compounds. Also, again due to incomplete combustion, open wood fires produce more polycyclic organic matter which includes potential carcinogens like benzopyrenes.

Ideally, we want to get away from polluting energy sources, yet maintain our wealth. That means nuclear, plus the usual mix of "green power", coupled with a switch towards electrical rather than fuel-based machinery and transport.

When will the next nuclear plant be built in the US?

Explain to me how we're going to solve global warming by reducing population, when the correlation between pollution per capita and low birth rate is almost perfect? Without causing all the detrimental side effects you're so worried about? I don't see how it's possible. High birth rate countries aren't polluters, and low birth rate polluting countries can't shrink much faster - unless we're going to solve the problem with Soylent Green.

You don't think high birth rate countries are polluters, but no one is really measuring now are they? It would be true that they contribute less CO2, but I think when it comes to pollutants and environmental protection, the wealthier nations are doing more to protect their soil, air, and water. Not enough, but still they can afford to do more than the impoverished nations.