Speaking of Kunstler, Frank Furedi puts him on context in this essay for Spiked Online:
The Malthusian objective of reducing populations is alive and kicking. For deep ecologists, the issue is straightforward – their starting point, as spelled out by leading ecologists Arne Naess and George Sessions in 1984, is that a ‘substantial reduction in human population is needed for the flourishing of non-human life’. Numerous commentators embrace these Malthusian sentiments. ‘The current world population of 6.5 billion has no hope whatsoever of sustaining itself at current levels, and the fundamental conditions of life on Earth are about to force the issue’, warns Kunstler (8). The Australian academic David McNight has tried to reconcile neo-Malthusianism with his version of ‘new humanism’, arguing that ‘creating a sustainable society based on human values will necessitate stopping the growth of human population and accepting limits on human material desire’ (9).
Furedi takes some good shots but doesn’t really go anywhere. Yes, there’s a lot of hysteria in the enviro movement, and there’s also a great deal of denial in the anti-enviro movement. That being as it is, what’s a poor boy to do? Considering the tasks that probably have to be done:
* reducing human population by half
* reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80-90%
* stopping (and reversing) topsoil erosion
* alternate energy sources
* clean air and water in the Third World
It’s hard to see democracies taking action until it’s too late to avoid serious damage. Oh well, it’s time for lunch.
Why are those first two in that list at all?
Humans consume, and global warming is a bad thing.