I described the “vested interests” as the self-confessed interest of environmentalists to stop oil drilling, no matter what the environmental reality.

You seem to share that objective, as suggested by the fact that you trumped my Exxon quotation with your Greenpeace link. (Oh, wait, there wasn’t an Exxon quotation.)

As for my credibility, I hardly think taking economic lessons from the most prosperous, successful, and free (large) nation on earth is all that bad for my credibility. Even if you condescend to caricature the choices some of those free people make as “crass” and inferior to your cultured elitism.

“Polar Bears and Exxon”
http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxonsecrets/2008/01/07/polar_bears_and_exxon

Interesting editorial at the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02wed3.html?_r=3&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

It’s sadly ironic that Mr Vegter believes it worthwhile to sacrifice his credibility at the alter of America’s crass consumerism.

And if those two populations in decline are indeed “threatened”, I would also question the government’s conclusion that they are “victims of global warming”. That’s not my opinion, as you so condescendingly state. That is based on the research audit I cited. It points out that the causal chain is long and consists of many unsubstantiated assumptions and what-if scenarios. Basing a firm conclusion on such a tenuous causal chain is highly unscientific. In science, you have to prove every step in your reasoning. You can’t simply consider what might conceivably be possible in a world that matches your political (or fund-raising) objectives and call that a scientific conclusion.

The article itself also indulges in some spurious what-if speculation, which reduces its credibility. For example: “if the weight-loss trend continues…” The question is, would it? And if so, why? Why wouldn’t the animals react to their environment? Why wouldn’t they stabilise at a lower population level, which is how we’ve always understood natural interdependent populations in an ecosystem to react? Might they not migrate to greener (if you’ll excuse the pun) pastures? Or perhaps seek alternative food? Or learn to live on a leaner diet? On what basis could you conclude that a short-term decline in weight constitutes an irreversible long-term trend caused by “global warming”?

I lost two kilograms last month. If that trend continues, I’ll be dead by Christmas. Yet not even my mother panics. See the problem I have with such apocalyptic reasoning?

@ Owen: Forgive me for not joining your little suicide cult.

Paul Ehrlich’s hysterical predictions of population growth, back in the late 1960s, had all the world fretting about mass starvation in the 1970s (as if the coming ice age didn’t cause enough stress). Thanks to the failure of those predictions, it has become clear that the earth can sustain rather more people than expected. Why is this so? Because population growth isn’t exponential after all. It doesn’t simply grow until resources are depleted. In fact, global human population is likely to peak and stabilise over time. Because as the world gets more prosperous, life expectancy increases, and mortality rates decline. As a result, people tend to have fewer kids. The earth can sustain its current (and future) population because global production isn’t a zero-sum game that simply depletes resources in a one-to-one relationship with population size. Again, the more prosperous we get, the more we invest in sustainability and sophisticated resource management, and the more we care about a healthy, productive and sustainable environment. And the fewer children we have. As the rich world amply demonstrates, successful development is not the problem, it’s the solution to uncontrolled population growth and unmanaged resource exploitation. To answer your question, I’d expect an eventually stable level of 10 billion would be perfectly sustainable. You sound like you want to go on a culling spree. I don’t. You sound like you want to stop the developing world from either developing or growing. I don’t.

Besides, assuming that one can handle the rather sociopathic notion of a few billion fewer people on earth, with the rest poorer than today, I doubt whether this would relieve the pressure on some animals and resources. On the contrary. Some of the worst historical environmental damage was caused on a planet peopled by only a fraction of today’s population, at only a fraction of today’s living standards. The evidence simply doesn’t bear out your theory. With fewer people around, well-meaning do-gooders would still be fretting about some messianic mission of “saving” the planet.

Yet the environment turns out to be pretty robust. In general (there are localised exceptions), it is not a fragile, sensitive system that any slight disturbance could tip into disaster. I view the environment as worth caring about, and investing in, but one doesn’t do this by getting hysterical about humans and their use of natural resources. One certainly doesn’t save, say, the tiger, by discrediting endangered status with ill-conceived, politically-motivated and unnecessary listings of marketing icons such as the polar bear.

