Fred Pearce, whose byline is most commonly seen in New Scientist over feature stories about climate change, has done a little bit of thinking about whether we should be worried about the virtual certainty that the world's population will hit 9 billion before it starts to fall in the second half of this century. His verdict? While still a serious problem when it comes to the evils of poverty, overpopulation will have little bearing on our efforts to deal with global warming.
The title of his piece in Yale's e360 pretty much says it all: "Consumption Dwarfs Population
As Main Environmental Threat." But it's worth reading anyway. The essential message comes down to simple math (as you knew it would).
Virtually all of the extra 2 billion or so people expected on this planet in the coming 40 years will be in the poor half of the world...
... those extra two billion people would raise the share of emissions contributed by the poor world from 7 percent to 11 percent.
...
Even if we could today achieve zero population growth, that would barely touch the climate problem -- where we need to cut emissions by 50 to 80 percent by mid-century. Given existing income inequalities, it is inescapable that overconsumption by the rich few is the key problem, rather than overpopulation of the poor many.
Pearce recognizes that his calculations assume that the share of emissions produced by each country changes little over the coming decades, an assumption that is a little shaky. But even worst-case scenarios about China and India don't change the conclusions much.
As is often the case at e360, the posted comments to Pearce's essay are worth scanning. One Eban Goodstein, for example, agrees with the basic thrust of the argument, but points out that dealing with overpopulation is much cheaper than climate change:
For a ridiculously small amount of money -- less than $10 billion -- it would be possible to provide birth control to all the couples in the world who currently don't have access. From a policy perspective, you get a very large "bang for the buck" in terms of improved local -- and global -- environmental quality by funding family planning initiatives.
And Trevor Burrowes weighs in with:
There is a prevailing myth about the western lifestyle. Anything less is seen as returning to the Stone Age. A great quality of life plus a sense of importance and leadership in the world does not require over-consumption. It requires intelligence, and the ability to make wise, qualitative decisions for ourselves and our descendants. It requires a rethinking of the "American Dream." This requires the insights of the humanities. Unfortunately, this is not the discipline area that most people turn to for resolutions to climate change.
This resonates strongly with me. I try to work that message into every talk I give on climate change, and I try to incorporate a minimal-consumption ethos into all purchasing decisions in our household. It's not always easy. People like their lives to comfortable and convenient. It's all very well to point out that what are really important in this world -- family and friends -- have little to do with how many toys we own. But talk is cheap.
The developed world's obsession with perpetual growth and the accumulation of material possessions is largely to blame for the mess we're in. While technology can help us waste less of the massive amounts of energy and resources we consume, I can see no way around the conclusion that getting out of this mess will require that we give up some of those comforts and conveniences.
So, how does one sell that message?
- Log in to post comments
I'm not even sure that it really means giving up comfort and convenience - a lot of those so-called "comforts and conveniences" are neither particularly comfortable nor convenient. For example, I certainly find commuting by public transport far more comfortable and convenient than owning a car and sitting in traffic. Even the ones that are comfortable and convenient require other trade-offs - I could afford more leisure travel if I were to work more, but I swap the comfort and convenience of two weeks in the sun once a year for the comfort and convenience of a 4-day week, and consider it a very good trade indeed.
What it does require is a shift from the atomised, alienated lives of isolated individuals to active participation in communities. Toys are a poor substitute for humanity.
So, how does one sell that message?
I'm not sure it's a message that can realistically be sold on a large scale, at least in America. Recall the searing mockery that Jimmy Carter received for encouraging people to lower the heat and put on a sweater or unplug appliances at night, or that Obama received for encouraging people to check the pressure in their tires.
Suggestions along these lines provoke the inevitable cries of "You are just trying to take my SUV away!" and the like. When it comes to deciding short-term desires and long-term needs, well, I know which one usually wins out.
Oh sure, by all means let's prevent reproduction of people who don't look like me. If we don't they're just going to compete with my children for the Earth's resources, and pollute my children's air with their CO2.
Overpopulation concern is a polite cover for racism.
