Home

Why Population Matters News Y6B: 6 Billion Reasons Sustainability Carrying Capacity Overconsumption Environmental Impacts Facts Impacts in the News

Though more than two-thirds of the planet is covered with water, only a small fraction'"around 0.3 percent'"is available for human use and reuse. And no more of this renewable fresh water is available today than existed at the dawn of human civilization.  

World population, currently 6.5 billion, is growing by another 76 million people per year. According to the UN the world will add another 2.6 billion people by 2050. Rapid population growth has placed incredible stress on Earth's resources. Global demand for water has tripled since the 1950s, but the supply of fresh drinking water has been declining because of over-pumping and contamination. Half a billion people live in water-stressed or water-scarce countries, and by 2025 that number will grow to three billion. In the last 50 years, cropland has been reduced by 13% and pasture by 4%.   June 2005   U.N.

The Population Bomb Revisited.   by Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich The Population Bomb was written over forty years ago and sold some 2 million copies, launching worldwide debate that continues today. Fundamental is the issue of the Earth's finite capacity to sustain human civilization. Despite its flaws, the book still provides a useful lens for viewing the environmental, energy, and food crisis of the present time. The Erlich's original title was Population, Resources, and Environment. It was listed by the Intercollegiate Review as one of the fifty worst books of the 20th century, along with John Kenneth Gailbraith's The Affluent Society, John Maynard Keynes' General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, and John Rawls' A Theory of Justice. The book's main message - that it can be a very bad thing to have more than a certain number of people alive at the same time, that Earth has a finite carrying capacity - produced a negative response from both the far right and the far left. The far left saw the basic issue not as overpopulation but as maldistribution of resources and worried that the far right would use overpopulation as an excuse to promote births of only the "right kind" - as was demonstrated by the eugenics movement. Conservatives didn't like the idea that population size was a legitimate area for government intervention. The unwillingness of the vast majority of people to do simple math and take seriously the problems of exponential growth is perhaps the biggest barrier to acceptance of the central arguments of The Bomb. A professor of business administration, Julian Simon claimed in 1994: "We now have in our hands - in our libraries, really - the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years." At the 1.4% rate the world population was growing at that time, it would only take some 6000 years for the mass of the human population to equal the mass of the universe. Nicholas Eberstadt called people the "wealth of modern societies." Given the growing scarcity of natural resources, population growth normally reduces per capita genuine wealth, and can even shrink a nation's total wealth. If wealth were a function of population size, China and India each would be three to four times as rich as the United States and more affluent than all the nations of Europe combined, Africa's wealth would outstrip that of North America or Europe, and Yemen would be three times as well off as Israel. The world population has nearly doubled since The Bomb was first printed, from 3.5 billion to 6.7 billion today. Despite this growth, there have been some remarkable advances - birthrates have dropped in most of the world, partly in response to government- sponsored programs in education, giving women job opportunities, making contraceptive information and materials accessible - and to economic factors. While most developed nations have matched their high consumption rates with their low birth rates, the United States is both a center of overconsumption and has a relatively high birthrate (average family size about 2.1 children, compared with 1.4 in Italy and Spain and 1.3 in Germany and Japan) as well as a high immigration rate. The majority of developing countries have adopted family planning programs, and many have substantially reduced their birthrates as the perception of children as valued farm labor has changed with urbanization to one in which children do not join the labor force early and are expensive to educate. Thus the central goal of The Population Bomb, to encourage the adoption of policies that would gradually reduce birthrates and eventually start a global decline toward a human population size that is sustainable in the long run, has been partially achieved. Rather than doubling the population in 35 years, as continued growth at the 1968 rate would have done, we may not reach that level - 7 billion - until 2013, 45 years later. However, humanity may add some 2.5 billion people to the population before growth stops. In the meantime, the more arable soils have been eroded away or paved over, and societies are increasingly forced to turn to marginal land to grow more food. Instead of extracting rich ores on or near the surface, deeper and much poorer deposits must be mined and smelted today, at ever-greater environmental cost. Water and petroleum must come from lower quality sources, and must be transported over longer distances. This article is well worth reading. Please follow the link above to read the entire thing.   July 2009   Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development

