The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

Always go back to the premise of the argument. Here the premise is that what we has used is gone forever. The fact is, most of the natural resources the enviro-wacko's are talking about are actually renewable. For instance, we actually have more trees than we did 200 years ago, because we plant them faster than we cut them down. Our ability to produce food has increased dramatically, so while we have more people on the face of the earth than ever, we don't need more people to provide the food.
Our greatest resource is the ingenuity of the human mind.

WORLD ENDS: Women and minorities hardest hit!!! (Hint for liberals: that was a joke)

I'm not sure about 2/3, but there are definitely lifestyle changes humanity will have to make within the next 50 years as fossil fuels are used up.

I'm not sure...

But you are sure that we will use up fossil fuels? How do you know that? Is it a fact? A theory? Something you conjured up on your Ouija Board?

Scientists today have no idea how much oil is left in the world. And there are several centuries of coal left. That doesn't even consider renewable sources of fossil fuel. As just one example, the North Slope oil range is already pumping oil way past what was thought to be the total amount there and still going strong.

Also, you neglect to consider non-fossil fuels like nuclear energy, hydrogen cells, and others. They will come into viable production as the scarcity and difficulty in extracting oil drives up prices. Technological advances will also play a hand. Many of which we are not even aware or have we envisioned. Who would or could have predicted the impact of the Internet for example? Or cell phones? Its all a crap shoot.

Take all of these "informed" projections with a grain of salt. When I was in high school in the 60's, we were worried about overpopulation right here in the good old USA. Now we're in a crisis over the failing Social Security system - why? Not enough people paying into it vs too many receiving benefits. What happened to the overpopulation scare? Planned Parenthood, birth control pills, abortions, and the "liberation" of women who now defer marriage and child bearing in favor of careers in the business world.

The sky is definitely not falling.

While it is entirely conceivable that the report is wrong and that our use of natural resources does not exceed the planet's ability to renew these resources, how long can this situation last? At the current rate of population expansion, owing to countries in the Third World, who will also begin to consume resources equivalent to their First World counterparts, how long will the Earth itself be able to provide? Will the Earth be able to sustain 10 billion people (current estimates) when each person wants what Americans already have?

Right now we are seeing a decline in fish species, we are seeing a decline in available oil reserves, and most importantly we are converting significant portions of natural habitat into wastlands�see the encroaching of the Sahara, or New Jersey. And that's not considering pollution which has a direct affect on our lives in both local and global proportions.

We need to consider changing our footprint on the environment now, not just by recycling or conservation, but also by inherent intelligent design.

It's easy to dismiss everything out-of-hand, but what if some of this report is correct, what if some resources, say potable water, is becoming scarce? Are you ready to fight a war for water in 50 years because we didn't start considering desalinization plants now? Are you ready to wear a surgical mask in LA or New York because the smog is so bad? What if the pinon forests in New Mexico disappear because the weather has become too warm? And what if we are not only changing the environment, but doing so at a quickening pace? Why not start changing now?

But, its easy to dismiss it all as nonsense and conjecture, rather than considering that even the remotest possibilities often become realities.

At the current rate of population expansion,

Got a number there, hoss?

owing to countries in the Third World,

Ever seen studies about what happens when any population gets bigger than the resources it needs to support it? To put it nicely, population decline. In humans that means, murder, genocide, disease, pestilence, and famine. Soon the population goes down to manageable levels for the resources at hand. In many cases, it actually goes below the max so far that governments offer bounties for new children. Australia did that for decades (and may still.)

who will also begin to consume resources equivalent to their First World counterparts,

In most 3rd world countries, and especially those that are overpopulated, the standard of living is so low that no one owns a car. Air conditioning is non-existent. Energy demands are small and energy prices are high. All of these put the lie to your projection.

how long will the Earth itself be able to provide?

No one knows. Anyone who says they do is a liar or a fool. But take heart, it has always been that way.

Will the Earth be able to sustain 10 billion people (current estimates)

By who?

when each person wants what Americans already have?

Wanting and getting are two different things.

Right now we are seeing a decline in fish species,

Proof please.

we are seeing a decline in available oil reserves,

ditto.

and most importantly we are converting significant portions of natural habitat into wastlands

Where? Who do you mean by "we?"

see the encroaching of the Sahara,

Caused by what?

or New Jersey.

One can only hope.

And that's not considering pollution which has a direct affect on our lives in both local and global proportions.

Pollution? I smell a Kyoto rant here.

We need to consider changing our footprint on the environment now,

The dreaded "footprint."

not just by recycling or conservation, but also by inherent intelligent design.

