Sustainability: Carrying Capacity & Consumption
April 26, 2008
Carrying Capacity & Ecological Footprints
Could Resources Become a Limit to Global Growth?.
Surging food and energy prices are new reasons to re-think the relationship between resources and growth. There is a real wolf nearby, in the form of resource degradation and rapidly growing population.
When oil prices rose in the 1970s, this created incentives to develop more fuel-efficient vehicles, for most of the 1980s and 1990s, energy and food became more abundant. Technological progress stayed ahead of population growth and resource depletion. However, economic incentives cannot keep the wolf at bay indefinitely.
Resource prices have surpassed record levels and per-capita food availability has started to decline. Despite demographic transition to low fertility in East Asia, Europe, and North America, current population growth rates would still triple world population to over 20 billion in about 90 years. The question is whether population growth will fall due to declines in fertility or whether epidemics, malnutrition, and violent conflict will carry out the adjustment, aided by global warming.
Residents of China and India are unlikely to buy many SUVs, and economic incentives will push them in more environmentally friendly directions. If China were the model, I would be optimistic about the future. Fertility there has declined to about replacement level. China is poised to move where people demand better environmental quality as incomes rise.
The dismal picture is in Africa. Per capita income in sub-Saharan Africa fell between 1980 and 2005, despite improvements in technology made available in that period. Population growth remains very high and infectious disease, malnutrition, and violent conflict have become more entrenched and could spill over into other regions. Water provides an important example of resource scarcity. If the people of Los Angeles faced higher water prices, we would see households switch away from green grass.
A second set of issues concerns population growth in poor nations. Population growth helps to create new markets. Unfortunately, population growth in the developing world is unlikely to trigger such an innovation.
Market-based prices cannot do everything, largely because of non-priced third party effects. An electric utility using coal to produce electricity contributes to global warming and other pollution problems. This effect is not priced.
Decisions to have large numbers of children may also impose negative externalities on others. Some would like to limit growth in order to mitigate the production of greenhouse gases. But they are vague about the details. Which people should not be born? Whose income should decline in order to achieve their noble goal?
California is likely to implement a cap and trade program which will effectively create a new market in the "right to pollute." Effective regulation has helped to offset the quantity of economic activity. But in general, I wonder whether government is up to the task of limiting the costs of growth on a global scale.
Major resources such as forests and agricultural land are under threat, as are the air and water. Possibly the biggest threat is a catastrophic rise in sea level caused by global warming.
Fertility reduction is the biggest challenge. Chinese-style state-imposed fertility control will not be acceptable elsewhere, but female education and female control over reproductive decisions are very positive forces.
If natural resources grow scarce, we will adjust and in the long run, new substitutes will be introduced.
Karen Gaia says: Instead of a population of 20 billion in 90 years, the U.N. predicts a leveling-off of 9-11 billion in 50 years. As for sufficient, timely substitutes for natural resources, that takes a lot of faith. Take water or soil for example.
March 24, 2008
Wall Street Journal
Australia: The S Word is Sustainability.
Rapid population growth means, the future of our society, our economy and our environment; the structure of our cities, their energy and water sources the imminent peaking of world oil supplies; our use of finite resources like gas and coal; and the way we dispose of those resources.
Today, global demands on natural systems exceed their sustainable yield by an estimated 25%. We are setting the stage for decline and collapse.
With some exceptions, policy makers have been guilty of allowing sustainability to be cast as a peculiarly environmental issue. Sustainability is the ultimate whole of government - indeed, whole of society - issue.
Sustainability must be the foundation upon which we build economic strength and natural resilience.
It must be central to our planning, thinking and acting as we seek to live in harmony with the planet.
Global warming is a symptom of the problem of living unsustainably. Consuming fossil fuels without considering the waste is a sustainability issue.
The rate of increase in greenhouse concentrations is unprecedented in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. Human induced global catastrophe as it should be known, might be the clarion call that heralds another threat caused by our careless consumption of fossil fuels.
A growing group of voices predict that between 2006 and 2020 the world will pass a point after which we will never have as much oil at our disposal as we did the day before.
November 2006 is the possible peak of production, with the world's daily average in that month of 85.5 million barrels per day (mbpd) of oil and condensates not having been exceeded in the 14 months since.
Crude has been consistently trading between US$100 and US$102 a barrel and we now stand on the threshold of an upswing in global oil prices that will have a significant impact on the economy of the world and for which we are seriously unprepared.
What both peak oil and climate change will impose upon us is a requirement to use less energy. We will need to live closer to work, schools and shops and public transport.
We have the capacity with existing technology and intellect to adopt more sustainable policies and practices to bring greenhouse gas emissions under control through greater use of renewable energy sources and to reduce our reliance on oil.
The challenge is to build a new economy, one that is powered largely by renewable sources of energy, that has a highly diversified transport system, and that reuses and recycles everything. And to do it with unprecedented speed.
In an energy-constrained world dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it's time we spoke of population.
The rampaging monster is over-population. In its presence, sustainability is a fragile theoretical thing.
People are ready to grasp the argument that the unsustainable growth in population numbers is degrading our planet. Population maldistribution increases the stress on available resources and heightens the need for more stringent sustainable living practices, such as water restrictions.
Developed countries have the double whammy of increasing populations and rampant consumerism.
It's one thing to provide the necessities of life quite another to provide the trimmings demanded by affluence.
In the 21st century, the human race must confront the reality that in the closed system that is planet earth, there are limits to growth.
No matter how clever we are, there is no escaping the physical limits of the world's resources.
What we need above all is smart growth. .. Growth that is low carbon. .. Growth that is low pollution. .. Growth that is resource neutral.
We need growth that adds to the natural capital, instead of destroying it.
March 12, 2008
Sunshine Coast Daily
Humanity is Consuming Over 20 Per Cent More Natural Resources Each Year Than the Earth Can Produce.
The report in the WWF's (World Wide Fund for Nature) periodic update on the state of the world's ecosystems said humanity is now consuming over 20% more natural resources each year than the earth can produce. This leads to the destruction of ecological assets, on which the world's economy depends. The report shows that humanity's Ecological Footprint grew by 150% between 1961 and 2000.
During the same period, the report shows a 40% decline in terrestrial, freshwater, and marine species population. Ten years after the UN Rio conference in 1992, the Footprint in the 27 wealthiest countries increased by 8% per person, while in the middle and low income countries, it shrank by 8% per person.
Consumption of fossil fuels increased by almost 700% between 1961 and 2001. But the planet is unable to absorb the resulting carbon-dioxide emissions that degrade the earth's ozone layer.
We are spending nature's capital faster than it can regenerate.
The biggest culprit is the US. Although it has only 4.5% of the world's population, it consumes more than 29% of the world's annual output of renewable resources. The US has been urging developing countries to adopt sustainable development, but there is no sign of the US adopting such policies.
With more than 120 million vehicles on its roads the US is also the biggest culprit when it comes to generating carbon-dioxide emissions.
The global community has set targets for sustainability and biodiversity conservation. At the 2004 meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, governments agreed to set targets for creating networks of protected areas.
All 191 member states of the UN have signed up to support the MDGs, which not only address the root causes of environmental degradation but include a specific goal on environmental sustainability.
Some might argue that governments are wasting their time talking. The fact is that governments today are no further to achieving the MDGs than they were seven years ago.
Populations of terrestrial, freshwater and marine species fell on an average by 40% between 1970 and 2000. Destruction of natural habitats, pollution, overfishing and the introduction of non-native animals, often drive out indigenous species.
Trawlers and dredgers wreak destruction across the seabed, crushing entire ecosystems of corals, algae and crustaceans as they go. But will governments take heed? Or will they continue to look the other way? The forest species declined by about 15%, the marine species 35%, while the freshwater species dropped 55% over the 30-year period.
The earth has about 11.4 billion hectares of productive land and sea space, after all unproductive areas are discounted. Divided between the current estimated global population of 6.4 billion, this total equates to 1.78 hectares per person.
When the world's population was slightly less than 6 billion, the Ecological Footprint of the world's average consumer was 2.3 hectares, or 20% above the earth's capacity of 1.90 hectares per person versus 1.78 hectares per person today. In other words, humanity now exceeds the planet's capacity to sustain its consumption of renewable resources.
March 08, 2008
The News
U.K.: The Elephant in the Room.
We must change our basic way of living; it will either be made on our own initiative in a planned way, or forced on us with chaos and suffering by the laws of nature.
First, we must accept the idea that sustainable means for a long time.
The Government of the UK defines it as: Sustainable communities are places where people want to live and work, now and in the future. They meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents, are sensitive to their environment, and contribute to a high quality of life. They are safe and inclusive, well planned, built and run, and offer equality of opportunity and good services for all.'
This means that the resources have to be renewable through natural processes and entirely recycled if they are not renewable. If the population exceeds the carrying capacity, the death rate will increase until the population numbers are stable. Using these criteria it is obvious that the current human population is not sustainable.
In the discussions taking place, population is a word we dare not speak. Population is the elephant in the room.
It is obvious that something has increased the world's carrying capacity in the last 150 years. That something is oil.
Oil is a finite, non-renewable resource and not sustainable. If oil is not sustainable, then the added carrying capacity the oil has provided is unsustainable. Carrying capacity has been added to the world in direct proportion to the use of oil, and if our oil supply declines, the carrying capacity of the world will automatically fall with it.
Our population today is at least five times what it was before oil came on the scene. Each of the global problems we face today is the result of too many people using too much of our planet's finite, non-renewable resources and filling its waste repositories of land, water and air to overflowing. We are in fantasy land if we think that we can continue to support the number of people that we do now without the full input of oil and its related products.
We have become so dependent on those fuels, that there is no way we can sustain ourselves at this population density and level of technology without them. Population redistribution provides no long-term solution to environmental sustainability, total population numbers need to decrease worldwide.
Extremes of temperature and climate, combined with weather-related disruptions, would severely reduce the size of the country's population carrying capacity.
With population continuing to grow, urbanisation eating up farmland, and more of our remaining agricultural land likely to be used for energy crops, food production will be squeezed.