Just Relax and Enjoy it.   Enjoy your favorite gas-guzzling car because there is no conceivable way that 6 billion people - soon growing to 12 billion and then who knows how many--are ever going to be able to drive BMWs and live in the fabulous stucco eyesores that we in the industrialized world now enjoy. So enjoy it while you can. We are all sitting on the poop deck of the Titanic, arguing about whether the deck chairs are made from sustainable hemp fibers or petroleum-based polyester. If you really want to make a difference, the only thing you can do--the only thing--is to dedicate the rest of your life to population control as if the earth depended on it. Population control is ultimately the only thing that's going to save us, our kids and our kids' kids.   Karen Gaia says: The good thing about this article is that the author recognizes that population is a problem. However ... 1) It is 9 billion, possibly 10 billion, but unlikely 12 billion, that is considered the max population to be reached in 2050 - as calculated by the U.N. .. 2) Population control?? Ouch!! The best success we have had is with voluntary family planning - people chose the size of the family they want, without pressure - like we did in the U.S. ... 3) We can make a difference in our per capita footprint on the earth. In fact, better to do it now, while we can make a difference for the future and our children's lives, than have nature do it for us, with a sadder future for our children. We can start by conserving oil for important things like fertilizer and plastics.   June 17, 2009   Autoweek

June 7th - Non-Mother's Day.   This special day was established in 1996 to call attention to the "population explosion"---it is celebrated between Mother's Day and Father's Day on the first Sunday in June. If you have not added to the "people glut" compliments---celebrate. It took over 2 million years for our species to reach it's first billion in 1830. It then took only 100 years to add the second billion in 1930. Since then we have "exploded" to 6.7 billion. All species which increase exponentially modify and contaminate their habitat which is followed by an exponential decrease (deaths) in numbers as their waste builds up. We are on the verge of a population collapse----read Jared Diamond's book entitled "Collapse". The Los Angeles megalopolis is in my opinion unfit for human habitation---if you disagree, move back there. Recent data indicates that life expectancy is decreasing for people living in L.A.. The air is often unfit to breathe, the ground water is becoming depleted and contaminated; food and water must be brought in from all over. Sewage pours out to contaminate the ocean. In biology it is called a 'sink'. One hundred Nobel Prize winners, along with 1,500 scientists world wide issued a paper called "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" that stated: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course." It listed ozone depletion, air pollution, lack of fresh water, contamination of ground water, damage to farmlands, global warming, deforestation, invasive exotics, wetland loss and population growth as the greatest dangers. "The earth is finite," the report said, "pressure from unrestrained population growth puts demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any effort to achieve a sustainable future." We must first put our own house in order. The US is the fastest growing industrialized nation in the world adding 3,000,000 each year. This figure is greater than all other developed nations in the world combined. Immigration accounts for 60% of our population growth and if present trends continue will account for 90% of future growth. A great deal of this immigration comes from Mexico where the birth rate is five times the death rate and where they are doing very little to reduce their high birth rate. Free vasectomies should be provided at the border and required for all illegal immigrants. Free condom vending machines should be placed in all rest rooms. Teenage pregnancy in the U.S. is the highest of all the developed countries---particularly in Santa Maria. We need more sex education including all methods of contraception. Sixty percent of pregnancies in the US are unplanned and unintended. Planned Parenthood is essentially the only source of contraception locally as all hospitals are Catholic controlled. Abortion should be available for as back up for contraception failure. Human life should not be the result of "accidents". Each day we read of child abuse, abandonment, assault and even murder----unwanted babies. Non-Mothers Day, June 7th, is to educate young women that motherhood is just one of many choices of what they do with their lives. Other potential choices are: firefighter, Senator, truck driver, lawyer, Supervisor, computer expert, doctor, road crew or corporate CEO. High schools have classes where girls carry a baby doll which act like a real baby (cry at 2 AM) which is very educational. Non-mothers make up over 20% of the American female population and even higher in Europe. Non-Mother's Day, June 7th, is a day set aside to honor these women, call attention to the 'population explosion', to encourage males to get a vasectomy, to add "reproduction" to the other "R's" and to encourage contraceptive use thus reducing "accidents". Every human has a basic right to be born planned, wanted and loved .   June 7, 2009   Bill Dennen

