The following question pertain to the Reynold’s article
1. Reynolds argues that it is absurd to think we have too many people on the planet, and especially in Canada. To address this, respond to the following points :
a) Consider whether it is appropriate for Reynolds to use the Simply Shrug (a self proclaimed “Pragmatic Conservatism” website) statistic that on average, it takes 300 square metres of farmland to feed one person for one year – or one square kilometer to feed 3,333 people. If not appropriate, provide a more accurate estimate based on the information you have available.
b) Discuss whether Canada’s envious position of having biocapacity reserves lend any support to Reynold’s argument?
The following questions pertain to the “Does Helping the Planet Hurt the Poor?” series of articles.
2. Why does Peter Singer not advocate using a cost-benefit analysis to support making difficult environment decisions such as saving human lives versus saving forest habitat?
3. In Bjorn Lomborg’s article, he refers to a 2006 study by the economist Nicholas Stern, which identified we should be saving 97.5% of all our wealth for future generations. What alternative does Lomborg propose instead of using this value?
4. How would Mr. Lomborg more “sensibly” spend the $250 billion that the European Union is expecting to spend annually to fight global warming.
5. Identify Mr. Singer’s response to Mr. Lomborg’s alternate spending plans.
6. Which of the two sides do you find most compelling and why?