Also, there is a pretty strong objection to your approach – when you don’t regulate things like emissions, you eperience the tragedy of the commons. If markets solved these problems by themselves, why are cities like LA gasping in smog? Counter example – Delhi had amazingly awful air quality until the use of compressed natural gas was mandated by the government. Good move! It’s a lot more breatheable now.

Another “but”... again, many will not agree, but the guy put a lot of work into writing 700 pages and I am not willing to dismiss it all out of hand, and it also talks about the economics aspect of environmental policy…

Link

I think these kinds of problems are self-correcting without the need for economic growth killing regulation. Limiting economic freedom and opportunies is never a worthwhile idea.

Envirnomental activists certainly do use their fair share of propaganda techniques, fallacies and false comparisons to try to win people over. I say “fair share”, not “more than their fair share” because those who are advocating short-term economic gain at the expense of the environment also use a “fair share” of propaganda and false analogies.

But none of this in any way convinces me that in the medium term we can expect to use Earth’s resources the way are doing now and not expect to suffer serious consequences. It’s like saying “the Club of Rome was wrong, therefore Julian Simon must have been right!” Not true.

Our job consists of trying to filter out the information that is not true or not helpful – and there is a lot coming from many directions – and try to come up with a realist view of how to solve our future problems. I think that sums up the mission of the founders of this blog more or less, and they can correct me if they disagree.

Most advocates of space exploration that I have read do not appear to see a contractiction between protecting the Earth and exploring space.

OK, as far as the envirnomentalist stuff goes, it’s “hippy”, it’s “claptrap”. And we should go to space. And if it’s not in the US national policy debate it’s not relevant (?!?). And the boomers have to save for retirement (If anything, that again support’s Diamond’s argument that people are not “bad” when they behave a way that is destructive in the grand scheme of things, they are just acting rationally).

But you have not given any reasons why throughout the thread.

Some predictions from the past have come true; some not yet come true; some were wrong – either on timing or facts; some “doom and gloom” predictions were heeded and disaster may have been avoided (the Montreal CFC Protocol may be an example – and averting disaster is the whole purpose of prediction in the first place).

I don’t mind responding to the Chewbacca defense, it’s a useful excercise, but I will plead for arguments to be supported by a logical train of thought.

I regard this limits to growth stuff as a hippy-trippy thing of the 60’s baby-boomer generation. So does almost everyone else I know. The boomers are getting old and having to save for retirement. This requires a growing economy.

Here is a link to the real limits to growth (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html).

If you want to do something to protect the earth, you should join the space movement. Here are some links:

http://www.nss.org
http://www.space-frontier.org
http://www.ssi.org
http://www.prospace.org

Go to.

Perhaps you are right… the WWF should leave our outmoded biosphere alone and concentrate more on finding more adaptable creatures out there, such as Tribbles.

I believe in economic freedom and economic growth. I believe that this can be compatible with environmental protection as well. But, I see absolutely no benefits in staying the same level of economic development or becoming poorer. I view the current environmental movement as simply leftist anti-growth clap trap.

Your dieting for nutrition metaphor is not exactly spot-on. You can have nutrition in a diet! Even a “bad” diet is a diet. The diet in the film “Super-Size Me” comes to mind. That seems like a better metaphor for the way our society uses energy and resources.

We cannot have our cake and eat it too (sorry for that turn of phrase).

That is not to say technology will not be important in the years ahead. And I have no “ideological” objection to nuclear power. It can and probably will be part of the mix of energy sources we will rely on in the years ahead, especially if the things you pointed out in your link turn out to be promising. Trouble is, there will be other effects from those that we may not yet know about. It think that the clearest advantage technology will bring is eliminating waste – which was exactly what Dr. Charles Till was going on about in the interview above.

The WWF just published its latest scenario-planning report. You may or may not agree, but worth a read anyway.

http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report.pdf

Here is a link to a FAQ on nuclear power (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html). Also, the use of the integral fast reactor (see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html) or thorium nuclear power (http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p=212) will eliminate the waste disposal and other problems associated with current nuclear power plants.

The only other option to nuclear power is the space-based solar power concept that was promoted by the L-5 Society in the late 1970’s.

