A sustainable population (Jonathon Porritt)

Search

My Profile

Feeds

What are feeds?

Articles

Other Blogs

News Links

Organisations

« Green New Deals | Main | Pre Budget Talk »

A sustainable population

I’ve always felt that logic and sound evidence provide a pretty solid foundation for good policy-making. But some issues are more amenable to logic than others, and population is clearly the least amenable of all.

I’m in the population doghouse yet again. On 1st February the Sunday Times carried a front page story based on comments I had made that as we are heading off into some very troubled times, it would come to be seen as “irresponsible” for families to have more than two children.

You’d have thought I’d advocated compulsory sterilisation, emasculation, euthanasia, and baby-slaughtering all in one fell swoop. Melanie Philips likened me to Pol Pot and Hitler (who was “green” after all!), and when Fox News in the US got hold of the story, every religious nutcase with nothing better to do crawled out from under their stones to suggest the best thing I could do to help address population pressure would be to top myself. Instantly. Logic and sound evidence were not much in evidence.

So let’s just start all over again – here’s the logic, in 12 easy steps.

1. The more human beings there are on the planet, the bigger our collective impact. There were about 3 billion of us in 1950, and there will be about 9 billion by 2050 – if we just carry on as usual. That’s an extra 6 billion in 100 years!

2. Our impact is felt in many different ways – in terms of soil erosion, over-fishing, deforestation, water shortages, loss of species and habitats, and so on. Most particularly, it’s felt in terms of the rising emissions of C02 and other greenhouse gases that we’re putting into the atmosphere, with the prospect of horrendous consequences by the end of the century if we can’t turn this around.

3. Each individual is responsible for their own carbon footprint. Here in the UK, it’s about 12 tonnes per person per annum. In China, it’s about 4 tonnes per person per annum. It soon mounts up. Were it not for China’s ‘one child family’ policy (which is certainly very controversial), there would be as many as 400 million additional Chinese alive today – with a combined annual carbon footprint of around 1.6 billion tonnes of C02!

4. Population and environmental impact are therefore inextricably intertwined. New technology (around energy efficiency and renewables) can do a lot to help reduce that impact. But at the moment, the efficiency gains it gives us are not even keeping up with the combined increase in human numbers and economic growth.

5. Here in the UK, we have adopted some extremely ambitious targets to reduce emissions of C02 and other greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050. On a per capita basis, that means going from around 12 tonnes per person per annum today to around 2.5 tonnes per person per annum by 2050 – if our population remains the same in 2050.

6. But it’s not going to! Current projections indicate that our population is going to grow from 61 million today to 77 million by 2050. Logically, that means there’s a lot less C02 to go round (in terms of our per capita allocation), making it all the harder to achieve that 80% target. (A target, incidentally, which many scientists now see as the absolute minimum which will be required in rich countries like ours).

7. It also means a lot more overcrowding, a lot more pressure on housing, on water supplies, on our trains, on our already congested roads and so on.

8. If you accept that this is a not very attractive proposition, and that it would be better to aim for a lower, rather than a higher population, there are two things that have to happen here in the UK.

9. The first is to allow into our country no more people than leave it on an annual basis. That’s called “net zero immigration”. This is not xenophobic, let alone racist. It’s just common sense.

10. The second is to see if we might persuade (please note, persuade, not coerce!) the 26% of women in the UK who are currently expected to have more than two children to ‘stop at two’. (The other 74% already do stop at two, or have one child or none.) If we did this, we would be able to cut our forecast population by around 7 million people.

11. Combine both policies (neither of which, I think you’ll agree, are that extreme, let alone threatening, let alone totalitarian!), and the consequences are enormous: instead of a population of 77 million, we’d have a population of around 55 million – 6 million fewer than we have today.

12. Amazingly, if we then applied ourselves to doing more or less the same for women the world over, during the course of the next 20 years or so, by the tried and tested means of improving education for all (but particularly for girls), including healthcare for all (but particularly for women), and ensuring a choice of contraception for all women so that they are free to manage their own fertility, without fear of oppressive religious and male-dominated constraints, then we might just be able to stabilise world population to something closer to 7.8 billion instead of 9.2 billion. And just work out what that means for climate change, the planet and all future generations.

So that’s the logic. Of course, it isn’t as easy as that. The barriers are still huge.
Many religious people still think the use of any contraception other than abstinence or the ‘natural method’ runs counter to the will of God. Many economists still think that a declining population will create an increasingly problematic imbalance between those at the end of their working lives and those whose taxes will be needed to support them.

But there seems to be little reason, on either count, to declare that population must remain for ever a taboo subject, beyond rational discourse, worthy only of the rantings of Daily Mail columnists and religious extremists.

So I shall stick to my guns on this one! As a Patron of the Optimum Population Trust, I shall be keenly supporting their ‘Stick at Two’ campaign. And as an environmentalist with a bit of a track record, I shall continue to point out to many of my colleagues that their continuing silence on the links between population, climate change and social justice is actually a betrayal of everything that they stand for – however ‘politically correct’ they may imagine it to be.