The systems that produce the world's food supply are heavily dependent on fossil fuels. In addition, fossil fuels are essential in the construction and the repair of equipment and infrastructure needed to facilitate this industry. Almost every human endeavour from transportation, to manufacturing, to electricity to plastics, and especially food production is intertwined with oil and natural gas supplies. As each individual recycles more of his or her own waste, success is undermined by the constantly increasing numbers of people who create waste.
But how much land would be needed to provide all our electricity. It depends how much wind power can be constructed offshore. For wind power to supply all-electric homes at today's rates of consumption, for today's 60 million people, several counties would need to be covered with wind turbines.
The total amount of water used in UK is modest because agriculture can be carried on mostly without irrigation.
The UK Government attaches importance to lowering water use because of increasing water constraints: rivers reduced to a trickle for several months, reservoir levels dropping, water tables continuing to drop. The large increases in the UK population experienced during the last five years makes it even more important to try to push per person consumption downwards.
Half a million new homes are planned in the South East alone.
The UK is one of the most densely populated and built up countries in the EU and some English regions are already close to reaching the limits of their capacity to take further development without serious damage to the environment or quality of life.
Along with every measure for reducing per person use of water, we should address the problem of population.
All these problems are symptoms of the growth in the human population, currently surging through 6.6 billion people worldwide. The consequences are already clear without policies to reduce world population, efforts to save our environment cannot succeed.
The uncomfortable truth is that the impact on Earth's biosphere of a projected 9 billion people living at a desired higher standard of living in 2050 would be fatal for the planet in terms of greenhouse gas emissions alone.
Given the fact that our world's carrying capacity is supported by oil, and that the oil is about to start going away, it seems that a population decline is inevitable. Populations in serious overshoot always decline, though actually, it's a bit worse than that. The population may actually fall to a lower level than was sustainable before the overshoot.
We are getting obvious signals from our environment that all is not well. Because we are now a global species with a global civilization, continuing growth of our numbers depends on the continuing growth of our civilization. There must be a sufficient level of food, shelter, energy and medical care available. All these factors will be put at risk globally within the next two decades due to the loss of oil. Food production and distribution will be hampered or impossible, and local agriculture will prove very difficult in some places. Other countries like those at the bottom of the list of developing nations will simply be too poor to compete against the developed world for the resources needed for survival. Populations will fall as a result.
The facts remain: there aren't enough resources to bring the whole world up to the industrial level of the developed world and the developed world is unlikely to consent to their own voluntary impoverishment in favour of industrializing the less developed world, and attempting such an approach would increase rather than reduce global ecological devastation.
The human race has only one or perhaps two generations to rescue itself. Faith in technology as the ultimate solution can divert our attention. If the present growth in world population continues, the limits to growth will be reached within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.
As for man, there is little reason to think that he can, in the long run, escape the fate of other creatures.
March 06, 2008
CounterCurrents.org
UK Unable to Sustain Population, Says Study.
The UK is over-populated and could support only 17 million people if it had to provide for the current 60 million from its own resources. If global population growth continues the world could be at war over resources in less than 50 years and calls on governments to advocate smaller families and increased use of contraception.
Government targets to cut carbon emissions by 60% by 2050 will have little impact on the UK's sustainability because of the rate of population growth.
The number of people living in the UK is expected to hit 65 million within 10 years, and top 70 million by 2031.
Even if Britain was carbon neutral, it could only sustainably support 40 million people. To live sustainably, British people would have to lead simpler lives, similar to people in China, Paraguay, Algeria and Botswana.
The world was living within its ecological means until the 1980s when populations began to grow rapidly.
By 2050, it will be using up the equivalent of nearly two Earths each year and the UK's overpopulation threatens the environment and people's quality of life.
We need a national population policy.
February 18, 2008
Telegraph
U.S.: Envisioning a Sustainable Chesapeake.
It's been most inspiring to see discussions begin to address the future of Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay.
They prompt us to ask: "What does a sustainable Chesapeake really mean?"
My vision is built upon a balanced, vibrant ecosystem teeming with fish, shellfish, underwater grasses and clear, healthy waters. But to be truly sustainable, the Chesapeake ecosystem needs to exist while also supporting the region's human population.
Creating a sustainable Chesapeake will not be easy. But as we look around the state, we're seeing more and more positive steps being taken.
Recently, the Maryland Commission on Climate Change made recommendations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and conserving energy throughout the state. These actions will require that we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by more than 25% within the next 12 years.
An initiative was introduced that will seek to instill a sense of environmental stewardship among the 28,000 students graduating each year. It will also foster research and prepare the new "green" workforce.
By changing our own actions, each of us has the ability to reduce our impact on the bay and the planet.
As long as the region's population continues to grow, and we develop lands faster than needed to accommodate that growth, we make it more difficult to maintain the sustainability equation.
We have struggled more than 20 years to reduce the amount of pollution flowing into the bay and we are still far from where we need to be. Another 10, 20 or 30 years of pollution-fighting efforts will still not be enough. Bay restoration efforts will be needed in perpetuity.
We need to manage for sustainability by remaining aware of what will cross our path in the future.
Karen Gaia says: The way things are going, we will be forced to reduce our greenhouse gases because we have passed peak oil, meaning our consumption of oil will be reduced.
February 17, 2008
Annapolis Capital
Niger: Population Explosion Threatens Development Gains.
If Nigeriens remain uninformed about family planning and keep reproducing at the current rate the population will more than quadruple by 2050, imposing unmanageable demands on the economy, social services and the environment. The current rate of population growth is 3.3% every year. If that growth continues, there will be 56 million people in Niger by 2050, compared to 13.5 million today. In 1960, it was just 1.7 million.
The average number of children per mother is 7.1. Women said they would like nine and men said 12, but some families said 40 or 50 children. It a society that encourages procreation.
Just 5% of Nigeriens use family planning and contraception. People aren't informed about the negative consequences of having so many children.
The 85% of Nigeriens who rely on rain-fed, subsistence agriculture to feed themselves are going to be hardest hit as millions more people compete for the same amount of farmland to grow food.
The Sahel has recently been identified as one of the regions most likely to be adversely affected by climate change.
The increase in the population will continue to accentuate the cereal production and wood-for-fuel deficits which started in the 1980s. Niger's population will quickly overtake the government's ability to provide health, education, jobs and even water points, tasks that it is already failing at today.
94% of Nigeriens live on 35% of the land. The most populated areas are along the southern border with Burkina Faso and Mali.
The Maradi region holds 20% of the population, 2,235,748 people, living on 3.3% of the country's land.
Niger's desert and mountain north accounts for 53% of Niger's territory but only 3 percent of the population, 321,639 people.
Niger plans this year to curb population growth which the INS says would reduce the population in 2050 to 33.3 million, still almost three times its current level.
The government wants the number practising family planning to increase from to 15% or 20% by 2015. The INS says 20% of women claim to want it.
The plan calls for information campaigns to educate religious leaders and women about the availability and importance of family planning.
Currently, every second girl is married and likely to be procreating before the age of 15. Raising the marriage age to 18 would take up to four years off a woman's reproductive life.
By 2015 population growth should have slowed to 2.5% and the average number of children per woman should be five.
Diadi Boureima, deputy representative of the UN Fund for Population Affairs (UNFPA) in Niger, said the task was a critical one.
If the demographics continue, Niger cannot develop. All the resources the country has will be going into social services and nothing will be left for investing in the economy. The government is acting accordingly.
December 11, 2007
UN Integrated Regional Information Network
Sustainable Development is Need of the Time.
The idea of sustainable development grew from environmental movements in earlier decades and was defined in 1987 as: "Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
When you think of the world as a system, you understand that air pollution from North America affects air quality in Asia, and that pesticides sprayed in Argentina could harm fish stocks off the coast of Australia.
You start to realise that the decisions our grandparents made about how to farm the land continue to affect agricultural practice today.
We understand that quality of life is a system, too. What if you are poor and don't have access to education? It's good to have a secure income, but what if the air in your part of the world is unclean? And it's good to have freedom of religious expression, but what if you can't feed your family?
The concept of sustainable development helps us understand ourselves and our world. The problems we face are complex and serious, and we can't address them in the same way we created them.
Sustainable development highlights sustainability as the idea of environmental, economic and social progress and equity, all within the limits of the world's natural resources.
Sustainable development calls for improving the quality of life for all of the world's people without increasing the use of our natural resources beyond the Earth's carrying capacity. The efforts to build a truly sustainable way of life require the integration of action in three key areas:
Interlinked, global economic systems demand an integrated approach to foster responsible long-term growth while ensuring that no nation or community is left behind.
To conserve our environment and natural resources for future generations, economically viable solutions must be developed to reduce resource consumption, stop pollution and conserve natural habitats.
Throughout the world, people require jobs, food, education, energy, health care, water, and sanitation. The world community must ensure that the cultural and social diversity, and the rights of workers, are respected, and that all members of society are empowered to play a role in determining their futures.
The record on sustainability so far appears to have been quite poor. Sustainable development is an urgent issue, though political will has been slow-paced. There are 1.3 billion without access to clean water. About half of humanity lack access to adequate sanitation and living on less than 2 dollars a day.
In practicing sustainable development over the long-term one will:
-- Not diminish the quality of the present environment.
-- Not reduce the availability of renewable resources.
-- Take into consideration the value of non-renewable resources to future generations.
-- Not compromise the ability of other species or future generations to meet their needs.
December 08, 2007
The Daily Star
World Atlas of Sustainable Development- Feed Your Head.
So far, we have only one usable planet. The "science dudes" are trying to discover if there are any planets out there that are suitable for humans to live on. This has not produced results. In our solar system everything appears to be too hot, too cold, or have no atmosphere. This leaves us to face the fact that the 6.5 billion humans on this rocky sphere are dependent on the natural resources that exist on our planet. Unfortunately, we are using those resources in an unsustainable way right now. Within 100 years, we will have to feed, clothe, and provide electricity and transportation and water to, around 10 billion humans.
* The worldwide catch of fish is now 6 times what it was 50 years ago. Catches are beginning to decline as fish populations sink.
* 850 million humans go hungry; 220 million are children.
* 1 in 5 humans have no access to clean drinking water.
* By 2050, 85% of all humans will live in developing countries.