Family Planning and the Path to Progress.   Obama pledged to restore the money while signing an order reversing a move by Bush that banned American government aid for family-planning organizations that, promoted or conducted abortions. Sixty percent of people living in poverty are women. Two-thirds of the 960 million illiterate adults are women. Seventy percent of children out of school are girls. Women are the givers and keepers of life. A cofounder of Friends of the UNFPA, was elated to see the Global Gag Rule gone and to see President Obama's statement of support. As of 2009, our movement, (begun in 2002 when the Bush Administration refused to release $34 million) asking at least one dollar from 34 million Americans, has garnered $4,000,000. The money has permitted UNFPA to increase its support for family planning, to train doctors and midwives, save women's lives in childbirth, repair obstetric fistulas, discouraged forced early marriage, and to educate adolescents about AIDS. By 2050 the world's population is expected to rise to nine billion people, all of whom will be seeking food, water, and other resources. This growth in population will exacerbate every environmental and humanitarian crisis we face today. Gender inequality is at the base of population and environmental issues. Hillary Clinton stated: Of particular concern is the plight of women and girls who comprise the majority of the world's unhealthy, unschooled, unfed, and unpaid. UNFPA offers the family planning that allows women to choose if and when have children. In the world there is a vast unmet demand for family planning, that can mitigate the worst of humanitarian and environmental crises.   January 24, 2009   New York Times*

Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say.   Overpopulation is the world's top environmental issue, according to a survey of the faculty at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF). "Overpopulation is the only problem," said Dr. Charles A. Hall, a systems ecologist. "If we had 100 million people on Earth - or better, 10 million - no others would be a problem." Current estimates put the planet's population at more than six billion. Other faculty at ESF said: "Overpopulation means that we are putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than we should, just because more people are doing it and this is related to overconsumption by people in general, especially in the 'developed' world." "But, whether developed or developing, everyone is encouraged to 'want' and perceive that they 'need' to consume beyond the planet's ability to provide." Climate change was cited as the second most-pressing issue, with the need to develop renewable energy resources to replace fossil fuels coming in third. Rounding out the top 10 issues on the ESF list are overconsumption, the need for more sustainable practices worldwide, the growing need for energy conservation, the need for humans to see themselves as part of the global ecosystem, overall carbon dioxide emissions, the need to develop ways to produce consumer products from renewable resources, and dwindling fresh water resources.   April 20, 2009   ScienceDaily

U.K.: Population Growth Not Climate Change is the Real Danger.   Britain hosts the G20, the annual get-together of the world's richest nations. Topics include the current economic crisis, international development and climate change. But the most serious problem facing the world today - overpopulation - will not be on the agenda. Overpopulation has been described as the "elephant in the room", the one issue world leaders refuse to discuss. But it's high time they did. Professor John Beddington, warns that a "perfect storm" will occur in 2030, with simultaneous shortages of energy, food and fresh water devastating an overpopulated planet. Demand for food and energy will jump 50% by 2030 and for fresh water by 30%, as the world's population leaps to 8.3 billion. There will be those who argue that we've heard such doom-laden predictions before. But this time the warnings come from the World Bank, the International Energy Authority and the United Nations Environment Programme, which predicts widespread water shortages across Africa, Europe and Asia by 2025. Population is rising by six million a month and is totally unsustainable. Put simply, there won't be enough food, water and energy to go round. But instead of getting to grips with the most serious environmental problem we face, politicians prefer to concentrate on climate change. This gives them an excuse to introduce new "green" taxes and the chance to fine us for putting the wrong sort of rubbish out on the wrong day of the week. But to tackle global warming without addressing the underlying problem of overpopulation is like prescribing Alka-Selzter to a patient with a serious drink problem. Political correctness plays its part in politicians' reluctance to discuss overpopulation. Population growth is fastest in developing countries. In developed countries it is immigrant groups and ethnic minorities whose numbers are growing fastest. Seeking to control population growth is construed by some as racist. But if we really cared about the Third World we would be championing internationally agreed controls [I would substitute the word 'programs' for 'controls'. It is all voluntary ..Karen Gaia] as overpopulation is the root cause of many of the problems affecting poorer countries. The UK population, fuelled by immigration, has risen by over two million since Labour came to power in 1997 to about 61 million. The surge in population has led to transport and public services coming under increasing strain while the Green Belt is under serious threat due to this Government's commitment to build three million new houses to cater for the rising head count. The Government seems perfectly relaxed for the numbers to carry on rising. The UK population is projected to rise by 10 million by 2030 and 77 million in 2050. It will reach 100 million before the end of the century, passing 200 million soon after 2200. Yet anybody who calls for action to stabilise or reduce this trend runs the risk of being labelled a racist. Politicians, seem unwilling to state the simple truth that Britain, like the world in general, is overcrowded. Overpopulation is one of the gravest problems which confront us. Our basic problem is whether the human race, expanding as rapidly as it is doing now, can survive in any decent condition, commented Aldous Huxley 50 years ago. Wise words which the leaders meeting at the G20 summit would do well to heed.   Karen Gaia says: Using words like 'population control' gives the wrong impression. In 1994 the Cairo Convention agreed on voluntary family planning. This has worked well, like it has in the U.S. since the 1960s. There is no 'control' about it.   March 25, 2009   The Express