Posted by Jonathon Porritt on March 4, 2009 5:17 PM | Permalink

Comments (45)

I could not agree more and just do not understand why various 'green' movements are not in obvious agreement: simple arithmetic, really. Hammering on about lifestyle changes which do not include curbing fertility is futile.
In the UK, which has a small minority of practising catholics, free contraception for women, and relatively educated women, approx. half of conceptions are still unplanned. Cultural shift required together with much better accessability to contraception and the addition of free condoms. We are letting our children and future generations down by our lack of action and irresponsibility.

Now for the rest of the world.....

Posted by penny watson | March 4, 2009 7:12 PM

Hi Jonathan
I have sympathy with a lot of what you say about the need for us Greens to stop burying our head in the sand about population, bar the immigration bit. Don't we have a responsibility to accept those whose countries have been messed up because of our behaviour, whether as a result of war or environmental damage, even if that results in a net population increase?

Surely it's more important to focus on stabilising the global population (through meeting the Millenium development goals etc) than to worry too much about the population of a specific country growing as a result of migration?

Posted by Sue Luxton | March 4, 2009 10:18 PM

George Monbiot had an interesting mini-article on the same topic recently. While the last paragraph might be a tad mean-minded, it's an interesting piece.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/25/population-emissions-monbiot

Posted by Pidge | March 5, 2009 12:36 AM

Jonathon, I agree largely with what you say, excpet for the migration issue. I know it isn't easy but I can't see that it is acceptable that people are locked up in their countries, which will be the net effect if countries apply such a policy. I don't know for the UK, but surely many of the European countries are net exporters of people during the last two hundred years.

On my blog I make, in my view, a compelling case for more migration rather than less, from a global equity perspective - and I think that perspective is as relevant and important.

Posted by Gunnar Rundgren | March 5, 2009 7:04 AM

Whether population is THE most fundamental issue in terms of environmental impacts or merely ONE OF THE most fundamental issues, the fact that it remains largely a taboo subject is just scary. Well done Jonathon for being one of the few high profile voices seeking to get this issue on the public policy agenda.

Posted by Peter Morgan | March 5, 2009 11:55 AM

I agree strongly with Peter Morgan's comment. Well done Jonathon for your continuing work on population. The arithmetic is clear. We should not continue to deny a high place on the political agenda for this matter.

Posted by Glenn Vowles | March 5, 2009 2:12 PM

There's a much easier method of reducing population you know. It's called globalisation.

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/emission/093.htm#1

"In the A1 scenario family, demographic and economic trends are closely linked, as affluence is correlated with long life and small families (low mortality and low fertility). Global population grows to some nine billion by 2050 and declines to about seven billion by 2100."

Roughly speaking, the A1 family is where we pursue a global capitalist economy as opposed to A2 (capitalist and regional), B1 equitable and global, B2, equitable and regional.

That's not just some wild eyed classical liberal (myself) speaking. That's actually the IPCC. And it's one of the basic assumptions which underlies the entire study of climate change. Yes, the whole of the IPCC program to look at climate change depends upon those four families of economic models.

Be useful if those pontificating on climate change had actually bothered to read the report, don't you think?

Posted by Tim Worstall | March 5, 2009 2:56 PM

"Global population grows to some nine billion by 2050 and declines to about seven billion by 2100."

And the oil pipes will never run dry, we suppose.

That little word 'declines' is the interesting bit.

I suspect it will be declining by a lot more than 2 'billion'; and before it gets near to 9.

Also wonder what the death rate might be to sustain that putative 7 billion. With a massive increase in perinatal mortality and a much lower life expectancy, maybe we could do it after all!

[Well done as always JP for keeping up the common sense. Somebody has to!]

Posted by Spamlet | March 7, 2009 8:22 PM

...and globalisation really is doing us proud at the present isn't it Tim...

Posted by Glenn Vowles | March 7, 2009 9:48 PM

Congratulations on an excellent article from a fellow member of the OPT.

We ignore the 'elephant in the room' at our peril.
Let's not forget our increasingly hard-pressed fellow creatures who are running out of space,food sources,clean air, unpolluted seas and havens where they can live safe from human encroachment and persecution.

Posted by wendy | March 8, 2009 12:55 PM

Re the Times article, we all have to face facts Jonathon, newspapers are there to sell newspapers first and formost, truth, I am sad to say, comes a poor second to this, what sells is sensationalism. This tree hugging, bleeding hearted environmentalist Minister agrees 100% with your blindingly obvious comments

As for "Human-made Global Warming Agnostic" I would much prefer to listen to the scientists of the Met Office http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/ and check out their findings with the evidence of my own eyes... if you don't mind.

Posted by Fr. Peter | March 13, 2009 8:51 AM

Gunnar Rundgren wrote: [quote]Jonathon, I agree largely with what you say, excpet for the migration issue. I know it isn't easy but I can't see that it is acceptable that people are locked up in their countries, which will be the net effect if countries apply such a policy. I don't know for the UK, but surely many of the European countries are net exporters of people during the last two hundred years.

On my blog I make, in my view, a compelling case for more migration rather than less, from a global equity perspective - and I think that perspective is as relevant and important. [/quote]

Gunnar,
I think a better option would be to reach out to those countries and help them. Also we should, as both a moral and practical necessity, help other countries that are in trouble for other reasons. We should also stop stuffing them up. This is a global problem and shifting people around does not fix anything.