* One third of the world's visible land is affected by desertification, the degradation of productive but fragile lands which have insufficient rainfall and has been damaged by unsustainable development.
* During the next 100 years that global temperature averages will rise from 2 to 6 degrees C, resulting in coastal flooding and an increase in droughts. We are using resources 30% faster than the ability of those resources to renew themselves. Many people whose knowledge of the environmental challenges seems to date from 1960.
December 06, 2007
Gather.com
Is the Planet Full Yet?.
Of the top 50 things to save the planet, to have fewer people is only Number 18. The current population of 6.6 billion people is predicted to rocket to 9.7 billion in the next 40 years. Yet there is a conspicuous silence about the topic of sustainable family planning.
Population growth is one of the factors which determines our impact on the Earth's ecosystem and therefore we should talk frankly about it. Population growth could wipe out any gains we make reducing the amount we consume. It has to be a part of the discussion and not ignored as some form of sacred taboo.
Friends of the Earth do not campaign on the matter of population, claiming the big issue is resource use. But Green Party Caroline Lucas MEP disagrees. "There's a direct relation between the emissions we produce and how many of us there are."
The idea of controlling the population may be distasteful but on a planet with finite resources and an exponentially growing number of people something, has to give. At present we are not able to feed the world's population adequately, yet we produce enough food to do so. That is a failure of our current structures. With the world's population set to rise significantly over the next century, if we can't cope now, how are we going to cope then?
By encouraging high levels of immigration we are fuelling the problem because when people come here they are, going to start living our unsustainable lifestyle, too."
The South East Plan proposes a further 11,000 homes should be built in Brighton and Hove by 2026, the result is likely to be severe pressure on our natural resources, such as water. Can a city hemmed in by the sea and South Downs accommodate any more without compromising quality of life and the future of the South Downs National Park?
According to the UN, there are 78 million people added to the world every year, yet there are 200 million women who want to control their fertility but have no safe and effective access to contraceptive services.
We need a major investment in family planning so women can choose their family size.
In the Sixties and Seventies, population was a key issue for all the major campaign groups. Oxfam published a paper entitled World Population: The Biggest Problem Of All. But in 2007, to call for such frank discussion runs too great a risk of upsetting the other values environmentalists identify with: human rights, gender equality, race, immigration and, above all, individual choice.
We've got to stop being paralysed by the sensitivities the population question naturally taps into and recognise there are actually valid ways to address it which could bring great benefits.
The decisions we make relating to family issues, must be left up to individuals, but devoting resources to reproductive health and family planning services brings genuine win-wins in terms of community development and women's rights, as well as smaller populations.
Scratch the surface of any environmental problem and it reveals population growth, and the way we live our lives, as the root cause. The need for a population policy has never been more urgent. While governments see big populations as an indicator of economic strength, the population problem will lead to environmental catastrophe.
November 26, 2007
The Argus website
Wake Up About Overpopulation.
Any individual will encounter terms such as carrying capacity, limiting factors and exponential growth. Yet few implement the concept of sustainability.
Until people question the existence, of the global environmental crisis, the population stabilization and reduction initiative will remain little more than a lobby largely ignored by politicians.
The US has been unable to serve as an example. Any way of life that is unlike our own, is a threat and must promptly be democratized, modernized and westernized.
The symptoms of a society that is straining under its own weight are all there, yet we've successfully managed to evade the issue by misdiagnosing, and offering temporary solutions to the problem. While the United States birth rate has decreased, our lenient immigration policies continue to increase our population. Experts predict that the United States population, if left unchecked, is expected to double in 70 years to a total of 540 million people.
We must begin our public discourse when consensus is met; sacrifices will have to be made, for democracy can only deal with the ever-changing present while relegating responsibility for the future to the few who care to take it upon themselves.
An average U.S. citizen consumes 50 times more goods and services than a Chinese citizen and approximately twice as many as a Western European.
Only recently, during spikes in gas prices, has the engineers' task turned to designing automobiles and engines which reduce consumption and emissions.
Our challenge is to stir the minds and hearts of our fellow Americans so that they may awaken to this reality, directing this change for the better before it is snatched from us.
November 13, 2007
College of New Jersey Signal
City Planning Will Determine Pace of Global Warming: UN-Habitat Chief.
The way in which the world's growing cities were planned and managed would largely determine the pace of global warming. The urbanization of poverty was now the biggest development challenge. With half the world's population residing in cities, and one billion slum dwellers living in life-threatening conditions, 2007 marked a turning point in history. Cities were responsible for 75% of energy consumption and 80% of greenhouse gas emissions.
The opportunity to reduce the vulnerability of cities to the effects of climate change should be a priority alongside improving the living conditions of the most vulnerable populations. Policymakers, planners, must place cities and urban issues at the forefront of sustainable development.
Several speakers indicated that climate change had devastated the lives of millions and natural disasters had set back development efforts. There was need for the international community to support developing countries by providing them with the tools to cope with global warming effects and also to bolster their economies to build a sustainable future.
The Kyoto Protocol must be carried out to the needs of developing countries. Just as important was disaster preparedness and response. The 2004 Asian tsunami had proved that early warning systems were vital and in order to boost those efforts, Thailand had contributed $10 million to the Fund for Tsunami Early Warning Arrangements in the Indian Ocean and South-east Asia.
Thailand had taken steps towards sustainability, and the philosophy of a “sufficiency economy” had been integrated into its policies. That had already promoted sustainable agricultural practices to ensure food security for farmers, persuade locals to conserve forests, and promote sustainable energy development.
Ethiopia's delegate said a more concerted effort was needed in Africa to push developing countries towards sustainable development and to avert climate-change crises. Too many obstacles stood in the way of sustainability, including conflict, insufficient investment, limited market access opportunities, supply- side constraints and unsustainable debt burdens. Ecuador's representative pointed to the Hyogo Framework for Action and the work of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction as tools that could translate words into action.
Japan's representative stressed the importance of concerted action in support of vulnerable countries, particularly small island developing States and least developed countries.
Karen Gaia says: Thailand has a good chance at sustainability because it did something about it's population growth many years ago. Africa has a long way to go before catching up with Thailand.
October 31, 2007
Media Newswire
U.S.;: Honey, We Shrunk the Planet.
The physical Earth is increasingly becoming what the human species makes of it.
Environmental disasters are almost always human disasters. Satellite pictures of Burma over the past three years have recorded the extermination of over 3,000 villages displacing half a million people. The main culprit is the hunger for oil and gas, backed by the murderous local military junta.
The bottom line, is we're living beyond our means. Nearly two thirds of the services provided by nature are in decline worldwide. We can't count on the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations.
Change is not linear, and sudden shifts sometimes remake the world in the blink of an eye. We know we're approaching mysterious thresholds that mark the tipping points of ecological regime change, and we may have already crossed some. The closer we get to each threshold, the less it takes to push the system over the edge. Resilience does not mean just bouncing back to business-as-usual. It means assuring the very ability to get back.
Taking care of nature means taking care of people, and taking care of people means taking care of nature.
Think decentralized power grids, more localized food systems, and the Internet.
The heart of resilience is diversity. Damaged ecosystems rebound to health when they have sufficient diversity.
Resilience resides in enduring relationships and networks that hold cultural memory the same way seeds regenerate a forest after a fire. Empower local communities to solve their own problems.
The Dutch mobilized around total environmental quality recovery in 25 years. But the process kicked in only after business took the lead. They had a surprising proposal: Have government set the standards, and let business figure out how to achieve them. Together they developed a twenty-five-year plan, as well as annual plans that report on progress and challenges. If business fails to meet the specific voluntary goals, government will intervene with mandatory controls. To guarantee transparency and accountability, the government funded environmental NGOs as watchdogs to transmit their findings to the media and the public.
We have a golden opportunity to regenerate our waning economy and correct environmental degradation and rampant social injustices. Our declining public health and educational systems rank among the lowest in developed countries. The reinvention of a green economy can begin to solve our economic and social ills simultaneously. We can create abundant jobs, prosperity, equity and hope. Our new declaration of independence is from fossil fuels and imperial entanglements. In the absence of federal leadership, large numbers of cities and states are banding together to lead these kinds of changes. Political boundaries are also morphing. A historic convergence of the environmental and social justice movements is crystallizing in the shared recognition that taking care of nature means taking care of people, and taking care of people means taking care of nature.
Meanwhile, there are mounting numbers of conservatives, stepping up under the banner of conserving the Earth for their grandchildren.
We need to reclaim our government from the corporate shadow government. It will keep trying to hijack systemic changes that threaten its short-term profits, vested interests and power. We need the separation of corporations and the state.
A successful U.S. Green Plan depends on our doing all this--together, with respect, justice and dignity for all people and the circle of life.
October 19, 2007
Huffington Post
Green Family Values: Sex and the Environment-World Population Day.
World Population Day was established by the UN in 1989 when the Earth's population reached five billion. Almost 20 years later, we have reached over 6.6 billion with approximately 77 million people added each year. When will we not be able to support our population or have we reached this point?
As the century begins, natural resources are under increasing pressure, water shortages, soil exhaustion, loss of forests, air and water pollution, and degradation of coastlines afflict many areas. Developed economies consume resources faster than they can regenerate. Developing countries with rapid population growth face the need to improve living standards. As we exploit nature to meet present needs, are we destroying resources for the future?
There are so many issues involving global population growth. We may not feel the effects in the US yet, but if we look to developing countries and the natural resources available, it is easy to become alarmed. If we want a livable future, we must increase our sustainabilty, as well as stabilize the human population. We must slow this growth to enable us to address sustainability and preserve a high standard of living for all people. Voluntary family planning should be supported, including eliminating the Global Gag Rule. Even though the US population grows mostly due to immigration, there are families in this country with eight or nine children. However, 99% of population growth does occurs in developing countries. Family planning education that targets both men and women, as well as aid should be a priority as we look to stabilize population growth.
Karen Gaia says: with the human population at 6.6 billion, it will be impossible to attain a high standard of living for all people. Let us settle for a standard of living more like that of Cuba, which is the most sustainable counry in the world. Cuba has free health care, free education, adequately feeds its people, and even sends doctors and nurses to help people in developing countries.