I do agree with your view on child grants, however. Like most redistributionist economic policies, it has unintended negative consequences. But so does a brutal regime like China’s one-child policy, which is remarkably often held up as a good idea. It’s not. It’s just as sociopathic as idle dreams of fewer people on earth.

If you really want fewer people on earth, go ahead. You first. I’m right behind you.

I wrote about a particular environmental concern that is not legitimate. How does that say anything at all about “rampant industrialisation over legitimate environmental concerns”? You’re paint me as some caricature because you can’t argue the facts, I guess.

In my other exchange with you, to which you linked, I asked you to “Please be so kind not to assume that because I oppose the alarmism and political motives of many environmentalists, that I am somehow opposed to a clean, healthy, productive and pleasant environment.” So, please don’t.

On “quality of life”, I did not use it as a nebulous concept, but named several very specific, well-defined, and well-established measures. But I guess the indisputable statistical fact that the life expectancy at birth of the average Jeff Brown almost doubled in the last century, and that you’re 90% less likely to die of infectious disease, are pretty “nebulous” to you.

Oh, and as for my looking for a spin-doctor position with the department of Minerals and Energy Affairs, I’m speechless. Either you haven’t read any of my comments on the power crisis, or you’re smoking some pretty good weed. Either way, I’m tired of this type of “debate”.

@ Terri: A couple of years ago, I wrote a column, “Wasted Efforts”, for Maverick magazine. Ironically, it was nominated as a finalist for a journalism award sponsored by a paper giant that spends millions on a massive recycling campaign. I don’t think it’s available online, sadly. The gist was that while some recycling makes economic and environmental sense, much of it does not. If someone isn’t paying you to recycle (as they do with scrap metals) you’re probably being had. In general, I’m very skeptical of such efforts, especially when imposed by government regulation. If you search my blog for “recycling”, you’ll find some related posts on the subject.

And yes, it is a good idea to move away from fossil fuels eventually. As we are doing already. The decarbonisation of fuel progresses apace, and the more expensive fossil fuels get, the more economic sense alternatives will begin to make.

If there were less of us our quality of life would improve and we would be able to concerntrate on living within our world rather than taking from it.

When will you regard the planet as over populated – when we get to how many billions of people?
Then what will your solution be?

You do realise that we can count every Tiger on the this planet yet we have to estimate how many humans there are. Does that not alarm you?

So
save the Polar Bear – have less humans
save the Tiger – have less humans
save the world – have less humans

There is no other alternative.

If we don’t limit ourselves then good old mother earth eventually will.

You do realise that our present child grant system encourages mothers to have many kids. more kids = more grant money.

My solution in SA is simple – have a child grant of R2000.00 for the oldest child under 18 per mother and nothing for any other children. That way mothers will elect of their own accord to have less kids.

But I have come to understand you by your belittling addendum ‘if they are accurate’. It’s “I’ve got my opinion, don’t confuse me with the facts.”

And unless you happen to be looking for a spin doctor position with the dept of Minerals & Energy, I really do think you’re damaging your credibility by crusading for rampant industrialization over legitimate environmental concerns. . .

Personally I found your contrivations (that is, the one’s you didn’t copy from wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com) very weak. In fact almost entirely baseless, totally repugnant, and completely devoid of any value.

You whine about such nebulous concepts as “quality of life” – yet appear quite willing to sacrifice our children’s environment for an empty void in space.

I’ve just started reading a book called Data Smog, by David Schenck, which illustrates how 21st Century knowledge workers can be so information overloaded that they know the meaning of everything; and the value of absolutely nothing. You should read it.

Peace & Love

@ Jeff: Having missed the ball on too many occasions, you play the man in stead? Does that work for you?

I’d like to hear your views on household and office recycling. Have you published something?

Please read the rest of my comments here: http://ivo.co.za/2008/02/06/if-polar-bears-are-doomed-we-all-are/

@Ivo, stick to IT journalism, mate…. and make no more obeisances to American ‘gods’ if you value your soul.

*slap*