Posted by Danny Stevens | March 17, 2009 7:30 AM

Global Poverty is the root of "Overpopulation"
Global problems need global solutions - a bit of a cliche but true! Deal with poverty and lack of education in poorer countries and then we might be able to address the population explosion.

What difference does it make "where" the population is, agree with Sue on the immigration question immigration.
I'm afraid Jonathan's arguments have been picked up and mis -used by the BNP.

Posted by Rosso Verde | March 17, 2009 3:57 PM

Bravo Jonathan!
I only wish we could get Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, WWF etc. (and of course the Pope!) to see things your way!

It is quite obvious we cant even feed the 6.7 billion we have now properly, and we have only been able to achieve the economic growth and population growth that we have simply because we found Coal c200 and Oil c150 years ago.

Apart from the urgent need to act in respect of climate change, which means basically just consume less stuff! - I am fed up hearing about "sustainable growth" and "sustainable development" and "continuous economic growth". This "economic globalisation" system that we thrive on is based on the ever increasing consumption of ever declining natural resources. Worse still, it clearly thrives even better on an ever increasing number of consumers!

But, even the current global population is not going to be sustainable in the long term after Peak oil - which is imminent.

After that we will just have to implement various measures to either
(a) Reduce the global population or
(b) Reduce the average consumption per person or
(c) Reduce the average life span
or, more likely,
(d) a combination of all 3.

Clearly not even 7.8 billion people can all expect to live like the average American does now for an average lifespan of 75 years in the year 2050 - can they?!

The only alternative is to increase the level of global poverty, rather than reduce it, so that the some people can sustain their existing high levels of consumption and lengthy lifespans.

The choice is ours, collectively.
We could achieve much of the necessary reductions by mutual international agreement - or we can let a combination of Climate Change, Nature, Resource Depletion, and many more Wars do it for us.
Along with you I continue to strive and hope for a lot more of the first, but sadly, knowing the greed and selfishness of my fellow humans so well, I anticipate that more of the latter ill effects will prevail.

Posted by Bill Dowling | March 18, 2009 9:06 PM

it's strange that in this allegedly overcrowded world we have more food and habitable space than ever before. Mr Porritt's ideas remind me of a Stanislaw Lem crack (from "the futurological congress") ie the prediction that humanity would eventually be a living sphere radiating from the earth at the speed of light.
it's perfectly clear that the entire population of the world could be easily fed and accommodated, like us in the supposedly crowded UK. most of the world's surface is still empty space, we have an overabundance of food, and bigger houses with less people per house than at any time in history. people live longer, precisely because of the resource of a large population. the more of us there are, the more space we render habitable and the more food we grow. oh, by the way, if the UK populace were halved, the remaining half would be required to work twice as hard. this might suit an academic who doesn't actually produce anything, but the rest of us might like to look at other options.
- richard

Posted by richard | March 23, 2009 12:29 PM

Jonathon is addressing yesterday's problem, and ignoring today's. Birth rates are collapsing across most of the world, and in most of the developed world and in much of the developing are below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman (in the developed world, only France and the USA make the grade). It is highly likely that even the low UN long term population projection is too high.

Now whether the world population is 5 billion or 9 billion, modern industrial society can still destroy the environment - and yet equity and fairness means that a tolerable living standard cannot be withheld from countries such as China and India, otherwise environmentalism becomes what many of its opponents have accused it of, a form of first world elitism.

The problem with falling birth rates is dependency ratios. It is not too bad with fertility rates just below replacement, like the UK and Scandinavia, but most of central, eastern and southern Europe and the Far East is down to 1.4 or below - implying up to 40-50% of the population over 60 by mid century. This is not sustainable. Imploding societies without enough young, creative, active people - and spending a disproportionate amount of their capital on supporting the elderly are less likely to save the environment than those with sustainable demographics. Alternative energy and protected reserves for biodiversity are not that hard, but need wealth and capital.

Replacing the birth rate shortfall with immigrants leads eventually to all sorts of tensions, as we all know, not helped by the fact that the only populations still with high birth rates tend to be religious fundamentalists (of all stripes)who are concerned with neither the environment nor the science to solve its problems. Eventually, on present trends, the world will run out of potential immigrants anyway.

I agree about two being the limit - it should be the MINIMUM per family in current low birth rate countries.

Posted by stanley | March 23, 2009 10:25 PM

While over population and limited natural resources are a real problem, aggressive policies on the matter are reminiscent genocide. Now, I am your common American. I could care less about contraceptives or any religious angle.

What I am concerned about is an aristocratic elite that has the disposal of F-18 fighter jets and nuclear bombs. Such an aristocracy could very well believe there is a moral obligation to thin the human population. They can very easily dupe the people into wars and panic.

Posted by B King | March 24, 2009 7:21 AM

I strongly disagree with the post of Bill Dowling. Humans have every right to live long and happy lives.

On to a rebuttal...

Oil doesn't lead to the demise of anything, and humans will ween off of it relatively quickly with out it's availability. Nature corrects itself in cases where organisms overshoot their biome and resources. Man made intervention is not required, but education can help this problem.