Dr. Malthus was wrong, every Malthusian prediction ever made has proven wrong, Erlich was wrong, the club of rome is wrong. The limits to growth have so far always proven illusory. It is immature to think this time will be any different. I am confident we will reduce CO2 emissions and adapt without giving up any comforts and conveniences.
It's a losing dialectic, anyway. You want to, what, tell people their lifestyle is sinful and they must repent of their consumeristic ways? And expect people to give you political support and invest in your priorities? Let me know how that works out for ya.
"I can see no way around the conclusion that getting out of this mess will require that we give up some of those comforts and conveniences."
You think "overpopulation" is a taboo subject when debating climate? Try "leisure aviation". I'll show you taboo!
How about replacing all value added tax (VAT) with a sustainability tax, that is calculated to be on average equal to current VAT. This would be added to all produced in a country and those imported to a country. Consuming fossil fuel and producing not recycled garbage would result in higher tax.
This would give ALL industries a strong incentive to more sustainable as the most polluting/overconsuming companies would be much higher taxed. I guess the only way will a generally capitalist economy in which sustainability = competitiveness.
In one of his later books, Alan Watts made the point that modern western civilization is not really materialistic, if by materialistic we mean providing physical/sensory pleasure.
IIRC, he suggested Renaissance Florence as truly successful materialism: visually pleasing architecture, comfortable clothing, tasty cuisine, elegant music and art, lively piazzas and salons.
Compare with American box-buildings, fast food, top-40, traffic jams, etc.
We're not materialistic: we're high-turnover, mass-merchandise, over-consumption, quantity-over-quality, overconsumption-uber-alles. We purchase things for their intangible aspects (status-symbolism, celebrity-endorsement, fashion/fad, etc).
A turn to literal materialism, of high-value, long-lasting products made with care (high labor input) would probably improve our ecological and economic systems all the way around - but any such trend will be fought to the bitter end by our commercial junkocracy.
The main overpopulation problem is in the countries that consume the most. How much would it cost to stop spending money to encourage people to have more kids (like they do in Europe)? How popular would it be to say that the motto 'Be fruitful and multiply' doubles someone consumption for the next 40 or 50 years each time they have a child?
Good luck convincing my generation :) One bright point is that we might actually be too greedy with our own money to want kids, thus at least doing what we can for the overpopulation thing.
Many of the things that we (industrial civilization) rely upon are starting to run out, notably oil, fresh water, and topsoil--global warming or not. This is not a characteristic of a species in dynamic equilibrium, but rather one in ecological overshoot. Malthus did not anticipate the massive use of ancient sunlight--an inherited trust fund widely mistaken to be income--he did not understand the possibility of overshoot and collapse. We will end up below pre-industrial population levels:
carrying capacity: maximum permanently supportable load.
cornucopian myth: euphoric belief in limitless resources.
drawdown: stealing resources from the future.
cargoism: delusion that technology will always save us from....
overshoot: growth beyond an area's carrying capacity, leading to
crash: die-off.
"Overpopulation concern is a polite cover for racism"
- Duncan
For some perhaps, but certainly not for all. Bartlett and others argue that zero population growth will happen whether we play a role in it or not. Either we address the issue or natural factors will address the issue for us at the expense of misery and suffering. For many, these concerns stem from compassion not contempt.
"The Greatest Shortcoming of the Human Race is Our Inability to Understand the Exponential Function."
- Albert Bartlett
He's been lecturing on the topic for a about 40 years.
Arithmetic, Population & Energy Dr Albert A Bartlett www.guba.com/watch/3000053112
So, how does one sell that message?
I don't think selling the message of conservation and management of consumption is a feasible option. Full stop.
But somehow we have to reign in these things. Somehow we have to develop an economy that is sustainable. That, to my mind, can only be done through specific, intelligent regulation that economically punishes unsustainable practices and economically rewards sustainable ones. The difficulty would be in implementing such a regulatory scheme, and actually implementing it intelligently.
