« Vancouver | Main | Wasting away »

Population: boom and bust

Absolutely love the new campaign from the Optimum Population Trust: (PDF) do your bit for addressing climate change by having fewer children – or even no children.

The lifetime CO2 emissions of a UK citizen amount to 750 tonnes (the equivalent - apparently -of 620 return flights between London and New York), so the extra 10 million by which our population will rise between now and 2074 will, over their lifetimes, emit around 7½ billion tonnes of CO2.

I can’t recall any environmental or climate change organization ever suggesting that “births averted” is probably the most single most substantial and cost-effective intervention that governments could be using. Just to give another example, the Chinese government calculates that since the introduction of the One Child Family Policy in the early 80s, at least 400 million births have been averted.

Each Chinese citizen today emits an average of 3.5 tonnes of CO2 every year. Multiply the one (400 million) by the other (3.5 tonnes per annum), and you get a figure of 1.4 billion tonnes of CO2 per annum. By a million miles, that’s the biggest single CO2 abatement achievement since Kyoto came into force – a fact that George Bush conveniently forgets when he whinges on about Kyoto being useless because China doesn’t have the same target as the United States.

Mind you, everybody else ignores that too, including the vast majority of environmentalists. So, is this the very first time where George Bush and the whole of the environment movement are of exactly the same mind?

Tags:

Posted on May 17, 2007 8:03 PM |

Comments (32)

Wow - this has to be one of the most controversial issues in the ‘what we can do to save the planet' debate. Getting people to recycle and fly less is one thing, suggesting they should re-think their family dream is another altogether.
I do understand where you're coming from - but a couple of questions if I may:

1. human nature - we want to have babies. I, personally, can't think of anything that would convince me otherwise – despite being thoroughly pro anything else that can reduce my carbon footprint. How can a suggestion of this sort ever become socially acceptable?

2. positive contributions – what if I think the way I’ll bring up my children will mean that they’ll have a positive influence on the planet that outweighs their personal carbon footprint?
3. excuse the question – but I’m curious – how old are all the backers of the Optimum Population Trust? Have they already had children? Is it easier to believe in something you are never going to have to go through yourselves? I’m 28 and have a family dream..... perhaps that’s why I find this very hard to swallow.

I hope you’re well and I’m delighted to find your blog up and running!!

Posted by fiona bennie | May 21, 2007 12:11 PM

This controversial topic has not always been such a hot potato. Some of my parent's generation, now in their late seventies, have always made that connection. It is each individual head count that is the multiplier to the 'lifestyle' co-efficient.

Though, relating to Fiona's comment, this need not at all be at odds with the aspiration for a small or large family. My partner and I have one birth child and one adopted child. There are many children looking for families. So you can have your family with four children (in suitable people carrier) and be socially and environmentally positive if most or all are adopted!

Posted by Marcus Grant | May 21, 2007 1:36 PM

This topic may be controversial but we avoid it at our peril. The biggest cause of climate change, resource depletion, environmental degradation is without doubt the ever-growing population in developed and developing countries. If Jonathon can raise the profile of this issue he will doing a great and important service. If couples can all limit themselves to having no more children than the amount to replace themselves (i.e. just 2 - a responsible policy my wife and I adopted in the 1980s), and we can encourage the developing nations to do the same (the UN has a crucial role here), we can start to make a difference in curtailing unsustainbale population growth.

In the UK we need an education programme and tax incentives to tackle this - having that additional child has a far greater negative impact on the environment than trading up (down) to a 4x4. In the developing nations it will be healthcare (so that parents know their children will survive into adulthood) and education programmes that will be required.

Posted by Phil Harding | May 21, 2007 3:02 PM

I am a baby boomer and an only child. At the age of 16 I became acutely aware that world population was increasing the impact of all environmental problems, but I did not think the answer was to dictate to people how many children to have. What does anger me is the rationale for large families given by some people of my acquaintance here in the UK. Their view is: if one has the means to look after them, why not have as many as one likes? Constantly dwindling natural resouces(land, water) and manmade ones(housing, jobs) and increasing waste mountains do not seem to impact upon their game plan for procreation.

Posted by Diana Korchien | May 21, 2007 3:22 PM

Environmentalists have tried for some time now to get the church on-side to fight both green and social issues. However, this is one element where there will be substantial disagreement.