Population: the Elephant in the Room.   Uncontrolled population growth threatens to undermine efforts to save the planet, and the environmental movement must stop running scared of this controversial topic. The size and growth of the human population has a profound impact on all life on Earth, yet for decades it has been conspicuously absent from public debate. Most natural scientists agree the need to address population has become desperate. Yet many environmentalists avoid the subject, a few objecting strongly to any focus on our numbers. Some activists insist acting to influence population growth infringes on human rights. There have been past abuses in the name of "population control". We can learn from past abuses, reducing the likelihood of fresh problems arising in the future. Today, those working on population issues recognise that the methods with the best track records of reducing population growth are respectful and promoting human rights. They include educating girls and women in developing countries and using media strategies to make them aware of alternatives regarding family sizes and family planning. Those who oppose talking about the world's population are obstructing the further provision of such services and resources. We need to ask what is the greater threat to human welfare: the possibility that humane efforts to address population growth might be abused, or our ongoing failure to act to prevent hundreds of millions, even billions, dying as a result of global ecological collapse? We have overshot the Earth's carrying capacity. Our inability to live as we do, at our current numbers, without causing pervasive environmental degradation is the very definition of carrying capacity overshoot. Overshoot is followed by population decline. As we have learned this manifests itself initially with a crash. For humanity, this portends a potential cataclysm. Our chance to avert such an outcome depends on our ability to address our numbers before nature reduces them. There's no other way out, reducing per capita consumption, won't do it. We must bring population back to the centre of public discussion. We need to break through the taboo to encourage all those with relevant expertise to speak out on the subject loudly and often. Many recognise the urgency with which we need to halt the human-caused degradation of Earth's natural environment. Can we break down a taboo that has for years blocked the path toward that goal?   March 2009   BBC News

