[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ You changed the subject [Energy and Population]



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from Roger Kuhlman <rokuhlman@yahoo.com>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lowell,

I have a simple question to ask: can the current
American pattern of energy and natural resource use be
replicated by the rest of the world? According Norman
Myers and Jennifer Kent in "The New Cosumers" the
American lifestyle produces a huge ecological
footprint (land and nature required to produce
resources and goods for consumption and places to
assimilate waste products generated). Per capita the
average American uses 9.7 global hectares per year.
5.3 global hectares come from land in the USA but the
remaining 4.4 comes from without the country. That I
would suggest is not an ecologically sustainable
practice.

Adding 110 to 150 million more people to the US by
2050 and many more beyond that by 2100 will be do very
great additional ecological damage in terms of energy
used, natural resources consumed, natural habitats and
complex ecosystems destroyed, and waste products
generated. That is why it is essential to stop
population growth not only in the rest of the world
but especially here in America.

We have it in our power today to stop population
growth in America by ending illegal immigration and
reducing legal immigration to population neutral
levels because the birthrate of American citizens is
at or below replacement level. Doing that will have a
positive environmental impact in America's future
since it gives us a chance over the next century and a
half to lower our population back to its long-term
carrying capacity. Remember the wise formulation of
environmental impact stated by Paul Ehrlic I= P x A x
T. [I or environmental impact is a function of P
population size, A affluence or a population's level
of consumption, and T technology employed to produce
the consumption.] The A factor is extremely difficult
to change--just try to get masses of Americans to
voluntarily lower their level of consumption. The T
factor while seemingly more adjustable is also
stubbornly resistant to change because of sunk cost
factors and resistance by powerful special interests.
Just look at automobile fuel efficiency standards. US
automobile fleet fuel efficiency peeked in the
1990's!!

We can change the P factor today if we have the
political will. Why not voluntarily do it today? We
will have to do it eventually in the future or it will
be done to us forcefully in very unpleasant ways.

Regards,

Roger Kuhlman
Ann Arbor, Michigan

NumbersUSA is a very good environmental website if you
are interested in getting the American government to
adopt  ecologically responsible population policies.

--- Lowell Prag <lprag@mail.msen.com> wrote:

>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enviro-Mich message from "Lowell Prag"
> <lprag@mail.msen.com>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Roger Kuhlman said:
> 
> ... see below ...
> 
> Hello Roger,
> 
> You changed the subject.
> 
> 1) I do not agree that we have enough energy. Demand
> for electricity is
> rising at an exponential rate which cannot be met in
> the near future, with
> our present power plants and infrastructure.
> 
> 2) Our population numbers have nothing to do with
> our problems and
> suggestions to limit immigration is
> counterproductive to a sane
> discussion.
> 
> We produce plenty of food for everyone, we have the
> brains to compete
> against anyone globally, and if we would improve our
> educational system so
> everyone can live a productive life, we can continue
> to accommodate anyone
> who wishes to live here.
> 
> 3) The main problem is our economic system which is
> based on an ever
> increasing Gross National Product. At some point, we
> must stabilize the
> GNP and live within a sustainable use of resources.
> 
> As you point out, energy conservation is part of
> that issue but it goes
> far beyond that.
> 
> We need an industrial system which wastes nothing,
> where everything is
> recycled and our present throw away mentality is
> eliminated.
> 
> We also need an industrial system which is based on
> zero toxic emissions
> for all aspects of production, rather than
> postponing the costs for lack
> thereof, to future generations and at the peril of
> destroying our planet.
> 
> One could explicate many more such examples but for
> the sake of brevity,
> all those problems are not engineering problems, as
> solutions can be
> implemented right now with present technology.
> 
> Rather, they are political problems which are
> presently unsolvable, due to
> corporate power controling our political process, to
> achieve ever
> increasing profits without any responsibility for
> the results.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Lowell Prag
> 
> 
> Roger Kuhlman said:
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Enviro-Mich message from Roger Kuhlman
> <rokuhlman@yahoo.com>
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I really don't know why we are talking about new
> > sources of energy. We already have plenty of
> energy
> > supplies. The real problem we should be
> persistently
> > addressing is reducing energy demand. The focus
> here
> > should be on energy efficiency, energy
> conservation,
> > and reduction of energy use. America has less than
> 5%
> > of the World's population but uses about 25% of
> the
> > World's energy. That pattern is not ecologically
> > sustainable in the long term nor is it fair to the
> > rest of the World's population. Also this fact is
> a
> > potent argument why the United States needs to
> > stabilize its population now. The only way the
> > American population can do be brought under
> control is
> > by restricting legal immigration to pre-1965
> levels
> > and stopping illegal immigration completely.
> >
> > Roger Kuhlman
> > Ann Arbor, Michigan
> >
> > --- Lowell Prag <lprag@mail.msen.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Enviro-Mich message from "Lowell Prag"
> >> <lprag@mail.msen.com>
> >>
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Mark Richardson said:
> >>
> >> ... see below ...
> >>
> >> Hello Mark,
> >>
> >> The issue on whether or not there is a net energy
> >> savings in using corn to
> >> produce ethanol for fuel, has been debated for
> many
> >> years and there is
> >> much data available. The answer is yes and no,
> >> depending upon which study
> >> you read.
> >>
> >> To me, the whole issue is stupid.
> >>
> >> There is enough fuel contained in all of our
> waste
> >> organic bio-mass in
> >> this country which can be extracted as methane
> (it's
> >> natural gas: the same
> >> as you use in a stove) and it can easily be used
> to
> >> power both cars and
> >> trucks without resorting to using our farm lands
> to
> >> produce fuel.
> >>
> >> In Europe, anaerobic digesters to produce methane
> >> from waste organic
> >> bio-mass, are widely used.
> >>
> >> The issue in the USA, is why we have not widely
> >> employed this proven
> >> technology which could while producing fuel, rid
> us
> >> of most of our land
> >> fills and incinerators, resolve the manure
> problems
> >> with cafos, etc., and
> >> solve all of the other problems created by our
> >> present methods of dealing
> >> with our other organic wastes.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Lowell Prag
> >>
> >>
> >> Mark Richardson said:
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > Enviro-Mich message from "Mark Richardson"
> >> > <Mark.Richardson@macombcountymi.gov>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > I'm asking myself these questions:
> >> >
> >> > 1) Is there likely to be any net energy savings
> >> from using ethanol for a
> >> > percentage of transportation fuel, given the
> >> energy expended in mining and
> >> > transporting coal, and growing and transporting
> >> corn and other feedstocks?
> >> >
> >> > 2) Is there likely to be any net environmental
> >> improvement from using
> >> > ethanol, given the tradeoffs between reductions
> in
> >> pollution from vehicles
> >> > and increased pollution from ethanol plants and
> >> further up the fuel
> >> > manufacturing chain?
> 
=== message truncated ===




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

==============================================================
ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"
==============================================================