The Chinese experience is far from positive in terms of state applied controls and in the West, it would appear that children are becomming the privilege of the wealthy.

This is a very devisive issue that cuts to the core of environment and social justice, good luck to anyone brave enough or stupid enough to throw their hat into the ring!

Posted by mike tregent | May 21, 2007 4:08 PM

I think you missed the elephant in the room. This is the population carrying capacity of the earth once fossil fuels are gone. I think this is way south of the current 6 billion,
no matter the predicted 9 billion by the middle of the century.

My personal estimates for fuels at future predicted demand levels are:-

Conventional Oil 10 Years
Oil Tar/Shale 20 Years
Gas 20 Years
Coal 30 Years
Uranium 30 Years
My estimate for carrying capacity is less than 1 Billion (mostly farmers).

Who volunteers to go first?

Posted by John Dinsdale | May 21, 2007 4:34 PM

Ethical Consumer's columnist Simon Birch posed the question "is it ethical to have children" in issue 102 (September 2006) of Ethical Consumer magazine. Some of our readers were so outraged by the suggestion that not having children could be a positive ethical (and environmental) choice that they cancelled their subscription to our magazine. It also stimulated a very lively debate on our letters page for a few issues afterwards.

Posted by Ruth Rosselson | May 21, 2007 4:42 PM

At age 20 in 1955 I looked at the world population compared with cultivated land, and concluded that two children per couple was a sensible limit. In fact I had two children and would have loved to adopt more from different countries. I still cannot understand why relatives, who had similar education to myself, allowed themselves larger families.

At the present world population there is still sufficient land if we all adopt a vegetarian diet.There are certainly not sufficient resources to allow the world to reach our "standard of living". For the world to reach European standards we need 3 earths. It is clear who needs to change!

China achieved some reduction in growth but their methods must have led to a lot of heartache and even more harm. However, their aim to grow 10 eco-cities in as many years is not something that our "democratic" government could achieve. We would "enquire" for 50 years and still not have one eco-city, in my opinion.
Climate change is still a little nebulous an argument for most people and governments. There are more pressing and demonstrable arguments. For example to achieve 50% (or more) less western diseases by simply changing to a wholefood plant based diet is a step that any intelligent family can take without government interference.

Posted by Mike Maybury | May 21, 2007 4:50 PM

The key to population seems to me not to be based in the affluent North but in the developing countries where the population is growing fastest. Most Northern countries are growing as a result of migration not ‘organically’ as it were.

Large families are a necessary social safety net, only be dealing with child death rates, sustainable economic development, a decent health and education systems (Particularly for women) can any meaningful impact be made on birth rates. Whether people in the North chose to not breed would make little impact on the global figures, how we support developing economies seems to me to be of much more importance.

Pete

Posted by pete shield | May 21, 2007 5:00 PM

It's the North European, Japanese and American senior jetset with their international holidays and big, empty, overheated houses which threaten the planet...so logically they've got to be a more convincing cohort to target for voluntary non-existence than newborn children!

Posted by Conrad Young | May 21, 2007 5:59 PM

As a father of 4 lovely children I feel something of a pariah in this debate.

That said, I think it a very important issue.

I discussed with a colleague earlier today the difference in energy required to create an organic vegetable tofu burger as opposed to a beef burger - something I started thinking about while doing a barbecue for my kids over the weekend.

I wonder what saving I can get from my pariah status in this future of low children families by insisting we all become vegetarian...?

A few years ago I suddenly realised I'd probably taken out far more from the world than I could ever put back in my life time. Now I know I have for sure...

I say all this rather tongue in cheek, as I totally agree with the report.

Posted by Simon Warrick | May 21, 2007 6:22 PM

I am sure that your old mate Alexander King would be proud of you all, so too that population fossil Malthus who is the originator of such theorems. Of course Malthus was more concerned about food shortages (I am sure you are aware that this issue is still not too far away from many a stomach or mouth). Here in Australia the Government is actively encouraging a population increase through a ‘baby bonus ‘scheme. This in part is due to an ageing population and a fall in overall fertility rates which in turn is lowering productivity. I hear other SE Asain countries have also undertaken similar schemes i.e. Singapore, Japan http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b517bd88-d7e2-11db-b218-000b5df10621.html

Posted by Phil Clark | May 22, 2007 1:12 AM

Interesting, Jonathon, but I'm not sure China's approach would pass a thorough sustainable development analysis.

