On Sat, 6 May 2006, jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Where do you get the idea that:
>
> "if we do nothing about population growth (which on current trends is
> projected to level off at 9 in 2050 IIRC) but drastically change our
> energy patterns, we'll be okay."
>
> I'm a fan of Athanasious but I don't ever remember him making this claim
> or even something similar....Population reduction needs to be part of the
> solution
See for example, _Dead Heat_, p. 92, "The Population Question"
<quote>
Ever since the late 1980s, when the per capita alloaction of carbon-emissions rights as first proposed, Malthusians both green and otherwise have attacked it as a "breeder's charter." This is actually quite mad -- as if developing nations, with all the challenges they confront, would encourage high fertility rates to increase their carbon emissions allocations! But as rich-world populationists are still influential, the friends of per capita typically move to disarm this charge by including a "population cutoff year" into their projections. There are a variety of other proposed solutions to this alleged incentive problem, but to be frank, it's the least of the obstacles."
<end quote>
i.e., the least of the obstacles to the plan their propose in their book. Not even worth talking about, in their view. So they don't, beyond this paragraph. Although they do take occasional potshots at Malthusians "slouching away towards the dustbin of history" (p. 128).
As for the view that if we drastically change our energy patterns we'll be okay, that's the whole point of the book. Same with Ross Gelbspan. Emphasis on the word drastic.
Michael