July 11, 2007
Green Options blog
New Sustainability Measure Shows Utahns Have a Big Eco-footprint.
The Utah Population and Environment Coalition calculated that it takes about 9.9 global hectares to support each Utahn, while Utah lands provide 8.9 global hectares.
"It's important to start this discussion about choices for our future," said one of the researchers.
"We hope this will be a community discussion and that Utah will take a leadership role. The average Utahn's share of that consumption has grown along with the state's population. In 1990, the population was 1.7 million and the state's overall footprint was 15.2 million global hectares, compared with 23.8 in 2003, when the population had reached 2.4 million.
The population growth put such a great demand on resources that now we consume more than the land can supply on a sustainable basis. The state now has a deficit of about 2.4 million hectares.
Americans are resource hogs compared to the rest of the world. It would take five earths to sustain everyone if people worldwide had the same eco-footprint as Utahns.
June 28, 2007
The Salt Lake Tribune
When is Hawaii's 'Carrying Capacity' Maxed Out?.
It would seem logical to determine what is the carrying capacity of our Hawaiian islands. There are water conservation advisories on a regular basis. Our sewer system is in need of constant repair. Flooding is common. Road rage is rampant. All boats have a finite carrying capacity. I submit so do islands and what is the carrying capacity of Hawaii?
The criterion for determining whether a region is overpopulated is not land area, but carrying capacity.
That refers to the number of individuals who can be supported in a given area within natural resource limits, and without degrading the natural social, cultural and economic environment for present and future generations.
The carrying capacity is not fixed. It can be altered by improved technology, but mostly it is changed for the worse by population increase.
As the environment is degraded, carrying capacity shrinks, leaving the environment unable to support even the number of people who could formerly have lived in the area.
The average "ecological footprint" on the mainland is about 12 acres, an area far greater than that taken up by one's residence and place of school or work and the Hawaiian footprint is larger.
June 25, 2007
Hawaii Reporter
Natural Resource Depletion Costs Ghana $520 Million Annually.
Research reveals that the degradation of agricultural soils, forests and Savannah woodlands, coastal fisheries, wildlife resources, and Lake Volta's environment are estimated to cost Ghana at least $520 million annually.
The majority of the estimated costs of environmental degradation comes from forests, to represent 5% of GDP.
Ghana's natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate. More than 50% of the original forest has been converted to agricultural land by slash- and-burn. Despite cocoa land expansion, productivity has declined because of soil erosion.
Fish, timber, and non- timber forest product stocks are decreasing. As a result, coastal towns have begun to experience severe water shortages. Hydropower is dropping, and bilharzia has spread around the Volta Lake region.
Wildlife populations and biodiversity are in serous decline and many species face extinction. These depletions might lower Ghana's GDP growth in the near future.
Poor forest management and soil degradation result in huge economic losses. The degradation of Lake Volta increases the costs and reduces the quality of both water and power.
The prospects for economic development and poverty reduction in Ghana are dependent on natural resources.
Rural households rely on natural resources for their livelihoods, fisheries, and wildlife provide protein in Ghanaian diets. Urban economic activities depend on reliable hydroelectric power.
About half of Ghana's GDP derived from agriculture and livestock, forestry and wood processing and were related to the natural resources.
Ghana's natural resources are over exploited and continue to decline. Inappropriate crop production, mining and the wood industry are adversely affecting forests and savannah. Ongoing soil erosion and a decline in fertility undermine food and agricultural production.
A stronger policy dialogue must etablish a framework to provide sustainable management practices for Ghana's natural resources.
The government must improve local community involvement in natural resource and environmental management.
Also stimulate investments in wildlife, farming, ecotourism, tree plantations, and sustainable land management.
Karen Gaia says: Another article that misses the link to overpopulation. Again, here is the unwritten assumption that women want to have a lot of children and risk dying in childbirth. Ralph says: Why not reduce the population? Oh!! Sorry, must not talk about that.
June 20, 2007
Statesman
US Arizona;: Technology Can Help Sustain Desert Living.
The decade long drought in Arizona may turn into a 1930s-style Dust Bowl. Night-time temperatures may keep on rising. Freeway construction may never relieve the traffic.
More frequent hurricanes traumatize the Gulf Coast. Climbing gas prices threaten our nation's mobility. Conversion of corn into ethanol causes the cost of foodstuffs to skyrocket. New diseases like bird flu spread across the globe.
The sustainability of our lifestyle suddenly seems at risk. Societies are confronted by limits that they did not worry about before.
In the spirit of optimism, Arizona organizations are working together to understand the challenges of sustainability and possible remedies.
The Global Institute of Sustainability, or GIOS, researches rapid urbanization, which uses Greater Phoenix as its main laboratory.
ASU receives millions of federal, state and industry dollars to study how cities grow. Among the major questions being addressed are:
How does the expansion of metro Phoenix affect the Sonoran Desert ecosystem?
How do commercial and government managers make decisions about water allocation?
How can changes in construction materials reduce the urban heat island effect?
How might information-sharing technology allow the police departments to more quickly identify criminals?
How can "green" energy technologies reduce a city's reliance on vulnerable, distant fuel sources?
Where does the Valley's air pollution come from?
These questions may seem diverse, but can be solved only through an interdisciplinary approach. Their solutions offer new business opportunities by creating "sustainable technologies."
June 09, 2007
Arizona Republic
Toward a Green Economy.
The 2005 Millennium Assessment (MA) found that 83% of the planet's natural systems are in serious decline. Adding to this are the pressures of population growth and increasing consumption.
Global population is expected to soar 9 billion by 2050. Even though we crossed the point of sustainable use of natural resources in the mid-1980s, many of the 2.4 billion people living in China and India are striving to approach the materialistic lifestyle of the average North American.
Humanity needs a new approach to managing the assets upon which we all depend. Farming and forestry is about maximizing production, but has to start maximizing the ecological goods and service those ecosystems offer. Funds to pay for such services should come from taxes on polluters, including a carbon tax, cap and trade. In Ecuador, a Water Conservation Fund (FONAG) collects user fees from those who benefit from the water in the Condor Bioreserves and uses these funds to support watershed management projects. In Brazil, states allocate some revenues help support protected areas for forests and other resources. With deforestation threatening the Panama Canal, insurance and shipping companies are helping finance a major reforestation effort.
There is a vital need to create new institutions to protect natural capital at the local level.
On a larger scale Biomes are ecosystems with similar climate, soils, plants, and animals. The MA identifies 15 biomes and a stewardship council for each would maximize ecosystem protection and human welfare within a biome.
There is also a need to create a Commission that would communicate the fact that healthy ecosystem services are fundamental to reducing poverty and achieving economic development. A new forum has been recommended by the U.N. that would include heads of state from countries at different levels of economic development and cultures and deal with environmental and social as well as economic issues.
There are likely one to two million grassroots organizations around the world working toward ecological sustainability. It's unknown if people will rise to this enormous challenge. Voting and choosing environmentally-friendly products is not nearly enough. Only collective action will produce the substantial changes that are needed.
May 31, 2007
IPS News
The Next Added 100 Million Americans, Part 28.
In the days of sailing ships, sailors used to leave goats on islands to ensure fresh meat on return trips. But the animals bred faster than the sailors could eat them, and goats ate the vegetation and starved. They also screwed up the environment so that native species couldn't survive. A report blames humans for increased temperatures, melting glaciers and rising seas, they burn fossil fuels at 82 million barrels daily which does no include millions of tons of coal, natural gas and wood being burned every day by 6.6 billion humans.
We've had virtually free energy in the form of fossil fuels. Climate change is a sign that we are exceeding the number of people Earth can sustain. Some, however, point to increased agricultural production and medical advances that fend off disease.
Earth's carrying capacity is thought to be four to five billion people. We have 6.6 billion today and grow by 240,000 every 24 hours. Half of the world's population has little access to medicine, electricity, safe water and reliable food supplies.
You might have 50 billion, but the quality of life might not be pleasing. The US possesses resources to sustain less than half of its current population of 300 million. Americans who make up 5% of the world's population, use 25% of its resources and cast a large footprint.
If all 6 billion people were to share the world's resources equally, Americans would have to reduce consumption by 80% for each of us. Carrying capacity and footprint are tied to the global economy, which has quadrupled since the world's population doubled.
That leads to a fear that slowing population growth might not ultimately curb greenhouse gas production if more people achieve Western lifestyles. China is opening an average of one coal-fired power plant a week to meet electricity demand. Everyone in China wants their own apartment and their own car. People ask how many people the Earth can sustain. That depends on whether you want to live like an Indian or an American.
Farmers worldwide grow about two billion tons of grain a year. Each American consumes 1,760 pounds annually, mainly because of the grains used to feed farm animals. If everyone on the planet consumed that much grain, earth would support about 2.5 billion people. But in India, people consume about 440 pounds each. If everyone else in the world did likewise, the world's grain would support about 10 billion people.
Growing one ton of grain requires 1,000 tons of water which is short in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. As water flows from agriculture to support growing urban populations, more grain must be imported.
Soybeans are increasingly in demand for biodiesel. And ethanol production now vies with food for corn. By 2008, half of the U.S. corn crop will go to ethanol.
70% of all corn comes from the U.S. If we grow fuel plants that would require setting aside lots of land to produce ethanol. We don't have enough land worldwide to meet those demands. Humans are drawing on capital rather than interest, and once that is exhausted, they will find Mother Nature reluctant to make a loan.
We must take action and prevent a horrible overpopulation future for our children by taking action today. We can bring about population stabilization gracefully or nature will do it brutally.
April 06, 2007
NewsByUs.com
Capitalism and the Consequences of Biofuels.
Biofuel refers to fuels derived from recently living organisms, today mostly in the form of ethanol from plants such as sugar cane, soybeans, and oil palm. Biofuels often use more energy to produce than they contribute. Scientists hope that biofuels can replace much gasoline used today. Because the carbon in biofuels comes from CO2 that is taken out of the atmosphere by the living plants, some scientists argue that biofuels could contribute less to global warming than fossil fuels. And, biofuels could be grown year after year.
