Letters to the Editor
-
Just WHERE should change occur?
I guess one could think of crazier 'solutions to global warming' than blotting out the sun from the sky, but one is hard put to get hold of them.
Actually, once the link between global warming and human activities on earth is established and accepted, there is only one real resolution to the issue: DRASTICALLY reduce human population worldwide!
I understand it has been calculated that something like one 2004 tsunami, each day for 18 years or so (!!) would do the trick of bringing the human population down to a sustainable level of 1.5 billion humans. At what is considered a 'reasonable' level of consumption these days, that is said to be about the maximum that earth can support without serious damage to the global ecosystem.
It would be interesting to find out just where the thrust to reduce human numbers should be applied:
-- Should it be done in countries like China and India, which have each crossed over 1 billion population?
-- Or should it be done in 'developed' countries like the US, whose 300 billion population for instance consumes and pollutes the earth to something like the effect of 8 billion humans (or should that number be 80 billion?!!) in the 'developing' countries?
-- GSC