>If we are serious about CO2 levels, why aren't we pushing for more >nuclear power plants? > I see a little hypocricy amonst the tree-huggers, > Sincerely, > Ted Kegebin > > If we are serious about CO2 levels, keeping the oceans clean, reduce excessive human consumption of raw material, disposal of toxic & nuclear waste, poverty, why aren't more of us pushing for zero population growth in developed countries? Don't we need to determine a carrying capacity for the world as ecologists Pulliam and Haddad suggest? Pulliam, H.R. and N.M Haddad. 1994. Human population growth and the carrying capacity concept. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America (September) p 141-157. David South School of Forestry Auburn University, AL 36849-5418 dsouth@forestry.auburn.edu 334-844-1022 334-844-1084 (FAX) As always, views expressed here are my own (and I am not speaking on the behalf of others). I use only 100% post-consumer paper in my home printer. (discarded used office paper printed on one side) http://www.forestry.auburn.edu/coops/sfnmc/sfnmc.html ========================================================================= The world population is expected to double by the year 2100. Therefore the annual demand for wood for energy (etc.) will increase and might double (to more than 7 billion m3/yr). To provide plantation wood for people in the future, support the planting of trees on pastureland. Set a goal of converting 8 million ha of pastureland/yr for the next 55 years. This would increase tree plantations to about 5% of the world's landbase. ========================================================================= Support Zero Population Growth for the United States http://www.igc.apc.org/zpg/index.html
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0