Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device

[Greg Burnham]

By comparison to other countries, the United States is responsible for the vast majority of atmospheric C02 emissions contributed by humans. However, world census statistics strongly suggest that the United States is not an over-populated nation especially when compared to many third tier countries in Africa and Latin America, as well as in comparison to China and India.

Over-population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the minuscule increase of C02 in the atmosphere. Over-consumption, on the other hand, does.

Blaming over populated third world countries for increased global temperatures is like blaming rising oil prices on Luxembourg.

I agree, but of course as those countries rapidly ramp up their consumption we have a problem. Western imperialism is intent on taking over those 3rd world economies to cash in on their potential increased consumption with very little concern for the environment it seems.

I agree...to a point. I believe that it is wholly despicable for us (in western "developed" countries) to prevent those in third world countries from enjoying the benefits that we, in the United States, all enjoy! It is wrong to restrict their expansion into a "better life" based on non-specific, ill defined, perhaps even pseudo science.

Gary, you said: "...as those countries rapidly ramp up their consumption we have a problem."

In my view, it is immoral to require those in "developing" countries (due to the "problem" that their consumption would allegedly create) to continue to live beneath the standards that most Americans would be loath to tolerate.

Parity is an interesting commodity in America: "It is of paramount importance when I am the disaffected, but it is irrelevant when I'm on top."

It isn't despicable when our overconsumption relates to the use of fossil fuels. If you don't think it is detrimental to our atmosphere to have millions of cars on the freeway everyday with one person per vehicle then of course you would say we shouldn't deprive the world of the same opportunity to add CO2 to our common ecosystem. Until alternative fuels are in wide use we have a problem with too many people in too many cars. Gotta go.

Well, Gary--perhaps you have a point.

Let's see if you do.

Gary said:

"It isn't despicable when our overconsumption relates to the use of fossil fuels."

I don't understand what you mean by that statement. In my view, "over-consumption" is simply that: OVER consumption. It is excessive, unnecessary consumption of resources and is, therefore, irresponsible by definition--no matter what the specifics. However, IF our policy of "discouraging (preventing) poverty stricken nations from becoming self-sufficient" is NOT despicable, as you claim (so long as over-consumption relates to fossil fuels), THEN it should be equally "not despicable" for those in Western countries to be subject to the SAME barriers to self sufficiency. We should ALL be restricted from the use of oil based products to fuel vehicles. Period. Or NONE should be so restricted. Parity.

Gary ASSUMED (1):

"If you don't think it is detrimental to our atmosphere to have millions of cars on the freeway everyday with one person per vehicle..."

Well, I never said that did I, Gary? And since I don't believe that either, I guess that one is irrelevant. Next?

Gary continuing said:

"...then of course you would say we shouldn't deprive the world of the same opportunity to add CO2 to our common ecosystem."

Since I didn't say the original (1) the remainder of your comment lacks foundation.

Gary said:

"Until alternative fuels are in wide use we have a problem with too many people in too many cars. Gotta go."

Do you drive a car--EVER? Do you heat your home in the winter at all? If we have too many people in too many cars on this planet, let me ask you this: Who should be the first to surrender their vehicle? Will it be you or those you love? Would you prefer that restrictions on buying automobiles be placed on those who live in places (like third world countries) where poverty has thus far prevented them from acquiring vehicles?

You "gotta go" -- ?

It's after 6:00pm there. If it's too late for a walk, are you driving to where you "gotta go"??? If so, why should you be allowed to own and drive a car given your beliefs about the environment? Why not those in 3rd World countries who have yet to be so blessed? Should you be allowed to own and drive a car for as long as it takes for "the government" to sort all this out? If so, should EVERYONE ELSE on the planet who does not yet own a vehicle be RESTRICTED from acquiring one in the meantime?