||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
POPULATION GROWTH
WILLIAM JOHNSON, POPULATION INSTITUTE - While a great deal of attention
has been paid to reducing emissions responsible for global warming,
there has been far less focus on the role of population growth in
climate change. The world's population is projected to increase 40% by
2050. Thus, a 40% decrease in per capita carbon emissions in the
industrialized world would be canceled out by global population growth
and higher per capita emissions in the developing world.
As population increases, the challenge of slowing climate change and the
risk of catastrophic consequences rise inexorably. The world is already
experiencing increased sea levels, floods, violent storms, droughts,
heat waves, disease transmission, and environmental refugees as a result
of climate change. The World Health Organization estimates the
percentage of the world's population affected by weather disasters has
doubled in the past 25 years, and the coming years may be worse. . .
Demurral and denial may be more convenient and politically acceptable
than the truth, but we need to face reality. While nations struggle to
find the appropriate technical, economic and political framework for
sharing the burden of reducing carbon emissions, there is an urgent need
to open a second front in the battle against climate change by reducing
population growth.
Although the first challenge is quite difficult, the second is
relatively easy. We know that family planning works, and when women have
free access to information and services to practice family planning they
have smaller families. A Baltimore Sun editorial by John Seager put it
best: "If we had zero population growth, part of the global warming
problem would, well, melt away." . . .
http://www.populationinstitute.org/newsroom/pi-in-the-news/?id=60
ANDREW WOODCOCK, INDEPENDENT, 2006 - Environmental problems such as
global warming can be tackled only if the international community
addresses the problem of population growth, a leading scientist warned.
Professor Chris Rapley, the director of the British Antarctic Survey,
said the 76 million annual increase in the world's population threatens
"the welfare and quality of life of future generations".
But he said population growth was the "Cinderella" issue of the
environmental debate, because its implications are so controversial that
nobody dares to raise it.
Scientific analysis suggests that the Earth can sustain around 2-3
billion people at a good standard of living over the long term, wrote
Prof. Rapley in an article for the BBC News website. But the current
global population of 6.5 billion - expected to rise to 8 billion by the
middle of the century - means mankind is imposing an ever greater
"footprint" on the planet. . .
"Imagine organizing the accommodation, feeding arrangements, schooling,
employment, medical care, cultural activities and general infrastructure
- transport, power, water, communications, waste disposal - for a number
of people slightly larger than the population of the UK, and doing it
each year, year on year for the foreseeable future," wrote Prof. Rapley.
"Combined with ongoing economic growth, what will be the effect on our
collective human 'footprint'? Will the planet cope?. . .
"Although reducing human emissions to the atmosphere is undoubtedly of
critical importance, as are any and all measures to reduce the human
environmental 'footprint', the truth is that the contribution of each
individual cannot be reduced to zero.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0106-01.htm
OPTIMUM POPULATION - Each new UK citizen less means a lifetime carbon
dioxide saving of nearly 750 tons, a climate impact equivalent to 620
return flights between London and New York*, the Optimum Population
Trust says in a new report. . . The climate cost of each new Briton over
their lifetime at roughly L30,000. The lifetime emission costs of the
extra 10 million people projected for the UK by 2074 would therefore be
over L300 billion. A 35-pence condom, which could avert that L30,000
cost from a single use, thus represents a "spectacular" potential return
on investment - around nine million per cent.
The report adds: "The most effective personal climate change strategy is
limiting the number of children one has.". . .
A Population-Based Climate Strategy, the OPT's latest research briefing,
says human population growth is widely acknowledged as one of the main
causes of climate change yet politicians and environmentalists rarely
discuss it for fear of causing offence. The result is that a "de facto
taboo" exists, throughout civil society and government.
One consequence is that "couples making decisions about family size do
so in the belief that it is a matter for them and their personal
preferences alone: the public debate and awareness that might have
encouraged them to think about the implications of their choices for
their fellow citizens, the climate and the wider environment have been
missing."
Valerie Stevens, co-chair of the OPT, said: "We appreciate that asking
people to have fewer children is not going to make us popular in some
quarters. Equally, expressing concern about the environmental impacts of
mass migration, which currently accounts for the bulk of population
growth in the UK and will have a major effect on Britain's carbon
emissions, is a quick route to being labeled racist. But these are
hugely important issues and the unfortunate fact is that both
politicians and the environmental movement are in denial about them.
It's high time we started discussing them like adults and confronting
the real challenges of climate change."
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.release07May07.htm
EARTH DAY NET - International cooperation on population has gone a long
way to slow the growth of world population. But fertility rates in many
countries remain high. A quarter century of research shows that those
rates decline when voluntary family planning is universally available
and educational opportunities for girls and economic opportunities for
women increase. Indeed, long-range strategies to address the threat of
climate change are unlikely to succeed without paying careful attention
to demographic trends.
Scientists across the globe agree that the influence of humans and their
activities on the earth's atmosphere and climate is an established fact.
If population growth and climate change are closely linked, then they
should be integrated into policy and challenged together. Long-term
strategies to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in an equitable
manner will need to account for the current broad differences among
nations in per capita emissions. Effective, voluntary family planning
plus improved educational and economic opportunities for girls and women
are a central part of good population policy as well as a key to
greenhouse gas reduction.
http://www.earthday.net/resources/2006materials/population.aspx
MORE HIDDEN ISSUES
http://prorev.com/hidden.htm
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
POPULATION GROWTH
WILLIAM JOHNSON, POPULATION INSTITUTE - While a great deal of attention
has been paid to reducing emissions responsible for global warming,
there has been far less focus on the role of population growth in
climate change. The world's population is projected to increase 40% by
2050. Thus, a 40% decrease in per capita carbon emissions in the
industrialized world would be canceled out by global population growth
and higher per capita emissions in the developing world.