Others are saying that they require the use of fertilizers, which increase CO2, replace other plant life, deplete the soil, and are water intensive.
The use of biofuels has led to horrific consequences for the people of the world and the environment.
89% of the world's resources are absorbed by the advanced countries. Imperialism has produced a wasteful and destructive pattern of economic activity and industrial development.
This will continue to mean that the growing of crops for fuel, mostly for export to Europe, Japan and the US, is being done on large-scale plantations in the third world. Ancient forests are being cut down, threatening extinction for many species. Reduction of greenhouse gases is lost when carbon-capturing forests are cut down. In Malaysia, the production of palm oil for biodiesel is a major industry. The development of oil-palm plantations was responsible for an estimated 87% of deforestation. In Sumatra and Borneo, 4 million hectares of forest have been converted to palm farms. Now a further 6 million hectares are scheduled for clearance in Malaysia, and 16.5 million in Indonesia.
Thousands of indigenous people have been evicted from their lands, and some 500 Indonesians have been tortured when they tried to resist. The forest fires which every so often smother the region in smog are mostly started by the palm growers.
Hundreds of thousands of small-scale peasant farmers are being displaced by soybeans expansion. Many more stand to lose their land under the biofuels stampede. The expanding cropland planted to yellow corn for ethanol has reduced the supply of white corn for tortillas in Mexico, sending prices up 400%.
For investors in alternatives to oil and gas, the driving force has been the belief that whoever develops the next great energy sources will enjoy the spoils that will make the gains from creating the next Amazon.com or Google seem puny.
In the development of biofuels this means that they do not pay attention to long-term effects. The economy is broken up into competing units of capitalist control and ownership over the means of production. And each unit is fundamentally concerned with itself and its expansion and its profit. The economy, the constructed and natural environment, and society cannot be dealt with as a social whole under capitalism.
Ralph says: From practical experience in several countries including the old Soviet Union, I can assure our readers that socialism does not work either. Perhaps a benevolent universal dictatorsip is the only solution. In WW2 when food became scarce, rationing was willingly accepted. But will the citizens of the more advanced countries accept ethanol rationing so that more food can be sent to the poorer countries with continuing population growth??
March 30, 2007
Revolution Newspaper - East Bay
Massive Diversion of U.S. Grain to Fuel Cars.
Corn prices have doubled over the last year, wheat futures are at their highest level in 10 years, and rice prices are rising. The use of corn as the feedstock for fuel ethanol is creating consequences throughout the global food chain.
In Mexico, the price of tortillas is up by 60% percent. Angry Mexicans have forced the government to institute price controls on tortillas.
Food prices are also rising in China, India, and the US, 40% of the world's people. Vast quantities of corn are consumed indirectly in meat, milk, and eggs in both China and the US.
In China, pork prices were up 20% above a year earlier, eggs were up 16%. In India, the food price index in 2007 was 10% higher than a year earlier. The price of wheat has jumped 11%.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that the wholesale price of chicken in 2007 will be 10% higher than in 2006, the price of eggs will be up 21%, and milk 14%, and this is only the beginning.
As more and more fuel ethanol distilleries are built, world grain prices are starting to move up toward their oil-equivalent value. In this new economy, if the fuel value of grain exceeds its food value, the market will move it into the energy economy. Some 16 of the 2006 U.S. harvest was used to produce ethanol. With 80 or so ethanol distilleries under construction, nearly a third of the 2008 grain harvest will be going to ethanol.
Since the United States is the leading exporter of grain, what happens to the U.S. grain crop affects the entire world. The world's breadbasket is fast becoming the U.S. fuel tank.
The UN lists 34 countries as needing emergency food assistance. Food aid programs have fixed budgets.
Protests in response to rising food prices could lead to political instability that would add to the list of failed and failing states. President Bush set a production goal for 2017 of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels. Given the difficulties in producing cellulosic ethanol at a competitive cost and the mounting public opposition to liquefied coal, most of the fuel to meet this goal might have to come from grain. This could leave little grain to meet U.S. needs, much less those of the countries that import grain.
The risk is that millions of those on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder will start falling off as higher food prices drop their consumption below the survival level.
In 2007, 18,000 children are dying every day from hunger and malnutrition. There are alternatives. A rise in fuel efficiency standards of 20% over the next decade would save as much oil as converting the entire U.S. grain harvest into ethanol.
One option is plug-in hybrids. Adding a second storage battery to a gas-electric hybrid car along with a plug-in capacity allows most short-distance driving to be done with electricity. If this was accompanied by thousands of wind farms that could feed cheap electricity into the grid, then cars could run largely on electricity for the equivalent cost of $1 per gallon gasoline.
Toyota, Nissan, and GM, have announced plans to bring plug-in hybrid cars to market. It is time to decide whether to continue with subsidizing more grain-based distilleries or to encourage a shift to more fuel-efficient cars. The choice is between a future of rising world food prices, spreading hunger, and growing political instability, or one of stable food prices, sharply reduced dependence on oil, and much lower carbon emissions.
Karen Gaia says: No mention of there being too many people and too many people with large appetites for energy. Time to conserve energy. Move closer to your work and shopping. Move where you can walk or bicycle to whereever you need to go. Go from a multi-car family to a one car family and save money on gas, car insurance, and the car itself. And let's get away from globalization and back to bioregionlism. Take the farms away from the corporations and let the local people go back to farming. And give women access to ways to keep their family size small.
March 21, 2007
Earth Policy News
Are Politicians Avoiding the Real Reasons for Climate Change?.
According to the World Land Trust, politicians and environmentalists are not confronting the real reasons for climate change. "It is only when we confront the real issue that is driving the whole energy issue that we can hope to prevent the total chaos that is likely to result over the next few decades. And that is far too many people exist on this planet."
The population, with its ever increasing demands on the world's resources, is totally unsustainable. The developed world is only able to sustain its own use of resources by exploiting the less developed parts of the world, such as China, India and other parts of Asia. As they catch up, more and more resources will be consumed, particularly energy and water. Intensification of farming in the developed world has temporarily alleviated food shortages, but devastated wildlife, with millions of acres now barren of wild animals and plants, even migrant birds suffer.
Since the World Land Trust was created in 1989, more organizations are seeing the importance of preserving what little is left. It's not a huge amount, but by targeting key areas, perhaps something will survive for future generation when human populations are brought under control."
Meanwhile politicians try to convince us that a bit of recycling, and a more energy efficient light bulb will save the planet. They ignore the fact that every extra million human beings means huge amounts of oil, food and other resources are needed. Every Briton consumes more than a peasant farmer in Central Africa. In addition to wrecking the British countryside, Britons are also responsible for depleting the resources of many other parts of the world. In the past the problem has been resolved by war, famine and disease. All three loom close, and we are, still re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, with the iceberg in full view.
March 14, 2007
World Land Trust
Too Many People, Not Enough Earth; Scientists Debate How Much Population the World Can Sustain .
In the days of sailing ships, sailors left goats on islands to ensure fresh meat on return trips. It worked. The animals bred fast and ate all the vegetation and began to starve. The goats also screwed up the environment so that native species couldn't survive. The lesson of the goats applies to humans and this is how how our "island" has suffered.
There is air and water pollution, falling water tables, climate change and rampant extinction of wild plants and animals. Climate change is a sign that we are exceeding the number of people Earth can sustain.
Every year, 91 million humans are born in excess of those who die. That's 1 billion people every 11 years.
Right now, Earth's carrying capacity is in the range of 4 to 5 billion people. There are 6.5 billion of us.
Half of the world's population has little access to medicine, electricity, safe water and reliable food supplies.
If the 1.3 million residents of Franklin County had to live on the resources the county could provide, only about 100,000 would live here.
We're oblivious to that because we import the vast majority of our needs.
The US has the resources to sustain less than half of its current population of 300 million. Americans, who make up 5% of the world's population and use 25% of its resources. If all 6 billion people were to share the world's resources equally, Americans would have to reduce consumption by 80%.
There is a fear that slowing population growth might not curb greenhouse gas production if more people achieve Western lifestyles. China is opening one coal-fired power plant a week to meet electricity demand. Everyone in China wants their own apartment and their own car. People ask how many people the Earth can sustain. It depends on whether you want to live like an Indian or an American.
Each American consumes an average of 1,760 pounds annually, mainly because of the grains used to feed farm animals. If everyone on the planet consumed that much grain, Earth would support about 2.5 billion people.
In India, people consume about 440 pounds each. If everyone else in the world did likewise, the world's grain would support about 10 billion people.
Growing 1 ton of grain requires 1,000 tons of water.
There already are water shortages and, as water is diverted from agriculture to support growing urban populations, more grain must be imported.
Soybeans are increasingly in demand for biodiesel and ethanol now vies with food for corn. By 2008, half of the U.S. corn crop will go to ethanol. What happens to U.S. corn crops affects a lot of countries. This competition for energy and food will change the landscape.
If we replace our reliance on fossil fuels and instead grow fuel plants, that would require setting aside lots of land to produce ethanol and we don't have enough land worldwide to meet those demands.
Demand for food, fuel and materials already consumes more trees and crops than are being grown worldwide.
February 13, 2007
Columbus Dispatch
Too Many People, Not Enough Earth.
In the days of sailing ships, sailors used to leave goats on islands for fresh meat on return trips. The animals bred fast, ate all the vegetation and began to starve. They also screwed up the environment so that native species couldn't survive. The lesson of the goats applies to humans and point out how our "island" has suffered.
There is pollution, falling water tables, climate change and extinction of wild plants and animals. We've created this problem because we've had virtually free energy in the form of fossil fuels.
Climate change is a sign that we are exceeding the number of people Earth can sustain.
Every year, at least 91 million humans are born in excess of those who die.
Earth's carrying capacity is thought to be somewhere in the range of 4 billion to 5 billion people.
There are 6.5 billion of us. No one is sure what the magic number is. You might have 50 billion, but the quality of life might not be pleasing.
If the 1.3 million residents of Franklin County had to live on the resources the county could provide, only about 100,000 would live here.
We happily import the vast majority of our needs.
The US has the resources to sustain less than half of its current population of 300 million. Americans, who make up 5% of the world's population, use 25% of its resources.
