The Population Imperative. The Demographic Imperative. The Demographic Imperative. The Demographic Imperative. Demographic Context

Transcription

1 The Population Imperative 1 2 Human carrying capacity 3 Footprint analysis 4 Per-capita impact (reproduction EIA) Context food: > 900 million hungry clean water: 1 billion have no access sanitation: 2 billion lack adequate air quality: 1.5 billion breathe unacceptable (WHO standard) Beware brownlash, the birth dearth. e.g. Steven Mosher, Too many people? Not by a long shot, editorial: Wall Street Journal 2/10/97 Humanity s long-term problem is not going to be too many children, but too few: too few young people to fill the schools and universities, too few young people entering the work force, too few couples buying homes and second cars. In short, too few consumers and producers to drive the economy forward. Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on contraception and sterilization that will only bring that day closer? Joel Cohen: The real crux of the population question is the quality of people s lives; the ability of people to participate in what it means to be really human; to work, play and die with dignity; to have some sense that one s life has meaning and is connected with other people s lives. Cohen, J New York Review of Books, p.29 (8 Oct. 1998). Nelson Rockefeller: Chair, Commission on Population Growth and the American Future We have looked for, and have not found, any convincing argument for continued population growth. The health of the country does not depend on it, nor does the vitality of business nor the welfare of the average person. Letter (1972) to President Nixon, accompanying Commission s report, quoted in: Williamson Planning 70(10):34. Demographic Context r global (in 1990) 1.7% per year N billion N billion doubling time ~ 41 years growth rate declining slowly, but still positive absolute N increasing demographic momentum 1

2 Debunking Birth Dearth World population still growing Social Security: age structure vs. GDP growth rate assumptions of Social Security trustees: overly conservative? Shifting dependents ages: schools vs. retirement homes work force vs. worker productivity Italy: working age population to 41% by 2050 Italy: worker productivity 500% since 1950 Population cannot grow indefinitely; not a sustainable solution for senior support Demographic Transition Pop. growth w/ economic development? 3 assumptions 1. economic growth from activities requiring ed., not just exploitation of natural capital 2. economic growth in both rural & urban sectors 3. women participate fully in economic transition Myths of Growth 1. Growth provides needed tax revenues. 2. Growth provides jobs. 3. Must subsidize business growth for good jobs. 4. If limit growth, housing prices will jump. 5. Environmental protection hurts the economy. 6. Most people do not support envt l protection. 7. Growth is inevitable. 8. We must grow or die (economically). 9. Vacant land goes to waste. 10. Environmentalists are just a special interest. Donella Meadows (1991) The Global Citizen, Island Press. Costs of Growth Brookings Institution report (2003) David Brower on Growth Human Impact We ve got to do something about one of our worst addictions: the addiction to growth. All of the candidates running for office are saying, We must have a growing economy. If they want to keep it growing the way it has been growing, we absolutely must not have a growing economy. We must have a sound economy, a sustainable economy. They haven t come up with one single notion of how to move it in that direction. What are we going to do besides grow, grow, grow? In your own body, where the wildness within you puts in a control factor, you have a thymus. Civilization needs a thymus. It needs the word for enough. But enough doesn t sound strong enough Italian has the right word: basta. We must say basta to the kind of growth we ve been practicing. I = P*A*T P: population A: affluence (consumption) T: technology 2

3 Estimating Impact Energy use as surrogate for Impact; Since 1850: energy use worldwide 20x population worldwide ~5x A T (per-capita energy use) ~4x Implications for Developing Nations Two ways to improve standard of living: (countries with large N) 1. Large N 2. huge (irreversible?) impact on environment ( long term decrease in S. of L.) Result: pop growth (P) caused 5/9 (55%) Impact developed countries greatest impact 70% I esp. US: AT world s largest (by far) Implications of I = PAT Great responsibility on developed nations, espusa Poorly grasped by US government: Domestic policies: focus on supply, not demand VP Cheney dismissal of energy conservation Energy Policy Act of 2005 $11.4 billion for energy production $1.3 billion for conservation and energy efficiency Failure to pay United Nations dues Global Gag Rule (Bush I & II) Cut all $34M to UN Population Fund (2002) Kyoto Global Climate Change Conference, 1997 Kyoto-Bonn Accord (climate change), Bonn 2001 Nordhaus, WD Science 294: (9 Nov. 2001) Conservation Planning for an Uncertain Future The Bellingham Herald 1 2 Human carrying capacity 3 Footprint analysis 4 Per-capita impact (reproduction EIA) 3

4 Ecological Footprint Global Footprint Network National Footprints Footprint Atlas Redefining Progress (M. Wackernagel) Calculating Individual Footprints Living Planet Report Human Footprint Atlas 83% Earth s land surface impacted: human density > 1/km^2 roads or major river: w/in 15 km land use: urban or agricultural settlement or railway: w/in 2 km light pollution: visible at night to satellites 98% area where can grow rice, wheat, maize Last of the Wild Per-capita Impact Hall, et al The environmental consequences of having a baby in the United States. Wild Earth 5(2) EIA for parents Results: lifetime per-capita impact Atmospheric wastes: 10 million Kg solid wastes: 1 million Kg minerals consumed: 700,000 Kg energy consumed: 24 billion BTUs 4000 barrels oil animal products eaten: 25,000 Kg from slaughter 2000 animals Perspectives: family vs. Earth 4

5 any consideration of sustainability contains the same major assumption: human population growth will be controlled. Focusing on how each of us can have less impact is simply procrastination. As economists and ecologists we must continue to raise this issue. Otherwise, economic ecology is just another chess game, another intellectual pacifier to while away the time, waiting for the famine or the Second Coming, whichever arrives first. O Neill, R.V Ecol.Appl. 6(4) Two million plastic beverage bottles, the number used in the US every five minutes. 100 million toothpicks, the number of trees cut in the US yearly to make paper for junk mail. 460,000 cell phones, the number retired in the US every day. 60,000 plastic bags, the number used in the US every five seconds. 5