The Population Debate is Screwed Up.   According to the combatants, population growth is either the biggest problem facing humanity, or it is a non-issue. An argument that has raged for decades. At one extreme: "Overpopulation" is the root cause of environmental problems and calls for "vigorous population control." In 1968, for example, Paul Ehrlich warned that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the 1970s and over the years, that chorus has included a diverse array, including feminists, neoclassical economists, Marxists and the religious right. For some population denial springs from legitimate fears that the Malthusians will trample human rights in their pursuit of lower birthrates, or that a focus on population growth will distract us from bigger issues, like inequality and unsustainable consumption. The fact is, we now have a much more sophisticated understanding of population dynamics and their environmental impact than we did in 1968. While the rate of population growth has slowed in most parts of the world, rapid growth is hardly a thing of the past. Our numbers still increase by 75 million to 80 million every year, the equivalent of adding another U.S. to the world every four years or so. We know that a certain amount of future growth is inevitable. But choices made and services available today will determine whether human numbers climb to 8 to 11 billion by midcentury. Population growth has an impact on the environment, but that impact is shaped by technology, consumption patterns, economic policies and political choices. The industrialized countries use about 32 times the resources and emit 32 times as much waste as our counterparts in the developing world. Still, we all share an inalienable right to food, water, shelter and the makings of a good life. It becomes clear that it would be easier to provide a good life for 8 billion rather than 11 billion people. Slowing population growth is one of the things we must do to address the current environmental crisis. For example an analysis of climate studies shows that slower population growth could make a significant contribution to solving the climate problem. Stabilizing world population at 8 billion, rather than 9 billion or more, would reduce emissions. Continued reliance on fossil fuels could easily overwhelm the carbon reductions from slower growth. Changing our systems of production and consumption must be the top priority. Slowing population growth will require rethinking development, trade and economic policies. But slower population growth could help give us a fighting chance to meet these challenges. And it could give a chance to make investments in education, health care and sustainable economic development. We now know that the best way to slow population growth is by ensuring that all people are able to make real choices about sexuality and reproduction. That means access to voluntary family planning and other reproductive-health information and services. It means education and employment opportunities, especially for women. And it means tackling the deep inequities that prevent people from making meaningful choices about childbearing. The developed countries' share of the cost to provide reproductive health services for every woman on earth is $20 billion. It's time to have a new conversation about population and the environment, that is a shared commitment to environmental sustainability, human rights and social justice.   Karen Gaia says: it should be alarming to all that we are adding another U.S. to the world every four years or so. Common sense tells us that available resources cannot keep sustaining such a fast growing population.   March 28, 2009   Alternet

UK Population Must Fall to 30 Million, Says Porritt.   One of Gordon Brown's leading green advisers is to warn that Britain must reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society. Research suggests that UK population must be cut to 30 million if the country wants to feed itself sustainably. Population and economic growth is putting the world under terrible pressure. Each person in Britain has more impact on the environment than those in developing countries. Population growth is one of the most politically sensitive environmental problems. The issues including religion, culture and immigration policy, have proved too toxic for most green groups. Humanity was emitting the equivalent of 50 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year and we have to cut this by 80%, and population growth is going to make that much harder. Such views on population have split the green movement. A prominent writer on green issues has criticised population campaigners, arguing that economic growth is a greater threat. Many experts believe that Europeans and Americans have a lopsided impact on the environment, and the world would benefit more from reducing their populations rather than in developing countries. This is part of the thinking behind the call for Britain to cut population to 30m, roughly what it was in late Victorian times. Britain's population is expected to grow from 61 million now to 71 million by 2031. Some politicians support a reduction. Government and Conservative spokesmen this weekend both distanced themselves from any population policy.   Times Online

U.S.: Chesapeake Bay is Still Hurting.   There was little good news in the 2006 Assessment put out by the Chesapeake Bay Program. The report found degraded water quality, a decline in the blue crab population, contaminated rivers and huge losses in bay grasses. The University of Maryland offered a river-by-river report card for water clarity, dissolved oxygen levels and quality of life for small clams and worms. The results were equally dismal. The flush tax, which former Gov. Ehrlich Jr. signed into law in 2004, is expected to raise about $65 million a year to upgrade sewage treatment plants to reduce pollution. Dozens of scientists in the region are studying the bay's creatures and looking at ways to help them thrive in an increasingly toxic environment. Many said they have grown weary of hearing the same gloomy assessments of the bay's health. The VP of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said state and federal officials have long known what to do but have not the political will to do it. State leaders should be working to secure federal aid for the bay. Agriculture is the 800-pound gorilla when you're looking at nutrient pollution, but population growth is the 8,000-pound gorilla waiting in the wings.   April 20, 2007   Baltimore Sun

