Swans

Regarding articles on Zimbabwe published on Swans

[Ed. We sent the following e-mail to Mr. Simms:
"Thank you for your e-mail. Could you please let me know the city/state where you live so that we can include it in our Letters to the Editor?
Baffour Ankomah has indeed gone to Zimbabwe."]

Regarding Gilles d'Aymery's & Jan Baughman's Ralph Nader: If Not Now, When?

Regarding Phil Rockstroh's A Poison Pen Letter To Our Apostle Of Perpetual Psychosis, Brother Mel Gibson

Regarding Manuel García's Oil, Population And Global Warming

[Ed. This is an e-mail exchange between the author and Mr. David J. Theroux, the Founder and President of the The Independent Institute. The correspondence took place March 16-22, 2004. It is reproduced by permission.]

Dear David,

Thank you for your reply. I'm glad my article found a reader. I'm sure time will prove what mistakes I have and haven't made.

I reported the figures of oil reserves stated in the references, by what I view as unbiased, knowledgeable experts. These figures are for oil. I agree there is a vast amount of coal in the ground, but this source of energy is not very environmentally benign (the getting or the using of it -- why we went to oil in the first place). The articles I relied on about oil reserves are also quite recent, and would include the "enormous" quantities that have been found since Hubbert's day. So, I believe my reporting of the quantitative argument of the finiteness of oil is accurate (given the data).

I actually wrote a small computer program to plot and compare all these curves, but was restricted to a purely text format for my presentation to a general readership. The curves tell the story at a glance.

I used actual data up to the present (2000) and projections - clearly stated - beyond that. Again these are not "my" projections, but those of authorities I consider knowledgeable and unbiased: oil analysts (e.g., WRI), the US Census Bureau, and the UN Environment Programme (which NOAA refers to as the leading authority for global warming data).

For example, on population, I clearly state that the rate of population growth is diminishing after 1990 (since I am reporting what I can see on a US Census Bureau curve of actual data), however, the population does grow. Also, the US Census Bureau gives a range of predictions for future growth (there is no presentation showing a population decrease). I also stated that I took the "middle" option; the "high" is quite impressively higher, and the "low" is not that dramatically lower over the time period I describe. Again, the numbers I use "are" the data (to the present), and reflect the most balanced "predictions" reflecting the best predictive knowledge available, so I don't think they are "wrong" objectively, though they are doubtless "wrong" politically among any number of people.

I did not make any Malthusian population disaster claims beyond stating what the projected populations would be. My point is that Americans will be 4.5% of a more crowded world, with a naturally larger appetite for natural resources. Whether or how we tackle the issue of accommodating this demand is a matter of speculative political discussion, which is where I imagine we actually disagree. I don't think there is any actual quantitative error in my article, but I freely grant there can be many interpretive divergences.

Finally, I realize you may see me as an advocate for "limiting growth," which your institute champions. I don't think that is my thrust. I question the meaning of what has been ascribed to the concept of "growth," based on an oil-fueled prosperity - doing things the old way (at most tinkering a bit around the fundamental concept of energy-intensive capitalism). I, too, understand from my earlier engineering education (B.S. Mech Engr. '72) that mass, energy and power can be used in different and quite innovative and environmentally benign ways to animate a drastically revised social, economic and technological structure which provides great benefit -- growth as you call it -- for Americans and the rest of the world. This is the point of my articles. I take up the issue of policy choices facing Americans, given the closing of the oil era, in a future article (at SWANS.com) called "Election 2016: The Issues."

I'm sure neither of us is likely to be "convinced" by the other's articles, but I am pleased that you found mine worthy of review and comment. Thank you very much for your response.

Manuel García

Dear David,

I assume you refer to the North American colonists as the 200,000 people of 1704.

There were of course many more Native Americans, perhaps up to 3 million north of the Rio Grande (including Canada) in 1700. One of the consequences of the growth of the colonial population was the demise of the native one. The estimated 6 million natives of 1500 north of the Rio Grande (1) were reduced to 400,000 in 1900 (250,000 in the USA.). Since 1900, native populations have grown, so that today they are at about 30% of what they were in 1500 (they were about 10% in 1900). For the entire Western Hemisphere (North, Central and South America) the population loss between 1500 and 1980 was about 50 million (2). "Growth" on the American model is not seen universally as something positive to emulate. I take up the issue of policy choices that include benefit to populations excluded in prior American growth, in another article I hope SWANS.com publishes, "Which Holocaust Matters?"

I agree on your general point about the importance of technology (to assist in people's lives) and the importance of freedom of choice regarding many things including use of resources. The key here is what arrangements are made for the implementation of these freedoms, since all of everyone's choices are interlinked. One man's constraint is another's freedom.

Manuel

[1] Native population north of the Rio Grande in 1492 is estimated between 4 and 7 million (modern estimates), and the span of estimates is 1 million to 18 million.

[2] Western Hemisphere population in 1492 is estimated between 72 million and 113 million. The 1980 native population in the Western Hemisphere was 28 million, so a 50 million drop is a reasonable characterization.

We appreciate and welcome your comments. Please, sign your e-mail with your name and add your city, state, country, address and phone number. If we publish your opinion we will only include your name, city, state, and country. (Letters may be shortened and edited)