A thought provoking article in Today’s WSJ. Describes divide between Economists and Ecologists. The economists focus on innovation leading to new resources higher crop yield leading to less emissions. Population growth expected to stabilize and then decrease as world gets more affluent.
Ecologists point out use of fossil fuels expected to increase emissions further. Temperature expected to increase by 3.7 to 4.8 degree C by 2100. If enter world had American living std we would need 2.5 earths.
Re: The other side of the Environmental debate
Economists point to areas in Africa ripe for increase in yield. Ecologists say water could run out in the aquifers.
Economists say estimates in 60s and 70s for water demand was “grossly overestimated” by 2X. Why? Drip irrigation solar driven desalination. So it’s unlikely we will be limited by water availability.
Other areas - 100 x less gold plating on computer connection tors. Steel content of cars down. Building energy efficiency high. (building energy consumption is largest portion of electricity consumption in us I faintly recall)
Re: The other side of the Environmental debate
Article states richer the Country more energy efficient. Haiti no forest..All used for burning wood. Neighbor Dominican Republic uses propane etc. So green with forest.
Makes sense. But US per capita energy consumption still highest in the world. In spite of outsourcing energy hogging manufacturing. Europe could be a better model to validate this article, IMO.
Reduce
Reuse
Recycle
Thread is now open for discussion.