The idea that we must make people poor for the US to sustain it's success is based on a false premise. It's also idealistic to say that wars will cease with a decreased population. I think world history says otherwise. Despite this, it's all based on the premise of what ifs and maybes, not absolutes. It assumes that population trends will continue, yet developed countries tend to also have less population growth. It also assumes that all other factors remain the same as time progresses. Yet, technological breakthroughs are bound to be developed as well as social customs as time advances.

Capitalism is not evil, it's actually beautiful and exciting.

I am an American capitalist. I believe in making money, and I believe in living your life as you please. I believe in liberty and freedom. I believe in the laws nature, not panic, paranoia, or genocide.

Mr. Porritt is right, incentives and education can go a long way in this battle. But my dreams and aspirations are not about to be quelled because of what ifs and maybes. I am not about to stop working hard and trying to make all the money I possibly can because a group of humans is paranoid.

I will drive my gas powered car. I will consume. I will eat my American made fast food. And when a crisis occurs, I will meet that challenge. What I will not do is allow the devaluation of human life based on theories that can be used to justify everything from genocide to wars.

Posted by B King | March 24, 2009 8:00 AM

Dear Jonathan,
I would like to shake your hand for taking on this issue. I have read all 92 posts against the Times article and shake my head at the hopeless ignorance and defensiveness of most of the replies. You have certainly picked a very unpopular subject, but one which I have been amazed at how long it has taken to get up the agenda.

As you rightly point out, restricting migration will help the UK's footprint (but not the global one which is what counts in the end), and restricting family size to 2 kids surely is not a sacrifice in a society where we no longer depend on our children to support us, as is often the case in the third world.

Speaking personally, my husband and I decided to adopt children instead which could be encouraged as a solution for people wanting larger families (or as an alternative to birth children for people like ourselves). It should be noted that adoption is an extremely difficult and lengthy process in this country and should be simplified in my view.
Good luck with the campaign, Jonathan. You are talking the most sense I have heard in a long time.

Posted by H Mudie | March 24, 2009 2:09 PM

We are to reproduce only 2 more human beings between our, assumed 1 solitary human relationship.

Are we to carry some kind of card that has our entitlement stamped within it ?

How does the state deal with transgressors ?

Forced abortion ?

Sterilisation ?

Less / more taxes ?

Please explain.

Posted by Mark Gobell | March 24, 2009 7:00 PM

One more thing, sorry about the quantity and lack of foresight on my part.

More electricity used and blooming carbon to respond to you, simply because I forgot about this:

If I am forced / choose to have only 2 children.

For whom am I making this sacrifice / compromise exactly ?

Oh, and why ?

And then why not me ?

And what about me ?

Posted by Mark Gobell | March 24, 2009 7:03 PM

Sorry, Mr. Porritt, but you can't claim the high ground on this. Where is your demand that immigration be stopped, both legal and illegal? The advocacy for repatriation of immigrants who have come to the UK, since they are more, "green", when they live in their home countries?

When exactly, do "developing" nations, actually stop being able to hide behind a false claim of being in development? China, has had enormous resources for ages, and it has chosen to develop in the way it has, and it hasn't only just started polluting, it's had a long, sordid history as a polluter, as well you know. India, again, enormously wealthy, it's trying to hide behind it's large, very poor majority population.. the one it's sought to keep poor, and still continues to do so. It's not a "developing" country. The same can be said for the Arab states, and Middle East, Egypt, and many countries in Africa and Latin America. Let's engage honestly in this discussion, shall we? What you advocate for, is NOT environmental sustainability, it's an agenda to undermine western nations, so as to impose a third world status quo in those countries.

You don't hold any water, no one is deceived. You and yours have sat in silence over the devastation of Brazilian and other rain forests by those who cut them down to plant palm, which isn't even an efficient source of bio fuels, knowing full well that there is plenty of land to plant sugarcane, that would have saved those stretches of rain forest that have been cut and burned down. Carbon cap and trade is a scam, it's about pricing out the majority of people, placing the huge burden on the poor and middle classes, rather than your corrupt, polluting friends in globalist industry. It's about an indifference to the fact that rotting tree and plant matter in old growth forests expend more carbon than trees and industry. It's about legislating genocide, and imposing slavery. That is the reason why you and your fellow EUdespots have ignored the genocide in Darfur for years.

You can feign innocence but I didn't notice you speaking out against Baroness Warnock, quite possibly because you were creaming in your undies when she declared that the poor elderly and disabled should off themselves rather than be a burden on society. You represent a movement of little Hitlers, goose stepping fascists, there is no amount of cover for you to hide behind. The future you wish to come about, would be one where people are deliberately shoved between the cracks, starving to death, dying of exposure to the elements, overdosed on drugs in hospitals, like Ebeneezer Scrooge, you seek to eliminate the surplus population, and for the same reason, so there's all the more for little tinpot dictators like yourself.

Frankly, Mr. Porritt, if you feel so passionately about the need for reducing the population, kindly set an example, and do away with yourself. I can guarantee that the world would be a much better place, and far more sustainable, without the likes of you, wasting resources and spewing nothing but excessive amounts of carbon.

Posted by Jenny | March 24, 2009 8:27 PM

Mr Porritt is doubtlessly guilty of employing junk science in the formulation of his population policy.

