To the editor:

I want to respond to two recent items. An editorial suggested the proposed coal-fired power plants at Holcomb at best will produce “at least some pollution.” The plants, with state-of-the-art equipment, actually would produce 16 million tons (yes, tons) of CO2 every year, not to mention mercury, etc.

Candace Davis raised the optimistic vision of a world with population growth and pollution stabilized and suggested that community planning then would need to be quite different than our current approach. This is a crucial observation. Population stabilization is the elephant in the room for environmentalists, peace proponents and, in fact, anyone who has hopes for maintaining anything approaching our current quality of life.

I see little mention of this in environmental and political circles. Suppose we reduce CO2 emissions per capita in the world by 50 percent. What happens if we also increase population by 50 percent? (The world population, currently 6.6 billion, is expected to increase by nearly 50 percent by 2050, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.) We build more freeways and they still are clogged with traffic. We invent energy-efficient machines, but the saving can be offset by an increase for ever more machines.

Population stabilization and birth control are touchy subjects, especially in recent years. Still, we are going to have to face these and other difficult environmental issues – either now or a little later when we may have far fewer choices.

Joe Douglas,

Lawrence