Albert Bartlett's Laws of Sustainability:
First Law: Population growth and/or growth in the rates of consumption of resources cannot be sustained. The term "sustainable growth" is an oxymoron.
Second Law: The larger the population of a society, and/or the larger its rates of consumption of resources, the more difficult it will be to transform the society to the condition of sustainability.
Third Law: The response time of populations to changes in the total fertility rate is the length of time people live, or approximately fifty to seventy years. (The consequence of this is called "population momentum."
Fourth Law: The size of population that can be sustained (the carrying capacity) and the sustainable average standard of living of the population are inversely related to one another.
Fifth Law: Sustainability requires that the size of the population be less than or equal to the carrying capacity of the ecosystem for the desired standard of living.
Sixth Law: (The lesson of "The Tragedy of the Commons") (Hardin, 1968): The benefits of population growth and of growth in the rates of consumption of resources accrue to a few individuals; the costs of population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources are borne by all of society.
Seventh Law: Growth in the rate of consumption of a non-renewable resource, such as a fossil fuel, causes a dramatic decrease in the life-expectancy of the resource.
Eighth Law: The time of expiration of non-renewable resources can be postponed, possibly for a very long time, by (i) technological improvements in the efficiency with which the resources are recovered and used; (ii) using the resources in accord with a program of "sustained availability" (Bartlett, 1986); (iii) recycling; (iv) the use of substitute resources.
Ninth Law: When large efforts are made to improve the efficiency with which resources are used, the resulting savings are easily and completely wiped out by the added resource needs that arise as a consequence of modest increases in population.
Tenth Law: The benefits of large efforts to preserve the environment are easily canceled by the added demands on the environment that result from small increases in human population.
Eleventh Law: When rates of pollution exceed the natural cleansing capacity of the ecosystems, it is easier to pollute than it is to clean up the environment.
Twelfth Law: (Eric Sevareid's Law): The chief cause of problems is solutions. (Sevareid, 1970)
Thirteenth Law: Humans will always be dependent on agriculture.
Fourteenth Law: If, for whatever reason, humans fail to stop population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources, nature will stop these growths.
Fifteenth Law: Starving people do not care about sustainability. If sustainability is to be achieved, the necessary leadership and resources must be supplied by people who are not starving.
Sixteenth Law: The addition of the word "sustainable" to our vocabulary, to our reports, programs, and papers, and to the names of our academic institutes and research programs, is not sufficient to ensure that our society becomes sustainable.
The biggest obstacle we face in changing attitudes toward overpopulation is economists. Since the field of economics was branded "the dismal science" after Malthus' theory, economists have been adamant that they would never again consider the subject of overpopulation and continue to insist that man is ingenious enough to overcome any obstacle to further growth. This is why world leaders continue to ignore population growth in the face of mounting challenges like peak oil, global warming and a whole host of other environmental and resource issues. They believe we'll always find technological solutions that allow more growth.
But because they are blind to population growth, there's one obstacle they haven't considered: the finiteness of space available on earth. The very act of using space more efficiently creates a problem for which there is no solution: it inevitably begins to drive down per capita consumption and, consequently, per capita employment, leading to rising unemployment and poverty.
If youâre interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, then I invite you to visit either of my web sites at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com or PeteMurphy.wordpress.com where you can read the preface, join in the blog discussion and, of course, buy the book if you like.
Please forgive the somewhat spammish nature of the previous paragraph, but I don't know how else to inject this new theory into the debate about overpopulation without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.
Pete Murphy
Author, "Five Short Blasts"
We are so overwhelmed by a reality whose laws's primary intent is to support - not the discovery of knowledge- but distribution of wealth made feasable thru "ownership" of every single item on this earth, including land. In reality we are temporarily occupying a space soon to be occupied by someone else, on our way to our next destination...(The fact is we dont 'own' anything. We just think we do.)
I sense this is probably due to the way we experience time. We are overwhelmed by our experiences of the moment and as such loose the perspective that we are here but for a moment...if we realigned ourselves to this reality when we are young and foolish rather than when older and wiser, would we be so busy amassing wealth? I doubt it...