Population size 'green priority'

[Mr Grimsdale]

Population size 'green priority'

Solving the Earth's environmental problems means addressing the size of its human population, says the head of the UK's Antarctic research agency.

Professor Chris Rapley argues that the current global population of six billion is unsustainably high.

Writing for the BBC News website, he says population is the "Cinderella" issue of the environmental movement.

But unless it is addressed, the welfare and quality of life of future generations will suffer, he adds.

Professor Rapley's comments come in the first of a new series of environmental opinion pieces on the BBC News website entitled The Green Room.

"If we believe that the size of the human [ecological] 'footprint' is a serious problem, and there is much evidence for this," he writes, "then a rational view would be that along with a raft of measures to reduce the footprint per person, the issue of population management must be addressed."

A number of studies suggest that humankind is consuming the Earth's resources at an unsustainably fast rate.

Even so, the issue of population is hardly ever discussed at environmental summits or raised by green lobby groups.

Professor Rapley, Director of the British Antarctic Survey, acknowledges it is a thorny question, invoking the spectre of forced population control and even eugenics.

He does not make suggestions about how the current upward trend, from the current six billion towards eight or nine billion by 2050, can be reversed.

But, he says population is one of a number of issues leading to environmental degradation of various forms, and needs a higher priority than it currently receives.

"Unless and until this changes," he writes, "summits such as [the recent climate change meeting] in Montreal which address only part of the problem will be limited to at best very modest success, with the welfare and quality of life of future generations the ineluctable casualty."

[Mr Grimsdale]

Earth is too crowded for Utopia

The global population is higher than the Earth can sustain, argues the Director of the British Antarctic Survey in the first of a series of environmental opinion pieces on the BBC News website entitled The Green Room. Solving environmental problems such as climate change is going to be impossible without tackling the issue, he says.

Ten thousand delegates attended the recent Montreal Summit on the control of carbon emissions "beyond Kyoto".

That's a lot of people! The conference organisation must have been daunting; and just imagine arranging the hotel accommodation and restaurant facilities and dealing with the additional human-generated waste.

Imagine the carbon and nitrogen emissions from the associated air travel!

The 40 or more decisions made were announced as an historic success.

Supposing this proves to be so, will it be sufficient to secure an acceptable quality of life for the generations to come?

What about the myriad other planetary-scale human impacts - for example on land cover, the water cycle, the health of ecosystems, and biodiversity?

What about our release of other chemicals into the environment?

What about our massive transport and mixing of biological material worldwide, and our unsustainable consumption of resources?

Big foot

All of these effects interconnect and add up to the collective "footprint" of humankind on our planet's life support systems.

The consequences extend to the ends of the Earth (recall the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic) and each is as difficult to predict and as challenging to deal with as the link between carbon emissions and climate.

It would surely be impractical and almost certainly ineffective to assemble 10,000 delegates to address each one of these issues, and especially to do so in the necessary "joined up" way?

And in particular, what about the net 76 million annual rise in the world's population, which currently stands at about 6.5 billion - more than twice what it was in 1960 - and which is heading towards eight billion or so by mid-century)?

That's an annual increase 7,500 times the number of delegates in Montreal.

Imagine organising the accommodation, feeding arrangements, schooling, employment, medical care, cultural activities and general infrastructure - transport, power, water, communications, waste disposal - for a number of people slightly larger than the population of the UK, and doing it each year, year on year for the foreseeable future.

Combined with ongoing economic growth, what will be the effect on our collective human "footprint"? Will the planet cope?

Steps to Utopia

Although reducing human emissions to the atmosphere is undoubtedly of critical importance, as are any and all measures to reduce the human environmental "footprint", the truth is that the contribution of each individual cannot be reduced to zero.

Only the lack of the individual can bring it down to nothing.

So if we believe that the size of the human "footprint" is a serious problem (and there is much evidence for this) then a rational view would be that along with a raft of measures to reduce the footprint per person, the issue of population management must be addressed.

Let us assume (reasonably) that an optimum human population level exists, which would provide the physical and intellectual capacity to ensure a rich and fulfilling life for all, but would represent a call upon the services of the planet which would be benign and hence sustainable over the long term.

A scientific analysis can tell us what that optimum number is (perhaps 2-3 billion?).

