THE debate on climate change and alternative energy sources which has occupied these pages over the last few months is interesting not least because it has ignored, until the letter from Mrs Duke (March 16), the part played by human population levels. As Mrs Duke rightly suggests, most problems of sustainability are the result of making demands in excess of what the planet can provide without suffering consequent environmental damage. The reason most individuals, environmentally concerned organisations and governments shy away from identifying over population as a major issue is that it has become a taboo subject with implications for human rights etc. It is also complicated by the perceived need for continual growth and a corresponding labour force. In addition, some areas of commerce would favour an imbalance between available jobs and job seekers to keep labour costs down. No democratic government dare intervene if it wished to be re-elected, so the fact that such growth is unsustainable on a finite planet is ignored in public debate. This state of affairs is justified in some people?s minds by faith in some future technological solution which will allow growth to continue. I cannot say that after spending most of my working life in science and technology that I share this faith and rather tend to agree with the recently expressed view of James Lovelock (of Gaia fame) that it is probably too late to reverse any man-induced climate change. However unlikely it may be that anything can be done regarding excessive population growth globally or locally, that is no reason for avoiding public debate on the subject and it is disingenuous for environmental organisations to give the impression that ?patch up? measures such as alternative energy sources could save the day when they do not give at least equal emphasis to the major cause of environmental degradation, which is population pressure. Tony Milward Crockernwell
