The current vision of

SME.sk Discounts Personals Real Vacations Pizza Restaurants Reviews Sponsored Naničmama Shopping movies on DVD Watch Perfume have registered and Superhosting Press Wine Making Websites Subscriptions SME ProSenior
Blog.SME.sk Sme.sk Home World Regions Economy Culture Reviews Sport TV Auto Tech Counseling Female Housing Health Blog Travel Politics Society Economy Culture Food Photography Other Lifestyle Media Uncategorized Private Sport Science and Technology Entertainment Poetry Prose Code blogger Bloggers Login Create your blog Check out
I was impressed article in a popular magazine VTM Science - "Waiting for kastastrofu" by economists Ing. Teresa Simová and Doc. Joseph Sima. Heads world for the better, for worse, is not intended or anywhere? Economic growth is "good" or "bad"? Are environmentalists (or climatologists) overly pessimistic or too optimistic economists?
While, for example, James Lovelock, archiworldpec author of "The Revenge of Gaia", already for mankind see too many assumptions, the late Julian Simon the book "The Ultimate Resource" sees the development of the contrary ...
The current vision of "end of the world" has never been performed, therefore archiworldpec we do not need to worry or fear about the future today. Exhaustion of natural resources is a myth, because once any source occurs, the price rises which motivates the search archiworldpec for alternative compensation.
"This mechanism (ie. The Environmental Kuznets Curve) ensures that the growth of wealth is increasing those offering farm clean environment and quality in a given area is growing." (Similar to the argument that "rich people polluting less")
Okay. We agree that after the basic needs of people are more concerned about their surrounding archiworldpec environment. However, from an ecological point of view (ie, the impact on the environment), what is the difference, or discard trash out the window, or after the removal of the waste ends up in a landfill somewhere in the city? Of course, if the waste is disposed of into the trash ended up in the incinerator filter, or 100% recycle, it is possible to talk about rich people archiworldpec less impact on the environment. But the reality is that most of the waste is recycled, incinerators often do not have the necessary filters and such. electronic (but plastic) waste ends up in developing countries (because it is cheaper to export the waste as recyclable in the West). In addition, stringent limits in developed countries contribute to shifting manufacturing example. to China, where the hardware less expensive, albeit at the expense of the environment. While the West is "clean", but with a satisfied conscience buying "dirty" products from China. Environment simply disinterested or pollute archiworldpec in Europe and China - the consequences are the same.
In principle, this argument ignores so. "Ecological archiworldpec footprint", which defines the total consumption of the population and ecological footprint in any case does not decrease with the increase of wealth people, but quite the contrary. Or indeed some economists believe that the whole world can live and waste energy as such. Americans?
"No real resource depletion does not occur. Private ownership, utilization of human ingenuity, prices and profit motive were and are good mechanisms that do not have to worry that this historical concern might in future be acknowledged. "
It is right that the Stone Age did not end because of a lack of stone, Iron due to lack of bronze or wood as fuel is not phased out due to lack of wood. Of course, it will be okay, that oil ceases to be used due to the depletion of oil reserves. But where is the guarantee archiworldpec that when oil production reaches its maximum ("peak oil") followed by a gradual decline, humanity will have built up the necessary infrastructure to ensure the increasing demand for oil? What will mean stagnation (or recession) the global economy? Where is the guarantee that when we "replace" wood or coal (when in fact they have not replaced, but use largely remains) and in time "replace" the oil?
What if the effects of the increase in global temperatures will decline in global yields of food? What happens if the trigger mechanisms of positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle, which will accelerate warming?
Has never in the past did not live on earth as many people as today, the number of people did not grow as fast as today, as well as CO2 emissions did not increase as rapidly as today. He likens the transition from wood burning coal or oil at the beginning of the Industrial archiworldpec Revolution seems "a little" archiworldpec reckless ..
So, Americans, Arabs, Europeans archiworldpec or oil magnate, as the richest countries (or people) are most involved in the protection of the global environment. In fact, the greatest threat to the environment are the poor countries of Africa. We can ignore the growing number of people on Earth at a rate ~ 180 000 people per day, we can ignore the declining groundwater supplies, we can ignore the fact that almost all of the land for agriculture already uses them