If all 6 billion people were to share the world's resources equally, Americans would have to reduce consumption by 80% for each of us. Carrying capacity is tied to the global economy, which has quadrupled since the world's population doubled.
That leads to a fear that slowing population growth might not curb greenhouse gas production if more people achieve Western lifestyles. People ask how many people the Earth can sustain. It depends on whether you want to live like an Indian or an American.
For example, farmers worldwide grow about 2 billion tons of grain every year. Each American consumes an average of 1,760 pounds annually, mainly because of the grains used to feed farm animals. If everyone on the planet consumed that much grain, Brown said, Earth would support about 2.5 billion people.
In India, people consume about 440 pounds each. If everyone else in the world did likewise, the world's grain would support about 10 billion people.
Growing 1 ton of grain requires 1,000 tons of water.
There are water shortages in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. As water is diverted from agriculture to support growing urban populations.
Soybeans are in demand for biodiesel and ethanol production vies with food for corn. By 2008, half of the U.S. corn crop may go to ethanol.
70% of all corn imports in the world come from the U.S. This competition for energy and food will change the landscape.
We don't have enough land worldwide to meet those demands for food, fuel and materials that already consumes more trees and crops than are being grown worldwide.
Humans are drawing on capital rather than interest, and once that is exhausted, they will find Mother Nature reluctant to make a loan.
February 13, 2007
The Columbus Dispatch
Human Ecological Footprint to Grow 34% by 2015, Finds Study.
A modeling program known as STIRPAT empirically assessed factors that drive adverse environmental impacts and projected the 'ecological footprint' for 2015 for all countries with at least one million people. This a measurement of the stress placed on the environment by demands for resources to meet the need for food, housing, transportation, consumer goods and services. Ecological intensity is an impact multiplier, with a value of 1 indicating average intensity, less than one below average and greater than one greater than average.
Increases in population and affluence will expand human impact on the environment by over one-third. To mitigate this impact, countries would need to increase their efficiency of use of about 2% per year. Most of the impact will result from growth of consumption in China and India.
China would need to improve its efficiency by about 2.9% per year, and India by about 2.2% to offset the projected growth. The projected increases for China and India are 37% of the total global increase in footprint. In contrast, Russia is expected to see a 25% drop by 2015. "The impact of the US alone constitutes 17.5% of global environmental impact in 2015, as opposed to just over 20% at present.
The US has an ecological footprint 1.4 times as large as would be expected, based on its population size, level of affluence, land area, and latitude alone.
It is estimated that Earth has some 11.4 billion productive hectares, the human footprint of 2015 will increase to 1.6 planets. It is unlikely that technological advancements will be able to offset this growth rate, though the authors concede that concerted international effort could make it possible; "energy efficiencies of national economies have improved by as much as 5% per year in some cases."
February 09, 2007
Mongabay.com
India Aims to End Poverty by 2040.
India's Finance Minister said poverty could be wiped out by 2040, due to India's economic growth.
But he said that 25% of all Indians, or more than 250 million people, were living in poverty, on less than $1 a day.
The rapid economic growth in India could have widened the gap between the richest and the poorest.
But those at the bottom of the pyramid have seen improvement in their lives. More should be done to combat low life expectancy and high mortality rates.
India has become a world economic power, with growth over the past three years averaging 8%. Based on purchasing power, it is now the world's fourth largest economy.
However, income per head in India is $720 a year.
Karen Gaia says: oil-based economies are not sustainable. Over-pumping of water from aquifers to grow crops for an ever-growing population is not sustainable.
February 06, 2007
BBC News
UA Researcher Argues Sustainability is Sound, Smart Business Practice..
When corporations serve the world's 4 billion poor with affordable products that have low environmental impact, those businesses achieve sustainability. Sustainability is about reducing costs and developing new markets.
Many people think sustainability means only environmental regulation, but some leaders understand that sustainability increases efficiency and reduces waste and costs. It includes attention to product and package development, material sourcing, product formulation, material reuse, and efficient transportation networks. Multinational corporations must adopt sustainable practices to serve the 4 billion people worldwide who have per capita annual incomes of less than $1,500. This population has great needs and demand for products and services, but cannot afford expensive products. By participating in sustainability, corporations will be able to tap into this market with simple and affordable products. By using old methods, there are not enough materials in the world to serve everyone. This demand will be captured by companies that create innovative and efficient products. The green slogan 'reduce, reuse, recycle' is one method to stretch resources and reduce costs."
Sustainability includes financial, environmental and cultural components. The cultural component to sustainability is often overlooked. Technologically superior products may be rejected because they are too expensive or not packaged in a manner that is culturally sensitive.
The Indian subsidiary of Unilever developed an affordable detergent packaged in individual sachets that were less expensive and easier to use based on how Indian villagers wash clothes, resulting in a dramatic increase in revenues and profits. The villagers found value in the new packages.
A critical part of the sustainability means changing or improving products to reduce costs, increase safety or limit their effect on the environment. S.C. Johnson removed more than 1.8 million pounds of volatile compounds from Windex glass cleaner. The change gave the product 30%t more cleaning power and lowered its environmental impact.
Karen Gaia says: consumers can help by exercising purchasing power: stay informed and make wise, sustainable choices when buying.
January 30, 2007
NewsWise.com
Scotland;: North-east Global Footprint Project Leads to Action on Environmental Impact.
The North-east Scotland Global Footprint Reduction Report will be unveiled to mark the completion of research into the region's effect on the environment.
Data on energy use, transport, buildings, food habits, waste management and water use have been sent to the Stockholm Environment Institute's centre in York, which has provided a detailed picture of the North-east's environmental “footprint”.
Scientists have calculated that if everyone in the world were to live the North-east lifestyle, we would need three Planet Earths. People in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire are consuming more resources than the Scottish average.
The average Scot would need 5.37 hectares of land and sea but the average shire resident would need 5.64 hectares and the average Aberdonian 5.8 hectares.
If the Earth's resources were spread evenly each person would have just 1.8 hectares.
Ecological footprinting is an important tool that will allow us to measure our policies and plans against their potential environmental impact. Aberdeenshire Council made a commitment last year and a variety of work is being done which supports its aims. The results of the Global Footprint Project allow us to assess the region's effect.
The research data is now being developed into a computer software programme, which will be used to influence the decision-making of Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire Councils. Items include: energy efficiency for existing homes and buildings; new construction to be the highest environmental standards; alternative, sustainable energy sources; provide affordable, accessible public transport; create communities where workplaces and shopping are nearby.
Aberdeen will ensure that building refurbishment and new development will be energy efficient and sustainable communities will be created.
Aberdeenshire is working on a carbon management programme to cut carbon emissions. Pupils and teachers at nine schools in the region have also been calculating how their activities affect the environment. This is a precursor to an overall Scotland Global Footprint Project, which will be launched by the rest of the country's 32 local authorities.
January 29, 2007
Aberdeen City Council website (Scotland)
Book Review: Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail Or Succeed.
A book "How Societies choose to fail or succeed" by
Jared Diamond scrutinizes a large number of societies--past and present--to assess their sustainability. Examples of societies that have failed include Easter Island, the Anasazi, Societies facing environmental, population, and political problems are Rwanda, Australia, and China. Diamond makes controlled comparisons: contrasting two or more societies while holding constant as many variables as possible.
For example, the island of Hispaniola is composed of two societies: Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world, while the Dominican Republic has a booming economy. Only 1% of Haiti is forested, in contrast to 28% of the Dominican Republic. Because its trees are gone, Haiti lacks building materials and has suffered extensive soil erosion, loss of soil fertility, sediment loads in rivers, loss of watershed protection, and decreased rainfall.
Factors contributing to societal collapse include deforestation and habitat destruction, soil erosion, salinization, soil fertility loss, poor water management, overhunting, overfishing, introduction of non-indigenous animal species, and human population growth. In addition we face world-wide pollution and global warming. Even though the US is successful, we are engaged in the same destructive processes that have contributed to the collapse of numerous societies in the past.
Diamond believes that these problems must be reversed in the next 50 years if our civilization is to survive. It will depend on governments moving beyond short-term political gains to successful long-term planning. It will also depend on people and businesses to to force responsible political action.
January 24, 2007
Robson Valley Times
Cuba Leads in Sustainable Development.
Cuba is the only country in the world with sustainable development, and registered a 12.5% increase in its GDP during the last 12 months. In 2007, Cuba will assign 22.6% of its GDP for public health and education. Spending for health, education, culture, sports, security and social assistance represent 69% of the 2007 budget.
The progress of countries toward sustainable development can be assessed using the UN Human Development Index (HDI) as an indicator of well-being, and the ecological footprint as a measure of demand on the biosphere. As world population grows, less biocapacity is available per person. In 2003, Asia-Pacific and Africa regions were using less than world average per person, while the European Union countries and North America had crossed the threshold for high human development. Only Cuba qualified for sustainable development.
The Havana government has organized a socialist society with a high level of literacy, education, long life expectancy, low infant mortality and low energy consumption.
It is the world's leader in organic agriculture, and is making contributions to medical research, not to mention that Cuban doctors are serving the people in poor developing countries. Cuba has developed a considerable research capability.
Castro declared: Humanity is going through difficult times, plus a non-stop consumption process typical of the globalized imperialist system.
January 07, 2007
Canadian Dimension
Asia-Pacific Environment At Boiling Point.
Asian and Pacific societies are living beyond their ecological means, and if they are to continue expansion, will have to shift towards 'green growth' patterns. Problems include a population density 1.5 times the global average, the lowest freshwater per capita, a biologically productive area per capita that is less than 60% of the global average, and arable and crop land per capita less than 80% the global average.
Meanwhile polluting industries are growing more rapidly in developing countries, agro-industry is chemical, energy, and water-intensive and lifestyles are becoming increasingly waste and energy intensive.
Natural forests are retreating, water extraction rates are unsustainable in 16 countries and irrigation systems are inefficient and poorly maintained. The long term sustainability of the water supply is threatened by climate change, which may cause long-term reductions in water flows from glacier melt.
More economic growth is inevitable, and countries must meet the development challenges.
Countries in South Asia will face the toughest issues in coming decades as population growth, changing water regimes and climates, and rising demand for energy, water and other necessities all come to a head.