Malawi: Preserving Lake Chilwa Wetland for the Future.   Lake Chilwa Wetland is a land of wealth. Now it is challenging humans to learn to live in harmony with it for their own sustainable good. It has been owned, managed and mismanaged by the surrounding communities for hundreds of years. Now the wetland helps to elevate Malawi's environmental profile and challenges the surrounding communities to take a greater responsibility in managing the resource. Lake Chilwa Wetland joins 480 other biosphere reserves in over 100 countries in the world. The core objective is to promote the relationship between people and their environment. The wetlands support a rich variety of species of plants, birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fish and invertebrates. Wetlands contribute to the maintenance of the water cycle and reduce the risk of flooding and damage caused by flood erosion. A large percentage of the water in wetlands feed boreholes, wells, irrigation waterways and rivers during dry seasons. Sediments settle in the wetlands instead of being transported to rivers and oceans and form fertile grounds for crop production. Wetlands allow penetration of sunlight and seasonal warming, hence the high productivity because photosynthesis takes place. There are large amounts of carbons trapped in wetland ecosystems that help to regulate global climatic changes. This richness has demanded protection of wetlands, with a view to sustain man's livelihood. The people living in the Lake Chilwa basin and the wetland itself cannot survive without this resource. But communities have over-exploited and threatened the existence of plant and animal life in the wetland. The traditional leaders have been trying to control their subjects on the use of the wetland resources, fish and forest products in particular. But their efforts have been uncoordinated and ineffective and have not successfully checked some harmful activities by communities that rely on the wetland and the lake as source of food and livelihood. They have not been able to appreciate that natural resources need to be used economically to sustain the supplies. The Malawi Growth and Development Strategy sees conservation of natural resources as a crucial component in the achievement of sustained economic growth and development objectives for the country. The entire Lake Chilwa wetland is approximately 2,400 square kilometres and cover marshes, swamps, grasslands, floodplain, the lake itself, the island of Chisi and five main inlet rivers. The lake is about 5 metres deep on average and experiences irregular water salinity and levels. An estimated 1 million people live in the Lake Chilwa basin. About 80,000 are in the actual wetland. The lake is a deciduous forest region with a vibrant floral life. The forest has some of the oldest woodlands that are home to survivors of the primordial vegetation. Bird diversity has stimulated a significant bird hunting industry valued at US$ 64,285 in money returns annually. Lake Chilwa has over 25 species of fish. An annual fish harvest can amount to 25,000 tonnes, representing 20 percent of all the fish catch for the country in a year. The wetland is a prime animal and crop husbandry area. About 240 square kilometres of it is under rice, banana, maize, sugarcane and vegetable cultivation. Wetland forests are targeted for fuel wood that is used in fish smoking. About 6,500 tonnes of wood are reported to be disappearing from the forests every year. The growing population in the area has led to increased uncontrolled use of the forests for building materials and domestic consumption. Besides overgrazing, the communities have been setting fires on the bushes during hunting. This has scared away some birds and other animals. The degradation within the wetland and upland has caused depletion of soil fertility and accelerated heavy soil erosion. In 1995, the lake and its wetland also dried up completely and caused human suffering, which illustrates how important the resource is to people's lives. The declaration of Lake Chilwa Wetland as a biosphere reserve is to encourage the communities to appreciate the value and use of the resources responsibly for their own sustainable benefit.   December 27, 2007   Malawi's Daily Times

Center for Biological Diversity Announces Support for Global Population Speak Out.   The Center for Biological Diversity supports a collaborative effort to highlight overpopulation in efforts to restore the planet's ecological health. For many years human population size and growth has been the elephant in the room. Overpopulation is at the root of virtually all of the ecological threats facing our planet. Species extinction, pollution, resource depletion, and climate change can all be traced back to unsustainable population growth. The Center has won protection for more than 350 species and hundreds of millions of acres of habitat. But that could be overwhelmed as too many people compete for too few resources and create too many burdens for ecosystems. The correlation between human population growth and species extinction has been clearly documented. Humans use up to 40% of the world's Net Primary Productivity, a measure of energy from the sun that is converted into life-sustaining resources by photosynthesis. A range of extinctions can be tied directly to the energy, housing, food, and other resource demands of our population. The extinction crisis threatens to grow exponentially with climate change, and energy demands of a rapidly growing global populace.   February 26, 2009   Center for Biological Diversity