You mean we all gotta believe in creationism now?

It's easy to dismiss everything out-of-hand, but what if some of this report is correct, what if some resources, say potable water, is becoming scarce?

Lotta what ifs. I could come up with some too, but since that's a waste of time, I'll pass.

Are you ready to fight a war for water in 50 years because we didn't start considering desalinization plants now?

War for water. Hahaha! You've been reading too many comic books.

Are you ready to wear a surgical mask in LA or New York

I would already and it ain't due to pollution.

What if the pinon forests in New Mexico disappear because the weather has become too warm?

Aha. I knew it. Hidden in this drivel the dreaded global warming. I could see it coming.

And what if we are not only changing the environment, but doing so at a quickening pace?

When were we not changing the environment - and at a quickening pace?

Why not start changing now?

Because there's no proof? No reason? Because its silly?

But, its easy to dismiss it all as nonsense and conjecture, rather than considering that even the remotest possibilities often become realities.

Or not.

Suppose the greenies are wrong and we listen to them anyway. In 50 years, I'll be driving a piss-weak little electric car to work at the recycling plant, cursing the hippies all the way for both.

Suppose the GOP Bloggers are wrong and we listen to them anyway. In 50 years, my family won't be able to safely stand in direct sunlight.

They have an understandable and justifiable motive for saying "we are polluting too much". Even if they're wrong, they can't hurt. Why do you care?

Dave,

Sure they can hurt; they can get us to do useless, expensive things which actually harm the environment by impoverishing human beings and making them, by necessity, more destructive of the environment. The Kyoto Treaty was the most striking example of this; a hugely expensive proposal which would have done zero to cure the ostensible problem...it would have made the whole world poorer...and poor people don't have the money for environmentalism....its very expensive to keep Yellowstone pristine, and only a fabulously wealthy nation like the United States can afford to lock up that much resource.

We want clean air, clean water and natural spaces...lets do it; but lets leave aside the doom and gloom BS which is only in the service of leftwing environmentalist Luddites.

So by investing resources trying to help the environment we are actually encouraging people to hurt it? That is textbook doublespeak.

I learned "green" values from my VERY conservative GOP grandparents. It's called "take only what you need and leave the rest."

Teddy Roosevelt would be spinning in his grave to see what the "big polluter" lobbysts have done with his GOP.

A clear majority of Americans in both parties favor more environmental protections, not less.

This is about much more than the number of trees.

You asked for proof about fish species. Do you know any commercial fishermen? Ask them about how many fish speicies have gone off the market in the last 15 years. How easy is it to find Orange Roughy in the supermarket anymore?

You asked for proof about global warming. The ten warmest years on record have been in the past two decades. (Rationalize it any way you want).

You asked for proof about dwindling oil reserves. Go as a petroleum geologist of either party. Do you really think that gas prices will go down any time soon, or that the few hundred thousand barrels in Alaska will make any difference? Alaskan crude is earmarked for the Japanese market anyhow. Ask yourself, who will benefit?

Conservate and Conservationist are not supposed to be opposites.

Sincerely,

Joe in South Carolina

[NOTE: folksy anecdotes and hyperbole removed]

A clear majority of Americans in both parties favor more environmental protections, not less.

No citations, no "unbiased" polls, just your word. Not buying that, I'm afraid.

You asked for proof about fish species. Do you know any commercial fishermen?

No, but my wife works for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency.

Ask them about how many fish speicies (sic) have gone off the market in the last 15 years.

Why don't you tell us?

How easy is it to find Orange Roughy in the supermarket anymore?

Pretty easy where I live.

You asked for proof about global warming. The ten warmest years on record have been in the past two decades.

That's it? That's your evidence of global warming? Really?

You asked for proof about dwindling oil reserves.

I didn't.

Go as a petroleum geologist of either party.

I assume you meant "Go ask..." What does party have to do with anything? And I don't know any geologists around where I live.

Do you really think that gas prices will go down any time soon,

No, I think they will continue to slowly rise as the costs and the difficulty of extracting oil continue to rise.

or that the few hundred thousand barrels in Alaska will make any difference?

We are talking about billions of barrels of proven reserves in the ANWR.

Alaskan crude is earmarked for the Japanese market anyhow. Ask yourself, who will benefit?

Well, the people in Alaska, the US Oil companies and their employees, the people of Japan. There are probably more that are secondary beneficiaries.

Conservate (sic) and Conservationist are not supposed to be opposites.

They're not. No one is against conservation. What we're talking about is the lunacy of these wackos in the Environmentalist movement. You're not one of those, are you?