True, there is clearly a huge environmental impact associated with bringing a child into this world; but any serious advocate of sustainable development would also recognise that 'quality of life', 'well-being' and social equity and justice are as equally important as living within environmental limits.

As Fiona and others point out, being able to form a family is at the core of what quality of life is all about. For many, it creating a family goes to the very heart of what existence is all about.

Furthermore, 'the family unit', as opposed to 'the individual', is a sound basis for creating a society within which access to key 'needs' in life - love, support, interdependence, security, etc. On the other hand, the UK's move towards 'individualism since the Thatcher era has arguably contributed to a more selfish, carbon-intensive world!

In short, an 'averting' child births policy might pass the 'environmental limits' test; but grossly fails on any social test going. I would have expected the head of the Sustainable Development Commission to have recognised this!

Posted by Lenny John | May 22, 2007 5:11 PM

A number of issues to investigate further as a society.

Discussions always center around "our right to....". Defending rights for the individual and society at large is key to what I consider to be living in a socially aware and civilised world.

I have the right to safety, health, food, water .... a certain standard of living (determined by whom??) as much as any other being on this planet.

A difficult but essential shift in thinking is required. The link between rights and personal wealth has to be broken. My child has the "right" to safety, health, food, water .... a certain standard of living (determined by whom??) as much as any other.

If we, within our environment are unable to sustain and provide it then limits have to be applied to all. I wouldn't dream to start deciding who should and shouldn't have more or less kids. We all do our best as parents, we all make mistakes and we could always do better.

As for the 'family unit' - this has been changing since our days on this planet started. A family is based on love, concern and care - it doesn't have to mean blood related.

Posted by Sandra Painter | May 23, 2007 10:34 AM

"'quality of life', 'well-being' and social equity and justice are as equally important as living within environmental limits. "

Er: actually, no: they are not at all.

This is a pure simple numbers verses resources situation: the world does not owe humanity a living, and the laws of physics and maths apply without any consideration to the niceties of cosseted human societies.

Any sane person can project the exponential curve of population growth for themselves, and see quite clearly that this cannot continue in a finite world. Already we are far beyond the limit of numbers that can be supported without all the benefits that accrue from exploiting the fossil fuel resources built up over hundreds of millions of years. When this has gone, we are finished, renewables or not. Global warming may make the **** hit the fan sooner rather than later, but the end result will be the same: catastrophic collapse in population by very unpleasant means until the sustainable level is reached.

This level is unlikely to be a civilised one in my opinion. We could begin to voluntarily reduce our numbers to cushion the effect- but we prefer, like the Australians mentioned, and our own UK government - to push for even faster population growth 'for the sake of the economy'. 'The economy' is going to be the death of the majority of humans, in the not too distant future.

Shameful thing is that though Mr Porritt is a patron of the OPT, his own Sustainable Development Commission, still goes on with reports that do not acknowledge the seriousness of the population situation. The latest, on housing, for example, has quite a few mentions of population trends and migration patterns, but only does this with a view to finding ways of accommodating the growth: nowhere as far as I can see, is there any indication that in a finite country, which is already several times above its naturally sustainable population level, is there any indication from the SDC that growth ever has to stop.

This is plain head in the sand stuff, and it is way over time that Porritt, with his SDC hat on, should come out and tell the gov in no uncertain terms that sustainability means knowing when you and your country have had enough; are now dangerously obese in population terms; and need to go on a crash diet in preparation for what is to come.

Not that I hold out any hope that anything we do at this late stage will make any difference!

Cheers,
S

Posted by spamlet | May 23, 2007 9:29 PM

Here's a thought: What would those Chinese per capita emissions be if they were discounted for the amount of Chinese industry that is in reality 'outsourced' production for major Western concerns, the outputs of which are ultimately destined for consumption back here in the fat, lazy West? Not to mention in the handling (word chosen advisedly!) of all the untouchable waste we send back East for 'recovery' after we've done consuming.

Posted by John Henderson | May 24, 2007 12:33 PM

Bo**ocks it's controversial... it's obvious...

