I expected someone from NYC, New Jersey or California to say that we are overpopulated. but not someone from Canada! What do you have, something like one person for every 20 square miles. It is places like Canada that prove the earth is not even close to over population.
And back in the 14th century when almost half of England was an Iceberg, the earth warmed dramatically to the point that many icebergs melted and the ambient temperature rose to unheard of heights. Actually, that is probably where the liberal doom and gloom mantra started.
The earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. It has done so long before we were here, and will continue to do so long after we are gone. And by then maybe Canada will have 2 people for every 20 square miles.
We have more people than you think ... nine people per square mile ... ninety times your guess, doug (but I had to look that up myself:smile
.
Where I live is not relevant to the issue of
global warming.
Much of Canada is uninhabited because it is simply inhospitable to human habitation.
Canada, moreover, will be hit quite heavily by global warming, since the northern and southern reaches of the planet will see the largest temperature increases. This may be a mixed blessing for a time, since we are currently a relatively cold country, but eventually the effects in Canada, no less than elsewhere, will be ruinous. Glacial sources of irrigation water will be reduced. Our agriculture will be badly hit. Our forests, as they dry out, will be more susceptible to fires and to insect devastation, which has already ravished the forests of British Columbia.
Canadians per capita are among the highest emitters of greenhouse gases. Sure, we have space for more people, but it would be far kinder to the Earth to drop those new souls into Gambia or maybe El Salvador.
You are absolutely correct that the Earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles before -- but there are many reasons to say this time is different. We are causing most of this warming, say several reports of the International Panel on Climate Change. Thousands of scientists are onside with this view. The oil companies, many of them, have conceded the point. And even G.W. Bush, the last man who would desert the interests of the oil conglomerates, is now coming onside.
As a point of interest: As the permafrost in Canada (and in Alaska and Russia) continues to thaw, a great deal of methane will be released, which causes far more warming than carbon dioxide.
As the Canadian forests dry out, they will become less effective as carbon sinks.
Winds over the southern oceans are increasing, churning up carbon-laden water from the depths to the surface, where they release carbon ... so they too, like the forests, are becoming less effective as carbon sinks.
The melting of the Greenland icecap is outstripping even the most pessimistic of scientific predictions. This will have a devastating effect in two ways -- it will make the Earth surface, in total, more absorbent of solar heat, and will raise sea levels to the point that many coastal cities will be submerged.
The effects are cascading, and many would continue even if we
ceased to emit carbon.
But we're
increasing our global carbon output, faster than ever.
Everything's moving in the wrong direction.
And all these indicators will be worsened with the addition of more carbon-consuming humans.
Therefore, among other changes, we need to have fewer humans on the planet.
