>James is offline until Tuesday. I fowarded this to him, but don't
expect a prompt reply.
Hopefully someone besides James is interested in this . I noticed, for example, that you seemed more than three quarters convinced that environmentalism is anti-worker and anti-progressive. This is not a position you have taken previously, and I'd hate to see you adapt it. Of course I understand that on this kind issue the facts are more important than the philosphy -- but I hated to let the philosphical points pass unanswered anymore while I finished my research.
In point of fact on two of the points the research was fairly easy to do.
In terms of "over-population" the malthusians are wrong, and the anti-malthusians right.
In terms of the Greenhouse effect not only are the enviromentalists correct. We are pretty much overwhelming correct. Even Bjorn Lomborg acknowledges that global warming is happening and human caused. He tries to minimize the effects, and maximize the cost of preventing it. The really sad thing is that we could reduce fossil fuel consumption per unit economic output sufficiently to allow full third world development, and continued first world growth at a cost low than finding, reducing and refining that quanity of oil. In short we could end global warming at essentially zero net cost if capitalism did not stand in the way.