Hold on. Let's think about this for a minute. China is tops in the world in terms of manufacturing, and also has a huge population. That factors heavily into how much they're putting out in terms of pollution and harm of the environment. I believe, per person, that the United States is still well ahead of China in this aspect.
That might be true. However, when it comes to climate change, it doesn't matter who is producing it. What I see, is that not only are the contributions to climate change being shared, but the are solutions too. I don't expect that the world will be able to come to terms in a timeliness that will avert significant change.
I realize that. The entire developed and developing world is at fault. However, you're not going to see a change anytime soon. All the infrastructure is in place to use fossil fuels for manufacturing and other processes. You might find a new, suitable replacement. Let's say wind or solar power have significant improvements to make them viable for widespread industry. Well you're still going to have years of implementing that infrastructure before it's really going to work. Coal is still generally the cheaper source of energy. Do you still want your cheap made in China items to be cheap? If you do, then you're not going to see a change in China anytime soon. I'm not referring to just to you with that, mk, but to society as a whole. I completely agree with the article that clean energy needs to be as cheap as fossil fuels before you'll start to see a switch, especially when it comes to developing countries.
Personally, I don't. We've basically outsourced our environmental concerns to a place where the damage doesn't so directly affect us. I think we largely agree. We are headed towards a difficult place, and the motivation to change course will come too late.Do you still want your cheap made in China items to be cheap? If you do, then you're not going to see a change in China anytime soon. I'm not referring to just to you with that, mk, but to society as a whole.
I believe the population is predicted to stabilize at about 10 billion based on population growth trends and many experts opinions. If you think about it then it makes sense, the population wont grow above what is naturally sustainable because without resources it is impossible. Many people believe that human numbers will just keep expanding but that is just not feasible.
You are right that the population can't grow beyond what resources can sustain, but let's think about what "stabilization" means. In the best case scenario it means that the 3rd world population will become more educated and their birthrates will decrease as a result. In the worst case it means that war and disease will savage us.
I think most opinions on this are guesses at best. Population collapse happens, and it's reasonable to think that a sudden shift in climate could bring about enough stresses to make it happen to us. I don't think growth is so much the issue as is instability in the environment. We've been able to adapt to our growth, but I'm not sure we can grow and adapt to other changes at the same time.
China seems to be going through its own industrial revolution. As the middle class grows it will be interesting to see its society develop as people become less tolerant of an intrusive government. China is also becoming a massive market for new cars and American companies are leading the charge. Look for a new china on the horizon. Also is china not working on thorium reactors? I thought bill gates was helping out?