Thank you for highlighting Earth Day as a significant event of 1990 ("Catching Up With '90s Newsmakers"). I note, however, that the word population did not appear. Why is it obvious to me that exponential, outrageous, unstable population growth is the source of the Earth's environment problems, when The Times seems to be oblivious to this fact?
What was the impact of the 25% growth in population, over the past 10 years, on the environment?
What would the environmental state of California be if the population had held static during those 10 years?
In my mind, the multiplication of population by 1.25 over 10 years made the environment 1.25 times worse: 25% more cars, 25% more water usage, 25% more sewage, 25% more trash and garbage.
It seems to me (that) if every young person/couple would plan to have only one child, we could get this problem under control in one generation.
WALTER K. WAYMEYER