Hi Daniel, > Obviously with a disproportionate amount of the world's population, > India and China have their problems, but they are largely disease, > poverty, illiteracy, etc., as you mention. The issue here in this > discussion, however, is waste generation--in various forms including > CO2--and concomitant consumption of the earth's resources. And in that > regard, the *developed* countries are much more of a hazard than any of > the less-developed countries. Both yes & no. With a bigger population to feed, more forested areas will be converted for agriculture/farming. The proverty question must not be taken lightly. Many Third World countries are paying their debts through deforestation. In this, I feel very strongly that the World Bank/IMF must do more, much, much more to stay relevant. Developing countries have always been a source of cheap timber/raw material for the developed ones. That's why I've great reservation that developed countries are willing to pay for the premium of 'certified' timber. > The U.S., of course, is the worst, where every child born will generate > something like 50 times more waste than a child born in a less-developed > country, and will also consume 50 times more of the earth's > resources--talk about your burden on global society. David is > absolutely correct, CO2 sequestration is something that we need to do, > but still we're only treating a symptom of the real problem. More than > half of the world lives a subsistence existence, they are not > responsible for the carbon imbalance (unless they have some heretofore > unknown, and country-wide, flatulence problem) and they are neither able > to effect a solution. We have met the enemy and they are sitting in our > easy chairs. I'm glad this came from you instead of me. Until & unless developed countries are held accountable for their all consuming appetite, we may not see the light at the end of the tunnel for a long while. God bless. Nelson Wong MTC
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0