With that number and a timescale as targets, a path to reach "Utopia" from where we are now is, in principle, a straightforward matter of identifying options, choosing the approach and then planning and navigating the route from source to destination.

Cinderella subject

In practice, of course, it is a bombshell of a topic, with profound and emotive issues of ethics, morality, equity and practicability.

As found in China, practicability and acceptability can be particularly elusive.

So controversial is the subject that it has become the "Cinderella" of the great sustainability debate - rarely visible in public, or even in private.

In interdisciplinary meetings addressing how the planet functions as an integrated whole, demographers and population specialists are usually notable by their absence.

Rare indeed are the opportunities for religious leaders, philosophers, moralists, policymakers, politicians and indeed the "global public" to debate the trajectory of the world's human population in the context of its stress on the Earth system, and to decide what might be done.

Unless and until this changes, summits such as that in Montreal which address only part of the problem will be limited to at best very modest success, with the welfare and quality of life of future generations the ineluctable casualty.

Professor Chris Rapley is Director of the British Antarctic Survey, based in Cambridge, UK

The Green Room is a new series of environmental opinion articles running weekly on the BBC News website

[Mr Grimsdale]

Right, who first?

[DrMaddVibe]

Eat them up....yum.

[scamper]

Logans run

[BITEYOASS]

There's always disease.

[FORD]

Let's eliminate the Bushes and the Windsors first. They have leeched off the rest of us long enough.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by FORD
Let's eliminate the Bushes and the Windsors first. They have leeched off the rest of us long enough.

I say off with you first!

All of the heat generated by your blowhole is punching another hole in the ozone!

[Jerry Falwell]

Maybe the Bird Flu will help "Mother Earth".
sheesh

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by FORD
Let's eliminate the Bushes and the Windsors first. They have leeched off the rest of us long enough.

Oh, FORD.

Fir1st, I cun't beelieve yoo answered a Grimsfak poostie.

Secunt, Bs and Ws R puppeTITs~!

DA GOLDEN RULE

"He whoo has da gold rulez."

LOOKIE here:

http://thailandesl.chazzsongs.net/nwo_ten_most_powerful_plus.htm

FAMILY ROTHSCHILDS - $450 TRILLION

FAMILY ROCKEFELLER - $300 TRILLION

I vote ending this tyranny.

WHO'S WIT ME?!




POOR BRITAIN
AND BUSHS ARE 'HILLBILLIES'

[Big Train]

Between War, Faminine, Disease, tradegy and Folly, lies your population control.

If the "organic" food nutbags would let farmers actually raise crops for starving people, instead of wrecking them, perhaps more people could be sustained with our "Current footprint"

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by Big Train
Between WarBUSH'S LAST RESORT, Faminine UN/US IRAQ SANCTIONS, DiseaseUN/US BIO WEAPONS, tradegy and FollyDA JOE ROGAN SHOW, liesEVERYTHING DAT COMES OUTTA BUSH'S CROOKED MOUTH your population controlBRITNEY SPEARS VIDEOS.

If the "organic" food nutbags would let farmers actually raise crops for starving people, instead of wrecking them, perhaps more people could be sustained with our "Current footprint"US SUBSIDIZES FARMERS TO NOT GROW FOOD AND NOT PRODUCE DAIRY PRODUCTS...HMMM

Wot da fak R U ranting aboot agin? huh

BT, yoo mmmust own Monsanto stock, a mmajor producer aff geneTITically modified devil seed.



PS Doon't fergit aboot condomdums, da pill, and legalized abortion.

[mwsully]

Consider this: A long time ago, a researcher wanted to see the effects on a species (namely the poor rat again) when living in an overpopulated area (a cage)

I don't remember the timespan or the number of rats in the cage, but I can tell you it was enough to prevent at least one of them the ability to touch the cage bottom.

At some point, the rats began to attack each other. As a matter of fact, it was an all-out bloodbath, with most of the rats dying or close to it.

Could this happen with humans and is it already happening? I'm all for population control with mandatory parenting classes for those who choose to have children.

Maybe at one time it was necessary to have so many children, because of the high mortality rate, but now?

[scamper]

Another bullshit report by a tree hugging environmentalist. If you believe this crap research how much our gov alone spends so people won't grow crops. It's all about macroeconomics the resources are there. If you're worried about overpopulation I'm pretty sure we can find some open land somewhere.

[kentuckyklira]

https://www.churchofeuthanasia.org