I tend towards an energy pessimism, however. There seems to be a lot of evidence that no kind of “free energy” exists. As we decrease entropy (by using energy) in what appears to us to be our closed system (that is really just a part of an open system) we increase entropy elsewhere, outside the part that we are paying attention to in the system. The costs of nuclear energy, from mining the uranium to doing something with the radioactive waste, are huge. The latter cost will be paid by people later on. Do we care about them? There’s an ethical question for you! I submit that we should, to at least some degree. I have always been fascinated by the far future, and our ability to communicate with that future – to take the long view (see http://www.longnow.org – interesting site! Also see this article http://www.michaelchabon.com/column/archives/2006/01/the_omega_glory.html )

It is disappointing to hear, but I am convinced that the only way to protect our envirnoment (and thus survive with any kind of quality of live) is to use less energy. The role of technology is best summed up as the race for efficiency – so that less and less of the energy we demand is wasted withour our having benefitted from it – everything from the heat generated by incandescent light bulbs to the friction imposed on a car or airplane is wasted as far as we are concerned. And, quite simply by hoggin’ less energy. There can be economic opportunity in this, so I wouldn’t dismiss it outright as “slow growth scaremongering”. Even if in the end slow growth is what we need, it only makes sense. We may well be at the top of an “S”-curve rather than at the bottom of an exponential curve. Better to grow slowly and survive. Civilizations have done so in the past.

The real environmental threat comes from those “environmentalists” who oppose the development and expansion of nuclear power. They just guarantee the expansion of the use of coal and other fossil fuels. Piddle power schemes such as wind and earth-based solar cannot generate the terawatts of 24/7 power that is demanded by a modern civilization.

Not to mention that it’s purely speculative. No rat-caused ecological devastation of the Easter Island magnitude has taken place anywhere else in the Pacific, and many varieties of rat coexist quite nicely with trees.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/pub/wp/edm/

The sustainability of human civilization may not be a problem this year, or even this decade. But it will become the major global issue in my lifetime.

Mark: Thank you for being the second commenter of late to bring up the rat hypothesis. That is yet another alternative theory that, forgive me, sounds like nonsense—that rats deforested the island, killed or starved all the people, and built enormous statues in the process.

The fears of environmental decay and resource limitations as an existential threat to society are way over blown. Check out the following website on the sustainability of human progress (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/index.html). It is the single best summary I have ever read on the subject and it draws significantly (but not entirely) on the work of Julian Simon.

I have noticed that the “environmental” movements have degenerated into simple leftist anti-industrialism in recent years.

I actually pay very little attention to the environmental stuff as it no longer play much of a role in U.S. national politics.

For all of you advocates of the global warming issue, here is an excellent article on thorium-based nuclear power (http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p=212).

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/53200?fulltext=true&print=yes

Poverty is surely only resources badly allocated? A better, fairer, distribution might solve many problems.

First, you’re stating an alternative theory about Easter Island not accepted by majority scholarship.

Second, Easter Island is just one of dozens of examples that Diamond brings up in his book: Pitcain, the Anasazi, the Maya, Cambodia, Greenland, Tikopia, Japan, Montana, Tikopia, New Guinea, Haiti, Rwanda, etc etc. Even if Easter Island was decimated by Europeans, the theory is no less sound.

Third, the vast majority of peer-reviewed journal articles gave Diamond rave reviews. That the occasional blogger criticized the book, or that some scholars somewhere believe otherwise, that does not change the science or the history in the book.

Fourth, the biggest problem facing humanity is not poverty but resources. Malthus may ultimately be correct in the end.

Thanks and kudos.

The remainder of them were mopped up. However, when the Europeans arrived they found the island to be treeless and the natives living in a very primitive state. Native sayings referenced cannibalism, which pointed to an agricultural crisis sometime in the past.

Lomborg is correct. Poverty, not environmental degradation, is the number one problem facing humanity.

And I didn’t even address the issues with competition for the last easily extractable oil reserves that are coming up some decade soon, or the global issue vice America’s.

As for a ‘peak grain,’ I don’t believe it. What is really happening is that has the distribution and growth of existing grains has grown more effecient, the need for larger reserves has gotten less.

In north america, the majority of grain grown, particularly corn, is grown for animal feed. This production has become so effecient the price has finally dropped enough that people won’t try to do it on marginal land. For instance, in NW Missouri, my homeland, people now only grow in the bottoms, a change from 100 years ago. Even now so bottoms aren’t utilized there.

New grain growing areas are constantly opened up as seen in western Brazil in the last 20 years (incidentally drawing a lot of American farmers looking for cheaper land). Then there is the continent of Africa, virtually untouched by green revolution farming practices.

As for sprawl, we don’t lament the farms lost to the expansion of Paris, London & Rome so many years ago, and it will be a forgotten issue in North America in the centuries to come.

Indeed, if there is any achilles heel in grain production and distribution, it is the distribution; which can be disrupted by war, weather, protectionist politics, or just poor planning. Not co-incidentally, this will be the same issue faced by energy producers.