ovenbird43
Well-known member
I would respectfully, but strongly, disagree with that statement. If you look at this list of the world's top carbon dioxide emitters by country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions), you will see that there are vast differences in the amount of carbon dioxide produced per capita between various countries. For example, in 2004, the United States, with about 30% of India's population, produced four times as much carbon dioxide. This is a pretty clear demonstration that the amount of carbon dioxide emission has much less to do with the number of people than it does how they live, and what sorts of technology they use. When it comes to global warming, I really think these are the issues we need to be focusing on. Those in developed nations need to change the way they live and adopt more environmentally friendly technologies, and those in developing nations need to take steps to ensure they do not make the same mistakes as the developed nations and instead develop in a more environmentally friendly way.
Here is another chart showing carbon dioxide emissions per capita by country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Cordially,
Jim
I agree, to a certain extent. Clearly, a relatively small number of people use a relatively large amount of the resources. But that doesn't mean overpopulation is not the underlying problem. If we all lived on far fewer resources, then the maximum human population that the earth could sustain would be much greater than it is currently. However, with continued population growth, we would still reach that maximum, and we would still be in trouble.
But of course, that's why it's important for those countries that consume the greatest per capita resources to push for changes... while it wouldn't solve the underlying problem of overpopulation, it will ease the burden on the earth considerably and buy us more time for some serious social reform.