As population increases, the challenge of slowing climate change and the
risk of catastrophic consequences rise inexorably. The world is already
experiencing increased sea levels, floods, violent storms, droughts,
heat waves, disease transmission, and environmental refugees as a result
of climate change. The World Health Organization estimates the
percentage of the world's population affected by weather disasters has
doubled in the past 25 years, and the coming years may be worse. . .
Demurral and denial may be more convenient and politically acceptable
than the truth, but we need to face reality. While nations struggle to
find the appropriate technical, economic and political framework for
sharing the burden of reducing carbon emissions, there is an urgent need
to open a second front in the battle against climate change by reducing
population growth.
Although the first challenge is quite difficult, the second is
relatively easy. We know that family planning works, and when women have
free access to information and services to practice family planning they
have smaller families. A Baltimore Sun editorial by John Seager put it
best: "If we had zero population growth, part of the global warming
problem would, well, melt away." . . .
http://www.populationinstitute.org/newsroom/pi-in-the-news/?id=60
ANDREW WOODCOCK, INDEPENDENT, 2006 - Environmental problems such as
global warming can be tackled only if the international community
addresses the problem of population growth, a leading scientist warned.
Professor Chris Rapley, the director of the British Antarctic Survey,
said the 76 million annual increase in the world's population threatens
"the welfare and quality of life of future generations".
But he said population growth was the "Cinderella" issue of the
environmental debate, because its implications are so controversial that
nobody dares to raise it.
Scientific analysis suggests that the Earth can sustain around 2-3
billion people at a good standard of living over the long term, wrote
Prof. Rapley in an article for the BBC News website. But the current
global population of 6.5 billion - expected to rise to 8 billion by the
middle of the century - means mankind is imposing an ever greater
"footprint" on the planet. . .
"Imagine organizing the accommodation, feeding arrangements, schooling,
employment, medical care, cultural activities and general infrastructure
- transport, power, water, communications, waste disposal - for a number
of people slightly larger than the population of the UK, and doing it
each year, year on year for the foreseeable future," wrote Prof. Rapley.
"Combined with ongoing economic growth, what will be the effect on our
collective human 'footprint'? Will the planet cope?. . .
"Although reducing human emissions to the atmosphere is undoubtedly of
critical importance, as are any and all measures to reduce the human
environmental 'footprint', the truth is that the contribution of each
individual cannot be reduced to zero.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0106-01.htm
OPTIMUM POPULATION - Each new UK citizen less means a lifetime carbon
dioxide saving of nearly 750 tons, a climate impact equivalent to 620
return flights between London and New York*, the Optimum Population
Trust says in a new report. . . The climate cost of each new Briton over
their lifetime at roughly L30,000. The lifetime emission costs of the
extra 10 million people projected for the UK by 2074 would therefore be
over L300 billion. A 35-pence condom, which could avert that L30,000
cost from a single use, thus represents a "spectacular" potential return
on investment - around nine million per cent.
The report adds: "The most effective personal climate change strategy is
limiting the number of children one has.". . .
A Population-Based Climate Strategy, the OPT's latest research briefing,
says human population growth is widely acknowledged as one of the main
causes of climate change yet politicians and environmentalists rarely
discuss it for fear of causing offence. The result is that a "de facto
taboo" exists, throughout civil society and government.
One consequence is that "couples making decisions about family size do
so in the belief that it is a matter for them and their personal
preferences alone: the public debate and awareness that might have
encouraged them to think about the implications of their choices for
their fellow citizens, the climate and the wider environment have been
missing."
Valerie Stevens, co-chair of the OPT, said: "We appreciate that asking
people to have fewer children is not going to make us popular in some
quarters. Equally, expressing concern about the environmental impacts of
mass migration, which currently accounts for the bulk of population
growth in the UK and will have a major effect on Britain's carbon
emissions, is a quick route to being labeled racist. But these are
hugely important issues and the unfortunate fact is that both
politicians and the environmental movement are in denial about them.
It's high time we started discussing them like adults and confronting
the real challenges of climate change."
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.release07May07.htm
EARTH DAY NET - International cooperation on population has gone a long
way to slow the growth of world population. But fertility rates in many
countries remain high. A quarter century of research shows that those
rates decline when voluntary family planning is universally available
and educational opportunities for girls and economic opportunities for
women increase. Indeed, long-range strategies to address the threat of
climate change are unlikely to succeed without paying careful attention
to demographic trends.
Scientists across the globe agree that the influence of humans and their
activities on the earth's atmosphere and climate is an established fact.
If population growth and climate change are closely linked, then they
should be integrated into policy and challenged together. Long-term
strategies to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in an equitable
manner will need to account for the current broad differences among
nations in per capita emissions. Effective, voluntary family planning
plus improved educational and economic opportunities for girls and women
are a central part of good population policy as well as a key to
greenhouse gas reduction.
http://www.earthday.net/resources/2006materials/population.aspx
MORE HIDDEN ISSUES
http://prorev.com/hidden.htm
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment