Connecting the Dots Between Global Warming and Human Population

Global warming continues to dominate the news, and the news is grim. The world is heating up faster than scientists predicted. Global ice sheets are melting, hot smoggy days are increasing and severe weather hammers us more frequently. And, in spite of dire warnings , we continue to party on. Yes, the recession is helping, but we’ll be out of that in a year or two. And yes we are embracing more fuel-efficient vehicles, compact fluorescent light bulbs and other conservation measures. But these are too little, too late.
-

Let’s connect the dots. A growing population leads to greater consumption which requires more energy which uses fossil fuels which leads to global warming. The first and primary factor is population. But all the solutions being proposed attack subsequent, secondary factors. And none of these solutions will be nearly enough. Take, for example, the environmentalists favourite proposal: dumping coal and using wind and solar. This won’t make a significant contribution for at least 50 years, if then. Why? Because the infrastructure involved with coal-fired electricity is gigantic. There are over 5000 coal plants in the world with more being built every day. Utilities don’t have the resources to scrap the plants that still have many years of useful life left and replace them with expensive solar plants. I don’t see people rushing out to scrap their one-year-old SUVs and buying hybrids.

-
Like all complex problems, global warming has no simple solution. We need to employ many strategies including conservation, more efficient technologies and renewable energy. But all that won’t work unless we also slow and stop human population growth. It’s vital that we recognize this crucial fact. Let’s connect the dots.

The Popes as Mass Murderers

Since 1980 when the AIDS epidemic first struck, 22 million people have died, the large majority in Africa. And with 40 million more HIV-infected, the future looks grim.
So what is the Roman Catholic Church, the supposed protector of the weak and poor, doing to help the situation? In 1990, Pope John Paul II visited several countries in Africa. Some villages consisted only of the very young and the very old. All the rest lay under rows of wooden crosses. Facing such human devastation and misery, the Pope message was unequivocal: condoms, the only solution to reducing AIDS infections, were a sin. Simply put, Africans were not to use condoms in any circumstances.
As might be expected, the Papal visit helped the AIDS pandemic gather steam. In his zealotry to prevent any form of family planning, i.e. to protect life and birth, the Pope sentenced millions to death. What incredible arrogance, not to mention stupidity!
This week Pope Benedict is visiting Africa. Has the Vatican changed its tune, now that it has witnessed the carnage since the 1990 papal tour? Not a whit. Benedict promptly stuck his head in the sand and glibly stated that AIDS "cannot be overcome by distributing condoms – it only increases the problem." What utter rubbish!
In Africa condoms are an absolute necessity. They will not only help control the ravages of AIDS but will also help reduce population growth in a humane manner. A win-win situation for a continent that desperately needs good news.

Incoherent Policies

While visiting in Australia three headlines caught my eye. They were reported as completely independent issues; one did not affect the other. The first stated that the baby bonuses of $5000 per child, which were started in 2004, are working: there has been a measurable increase in births. The second reported that the water supply for Adelaide and the surrounding region of South Australia was in crisis and unless drastic action is taken serious water shortages will start soon. The third stated that immigration, after holding steady for decades, would be cut by 14 percent (from 135,000 to 115,000) to help protect Australian workers in this recession.
Australia is a large country with a low population (about 20 million). Nevertheless, population should be a national issue that is addressed in a coherent and integrated manner. These newspaper reports clearly show that this is not the case. The baby-bonus and immigration policies are in direct conflict with each other. For the Adelaide water shortage, it is not even recognized that the large and growing population contributes to the problem. All the blame is placed on the drought and non of the proposed solutions suggests curbing population growth.
I am not picking on Australia for most nations are in the same boat. For example, the US southwest, notably Phoenix and Las Vegas, are suffering similar troubles as Adelaide. With human population approaching seven billion, the globe is experiencing severe shortages in many resources including fisheries, oil and gas, water and more. I won’t even touch on global warming.
It is time to recognize that human population is a serious, if not the most serious, problem the world faces. National and international policies are needed to address this issue. These policies must be coherent and integrated with all the relevant issues.

Will Human Numbers Ever Decrease?

Concerned scientists such as Paul Ehrlich argue that the ever-increasing human population is looting the planet. Most economists and politicians refuse to accept this. Often they respond that population growth is slowing and is actually decreasing in some countries, notably western Europe, and is slowing in most developed nations. In a few more decades human population will peak and then slowly decline, they claim.
Recent evidence from Australia indicates that this slow down in population growth rate may be temporary. In 2005, Australian treasurer Peter Costello made his famous plea, "Have one (child) for mum, one for dad, and one for the country." In 2004, to encourage fecundity he offered a $3000 bonus for every new baby. Recent data shows that Australia’s strategy has worked. The birth rate, which had been in a rut for years, rose in 2005 and again in 2006. The baby-bonus cost for the two years was $1.7 billion, resulting in 37,000 extra babies. The province of Quebec, Russia and other jurisdictions are offering similar incentives.
It’s too early to tell, but it appears that projections for human population growth will likely be at the high end of United Nations predictions. After all, Australia and others don’t seem to care about peak oil, fisheries depletion, water shortages and global warming. Instead they’re paying big bucks to keep the population, that is, the economy, expanding. Is there any hope?

