Global Warming has but one Logical answer, Population Control are you on Board ?

If the conservation-minded only made an effort to control population growth, then the unconservation-minded would soon hold the majority. I would question the motives of people who said control the population to save the environment, yet made no effort to stem the population from increasing via illegal immigration, or in third world nations where starvation is rampant. Historical studies of climate, using carbon-dating and other technologies show cyclic changes in weather patterns. The industrial age is young in comparison to the planet. They cannot yet determine the future impact of pollution on the climate with any more accuracy than they can predict when and where a tornado will form next week. I'm more concerned with the impact on food supply, education and literacy, health and unchecked disease in areas already to poor to support new children.

Population control is NOT a problem of developed nations. It is a problem of third world countries. Most of Europe and America aren't replacing themselves NOW! For instance, the average American household is 2.6 people. At this rate, in a few decades, we are going to have a huge societal and economic problem due to the demographic disparities that are developing from this reality. The problems it will create will make global warming pale in comparison. It's the third world countries that are reproducing like bunny rabbits. Those that can't afford kids are the ones that are cranking them out.

Which would mean controlling the population growth in the Third World, since that is where all of the population growth in the next 50 years is expected to come from. Populations in Europe are virtually stagnant if not declining, whereas most of the US's population growth can be traced to immigration. Unless you plan to address Third World growth, which already constitutes 80% of the world's population, your "logical answer" doesn't work.

Birth control education is a good thing and that would contribute to zero population growth. Anything more would be extreme and not tolerated.

How do we control the population of third world countries who have no concept of birth control? We can't. But we can stop raping the natural resources of the earth - like trees. I also believe that the governments have contrived the urgent global warming threat to control the world - just one step closer to One World Government. Natural disasters have occurred since the beginning of time. If we want a better environment, we need to go organic and stop the smog. It is a problem and will be a worse problem for the USA once NAFTA is in full force with unregulated trucks from Mexico barreling down our roads. The USA has enjoyed a clean country as a whole because we have learned to recycle, but when you go to the factory areas with the chemicals being piped out the top and being poured into our waterways - you will find people dying of cancer and many other strange and cruel diseases. Global warming isn't the issue, but pollution from big business definitely is and the governments around the world are looking the other way. So yep - we need better population control - and it should begin by reducing number of government freeloaders in all branches of our governments.

I see where you are going with this. One down side to what you're saying. Example of China who is known for its child control is now facing a major problem. Aging population. If you apply birth control in a decade or two half of the world will be over 50 (not that it's a bad thing to be over 50 lol). Who's going to be working? Who's going to be paying the taxes?

OMG!! China's doing it now!! But they are the boogy man in this whole thing (pretty soon India will have the distinction of having the largest population on the planet. Right now, 3.1 billion vs 3.3 billion for China and India is doing little) Peace Jim .

Global warming has but one logical answer: persuading the world's populations to burn fewer vehicle emissions; use less fossil fuels (oil, coal and gas); stop building smoke-belching factories; practice REusing, REducing and REcycling religiously; and doing everything possible to protect and preserve the delicate ecological balance between all men, plants and animals necessary to sustain life as we know it on this planet. Population control can - and should - be part of the plan. But even if we could maintain "zero population growth" and still continued to squander all of Earth's natural resources, global warming, the depletion of the ozone and our rain forests, the decay of our mangrove forests, and the erosion of our coast lines would continue as well. In the June, 2007 edition of "National Geographic", the cover store is about "the big thaw". On page 61 of this highly-respected publication, the author states: "Meanwhile, if global warming continues unabated, the coasts could drown. If vulnerable parts of the ice that blankets Greenland and Antarctica succumb, rising seas could flood hundreds of thousands of square miles - much of Florida, Bangladesh, the Netherlands - and displace tens of millions of people. the temperature threshold for drastic sea-level rise is near, but many scientists thins we still have time to stop short of it, by sharply cutting back consumption of climate-warming coal, oil and gas. Few doubt, however, that another 50 years of business as usual will take us beyond a point of no return." -RKO- 07/07/07

Yeah...I'm good. People never stop and wonder why global warming comes up so much in Y!A Politics & Government?