Let's play devil's advocate just for fun. ;-) 1) neither of them are a concern. Even if humans overpopulate the earth, the strong will find a way to survive and Darwin's theory of evolution will determine who deserves to pass on their genes and rule the world. This will result in stronger and stronger humans each generation. Economic wealth is not a concern for similar reasons. The strongest, smartest humans will pass on their genes and their wealth, thus ensuring that only strong, smart humans will survive. 2) People who own the land should decide what to do with it. If there is a disagreement, they can fight about it, and call all their relatives to come back them up in a fight. Whoever survives the fight gets to make the rules. 3)Sustainable develpment strategies are not necessary, becauase God has a plan. We can continue to burn oil, deplete the ozone, and drive giant SUVs because God will provide for us, and then eventually he will take those to heaven who deserve it and let the rest wallow in their hellish filth. >:-) This is a fun question. Since it's an opinion, it can't be wrong, right? LOL
<span>On the second one I say the people should have a say because they know what the land needs to be use for.
The second one i'd say it is necessary.</span>
In case of plants there is a process called PHOTOSYNTHESIS occurs. A photosynthesis is a process in which the carbon and water involves and as a result oxygen plus glucose forms. And because of that plants cause the atmospheric Carbon dioxide decreases as they use the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
