While I agree with Wirt's assertions about the drawbacks of nuclear power and the potential of solar, I don't agree with his characterization of 'footprint' and the impact of developed vs undeveloped peoples and/or nations.
Certainly it's true that 19 million New Yorkers occupy less space than our putative Amazonians, and the New Yorkers' immediate surroundings might not constitute 'desolation' (I will, with great effort, refrain from making New Jersey jokes here!), but the 'footprint' of 19 million New Yorkers (or 19 million Americans anywhere) extends considerably farther than the few hundred square miles of their immediate residence. The consumptive habits of developed societies require a vast commitment of resources, land and otherwise. How much of NYC's food, fuel, steel, textiles, and other manufactured goods are produced with the City's limits? My point is that the 'footprint' of a society such as New York's (or most any developed Western society) must necessarily include fields, mines, factories, transportation arteries, and a thousand other elements of industrial and agricultural infrastructure, some of which might be halfway around the planet. The development of a society is certainly a factor in determining the size of the resource footprint, but the society's population and habits are at least of equal importance. We may not be burning rainforests in the US these days, but--how much of our own rainforests (and tallgrass prairies, white-pine forests, baldcypress swamps, freshwater marshes, etc. etc.) have we eliminated in the past in order to support our society's 'footprint'? And how much more of this kind of activity elsewhere does our footprint continue to require? I frankly hope Wirt's right, that urbanization will lead to reduced population pressure and reduced environmental impact...but I don't see things moving that way at present. In any event--this has been an interesting discussion. Keep it coming. John Korfmacher Fort Collins, CO USA