If the still theoritcal evolutionary scenario is to be believed, and we consider the actually observed impact of population genetics to the fitness of any population, we see that large populations are actually better for the human race as a whole.

Larger populations/high birthrates:
(1) Preserve genetic diversity
(2) Limit genetic drift
(3) Help overcome the reproductive capacity problem associated with the fixation ob harmful mutations and the supposed fixation of beneficial mutations

The resource problem can be solved quite simply if we eliminate greed and develop more effective and trust worthy govenment.

I won't bother going into the numerous logical errors in Jonathon's piece - I'm just giving the scientific perspective.

Diogenes The Cynic

Posted by Diogenes | March 25, 2009 12:07 PM

Mr Porritt is doubtlessly guilty of employing junk science in the formulation of his population policy.

The resource problem can be solved quite simply if we eliminate greed and develop more effective and trust worthy govenment.

I won't bother going into the numerous logical errors in Jonathon's piece - I'm just giving the scientifc perspective.

Diogenes The Cynic

Posted by Diogenes | March 25, 2009 12:07 PM

How do you propose rapidly reducing the population down to 30 million in the UK?
We are looking at a 50% reduction which is about the collective total of those under 14 and those over 65. Suicide is not very popular so how are you suggesting this mass cull? Chemtrails? World war III?

Posted by gareth | March 25, 2009 12:55 PM

I would like to hear a radio debate between you and Alex Jones. Thanks.

Posted by ad | March 25, 2009 1:47 PM

What next, the population reduction police?

This is PURE FASCISM, and you Sir, are a FASCIST.

Posted by John Morton | March 25, 2009 5:11 PM

The green movement has been hijacked by the the power elite who meet in secret in order to push their alternative, one world government, one world bank agenda. If anyone doubts this read their own documents (eg. The first Global revolution by the Club of Rome). This openly states that' they hit upon the idea of global warming in order to unite against humanity'!

FACT

Global warming (or climate change as it is now called since the earth has been cooling for the last 10 years)is a POLITICAL agenda NOT an environmental agenda.

FACT

31000 scientists proclaim that global warming is NOT man made but this gets no coverage from the green religious movement or the 'climate change believers' in the BBC.

FACT

Al Gore's film about climate change is so full of holes and unsubstantiated evidence that it is almost laughable. Thank God for the Judge who refused it to be used as indoctrination on young impressionable children.

FACT

Porritt himself is a member of the same priviledged elite who despise the ordinary folk of the earth and peddle their eugenicist claptrap.

FACT

The IPCC comprises only 20% of individuals who are in anyway climate scientists. The rest have their own political and financial agendas to preserve via the big funding hand-outs.

FACT

The cause of global warming and cooling is directly caused by sunspot activity linked to electromagnetic radiation. Again lets not let the truth get in the way of the political agenda!

FACT

The UN agenda is to tax the hell out of the west via the impostion of this carbon tax / carbon trading nonsense.

FACT

This tax will perpetuate the same self serving elite / banksters / millitary industrial complex as before. Welcome to the new worl order everyone!

FACT

Posted by David | March 26, 2009 2:07 PM

David | March 26, 2009 2:07 PM

Re David's comments, whilst I'm sure they're very valid, all I know is that a trip that used to take me 2 hours on the road 10 years ago now takes 3 hours.

Posted by Derek | March 29, 2009 6:03 PM

John Morton is correct.

Carbon footprint. Ho Ho Ho ....All life on Earth exists because of the first living creatures that breathed Carbon Dioxide. CO2 is the life gas . Plants breath it. Plant more trees....There was more CO2 during the Jurrassic Era 14 TIMES as much.

Funny how so many Scientists had their name added to the UN Documents without their consent.

Funny how Mars JUpiter etc warmed at the same time ...maybe warming is caused by the SUN.

There were thousands of Volcanoes during the Jurrassic period pumping out trilions of tons of CO2....did life stop ? UHHH no.

Posted by bob | April 1, 2009 6:08 PM

Mr. Porritt,
Jonathan,

I am sure you are not advocating euthanasia or baby slaughtering. I would like to share another "innocuous sounding" message which I recently read in the holocaust museum in Naples, Florida.

"Reich leader, (Phillip) Bouhler and Dr.med (Karl) Brandt are charged with responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physicians, designated by name, so that patients who, on the basis of human judgment are considered incurable, can be granted a mercy death after a discerning diagnosis."

Adolf Hitler 1939

Called "Operation T" that and other utanasia actions murdered between 200,00 and 250,000 disabled people, between 1939-1945.

Posted by L. Anne | April 3, 2009 9:31 PM

OVERCONSUMPTION is the issue not overpoplulation. I have 3 children, no car and a very well insulated home. I have been involved with the environmental movement since 1973 with the stop the whaling campaign of FoE onwards, but I am becoming rapidly disaffected for a number of reasons, not least the creeping facism. My question is which half of my mixed race children do you wish to deport the left the right, the top or the bottom.

Or is mixed race so disgusting an affront to the ecosystem they should be composted.

I take it you have no children? or if you do they are "pure" anglo, or are they "pure" saxon.

Posted by Chris | April 19, 2009 4:03 AM

ERRATTA t previous post.

In the final analysis it is not OVER-POPULATION not even OVER-CONSUMPTION

BUT

OVER-PRODUCTION

Why then does the OPT promote raising the Working Age, Promoting Low Paid Jobs for the Disabled and other Unemployed, and "Repatriation".

None of these deal with environmental concerns but all reflect the black politics traditional to the aristocracy to which you and your daughters are related.

Is it that you want more wealth and fewer people to share it with, Oh for the good old days.

Throw another witch on the fire there's a good old chap. Fancy a bit of peasant shooting.

Posted by Chris | April 19, 2009 4:29 AM

If persuade involves financial inducements, it's coercion

Posted by silverfoxx | April 21, 2009 9:48 PM

Looks like some of the useless eaters are onto us. Oh well, let the global eugenics war continue.

Posted by Sauros | April 25, 2009 3:57 AM

Putting out the idea that it is "responsible" to stop at two children (or have even fewer) is very seriously misguided. It has the effect of leaving the future to be inherited and controlled by those who irresponsibly can't give a damn about the future either by reason of their genes or their upbringing or both.

To thus put the future of the human race in the control of incompetent selfish antisocials is an even worse prospect than overpopulation.

The only sensible way to reduce population is by (1) policies that penalise having children, making it more expensive for instance, and ending child benefits; and (2) enforced limitations.
That may be "nasty" or "fascist" or whatever other emotional getout words you can summon up but then overpopulation and/or the handing of the future to those who can't or can't be bothered to control their breeding will be even nastier and even more fascist. The time to bite the bitter bullet is already here.

Posted by Robin P Clarke | May 27, 2009 10:27 AM

Dear Jonathon

Sorry for this late contribution on this – I have been spurred on to reply by seeing David Attenborough’s appearance on the One Show.

I agree with you on some points, but believe that the population age structure that we bequeath to our children is far more important than overall population numbers.

What’s the old saying “lies, damned lies and statistics”, well if ever there was a topic to demonstrate that this is a truism, then Population Control must be it. In this blog you talk of basing policy on sound logic and evidence, but - as with all zealots who turn their minds to research - you are guilty of seeing in data only that which you wish to see and ignoring that which you do not.

Take the three fundamental statistical corner stones of the OPT policy: the population of the world in 1950; 2006; and the population of the UK in 2050. OPT refers to these three statistics as if they are absolutes, set in tablets of stone (sorry for the religious analogy). Yet these numbers are at best indicative estimates and each will have more than a healthy dose of statistical uncertainty associated with them. As far as I am aware, neither the UN nor WHO, worldwide, undertake the sort of decennial population censuses that we are both familiar and compliant with in this country; this would be far too expensive and almost impossible to carry out. Our ‘hard to reach population groups’ pale in significance by comparison with those worldwide; and I would like to meet the persons who would be brave enough to enumerate the population in Helmand Province or the Swat Valley! The world population estimate of 6.8 billion therefore is derived from a compendium of (sometimes very elderly and rudimentary) national estimates extrapolated to the reference year. I have not seen a standard error provided for this figure (the UN does provide upper and lower variants on fertility). Of course the situation regarding the accuracy of the 1950s estimate is even worse. Without accurate standard errors for these two figures how can we be so sure of the accuracy of the population gain over 1950-2008 (given as 3.8 billion); and as a consequence, how can we then begin to project this figure into the future, and claim that the population of the world by 2050 will be over 10 billion? To be frank Jonathon, this is ‘back of a fag packet’ demography.

In addition you have to remember that these are projections rather than forecasts and must always be qualified by the clause: “if past trends continue”.

Similarly the ONS 2006-based projections for the UK utilises a 15 year time series upon which to produce its trend estimates. I suspect that ONS would only wish to publish its projections up to 2031. Going beyond that to 2050, three times the size of the reference period, without reference to the large degree of statistical uncertainty involved, is asking for trouble and an absolute belief in the estimates by 2050 shows a degree of statistical illiteracy – the 95% confidence limit on this figure could easily be plus or minus 8 - 12 million.

Your OPT colleagues are found of giving the impression that the country is currently experiencing an epidemic of fecundity which if left unchecked will lead to exponential population growth resulting in irreparable harm to its ecology and the world climate. Where have you all been the last 37 years? Natural population replacement is achieved with a Total Fertility Rate of approximately 2.1 children per female. This rate was last achieved in the UK in 1972; in the intervening period the TFR has hovered around the 1.72 mark, and been as low as 1.63 (in 2001) before staging a recovery to its current value of 1.91. Indeed, because of this period of low fertility, the country is likely to experience natural decline over the next 50 years as the large post-war baby boom ages into retirement, and as a consequence of the reduced size of the fertile female cohort. The only thing likely to stop this happening is the large scale inward migration predicted to occur by ONS over the same period. So Jonathon you are directing your attack at the wrong component if you wish to reduce population size in the UK - not that I am against inward migration I hasten to add.

You are far too dismissive in your comments of the problem of the age structural imbalance which OPT policies would inevitably result in. As a quick calculation, I have tried to replicate the OPT demographic model by using the latest predicted mortality and migration rates and adjusting the number of births each year to ensure a 0.25% annual reduction in the overall population and setting net migration to zero for all age groups. Under these circumstances, the dependency ratio (i.e. the ratio of those not of working age (respectively not in employment) to those who are, would rise from the 61 persons not of working age for every 100 who are, currently, to 116 by 2050. By 2067 the ratio will have increased further to 151. If we include employment participation rates in the calculation, then the dependency ratio based on those not in employment rises to 195 in 2050 and 239 in 2067. Failure to stem the anticipated flow of net inward migration would result in corresponding figures of 125 and 164 by 2050, and 204 and 257 by 2067.

Brave new world – such a scenario is likely to sound the death knell for the welfare state; cause grave manpower shortages in such labour intensive professions as police, the armed services and nursing; cause inter-generational strife, as one generation feels that it is being asked to pay unduly for the upkeep of the other; and lead to the introduction of a modernised form of the 19th Century Poor Law Unions and their workhouses to house the unemployed, sick and elderly. Dependency is increasing naturally within the UK population at the moment because of increasing life expectancy, but this will only account for six points on the dependency scale by 2050.

I will give you credit for being fairly measured in your language regarding the effects of religion on population control; more than can be said for some of your more colourful OPT colleagues who invariably start a seminar by talking about population increase but who then soon descend into some 17th Century style anti-catholic rant.

You ask why it is that people are shy of talking about Population Control; perhaps it is because as a subject it is forever tainted by the spectre of Eugenics. Many vile abuses were committed in the name of this British invention during the last century – not only throughout mainland Europe but to a lesser extent in Britain and the USA also. Your motives may be entirely honest and well meaning (if mistaken) in pursuing this policy; but inevitably you will always be suspected of having a hidden and sinister agenda and this will be a cross that you and OPT generally will always have to bear. When flawed ideas such as these escape academia and find favour amongst public policy makers, we must all watch out! If the ‘no greater than 2’ constraint on births does not provide the desired result, what next – ‘encouraged’ voluntary euthanasia for the sick and elderly?

The UK is not overcrowded, perhaps parts of the SE are; but the problems that you perceive could easily be cured by a good regional policy that would see a more equitable distribution of jobs and resources than exists at present.

Posted by Ned Ludd | May 28, 2009 11:27 PM

If I remember correctly the UK is around 60 million acres and there are around 60 million inhabitants which results in around 1 acre per head (I'm sure Ned Lud might pick up on my fag-packet calculations). Now consider what you need to do with that acre of land to sustain the standard of living that you currently enjoy (grow your food, dispose of your waste, have your percentage of factories to produce your goods, have your recreational space etc). Think about it. Do you still think the UK is not overpopulated? If in doubt go and look at a 1 acre field.

If the world had half it's current population how could it be a worse place for that? I cannot see any argument for not attempting to keep population in check. Are we wealthier for a bigger population - I don't think so! We shouldn't be planning for 10yrs, 100yrs or even 1000yrs of future but for millions of years. There is no snesible argument for letting things continue as they are.

Having said that I don't think policy should be used to regulate population in any way. It has to be through education. Judging by some of these posts it's going to take more than that to produce a social conscience in some individuals.

Posted by Adrian Leach | June 19, 2009 1:59 PM

Thanks Pete for your kind comments, and Adrian I do not doubt your arithmetic only your logic.

I have always had modest expectations in life. I live on the outskirts of a historic cathedral city in the North of England; live in a modest post-war three bedroom semi, whose curtilage encloses a total area not exceeding 200 sq. yards; have lived and brought up a family in this dwelling over the past 36 years; have converted my unused garage space to a vegetable plot; have recycled garden and kitchen waste for the last 15 years; drive a modest 1.4 litre hatchback with a lean-burn engine and gear ratios set for economy; regularly walk the four miles across fields to my place of work both in summer and the winter snow; and have never been on a long-haul flight in my life. So I hope that you will agree that I lead a reasonably sustainable life by western standards. Indeed, if we were all allocated our notional single acre of land, then my current household (containing two persons) would only account for just 2% of its allocated area; yet in no way do I believe that I am living in overcrowded or unsustainable circumstances as your post would imply; and when it comes to the goods and chattels that we all require to make live pleasurable these days, there is a process called mass production which can manufacture these goods not only for me but for the rest of the world within relatively small factory units.

You state that it would be better for the world if its population numbers were cut in half – how would you propose to do this, without adopting the obscene and wicked methods of the Third Reich? Globally speaking, migrants are really a red-herring in this debate – for even if they were refused access to the UK (or, God forbid, forcibly moved on) they must still live elsewhere in the world. That is of course if we are really concerned about world population levels rather than just those in the UK.

OPT wishes to reduce the UK population to 54M from the current 61M by 2050, but the ONS 2006-based projections anticipate that the population to be 77M by then, mainly through net inward migration. OPT would seek to achieve this population decline through a reduction in the Total Fertility Rate (TFR). I have been waiting to see when OPT will update its population scenarios to reflect the latest ONS projections, but these have not been forthcoming. I have attempted, therefore, to do this myself – these figures will not be exact since I have made a number of assumptions during the calculations, but they should be pretty close to the actual figures.

