The Brazilian Rainforest?

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yes I don't understand why this island would need more people. Smaller populations should be aimed for everywhere.

Indeed TM. The single most significant thing someone can do for the environment is to have one less, or no kids, but basically that doesn't work with our current economic model. The current consumerist model requires more people to make the stuff we don't need and more people to buy it(and while it has many benefits to those within such a system the lions share goes to a minority). This is why so many politicians and other vested interests are gung ho for increasing population either locally or by importing people from elsewhere.

When I say the stuff we don't need I mean in the sense of the sheer scale of turnover that goes on today. Take the humble fridge in your kitchen. It is well within our capabilities to build a fridge that would last at least a lifetime, that could be maintained over that time. But no, they're "designed" from the get go to be replaced say every ten years. Repair and spare parts are usually only available as an option within that product cycle, if not less. Same goes for cookers, washing machines, every white good in the average home. The motorcar another example that could be made to last significantly longer, yet save for a brief period where cars could last a long time, after earlier days where reliability was a constant worry, now we're going back to a high churn in turnover where the economically useful life of the average car is tied into how long the PCP/Lease lasts and repair is becoming more difficult except through the manufacturer's network. Making all cars electric will have some positive effect, but not nearly as much as some seem to think, or is being advertised.