Pollution control is becoming more effective and market forces are pushing firms towards greater resource efficiency. As incomes increase consumption patterns become less environmentally sustainable.
December 23, 2006
Scoop Independent News
Switzerland;: Natural Resources Still Being Wasted.
A report shows that Switzerland's ecological footprint is equivalent to 4.7 hectares per person.
Worldwide there are only 1.8 hectares available per person, meaning the Swiss are using other people's resources. The current global average is 2.2 hectares.
Industrialised nations use on average three times more resources than they should be allowed to.
If you look at figures, there is no way you can say the Swiss are contributing to sustainable development.
The Swiss public and the authorities are slowly accepting the idea of sustainable development.
The problem is that they do not worry about the global environment and problems like CO2 levels or global warming.
While environmental conditions are no longer worsening in Switzerland, the Swiss are contributing to problems abroad when they travel or through investments in the global economy.
Energy efficiency has improved in the production of goods and services, but failed to slow increased consumption as workers become more mobile.
One of the biggest concerns is land use and the current construction boom.
We should freeze building zones at current levels and increase construction density to halt urban sprawl and reduce energy consumption for transport.
The state may have to intervene, balancing individual rights with the need to ensure the long-term viability of resources.
December 16, 2006
Swissinfo/Swiss Radio International
China is Reaching Its Environmental Limits.
For the first time,it seems that China is reaching its environmental limits. If it doesn't radically change to greener, more sustainable modes, the Chinese miracle is going to turn into an eco-nightmare.
For three decades China's economy has grown at 10% per year, based on low-cost labor and little regard for waste. China may be approaching a sudden stop: When you stress a system to a certain point, it just stops working.
China's leaders understand the crisis, but their response is complicated by so many Chinese flooding from the countryside to cities. Political stability depends on finding those people jobs, and jobs depend on growth.
But China can't grow now and clean up later. The China Daily reported that at least 24 million acres of cultivated land - one-tenth of the country's total arable land - is polluted, posing a "grave threat" to China's food safety. More than half its rivers are polluted, which is why less than 9% of "drinkable water" meets government standards. Many wells have excessive nitrates that can cause diabetes or kidney damage.
Chinese officials fear that if they move to environmental cleanup, "China will not be such a low-cost producer and that will affect jobs." But green companies are always more efficient, and China has a chance to become a major innovator of low-cost green solutions. Shanghai is trying to expand by building the first eco-metropolis in China, based on eco-tourism, farming, wind and solar power. But you see this massive bridge that is about to connect Chongming to central Shanghai, and one wonders what will happen to all the green plans when all the trucks and consumers start rushing in.
November 15, 2006
New York Times*
Canadians No. 4 in Using Up Earth.
Canada ranks fourth when it comes to gobbling up resources, according to the Living Planet Report, released in Beijing by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The United Arab Emirates, the United States and Finland are ahead of Canada. People are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources.
Humans are consuming resources far beyond Earth's capacity to support them. If this continues, humanity will be using two planets' worth of natural resources by 2050. One impact is evident: Total global populations of mammals, reptiles, fish and birds have dropped by nearly a third since 1970.
The footprint of a country includes cropland, grazing land, forest and fishing grounds to produce food, fibre and timber this consumes, to absorb the wastes emitted in generating the energy it uses, and to provide space for its infrastructure. On average, every person on Earth needs 2.2 hectares, but the planet has only 1.8 hectares of capacity per person. The American lifestyle requires 9.6 hectares and combined with its 294 million population it is the biggest drain on Earth's resources.
China's 1.3 billion people give it a massive total impact, and rapid economic development is swelling its footprint.
The average Canadian's lifestyle requires 7.6 hectares. Afghanistan, just 0.1 of a hectare. Blessed with a small population, and a wealth of resources, Canadians still consume less than their environment offers.
Canada has been headed in the wrong direction for quite a while. For example, over-fishing has decimated Atlantic cod. In southern Alberta, development is fueling demand for water while climate change shrinks the supply. The mountain pine beetle is destroying much of treed B.C. and threatens to invade central Canada's boreal forest.
Nearly half the human footprint globally, and even more in Canada, comes from burning coal, oil and natural gas.
Most wildlife population losses have been in the tropical and subtropical forests, grasslands and oceans.
The Earth has enough resources to sustain all species only if humans reduce their average footprint to one hectare.
Sustainability depends on action now, when even strong measures to curb emissions and slow population growth would take decades.
October 25, 2006
The Star
Ecological Footprints: Enormous Challenges.
An individual, a community, or a nation needs a precise area of land to provide resources and absorb the wastes generated. The available productive area is 1.9 hectares per person but the average requirement has crossed 2.3 hectares and we would need 1.5 Earths to live sustainably.
All human activity has an impact on the planet. Ecological Footprint (EF) is one of the effective tools for measuring our impact on the resources of the Earth. It is the amount of productive land area required to sustain the human being. It is the bio-productive area required to produce the resources we consume and assimilate the wastes we generate. So, EF is a measure of the 'load' imposed by a given population. The value for this measure for London City is 120 times more than the area of the city. The largest EF belongs to the citizens of the US, at approximately 10 hectares. This means that 5 Earths are required if the consumption rate globally is that of the Americans. Currently, humanity's EF is more than the Earth's capacity. We are using about a third more than nature can regenerate. The challenge of sustainability is to find ways to create fulfilling lives while reducing our impact on the Earth. Dramatically more efficient use of resources and cyclical systems are necessary. EF is is useful for evaluating and comparing the total environmental impact of activities and can be calculated for countries, businesses, households, individuals, and most recently, educational institutions. The indicators for calculating EF include nature of food consumption and diet, expenses for transport, household goods, household energy, household services, and some other general issues. There are different equations and models developed to calculate the EF. Contributing to lessening the EF is the need of today's time. It is established that a person who walks or takes public transportation has a smaller EF than someone who commutes fifty miles in a sport utility vehicle that gets 15 miles to the gallon. A vegetarian has a smaller EF than someone who has steak every night. A family of 4 living in a 3000 square foot energy efficient house has a smaller EF than a family of two living in a 4000 square foot, poorly insulated house. Locally-grown food has a much smaller EF. EF can be reduced if someone becomes vegetarian, uses public transportation or cycles and walks, reduces air travel, lessens the consumptions of clothes and footwear, stationeries, computers, reduces the electricity and cooking gas expenses, reduces firewood use at home and replaces it with alternative and renewable energy sources.
June 26, 2006
Gorkhapatra (Nepal)
U.S.: Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants Over the Next Twenty Years.
If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Act would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years. The bill grants amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants but no attention has been given to the fact that the bill would quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the US, raising the inflow of legal immigrants from around one million per year to over five million per year. The law would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to the population.
The maximum number that could legally enter would be almost 200 million over twenty years, over 180 million more than current law permits.
The three legal statuses that a legal immigrant might hold:
1. Temporary Status: Persons enter the U.S. temporarily and are required to leave after a period of time.
2. Near-Permanent, Convertible Status: Persons enter the U.S. are given the opportunity to convert to legal permanent residence after a few years.
3. Legal Permanent Residence (LPR): Persons have the right to remain in the United States for their entire lives. After five years, they have the right to become citizens. Immigrants in convertible or LPR status have the right to bring spouses and minor children into the country. They will be granted permanent residence with the primary immigrant and may become citizens. After naturalizing, an immigrant has the right to bring his parents into the U.S. as permanent residents. There are no limits on the number of spouses, dependent children, and parents of naturalized citizens that may be brought into the country. The siblings and adult children with their families of legal permanent residents are given preference in future admission. Four provisions would result in an explosive increase in legal immigration:
1) Amnesty and citizenship to 85% of the current 11.9 million illegal immigrants, 2) The New 'Temporary Guest Worker' Program, 3)Additional Permanent Visas for Siblings, Adult Children, and their Families, and 4) Additional Permanent Employment Visas.
Those in the U.S. for five years or more would be granted immediate amnesty. Those in the country between two and five years could travel to one of 16 ports of entry, where they would receive amnesty and lawful work permits. In total, the bill would grant amnesty to 85% of the illegal immigrant population, 10 million individuals.
After amnesty, illegal immigrants would spend six years before attaining LPR status. After five years in LPR status, they would have the opportunity to become naturalized citizens. There would be no numeric limit on the number of illegal immigrants, spouses, and dependents receiving LPR status. Under the New Temporary Guest Worker Program: nearly all guest workers would have the right to become permanent residents and citizens.
Foreign workers could enter the U.S. as guest workers if they have a job offer from a U.S. employer. Guest workers would be allowed to remain in the U.S. for six years. However, in the fourth year, the guest worker could ask for LPR status and would receive it if he or she has learned English or is enrolled in an English class. There are no numeric limits on the number of guest workers who could receive LPR status. Then the guest worker could remain in the country permanently and could become a U.S. citizen and vote in U.S. elections after just five years.
The spouses and minor children of guest workers would also be permitted to immigrate to the U.S. Five years after obtaining LPR status, these spouses could become naturalized citizens with no limit on the number of spouses and children who could immigrate under the guest worker program. In the first year, 325,000 visas would be given out, but if employer demand for guest workers is high, that number could be boosted by an extra 65,000 in the next year. If employer demand continues to be high, the number of visas could be raised by up to 20% in each year.
This allows the number of immigrants to climb steeply. If the H-2C cap were increased by 20% each year, within twenty years the annual inflow of workers would reach 12 million and 70 million guest workers would enter the U.S. over the next two decades and none would be required to leave. The guest worker program is an open door based on the demands of U.S. business. It is an open border provision.
The permanent entry of non-immediate relatives such as brothers, sisters, and adult children is currently subject to a cap of 480,000 per year minus the number of immediate relatives admitted in the prior year. This bill eliminates the deduction for immediate relatives from the cap and increases the number of non-immediate relatives who could attain LPR status by 254,000 per year.
The U.S. currently issues around 140,000 employment-based visas each year. Now the U.S. would issue 450,000 employment-based green cards per year between 2007 and 2016. After 2016, the number would fall to 290,000 per year. This means that some 990,000 persons per year would be granted LPR status until 2016 and, after that, 638,000 per year.
