Re: environment

On Mon, 29 May 2000, Roslyn Bologh wrote:

> Does this formula I=PCT mean what I think it does: that the larger the
> population, and the higher the consumption level, and the higher the level
> of technology the worse it is for the environment?  If so, this is a
> dangerous, reactionary position.

Yes, you seem to have got it right.  In one place (ie, parts of the
periphery) P might be higher, but in another (ie, the core) C higher --
the same amount of environmental impact can result from different
quantities of multipliers.

Of course T is a little more complicated, since application of certain
types of technology can reduce pollution, such as emissions devices on
autos and smokestacks, but unfortunately technological advance tends to
increase energy consumption per capita as well as make possible cheaper
products, which fuels increased C as well.

How do you conclude that this is dangerous and reactionary?  I mentioned
the biologist Paul Ehrlich, but biologist and socialist (and one-time 
presidential candidate -- I voted for him in 1980) Barry Commoner has
used this formula in his analysis as well.

RH

>   Using Ehrlich's formula I = PCT (environmental impact
> >is equal to population X level of consumption X level of technology, the
> >necessary changes will compute differently in different parts of the
> >world, but radical change is required all the way around.
> >
> >RH