300,000,000

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This could have been a great thread about sustainable development

sustainable devolopment has to focus on production, and its impacts, not on the nastiness of the consumers for existing. Otherwise we will get such absurdities as me telling KH how the US stand on softwood lumber was really an attempt to make the US less of a leach on the world, and to stop our rape of Canadian forests, and to help make Canadian ecosystems more sustainable.

If you think Canadas lumbering practices are not sustainable, just talk about Canadas lumbering practices, not about how big American houses are, or how many bathrooms they have

[lord of the mark]

What else is silly about this, is that a big chunk of US pop growth is immigration or children of recent immigrants. We're actually absorbing growth that would have taken place elsewhere anyway. Youd think someone as quantitatively focuses as Lester Brown would have noticed that.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
This could have been a great thread about sustainable development

But moby posted it

[DanS]

What a poor article.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If all the other industrialized countries are declining while we are expanding, of course it's sustainable, since it all cancels out.

It doesn´t cancel out.

The US AFAIK wastes more water per capita and produces more CO2 per Capita than do other industrialized western nations (i.e. excluding asian countries like China),
so if the population grows by exactly the same amount that all of the other western industrialized countries loose altogether,
you will get a rising water consumption and rising CO2-Levels,
despite the popualtion of the western industrialized countries (incl. USA) as a whole stays the same

[Jon Miller]

We have already went over this. Resource expenditure is a function of both popualtion and density. The US also has a large landmass, as well as having a decent sized population.

Since resource use per person goes up with a decrease in density (see Canada), the resource use of the US (per person) should go down as the population increases.

JM

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
We have already went over this. Resource expenditure is a function of both popualtion and density. The US also has a large landmass, as well as having a decent sized population.

Since resource use per person goes up with a decrease in density (see Canada), the resource use of the US (per person) should go down as the population increases.

JM

The correlation you are describing is rather small.
The truth that in both Canada and US, resouce expenditure (say energy for example) per capita is going up , and pretty fast at that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


The correlation you are describing is rather small.
The truth that in both Canada and US, resouce expenditure (say energy for example) per capita is going up , and pretty fast at that.

cause GDP is. US energy usage per $ GDP has gone down. Of course thats due to sectoral shifts within the economy. But then US and Canada have different sectoral makeups to their economies than western eur or Japan.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
We have already went over this. Resource expenditure is a function of both popualtion and density. The US also has a large landmass, as well as having a decent sized population.

Since resource use per person goes up with a decrease in density (see Canada), the resource use of the US (per person) should go down as the population increases.

JM

I think there´s more to it.
The USA as whole is less environmental than other nations.
For example you won´t see as much SUVs in other countries as in the USA (which can be attributed to the fact that in the USA fuel is highly subsidized, giving the US citizens gas prices which are very low compared to those other western industrialized nations [discouraging citizens of those countries from using cars that consume such large amounts of fuel like SUVs do])
Or think of the large water consumption of states like California where water is wasted just to get the houses surrounded by green lawns (despite the climate in this area being not suited for such things like lawns)

YOu nmight be sure that resource use (and CO2 production) per capita will get lower with growing population density, but they won´t get as low as the dsame things are within the european countries unless the USA will apply considerably changes within their environmental policies.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Arrian
You really cannot post without flinging insults, can you?

I was merely coming down to the level of your opening salvo...

You really don't know how I live. You don't know if I'm a glutton who owns 3 SUVs, eats at McDonalds all the time and whatnot or if I'm a frugal type. Or something in-between.

And? What has that got to do with anything? Except your obsession with taking everything you perceive as a slight against America personally?

You and I broadly agree on most subjects actually, but hey...

You are clearly obsessed with America, and if somebody writes something critical of it, you will lap it up on cue. It's guaranteed. Think about that. Or not. Whatever.

Maybe you should read a few non-American threads for a change and you'll realise you're talking out of your arse...

I'm not the one with an agenda who posts w/o thinking, Moby dearest.

Again, your only posts on this subject to date are about stalking me with snidey little remarks, and not talking about the subject at hand - you're like a Dinodoc clone, but I'll grant you, at least you appear to have a brain!

[Arrian]

fuel is highly subsidized

Minor quibble... AFAIK, our fuel simply isn't taxed as much as yours, as opposed to be subsidized. But anyway, that's basically just two sides of the same coin. Cheaper gas in the US, yes.

As for environmental policy/worldview, I won't argue we are as green as Europe. Then again, as inefficient and ineffective as it sometimes can be, the EPA and its state equivalents do exist, and American understanding of the environment & our impact on it is miles better than it was a few decades ago. I see it everyday in my job.

We're gettin' there.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MOBIUS

Again, your only posts on this subject to date are about stalking me with snidey little remarks, and not talking about the subject at hand

When someone trolls, its appropriate to point out the troll, and not to respond to the trolls "substantive" point.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by DanS
What a poor article.

What a cop out!

At least tell us why you think so...?

[Arrian]

I was merely coming down to the level of your opening salvo

Really. Find the insult in my post.

And? What has that got to do with anything?

This:

It's not nasty you imbecile, it is a warning about where we are all going as a planet...

The US may be the torchbearer of an unsustainable model of consumption, however we are all guilty wherever we live.

Just cos you're too stupid to see that ain't my problem

For all you know I am a Green. Actually, I've voted Green. I've given money to various environmental lobby/political groups. I pay extra on my power bill so my electicity comes from "green" sources.

The article you posted is a hachet job on American life, however, right in line with your M.O.

...

Maybe you should read a few non-American threads for a change

I'm active in all sorts of threads, both here in the OTF and in the CIV forums. You, on the other hand, are pretty much a one-trick-pony, so far as I've seen.

-Arrian

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
When someone trolls, its appropriate to point out the troll, and not to respond to the trolls "substantive" point.

Where at any point am I trolling in my first post!!?

Some people (you included, it appears) seem utterly incapable of seeing past their preconceived prejudices.

The knee-jerk reaction to this thread is hilarious!