It doesn't work anymore to say that it's "human nature" to want a family. The whole point is that we can no longer rely on our instincts in order to survive. In fact we need to actively over-ride many of what we call our instincts.
The real reason everyone in the west is hung up about this as a 'sacred cow' is that something somewhere's telling them that a screaming brat might give them the meaning, purpose and - oh yes - Love that is missing from their world.

That's what really needs fixing. Our desperate inability to feel happy to be alive, and to reflect that in how we interact in the world.

And it's so ironic. We're so obsessed with creating a perfect little life for our perfect little one that we make life for all the other little ones more and more horrific.
Then there's even more to protect our little one from. The world's even more desolate so we have an even greater need for our own little drooling bit of goodness.
So f**k it. Slaughter the cow. Let's eat steak.

STOP HAVING BABIES... YOU CAN STILL HAVE A HAPPY GOOD AMAZING LIFE THAT IS FULL OF COMMUNITY AND LOVE

Posted by sam | May 24, 2007 2:12 PM

Can I recommend the Population and Sustainability Network site at http://www.populationandsustainability.org for a more balanced approach to this? It makes the point that population and consumption are two sides of the same coin, and need to be considered together.

• In the UK, population growth is not the most important issue. The average number of children per woman is 1.7, which is below the rate of population replacement. Rates throughout Western Europe and North America are similar. Our population growth is due to immigration.

• The greatest problem in the UK is our consumption patterns. The average person in the UK is responsible for about 10 tonnes of carbon emissions each year. The average Tanzanian is responsible for about one tenth of a tonne. Immigration is a problem mainly because it leads to higher consumption patterns.

• The highest rates of population increase are in sub-Saharan Africa, with average birth rates of over 5 children per woman, although infant mortality rates are also very high.

• There is real scope to reduce population growth worldwide, and it is vital that this is part of the strategy to combat climate change. However, factors such as provision of education for women and improved life chances are as important as access to contraception.

• The most useful contribution we can make in the UK is to continue to concentrate on cutting our consumption levels, while supporting improved contraception facilities as part of overall development strategies in countries with high population growth.


Posted by Jane Sarah | May 29, 2007 11:12 AM

Sorry Jane, but while you are stating the facts, you are still missing the point:

If as you correctly say: "Population and consumption are two sides of the same coin", you cannot then have your next two points: "population growth is not the most important issue"; "The greatest problem in the UK is our consumption patterns". You cannot have your cake and eat it too! Following you first point, these two points must be treated together as your "greatest problem".

Yet, this is NOT however, the greatest problem, because these are, in turn, driven by the current concept of Economics, as the most powerful being in the universe who must be served with an infinite supply of human sacrifices no matter what the consequences. THIS is the real problem, and until it is dealt with, it does not matter one jot that there may be "scope to reduce population growth worldwide": the Axis forces of 'The Economy'will prevail, and force population to continue growing, and consuming in an exponential manner, until comes the inevitable crash.

While serving 'The Economy' with infinite 'Growth' is sacrosanct, low fertility rates in one place are not a problem, because the high priests in government and business simply arrange for the transfer of population from elsewhere, so that 'growth' can continue. In the past they did this by enforced movement of slaves: in the 'enlightened' world, they let the slaves find their own way to where they are 'needed', and call it 'freedom'.

Put beside this exponential growth, individual modifications to our own consumption patterns, and fecundity, do no more than provide opportunities for others to take up the slack: it's like you taking a bucket of water out of the sea hoping to quell the rising tide. And it is as futile as our government pushing through a windfarm in one breath, and demanding 5 new cities be built in the next.

As far as I am aware, no Party that can be elected has any other policy but this overall one of perpetuating growth - which they now perversely call 'sustainability'. They see no limits to the amount of Britain that they can concrete over and fill with hapless humanity. They truly believe the world owes humanity a living no matter how many of us there are; they traduce anyone who dares to say there might be another way; and they are leading us all to disaster.

Sorry,
But that's the way it is.

S

Posted by spamlet | May 30, 2007 4:12 PM

Lenny – I’m afraid Spamlet got it right and you got it wrong: quality of life; wellbeing and social equity and justice are not “as important as living within environmental limits”.

If we don’t learn to live within those environmental limits (particularly in terms of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere), then future Lenny Johns and Jonathon Porritts will not be out there campaigning for increased social justice. They will either be just about surviving (in God knows what kind of repressive political system) or not there at all.

I call this the ‘Preconditionality Paradox’: we won’t be able to deliver a biophysical sustainable world without a radical redistribution of wealth and a much higher emphasis on wellbeing rather than growth, but we absolutely can’t deliver an equitable world without learning to live within environmental limits. That makes the whole issue of biological sustainability a precondition.

And sheer human numbers are at the heart of that.

Which means, Fiona (Hi!), that there’s no problem at all about your “family dream” – just so long as its circumscribed within the ‘natural limit’ of 2.1 children – either your own or adopted!

That doesn’t sound too bad to me – and, on a personal note, many people (including myself) have chosen over the years to “stick at two”.

I can’t speak for my fellow Optimum Population Trust supporters – though you’d be right in thinking that most of are over 50!

And Spamlet is also right to take me and the Sustainable Development Commission to task for failing to bring population into our work and publications – especially our last report on housing. So I thought I would just copy this round to Commissioners on an individual basis to see if they share your judgement that this is just ”shameful”!

Posted by Jonathon Porritt | May 31, 2007 1:24 PM

Jonathon, Spamlet

I agree with you both - if we don't live within environmental limits then social justice becomes irrelevant.

On the flip side, however, consider whether you would like to live in a world that respects environmental limits but has total disregard for human wellbeing, social justice and quality of life!? I'm not so sure...

Nevertheless, my point really is that the concept of sustainable development, as defined by Brundtland, is about meeting human needs, equity AND living within environmental limits. So any SD analysis worth its salt needs to consider the social AND environmental dimensions together.

Jonathon recognises this when he says that "we won’t be able to deliver a biophysical sustainable world without a radical redistribution of wealth and a much higher emphasis on wellbeing rather than growth".

You both think that environmental limits is more important than social justice. This analysis implies that you both have reservations about the Government's own sustainable development principles, which place equal weight on the twin "goals of living within enviromental limits and a just society". Are you both suggesting that the Government reorganises these to put environmental limits as the overarching principle?

Best wishes

Lenny

Posted by Lenny John | June 1, 2007 2:52 PM

Hi Lenny & Jonathon,

[And thanks Jonathon for your kind treatment of my rather stark postings.]

Lenny, the point I was making, and with which I am sure Jonathon would agree, is that the social aspects are for humanity to address, while the planetary ecosystem is just answerable to the laws of physics. It is not that we both think: "that environmental limits is more important than social justice.": it is that it simply does not matter what we think. The limits exist: but humanity exists in a state of denial regarding these.

You are putting us into a rather similar position to that with which the media now seems routinely to treat 'environmentalists' these days: the messenger gets the blame. Thus, when we had the new Planning White Paper announcement on the radio, it was reported foremost as 'good news for householders' (who would have less red tape to deal with over minor developments to their properties), and only secondly as, merely, 'upsetting to environmentalists': not as: 'yet another blow against the environment and sustainability', which is the real truth of the matter.

Thus we, who are trying to point out the dangers looming ahead, are twice misrepresented: once in that the impression is given that we actually live in a different world from everyone else - one that doesn't necessarily apply to the rest of the audience; and twice, in that we are presented as the problem that has to be dealt with, rather than the environmental problem itself. Deal with us - by removing rights to public enquiry from the 'planning system' and continuing to refuse third party rights, for example - and the problem will go away...

Clearly, the goal of a 'Brundtland sustainable' economic system will be to find a way of ensuring the highest quality of life for whatever proves to be the sustainable population of the planet, but unless we find a way to do this in the equitable way we aspire to, then the laws of physics will 'sort it' for us: and this will not be a pleasant experience for humanity.

The great problem will come when deciding, what is to be the level of 'opulence', shall we say, for the individual in the future 'sustainably adjusted' world. The higher we decide that this level must be: then the lower we must set our numbers. There is simply no way of escaping this, and it is the truth of: "considering the social AND environmental dimensions together". OPT was formed to try and make a start on the necessary calculations - uncomfortable though they may be - that go along with this delicate balancing exercise.

The sorry fact is that, we have an economic system/political system/planning system, and media, that all feed off and feed-back into each other in a never ending cycle of 'growth promotion', that there seems to be no mechanism for common sense to break into, and rein in. Even our educational system now bows down to competition first, and our universities are primarily concerned with projections of their own economic prospects, and development plans! Our rights are being whittled away; our political parties become increasingly despotic and unaccountable and all believe that they serve Growth, first and foremost; we have a 'democracy' in name only. We can't get anywhere until this is changed (sadly, because I don't see a way of achieving this).

The trouble with the Government (any government really), is that the messages they put out are not worth the paper they are printed on. They have already, through the machinations of the vast development lobby - planners; developers; local authorities; barristers; solicitors; planning inspectors; economists etc. ad infinitum - changed 'sustainable development' in the Brundtland sense' to 'sustaining development', and when they speak of 'balancing' they mean: 'the environmentalists must give way'. This is because they really, truly, deeply, unshakeably (Incredibly!), believe that they have an environmentalist problem rather than an environmental problem. [One might add, that recent closures of key scientific establishments such as Monk’s Wood, could be interpreted as deliberate attempts at preventing the facts of biodiversity degradation from ever being quantified, so that politicians can continue to say: “There is insufficient evidence.”]

Most of government and planner policy since the concept of sustainability was coined, has been to find ways to muddy the water and pretend it is a complex and ill defined idea; and then to redefine it to ensure that 'business as usual' is continued. As we can appreciate by a simple glance out of the window: 'business as usual' is itself an exponential factor, and even 'alternative energy' sources are now factored in as aids to further growth, rather than as small steps on the road to survival, to be balanced by reductions in conventional generation. 'Development Plans' that should have lasted for many years, are discarded as out of date when the ink is hardly dry; and there is no way for the public to hold local authorities to them in any case.

Exponential consumption, breeds exponential 'need' (another weasely developer word: it means ‘want’) and we even get stories about 'serious strawberry shortages', ‘due to there not being enough migrant labour’, despite the fact that migration is at an all time high! For the 'Economy', sustainability is a crime: infinity is not enough.

Governments must thus be judged on what they do: not on 'what it says on the packet', and this government must be judged by its continued pronouncements on: new roads, airports, houses, 'sustainable new cities' (One to make your hair curl!) etc. Alongside these, windfarm developments; 'road pricing'; and other greenish initiatives, just become – like the roadbuilding itself - no more than ways to squeeze in yet more development.

And this is where I have to say how very grateful I am to Jonathon that you are going to reconsider the SDC's output, to give the necessary weight to population numbers in its advice. SDC is, by no means alone in neglect of this aspect: for so long, groups like FoE and CPRE have carefully avoided facing up to the population side of the sustainability equation, and this has led their campaigns, like those SDC reports, to be self defeating: to become little more than an exercise in helping 'fill in the blanks, starting with the least valuable first'. What we have already lost may be incalculable: what we have remaining is not so very much (in the UK at least). Can we really allow it all to go? If not: Who, with any power, is there to say where it should end? Is there anyone in power who has any concept of the inevitability of having to call time on Growth? If not: shouldn't we be using every possible opportunity to tell it like it really is?


It must be a Universal tragedy, that the only species ever (as far as we know) to have evolved to the stage when it truly can choose its own destiny: nonetheless prefers to leave it all up to blind fate, and gamble all on a single option: 'Growth'.

Thanks to you both,

S

Posted by Spamlet | June 3, 2007 8:43 PM

We were regaled with a fine example of the axis of forces lined up against sustainability - 'economy'/'planning system'/Party/media/head in the sand environmental groups - this lunchtime on Radio4's 'News':

Firstly that weasely word 'need' goes unquestioned as all and sundry are blamed for 'us' 'failing to build houses fast enough' even though this is just about the only activity that 'we' actually seem to do, and that 'we' do it at an exponentially increasing rate using ever bigger machines and demanding ever larger allocations of land on which to exercise them.

The BBC, despite being the generator of many excellent programmes showing the frightful state the world is in, nevertheless, in its 'news' coverage, remains ever the promoter of development and the castigator of anyone who gets in its way or deigns to suggest that one has to stop somewhere. Thus the BBC blames the minister for not building fast enough; then the minister deflects this on to the SE Regional Assembly, who have dared to suggest that the region is getting much too crowded for comfort already.

The woefully ignorant CPRE leader is then dragged in to defend his agricultural deserts in favour of continuing to trash 'brownfield' sites. CPRE is well aware that brownfield sites are often the only places where wildlife has any real existence at all, but they still routinely demand that there are vast acreages everywhere that 'must' be developed before any ag land be used. And so on…

Thus the real debate is avoided: population and the insane 'infinite growth' imperative, are not even mentioned; Parties and 'Environmental Groups', and different types of land, are simply played off against each other by the media, for largely entertainment purposes: while the juggernaut rolls blindly on and on, with the accelerator stuck, and no brakes.

Don’t you just love this ‘sustainable development’?!

S

Posted by spamlet | June 7, 2007 3:34 PM

As the human population grows, so too does its impact on the environment. It is, however, not such a simple relationship. By using tools such as The Ecological Footprint we can see that contributions to environmental problems are inequitable across the globe with inhabitants of the richer nations having much larger footprints than those in poorer regions, despite having smaller population growth rates. The problem therefore is not simply one of a rapidly expanding population it is a problem of the way this population behaves.

Feeding, housing and reducing the environmental impact of a global population that is set to double by 2050 are huge challenges. Meeting it within the ideology of a spreading consumer society will require either remarkable technological solutions or radical changes to the way society interrelates (or a combination of the two). The latter supported by the former, seems the most promising approach

Posted by Morgan Phillips | June 11, 2007 5:23 PM

This thread is about the need to take steps to prevent the doubling of population by 2050 that you take as read.

It would be much safer to rely on what we can all easily do, to prevent this doubling, than to expect technical fixes to continue to be forthcoming to accomomodate it. This is head in the sand thinking.

Past 'fixes' like the 'Green Revolution' only succeeded in allowing the population to continue to grow unsustainably for longer, and the same would happen for any additional such 'fixes'. The end result would be a much bigger crash, when the inevitable happens.

If the population is allowed to double by 2050, then 'radical changes to the way society interrelates' will not have happened, and we will probably be in a state of permanent war over resources. But, on the bright side, this may help prevent the next doubling...

S

Posted by Spamlet | June 21, 2007 3:39 PM

There is nothing really controversial about the core solution:

It is this:

Women across the globe need to be given the same family planning choices as in the developed world.

Total Global Family Planning.

The OPT are fantastic and, in my book, the world authority on the overpopulation catastrophe.

But, if anyone would like to help calm the demographic demon in a more proactive way please visit www.dropthepop.org and, if you use facebnook, join the new dropthepop group.

We really must do something. its all very well changing our light bulbs but we must also be advanced enough as a planet to manage our most valuable resource, humainity.

Posted by Mat Ripley | July 18, 2007 3:05 PM

Fantastic thread in your blog, Jonathon, that I have only now discovered and followed, on this so-often TABOO subject: the "elephant in the room that no-one talks about".

If I may quote from your own fabulous letter in 2004 for the 10th Anniv of my Time-Capsule project (anyone can see this at www.ecotimecapsule.com):

" I can’t remember whether this particular capsule contained a vial of oil (IT CERTAINLY DID! - jg) – the ‘black gold’ that has driven our economies over the last 70 years or so. But it seems to me that we’re now very close indeed to that particular tipping point where the demand for oil starts to exceed the supply of oil, with the inevitable consequences that this will entail.

It’s at that point – when we realise that feeding six or seven or eight billion people without access to cheap fossil fuels is going to be one hell of a stretch, and when the conventional economic development model runs irretrievably into the sand for lack of cheap energy – that people will come to realise that population really was the biggest issue all this time. And that our continuing failure to address that population challenge – wisely, compassionately and democratically – boarders on the criminal."

AND YOU CONCLUDED:

"Interesting times ahead!"

Understatement! Leave alone Climate Change, there is now new evidence that "Peak Oil" - to which you were referring there - may destroy the World Economy (and suburbia everywhere)in as little as 5 years.

On 31st May you said: "And Spamlet is also right to take me and the Sustainable Development Commission to task for failing to bring population into our work and publications – especially our last report on housing. So I thought I would just copy this round to Commissioners on an individual basis to see if they share your judgement that this is just ”shameful”!"

