Published: Tuesday, June 25 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
If it were really all that easy. The problem with restricting
growth is you do two things... you retard the economy, and you create an
artificial shortage in housing which will drive prices to unnatural levels. There are options. I am old enough to remember the LA basin of the 60s
and 70s where from my grandparents house there often you could not see the
mountains that surrounded the valley. California to drastic actions to improve
air quality, and it has paid dividends. But that came at a cost... and I
don't see Utah ready yet to take on that level of commitment to deal with
the problem.I applaud the forward thinking Utah legislatures that
have worked toward providing transit options. But it will take more -
controlling what comes from the tail pipe. And that is where I think the will
to proceed will be tough to find.
"U.S. Census Bureau estimates released Thursday say Utah grew by 40,940
people — about the same as the population of Riverton — between July
1, 2011, and July 1, 2012. About 89 percent of that came from "natural
increase," or births minus deaths, and 11 percent came from net
in-migration." (SLTrib dec 2012)The population growth in Utah is
largely due to high birth rate and low death rate.While I am not a
psychic, I will predict that the Utah politicians will not look to curb birth
rate. Call me crazy.
People here simply don't bode any idea that population growth is bad, and
refuse to rationalise infinite growth with a finite world.
We live in a bowl. Republicans don't care if we foul it as long as the $$$
keep rolling in. Any sane policy would be to encourage high-density development
and AFFORDABLE mass transit, and discourage Republican highway building and
urban sprawl. Our grandchildren will choke on Republican policies of today.
There's also the issue of water. We had one of the best water years on
record in 2010-2011 but since then have had two poor ones and we're already
putting drought restrictions on some areas. How much faster would we get to that
stage with a million more people?
To "Irony Guy" you are assuming that our grandchildren will survive the
Democrat policies of today.To "atl134" much of our water
problems could be solved if we reprocessed all of the waste water and returned
that to the drinking water system. The Russians have developed a system that
you pee in on end, and pull out clean drinking water from the other. Why
can't we put one of those on the end of the sewage treatment plant?
Here we go again. Dems/Libs are all for reproductive choice as long as the
choice is not to reproduce. They are all for immigration - as long as it's
not to here. They are all for transportation, as long as the
government/quasi-government can force people where to be transported and when,
and how many at a time.Sure, let's do all we can to reduce
pollution, but let's not take away other people's freedoms and
livelyhood to do so.
The problem is not a growing population. Our shrinking population is our
biggest threat to prosperity.In 1798 Robert Malthus warned, "The
power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce
subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the
human race." The world population then is estimated to have been between
900 million and 1 billion.1968: Paul Ehrlich repeated Mathus'
warning about over-population and looming mass starvation. But why? By then
our population had more than tripled to about 3.5 billion. People were more
prosperous than ever, and the grievous pollution of the Malthus' time was
greatly reduced.2013: Population doubles after publication of
"The Population Bomb. Air pollution in both the U.S. and Great Britain is
reduced by more than half since the 1960's.No, overpopulation
is not a problem. The earth's greatest resource is people, not things.
It's bad behavior that leads to war, pollution, and starvation. The world currently produces more than enough to feed everyone, but many drink
fouled water, choke on air pollution, and starve because some of us don't
clean up our own messes and share our riches.
@Jon W.Murray, UTSure, let's do all we can to reduce
pollution, but let's not take away other people's freedoms and
livelyhood to do so.12:42 p.m. June 25, 2013------- Please put your money where your mouth is -- Are you willing to
slow down?Are you willing to add California emission standards to your
vehicle?Are you willing to park your SUV and Pick-Up unless necessary and
drive an economy car for just running around in?Are you willing to
purchase alternative energy powered vehicles?Are you willing to pay the
REAL global price of gasoline without all the Oil company subsidizes like the
rest of Europe and Asia [$5-$7 per gallon]Show me, don't tell
@Redshirt"Why can't we put one of those on the end of the sewage
treatment plant?"I would assume it's because it involves a
significant expense in infrastructure that people have thus far been unwilling
to pay for.@Jon W."Dems/Libs are all for reproductive
choice as long as the choice is not to reproduce. "We're
not saying that people can't have babies... we're just saying that we
need to factor in population increase if we're going to deal with issues
where population has an impact, like pollution. If we lowered some pollutant
output to x micrograms per person in a valley of two million, we have to
acknowledge that to maintain similar pollution levels in a valley of three
million we'd have to be even cleaner in our energy use.
To "atl134" it really wouldn't be that expensive. San Diego did it
for their city for $13 million. See "As ‘Yuck Factor’ Subsides,
Treated Wastewater Flows From Taps" in the NY Times. For San Diego that
meant to pay for the system, it cost about $10 per person. However, since they
probably issued a bond, that means that per year it probably added less than $1
per person. Salt Lake County has 1 million people, and San Diego has 1.3
million. The $13 million can easily be paid for over time using public bonds
with little to no increase in taxes or fees. Remember that really cool Real
stadium, that cost $110 million, and the city was considering building that.
@tree huggerAre you willing to slow down? I lived half of my driving life
with the 55MPH speed iimitAre you willing to add California emission
standards to your vehicle? Most new vehicles already meet the old ones. The
advent of electronic fuel injection and engine control has made virtually all
cars on the road much much cleaner than they were 20-30 years agoAre you
willing to park your SUV and Pick-Up unless necessary and drive an economy car
for just running around in? Yes - I've already done thatAre you
willing to purchase alternative energy powered vehicles? As soon as I can
afford one. Gasoline engine = dozens of moving parts. Electric motor = 1 moving
part. Why are electric cars so expensive?Are you willing to pay the REAL
global price of gasoline without all the Oil company subsidizes like the rest of
Europe and Asia [$5-$7 per gallon] If that's what the price goes to, no
doubt I will pay it. Keep in mind that many countries have much higher taxes on
fuel than the US - it's not all about oil company subsidies.
That's right. Growth is a bad thing. We should make all these people move
elsewhere, like Russia or China, if they are going to insist on having children,
holding down jobs, buying products and services, etc.What a
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments