Reply #11: What would be much more effective would be a reduction in population growth. [View All]

What we have is an earth that can't sustain an ever increasing population that demands that it be fed, clothed, given shelter, land, transportation, and all that makes life for humans. Which inevitably leads to environmental ruin, wars, poverty, and all the social injustice that besieges us.

The Chinese are less "concerned" because they have 1 billion people to feed, clothe, educate, and employ in a developing economy. The poor in Congo, Brazil, Burma, Indonesia, have more immediate concerns than the environment. They have to feed themselves and their families.

IMO the root cause that goes ignored, is the sheer number of people that need to be fed, clothed, etc. It's all very nice to demand that we don't buy teak coffee tables, but what of the people who are cutting down the teak to eat? Or, the workers manufacturing the tables so they can eat? Or, all the people transporting the teak, tables, etc, to the markets, who also have to eat? Do they get to starve because we're "concerned" about the forests?

While we fret about "sustainable" energy, water, food, etc, the world continues to churn out an "unsustainable" number of people.