Octuplets and More

On January 26, 2009, eight little children popped into the world, all from the same womb. Historic perhaps, but I can’t stop laughing at the incredible, beyond-belief stupidity of the event. The California mother, Nadya Suleman, already had six children of which three have disabilities. Furthermore, she is single, unemployed, in debt, lives with her parents and relies on food stamps and other government handouts. And this was before the octuplets!

Using in-vitro fertilization Suleman was impregnated with six frozen embryos, two of which split. A 50-person medical team delivered the eight babies. Not only will the brood be much more susceptible to diseases and disabilities that require expensive medical attention, but their quality of life promises to be dreadful.

But hold on, Suleman has a solution! No, she isn’t going to get a job. Instead, she has opened a website to solicit donations. You’ve got to love American entrepreneurship. I’m sure the Catholic Church and right-wing pro-lifers like Sarah Palin are busy clicking on Suleman’s website and making huge contributions.

With the world’s environment and resources stressed beyond capacity and with the US economy on life support, the last thing needed is more children, especially one who will be reliant on welfare. It’s high time that the United States (and Canada) change its reproductive laws to prohibit the emplacement of multiple embryos, in line with other nations.

I can already hear the contrarians: “But this sweet young lady should have the freedom to choose the size of her family. And the poor fertility doctor needs to make a living.” It’s the American way: Everyone for themselves and to hell with the common good.

Shout Out About Population

Twenty years ago everyone worried about, and talked about, the exploding human population. It was frightening, a problem that threatened global well being. Since then, the population has increased by two billion, a whopping 40% growth. So are we panicking?

Just the opposite. Population has fallen off the map. It’s a taboo topic. Media coverage of population is woefully lacking and, when it does happen, is often met with hostility or apathy. This in spite of many signs of approaching crisis: global warming, failing fish stocks, food riots, water shortages, loss of forests, and much more.
But there’s hope. This month a group of scientists initiated Global Population Speak Out, a project which is mobilizing scientists, writers and knowledgeable individuals to speak and write about population over the next month. It’s a simple idea. If a large number of qualified voices speak out on overpopulation all at once, perhaps people will listen. Interestingly, one of the first to add his support was Paul Ehrlich, the author of The Population Bomb, the best seller that fuelled much of the concern about population in the 1970s.
Add your voice to the movement. Visit the Global Population Speak Out website at gpso.wordpress .com and pledge your support – it’s free.

Escalator to the Abyss

My thesis is simple and unassailable: In the face of constant growth (population and economy combined) it is impossible to prevent environmental degradation and resource loss. We’re heading toward an abyss.

Consider the automobile. Over the past three decades some of the brightest minds in the world have worked to make cars cleaner and more efficient. Catalytic converters and positive crankcase ventilation have been introduced; lead has been removed, sulphur greatly reduced in fuel and vehicle fuel-efficiency has been improved.

In spite of all this, there has been no meaningful improvement in vehicle-created air pollution with all major cities still sitting under poisonous domes of smog, and more oil is being burned than ever before. Why? Because the number of cars and the distance travelled have increased faster than improvements. It’s simple: There’s more of us and we’re wealthier than in 1973.

Same thing for vehicle accidents. In spite of air bags, improved braking systems and better highways, the carnage on the roads gets bloodier each year. Today, about 3,000 people are killed worldwide in traffic accidents each day.

Ditto for waste. In spite of blue-box collection, in-vessel composting and phasing out of plastic bags in stores (finally!) and more, the amount of waste going to landfills increases each year.
And the list goes on and on.

That’s why I laugh when environmental organizations naively proclaim that if we all conserved 10% energy it would prevent dozens even hundreds of coal-fired power plants. No, no, no! It would take many years to make conservation changes. During this time the growth in population and economy would wipe out the gains made by conseration.

Yes, conservation is essential, but we’re running up a down escalator whose speed is constantly increasing. No matter how fast we run, use better running shoes and improve our running technique, the accelerating escalator soon outpaces us. There’s no escape. It’s simple, no-brainer, grade-one logic.

Wait! Here’s a revolutionary thought. Perhaps we should slow down the escalator. We need to slow population (and hence economic) growth before we reach the abyss.