2 final Qs:

1 What was the response of the Sustainable Development Commissioners?

2 Any joy over persuading the BBC to deliver a programme on the Environment which highlights population as being THE neglected component of the env problem, and voluntary family planning as PART of the solution - in prime time TV? Ideally fronted by David Attenborough, our 'National Treasure' who actually believes as you do but has so far very rarely 'put his head above the population parapet!


Posted by John Guillebaud | July 21, 2007 2:37 PM

Compare human to cancer. Certain types of cancers will produce exponetial growth in a finite body, the result of this growth left unchecked? Death of the host and the embedded cancer. A little simplistic yes but reading these comments with statistics and foecasts ect. left me thinking. So I composed a draft myself citing stats and ehtical questions...then tossed it in the trash. Though we may all agree on some things and disagree on others I challenge anyone with a lick of logic and reason to disagree with this: the Earth is finite. That sums it up. Will we be the cancer whose uncontrolled growth brought about its own demise? We are supposed to be the intelligent species on the planet prizing our brains above all else yet we know the solutions to our problems and do nothing. Short term pain long term gain. Do we lack the balls of our previous generations to do whats right? For Earth and ourselves? I say Earth and ourselves because they are one in the same, we harm the planet we harm humanity. That's just common sense, any child with grade 2 science could tell you that so whats the debate? Pull up the red tape damn those who dont like it ( if they dont like it in my mind they have no right being on this planet to begin with) AND GET IT DONE!

Posted by brandon (Canadian) | September 4, 2007 7:59 AM

There is not question in my mind that the population explosion is the most important factor in a great deal of the problems we are encountering in today's world. I am afraid that our belief in the rights of the individual (a modern day concept)are once again being used to argue against the entirely logical idea of voluntarily limiting family size. It is as always the 'I want' rather than 'I need' attitude that underlies the spurious arguments against this very reasonable idea.
If we believe that it is humanity's fault (ie greed... I want more and that includes children)that the world and many of its species, landscapes and oceans are being concreted over , bought to the brink of extinction and fished out - then surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that we curb our desire to have copious numbers of children. I have one daughter and I don't feel hard done by because I don't have another two or three!
As we all know if the population increases at the same rate that it is now we would need another 2 - 3 planet earths to cope.
If we believe this then it is our responsibility to act accordingly.
After all for the last 50 years we have had it all our own way- its about time we all grew up.

Posted by anne notley | September 20, 2007 1:44 PM

Me cheering on Jonathon Porritt - who would have thought it.

But you're absolutely right. A birth averted is surely the biggest contribution most of us will make to saving the planet

But each of us can do more than that: we can spread the word and enlighten others so they avert a birth.

And let's get all those Greens out there to start criticising people who have many children rather than criticising people who happen to drive cars bigger than theirs.

Posted by mike | November 5, 2007 8:57 PM

So, why has Johnathon had children? had he none he would have removed his and his partners ecological footprint altogehter.

Why does UK government hand out tax credits to families which are raised from childless singles and couples who are by definition more environmentally friendly?

I continue to be amazed this week to hear Hillary Benn talk about pay per bag for kerbside collections and then mention, as if an asside, that it can only be done when he has figured out how to protect fanilies from this charge!

We need to get real. As others have more eloquently pointed out, our children have ecological footprints hundreds of times greater than some in the "developing world" so it is we who are the problem, yet we continue to press developing countries to follow our example and rush headlong into consumerism. We just haven't quite got it. We are recking the World. It is us the developing World is emulating.

Population vs economic growth vs consumption? No they are all the same problem. We must address them all and 2 kids in the UK is "worth" a few dozen in Africa.

Posted by Les | November 16, 2007 8:23 PM

Has anyone mentioned the fact that a child born in China over the one child limit is designated as a 'non-citizen' and are therefore denied any human rights eg: no work permits...they simply do not exist.

Same goes for any child of a worker who is temporarily in the country on a work permit. The permit does not extend to the child who might be born in the country. Officially he/she does not exist.

Posted by jill lloyd | June 2, 2008 11:25 AM

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)





TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jonathonporritt.com/jpblog/mt-tb.cgi/7

Subscribe to this blog's feed
[What is this?]