Assuming that anticipated migration rates do not change from those used by ONS in its latest projections, it seems that to achieve the OPT target figure by 2050, an unsustainable TFR of 0.84 would be required annually over the period 2006-2050 (remember that 2.1 is required for population replacement). This would be the TFR of a dying society and would involve removing births in the range (160K – 350K) from those expected in the UK each year by the ONS unadjusted projections. You do not need to be Albert Einstein to see that if this situation is continued for any length of time a serious depletion would eventually occur in the working age population cohort. This then affects the dependency ratio and – by greatly reducing the size of the fertile female population - the production of future births further. In 2008 there were estimated to be 3.2 persons of working age for every person of retirement age; by 2050 under this scenario this figure is estimated to fall to 1.8; but by 2072 will fall to an astounding 1.0. This is serious, the post-war baby boom cohort is now starting to age into retirement and already we are hearing stories from our local authorities/care agencies of an inability to cope with the increasing pressure. Add to this the long-term fiscal problems caused by the financial crisis and the future looks bleak even without these measures.

You could increase retirement age and this would ease some of the pressure on dependency. But I am not convinced that increasing life expectancy brings with it a commensurate increase in ‘active’ life; and we may find that 70 is the maximum age that the population could, on average, reasonably be asked to work to.

I have a suspicion that amongst the ‘chattering classes’ there is a feeling that somehow they and their children will be immune from these changes, bolstered in their old age by their handsome occupational pensions. If this scenario pans out, occupational pensions will no longer exist by 2050; all our children will find themselves in the workhouse at the end of their working lives, doing menial tasks to pay for their shelter and supper.

So you see Adrian, I do have a social conscience and that is why I’m attempting to point out that in the case of population control the contra-indications associated with the suggested remedy are far worse than the effects of the perceived ailment itself.

Posted by Ned Ludd | June 29, 2009 8:59 PM

I have just written to the Prime Minister pleading with him to ask the world leaders at the UN Conference on Climate Change to take the measures needed to stop the population of their countries continuing to rise and help others to do likewise. I have supported recent correspondence advocating population control in New Civil Engineer and editorials on the subject in the CIWEM journal.
How can action by UK politicians best be encouraged by those who think this problem must be dealt with urgently?

Posted by Bill Minter | November 23, 2009 10:22 AM

Very sensible suggestions. If something is not done SOON the consequences will be devastating and that's if its not too late already

Posted by A. McEwen | December 4, 2009 3:45 PM

So how will your brilliant population control plan deal with triplets, quadruplets and with couples that have one child and on their second attempt they conceive twins, triplets or even quadruplets?

Also, how does your plan deal with infertility, accidental deaths and the from it resulting lower population numbers than originally anticipated? Aren't you really aiming for exactly that?

And last but not least, how do you want to deal with women who refuse to stop at two? Are you going to trade children numbers the way you trade carbon emissions? If you have zero I can have four? Or better still, I have four and so you can have none?

Posted by Mark | December 15, 2009 3:44 PM

I'd just like Jonathon Porritt to remember he's the patron of Fair Shares, and ask them why they've been in hiding for the last half dozen years, rather than trying to attract new members and really look like 'the cavalry arriving in the knick of time'.

And nice post, Robin P Clarke. The consequences of a reckless breeding strategy (in a welfare state) is the theme of the film 'Idiocracy'. Average film, great concept. Paul Colinvaux also has a lot to say about our breeding strategy, and how it sabotages our progressive aspirations... http://trollhunterx.webs.com/thefatesofnationsp1.htm

Posted by Joe K | March 11, 2010 2:19 AM

@ B King

Don't you realise there already is a crisis?! Gross overconsumption is just as much a problem as overpopulation (in fact it is THE problem in "developed" consumer societies)! Think about that the next time you drive your gas guzzler. And yes overconsumption does need to be made personal. People need to realise the effect they're having on the planet.

Posted by Alison | April 1, 2010 11:07 AM

As a mother to four young children I was deeply offended when told to read the Times article you mention and see that I'm considered 'irresponsible'. I breastfed all my children saving on the bottles, sterilising equipment and tin cans the formula milk comes in. I used washable nappies nearly all the time with my first two although it's harder for me now as I'm not able to keep up with the drying as I don't have a tumble dryer and wouldn't want one as they guzzle electric so I'm told. We grow lots of our own fruit and veg and currently have lots of seedlings - tomatoes, peppers, melons, radish, lettuce, to name just a few! We fertilise our plants with chicken manure from the chickens we keep for our own fresh eggs. Veg peelings go to the chickens, our pet rabbits or the compost bin which then creates compost for our plants. We collect rain water in water butts to water our plants. We recycle our paper, plastics and glass. We buy British whenever we can. Nearly all my children's toys and clothes are second hand. I don't drive and I've never been on a plane. I might have a larger than average family but we do more than most people I know to be as environmentally friendly as possible. Everyone has a duty to do their bit but that does not mean that people should be able to make down right offensive comments about how many children myself and my husband or anyone else for that matter choose to have - and believe me, I've had plenty! I'm a practising Catholic and could in no way condone encouraging more abortions nor reducing funding in curing illnesses as stated in that article. I understand that the population is growing. I understand the need to look after our planet, but I believe I am doing so.

Posted by T | April 1, 2010 2:59 PM

Search

Feeds

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Articles

Other Blogs

News Links

Organisations

A sustainable population

Comments (45)

Post a comment