Assumptions made for the estimates in this paper include: *In the current employment-based visa program, 1.2 dependents enter for each incoming worker. The ratio of incoming spouses and children to amnesty recipients is assumed to be only 0.6.
* Parents of naturalized citizens make up 8% of all new legal immigrants. This paper assumes that half of all adult immigrants will naturalize after five years and 30% of the parents of these naturalized citizens will immigrate in the three years after their childrens naturalization.
* This paper assumes that the number of immigrants in the guest worker program would increase at a more moderate rate of 10% per year. Alternative estimates for 20% and 0% growth are also presented.
Today roughly 950,000 persons receive permanent residence visas each year. Over 20 years, the inflow of immigrants through this channel would be 19 million under existing law. The bill would grant amnesty to roughly 10 million illegal immigrants. The number of family-sponsored visas for secondary family members, such as adult brothers and sisters, is currently limited to 480,000 per year minus the number of visas given to immediate family members (spouses, minor children, and parents of U.S. citizens). The bill allows the total quota on secondary family members to be 480,000 without deductions for immediate family members. The net increase would be around 254,000 per year, or 5.1 million over 20 years. Total annual immigration under this provision is likely to be 450,000 workers plus 540,000 family members annually. The net increase above current law over 20 years would be around 13.5 million persons. The guest worker would allow 325,000 persons to participate in the first year. This number could rise by 65,000 in the next year and then by 20% per year. The total inflow of workers under this program would be 20 million over 20 years. Guest workers could bring their spouses and children to the U.S. as permanent residents; the added number would be 24 million over 20 years. Illegal immigrants who received amnesty could bring their spouses and children into the U.S. with the opportunity for full citizenship. The number would be at least six million. Naturalized citizens would have an unlimited right to bring their parents into the U.S. as legal permanent residents. Over twenty years, the number of parents would be around five million. Overall, the bill would allow some 103 million persons to legally immigrate over the next twenty years. The net inflow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. population is around 700,000 per year. Legal immigration would exceed five million per year, seven times the rate of the current illegal immigration flow.
The figure of 103 million new legal immigrants is based on the assumption that immigration under the guest worker program would grow at 10% per year. If guest-worker immigration grows at the maximum rate, 20% per year, the total number of new immigrants coming to the U.S. over the next twenty years would be 193 million. If immigration under the program did not increase at all for two decades but remained fixed at the initial level of 325,000 per year, total legal immigration under CIRA would be 72 million over twenty years, or more than three times the level that would occur under current law.
Between 1870 and 1920, the U.S. experienced a massive flow of immigration. During this period, foreign born persons hovered between 13% and 15% of the population. In 1924, Congress reduced future immigration. By 1970, foreign born persons had fallen to 5%.
The foreign born now comprise around 12% of the population. However, if this bill was enacted, and 100 million new immigrants entered the country over the next twenty years, foreign born persons would rise to over one quarter of the U.S. population. If enacted, this would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years. The bill would give amnesty to 10 million illegal immigrants and quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the U.S. Under the bill, the annual inflow of immigrants with the option of becoming legal permanent residents would rise from the current level of one million per year to more than five million per year. Within a few years, the annual inflow of new immigrants would exceed one percent of the current U.S. population. This would be the highest immigration rate in U.S. history.
Within 20 years, some 103 million new immigrants would enter the U.S. This number is about one-third of the current U.S. population. All of these immigrants would be permanent residents with the right to become citizens and vote in U.S. elections. CIRA would transform the United States socially, economically, and politically. Within two decades, the character of the nation would differ dramatically from what exists today.
Karen Gaia says: The article does not even mention the impacts to the environment and what about the impact of a doubling of the U.S. population upon the carrying capacity of this planet? Ralph says: It is time that we arrived at a sensible limit to the number of people our country can support. Then limit the population to that figure.
May 15, 2006
Heritage Foundation
Africa: Battle to Save Earth Will Be Fought in the Cities.
The battle to save the environment will be won or lost in its cities, calims Klaus Töpfer, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, who sketched a picture of a world population living way beyond the ability of the planet to sustain its consumption of resources and generation of waste. We are overusing our natural capital and the solutions must be linked to our cities. "Energy use has increased 16 times, water use has increased nine times, fish catches have increased 40 times, all in the space of one lifetime," Töpfer said. It is in cities that there is a high consumption of resources and generation of pollution. The presence of slums were indicative of cities that were dysfunctional. It had been shown that the world's people were consuming natural resources at a faster rate than the planet could sustain. Cities have to accept that biodiversity must be conserved alongside urban expansion.
February 28, 2006
Cape Times
Is it Ethical to Have Children?.
Increasingly, having kids throws up sustainability angst in the developed world. While 'mother earth' moniker might give the impression that she is waiting with open arms to welcome our offspring, we know we're pushing it. Europeans use three times their fair share of land and resources to sustain their lifestyles, while Americans push this up to five times. We are duty bound to weigh up the biological clocks against increasing environmental degradation and over-population. The global population is predicted to expand to 9bn by 2050 yet the answer to combating global poverty lies in having fewer children. Eminent scientists have called for urgent discussion on population management. The world cannot sustain a burgeoning global population, even with lifestyle alterations which mitigate pressure on shelter, food and water. However, you can take heart from new calculations from the University of Bucharest, which suggest that the earth could sustain 200,000 times the amount of people housed already. However, it would be very unpleasant, due to an almighty fight over essential life-sustaining resources. New parents would seem to have a vested interest in supporting renewable energy, local food and water and energy conservation.
January 22, 2006
The Observer
Flunks Traffic Test.
Southern California residents are experiencing increased delays in traffic and a decline in their quality of life. For the first time, traffic mobility in Southern California earned a flunking grade. Travelers in Riverside and San Bernardino counties are spending about 55 hours a year stuck in traffic. Commuters in Los Angeles and Orange counties topped the nation's urban areas with an average delay of 93 hours during peak periods. Congestion on the region's roads and highways costs about $12 billion annually. Traffic mobility earned a failing grade because of planning inadequately for population growth and new-home construction. Regional leaders took advantage of the failing grade to pitch support for Gov. Schwarzenegger's proposed multibillion-dollar state infrastructure bond. The regional planning council is made up of six counties that collectively have 187 cities and a population of 18 million. Southern California has the highest housing-cost burdens for owners and renters and the highest poverty rates in the country.
January 22, 2006
California Association of Governments
China Pays Huge Price for Its Peaceful Rising.
China's peaceful rise is phenomenal and the envy of many in the world. The country's economy in 2005 could become the fourth largest in the world. But the achievement is costly, in social and environmental terms. The gap between rich and poor is widening and the deterioration of the environment is threatening the country's economic development. China's measurement of a country's income inequality has doubled in the past 20 years. Mainland China's increased GDP in 2005 will make the inequality worse. The mainland's city vs countryside income ratio could be as high as 6:1. Mainland China ranks 90th in the UNDP's 131-nation human-development index and leads the world in creating one of the most unequal societies in history. The cost to the environment is even greater. Public accidents have caused more than one million casualties each year, and economic losses of 650 billion yuan (US$80 billion). In 2004, these accidents killed 210,000 people and injured another 1.75 million. In the mining sector, mainland China has the world's worst record. In the past month, accidents claimed more than 300 lives. From 2001 to 2004, accidents in China's coal mines claimed 6,282 lives a year. Chemical spills and toxic emissions keep contaminating the water and air. Last month a metal factory near Hong Kong leaked cancer-causing cadmium into the Bei River. This month, a fertilizer plant in Sichuan dumped 600 tons of sulfuric acid into the Qijiang River. These problems, plus income inequalities, could trigger social unrest.
January 15, 2006
China Post
Can Our Planet Support the Rise of China and India?.
Two of Washington's environmental think tanks warn that the economic boom in China and India could present one of the world's gravest threats to the environment. The two countries have 2.5 billion people, or nearly 40% of the world's population. China eats up one-third of the world's rice, over one-quarter of the world's steel and nearly half of its cement. The Earth cannot supply these countries' rising demands for energy, food, and raw materials. The use of oil has doubled in India since 1992, while China has becoming the world's second largest importer in 2004. Prices worldwide have soared as India and China scooped up shares in oil companies. The US is still the greatest burner of oil, using 25% of global annual supplies and producing 25% of carbon. The average US citizen requires about 9.7 hectares to provide resources and space for waste, 205% of what the country can provide. That figure is only 1.6 hectares for the average Chinese, or 201% of the country's capacity, and 0.8 hectares for the average Indian, or 210% of the country's capacity. Both India and China have programs to use renewable energies. India now aims to raise its share of renewable energies to 20% to 25%. China and India are signatories of the Kyoto Protocol, but as developing nations they are exempted from cutting their emissions. China has taken voluntary measures which have had a very positive impact.
January 14, 2006
Taipei Times
They Want to Make Children Extinct.
Les Knight is the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, a network of people dedicated to phasing out the human race in the interest of the planet. Whereever humans live, not much else lives and human activities are damaging the biosphere. More people means more damage. So no people at all be best for the planet, Knight claims. The UN estimates that the human population, currently at 6.5 billion, is well on its way to 9.1 billion in 2050. Estimates place a sustainable population in which most people are able to enjoy their lives at between one billion and two billion. The growing population is wreaking havoc on the Earth's systems and setting up civilisation for a hard fall. Regardless of the merits of reducing the population to nil - as Knight advocates - it's pretty clear that the world could do without any additional people. A single new American born in the 1990s will be responsible, over his or her life, for 22m lbs of liquid waste and 2.2m lbs each of solid waste and atmospheric waste. He or she will have a lifetime consumption of 4000 barrels of oil, 1.5m lbs of minerals and 62,000 lbs of animal products that will entail the slaughter of 2000 animals. In many ways, the idea of reducing the world's population is as much about human quality of life as it is about the health of the planet. Childbearing is irresponsible, is selfish, when so many aren't getting the love and attention they deserve. Knight says there's a taboo against talking about population control that has resulted in many environmental groups either not addressing population or doing so inadequately. In light of the number of species becoming extinct because of our increase, and the tens
