Vera, I found counter-evidence to either to the existence, or to the gravity/severity, of your eco-alarmist claims …
===============
check the population growth rate …
===============
Between 2000 and 2030, nearly 100 percent of this annual growth will occur in the less developed countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, whose population growth rates are much higher than those in more developed countries. Growth rates of 1.9 percent and higher mean that populations would double in about 36 years, if these rates continue. Demographers do not believe they will. Projections of growth rates are lower than 1.9 percent because birth rates are declining and are expected to continue to do so.
The more developed countries in Europe and North America, as well as Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, are growing by less than 1 percent annually. Population growth rates are negative in many European countries, including Russia (-0.6%), Estonia (-0.5%), Hungary (-0.4%), and Ukraine (-0.4%). If the growth rates in these countries continue to fall below zero, population size would slowly decline.
http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm
===============
check the available farmable land-mass …
===============
Moreover, fertilizer allows us to produce more food on less farmland. This is one of the reasons why the global population could double from 1960 to 2000 and get better fed, although farmland area only increased 12 percent.
This should be compared with the quadrupling of farmland from 1700 to 1960 which of course came from the conversion of large tracts of forests and grasslands. Essentially, the extraordinary increase in fertilizer availability from 1960 onwards has made it possible to avoid a dramatic increase in human pressure on other natural habitats.
http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/
===============
check the available drinkable water supplies
===============
“while only 30 percent of the people in the developing world had access to clean drinking water in 1970, today about 80 percent have, a vast improvement.
“We don’t have a freshwater crisis, but we do have more stress on our water than we previously had. We are more people and there are more things we would like to do with our water,” Lomborg rationalizes. “We have to manage it better. About 70 per cent of our water is used by agriculture, so the problem isn’t one of declining water resources per se, but one of some areas using more than they should and others not using enough.”
“The idea of pricing scarce resources such as water is a way to make sure that it goes to the highest value, that it’s used where it does the most good,” argues Lomborg. “If we don’t price it, people will tend to use it as a nonessential resource. The problem with pricing water is that sometimes it is not priced correctly.
For example, agriculture gets subsidies it shouldn’t get; it should have to pay the same cost as everyone else.”
http://www.corporateknights.ca/content/page.asp?name=state_of_water
===============
check the air pollution reports
===============
Many analyses show that air pollution diminishes when a society becomes rich enough to be able to afford to be concerned about the environment. For London, the city for which the best data are available, air pollution peaked around 1890 (see chart 2). Today, the air is cleaner than it has been since 1585.
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=718860
Ed
