Environmental Meltdown Demands WWII-Scale Response

by: Jeff Smith

Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:04:43 AM CST


In a previous essay on desirables in a congressional leader, I identified Six Emergencies that have been backburnered for so long by our political culture of deception that they're like a fire in the kitchen: tend to them now, or they'll burn the house down. The absolute, top-of-the-list action item, despite ongoing financial turmoil, remains the combined Environmental Emergency, because ultimately the meltdown in the Arctic overshadows the one on Wall Street. Since I wrote my last essay, a Manhattan-sized chunk broke off the northern polar icecap. I use the phrase "environmental emergency" because it encompasses more than global warming or its more politically expedient cousin, "energy."

With Al Gore apparently not joining the new Administration, the need for environmental leadership in Congress is more pressing. Consider these simultaneous crises of climate, population, water, forests, desertification, oceans, and food:

Jeff Smith :: Environmental Meltdown Demands WWII-Scale Response
Climate. Scientific opinion is overwhelming. The climate crisis is real, and real scary. As Elizabeth Kolbert says, climate scientists "are very, very doubtful about the future of life on this planet." That's heavy language. The Obama and 2008 Democratic platforms gave the issue more attention than any predecessors ever, warning of cataclysms from crop failures to coastal flooding, but neither the party nor most of its standard-bearers regularly highlight it, or draw the conclusions that logically flow from this dire assessment.

Population. Global population took until 1830 to reach one billion, but only 150 more years to reach 5 billion. At current trends, even with declining Western birthrates, in 30-40 years we'll top 9 billion humans. U.S. population in the last 25 years grew more than in the previous 75. Northeastern Illinois may add 2 million people by 2025.

This is not sustainable. U.N. experts say that at current consumption patterns the world already has more people than it can handle. Not "will have" - "already has." Scientists say we'll soon be using up the equivalent of 1.6 Planet Earths.

If we're about to come up a half-planet short of necessities, the math gets ugly quick. Surging worldwide demand for basics like fuel, food, and water will hike prices of most everything. Population migrations, unrest, social upheaval, and even resource wars threaten.

Yet there is a viral silence on this issue. Population not only isn't front-burner, it's not on the stove. It's buried in the pantry somewhere. Try and find it on a candidate website or in speeches. The words "population" and "consumption" didn't appear in the 2004 Democratic platform; the 2008 version had one peripheral allusion. The Republicans seem even less concerned. Even the national Green platform avoided the issue.

The avoidance is political. Fear of offending constituencies, or being branded an anti-growth Malthusian, silences what should be a healthy debate if not a clanging alarm.

Water. Global water use increased six-fold in the 20th century due to population growth, lifestyle change, and urbanization. Irrigation for industrialized agriculture has drained aquifers and reduced mighty rivers to trickles. Invasive species are taking over lakes and tributaries. Although water is cleaner in many areas of the U.S., worldwide, sedimentation and pollution have degraded water quality for both drinking and wildlife.

All these threats imperil freshwater resources, which directly support much of the world's population. A billion people worldwide lack access to safe water. Longterm, glacier shrinkage threatens supply for billions more.

Many activists and scientists warn that water could be the oil of the coming century, in terms of supply-demand problems. Over 250 rivers are shared by more than one country, creating potential flashpoints for conflict.

Five years ago Nature termed water a "forgotten crisis" that was worsening. Congress in 2005 passed the Water for the Poor Act but has cynically and shamefully failed to fund it. This is a true emergency of global security dimensions.

Deforestation. Half of the earth's forests have now been chopped down. Only 20% remain undisturbed. One fourth of the timber harvest goes to the building industry; Americans, only 5% of world population, use up 27% of the planet's wood. Forests sequester enormous carbon dioxide, and prevent evaporation, so logging not only destroys habitat, but accelerates climate crisis and land degradation.

Desertification. Of Earth's 13 billion acres of agricultural drylands, 70% are already either degraded or threatened by desertification. The Sahara, even taking into account historical fluctuation, expands southward roughly 5 miles annually. Every year, 1,300 square miles of Nigeria disappear into desert. In China, roughly 2,000 square miles become desertified annually; the resulting huge sand storms, visible from space, affect human health and machinery in Korea, Japan, and even our west coast. Rapid desertification is also occurring in our own southwest and Mexico. Climate change threatens to turn this creeping problem into a raging one, reducing rainfall and river flows in already-parched regions.

The main causes, worldwide, are manmade: shortsighted agriculture, overgrazing, and deforestation. Increasing water use and lowered aquifers also contribute. But the drivers of all these are growth in population and consumption.
Although billions of people are threatened directly or indirectly by desertification, the UN terms it a "neglected crisis." SOS-Sahel, which works with sub-Saharan Africa, terms it "a forgotten emergency."

Oceans. The Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network estimates that 25% of the planet's reefs are already dead or severely damaged, with another 1/3 threatened. In northern Jamaica, nearly every reef is either dead or degraded, with fish stocks so depleted that fishermen harvest larvae for soup. Oceanic destruction is largely due to fisheries practices and trade, including greedy and wasteful factory fishing with unprecedented capacity to scour large portions of the ocean, but is also due to overpopulation in coastal regions. Sea temperature rises and invasive species now compound overfishing's damage by wreaking havoc on lower levels of the food chain, such as corals and krill.  This environmental problem too, is attributed to the lack of "political will" to make necessary changes.

Food. In 2008, the number of people facing food shortages will increase by approximately 100 million from 2007. Global food demand will likely double by 2030. Approximately 20% of that is due to population growth, and the other 80% due to economically developing nations' increased demand.

Further inflating world food prices are high fuel costs, crop conversion to biofuels, and the damage to arable land and fisheries from ecological and weather catastrophes. A 2001 study showed that deforestation, poor farming practices, overgrazing, and climate change had damaged the agricultural potential of half of South Asia. By 2025, Africa's ability to feed itself may be diminished by 2/3 from its 1990 capacity, shrunken to enough for only 25% of all Africans. During the same period, South America will lose 1/3 of its arable land.

This crisis hits hardest on the poor and the sick, women and children, and those in already-marginal economies.

Confronting the Combined Emergency.  The good news is that the causes of these problems are not unknown, and for many, we already know a lot of the answers. We'd also have the funds, were we not pouring them into Iraq or panicky financial bailouts. But we need, now, leaders with the political will to frankly confront what Americans and the world face. Recycling is not enough. Changing light bulbs is not enough. Baby steps won't stop environmental disasters that threaten the entire planet. Even putting a man on the moon, or the Manhattan Project, aren't the right analogies: the solution requires more than one agency with a limited budget.

Addressing this global challenge means, first, courage and candor in assessing and publicizing its gravity. Second, it requires a response on the scale of the United States' approach to WWII: total societal commitment by the public sector, the private sector, and the public itself. President-elect Obama's incorporation of green jobs and alt-energy infrastructure into an economic rescue is a good example of what we need to do in every aspect of policy.

The environmental emergency, and our necessary response, will impact most other policy areas. The effort will require massive budget reprioritizing, unprecedented international cooperation, and taking proposals such as Gore's Challenge to Repower America as necessity, not fantasy. The US can't go it alone, especially as awareness grows of America's relative resource consumption.

The required total commitment demands candidates and elected officials willing to lead on the issue. Following polls that marginalize environmental concern just won't cut it, because if you don't campaign on it, it's tough to sell it to the electorate as afterthought once in office.

So, to bring this full circle, Illinois needs a next senator with the guts and foresight to bring this eco-catastrophe front and center now, as the number one issue of our time, even though it's not polling as a top popular concern. To do less is not just a failure of leadership, it's an abdication of leadership.

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Two inconvenient facts on population (0.00 / 0)
At current trends, even with declining Western birthrates, in 30-40 years we'll top 9 billion humans.
And the same estimates that put world population at 9 billion by 2050 predict that population will decline from that point and may be back to current levels by 2100. Almost everywhere but sub-Saharan Afica, fertility rates are either below replacement or rapidly heading in that direction. Given these trands, what do you propose we should do now?

Northeastern Illinois may add 2 million people by 2025.
Now that the Boomers have had their children, US population growth is driven entirely by immigration. US fertility rates, although the highest in the Western world, are nevertheless below replacement. Are you proposing we put a half to immigration? (If we did, of course, then insolvency of the Social Security Trus Fund would become a plausible possibility, not a myth invented by the Bushies to justify dismantling the system.)

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted


"nalf" = "halt" n/t (0.00 / 0)


Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted


[ Parent ]
population facts (0.00 / 0)
And the same estimates that put world population at 9 billion by 2050 predict that population will decline from that point and may be back to current levels by 2100.

I don't think that's accurate. No source I used predicts a population decline starting in 2050; on the contrary, every careful estimate shows a growth rate of at least 0.5% still occurring in 2050. It could be higher because I used conservative estimates. Note that no estimates are "facts."  There are some optimistic low-end projections that growth rates will approach zero by 2200, possibly 2100 -- but those depend on some assumptions that are either uncertain, such as longevity stabilizing (unlikely, since the trend is for longevity to increase), or disturbing (such as building in an increasing death rate in Africa due to HIV/AIDS).

There are also high-end projections of higher growth. In fact, just two weeks ago the UN warned that unless we change family planning trends, world population could hit 12 billion, much higher than projected.

I don't think it's either prudent or moral to ignore population growth pressures on the bet that AIDS will provide a counterpressure.

Almost everywhere but sub-Saharan Afica, fertility rates are either below replacement or rapidly heading in that direction.

Again, not quite accurate.  Fertility in the US alone is rising and is currently at its highest levels since 1971. The fertility drop in Russia seems to be reversing.  Of course we don't know what the economic crisis will do.

Given these trands, what do you propose we should do now?

As noted, I disagree with your assessment of the trends. I agree with the UN Population Fund that nations such as the US need to prioritize this issue.

Now that the Boomers have had their children, US population growth is driven entirely by immigration.

Again, I disagree with the premise. Jennifer Day of the Census Bureau states, "Almost one-third of the current population growth is caused by net immigration." I.e., 2/3 is not. Other Bureau statements place the role of immigration at about 40%. The current fertility rate in the US is about 2.1 children per woman. The estimated 2008 birth rate is 14.18 births/1,000 population, the death rate is 8.27 deaths/1,000 population, or a net increase without immigration of almost 5/1,000.

Immigrants, true, are having children at higher rates than pre-existing residents. So you could say that the effects of immigration, along with net immigration, are the main driver of population growth.

Are you proposing we put a half to immigration? (If we did, of course, then insolvency of the Social Security Trus Fund would become a plausible possibility

Are you proposing we should throw the planet under the bus because we need more low-wage workers paying into Social Security?

What I am saying is that population is an issue and needs to be addressed. If immigration, as we seem to agree, is a large component of that, it still needs to be addressed, even though politically difficult.


[ Parent ]
More statistics (0.00 / 0)
The primary source is the UN's World Population Projections to 2150, which is unfortunately not available on-line. The lecture notes at http://entomology.ucdavis.edu/... give what appears to be an authoritative but highly abbreviated summary.

You'll notice that the scenario that shows stability or slight growth is based on the assumption of replacement-rate fertility. This is above the current US fertility rate, which is the highest in the developed world. And since most of the world figures to be above the demographic transition by 2050 -- the fertility rate in India is expected to be below replacement by 2015 -- I think something a bit lower is more plausible.

but those depend on some assumptions that are either uncertain, such as longevity stabilizing (unlikely, since the trend is for longevity to increase),
All these predictions are to some degree uncertain. It's not impossible to imagine some major country adopting strongly pro-natalist policies. But be careful about that word "longevity." People usually mean life expectancy at birth, which is dominated by infant and childhood mortality. Which will likely stabilize at developed-world standars. Longevity has almost nothing to do with how long older people live. A few years ago I had occasion to look up life expectancy at age 65, and found that it had increased by less than a year between 1965 and 2001.

I agree with the UN Population Fund that nations such as the US need to prioritize this issue.

??? All that article talks about is more funding for contraceptives in areas where they are difficult to afford. A worthwhile idea in itself, but not one that is going to have much long-term effect on populatino growth.

The estimated 2008 birth rate is 14.18 births/1,000 population, the death rate is 8.27 deaths/1,000 population, or a net increase without immigration of almost 5/1,000.

You're right. What I forgot to factor in is that most Boomers are still healthy while there are relatively few people my age -- depression babies -- who can be expected to die off in the next 20 years.

Are you proposing we should throw the planet under the bus because we need more low-wage workers paying into Social Security?
Immigration into the US has nothing to do with population growth worldwide. And really, do you expect anybody to buy the idea that immigrants are low-wage workers? Immigrants make up a high proportion of our engineers and college professors, among other high-paying professions. That's what you'd expect if you paid attention to what it takes to get an immigration visa. The point, rather, is to build up the working-age population in order to balance the aging Boomer generation.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted


[ Parent ]
Population is a major issue (4.00 / 1)
Bill,

I agree with you that projections are uncertain.

I don't know where you're getting data indicating India's fertility rate will be below replacement level by 2015.

Any assumptions of India becoming a replacement-rate nation are based on some considerable optimism, projecting from the roughly 1/3 of the Indian states that have already achieved replacement-rate fertility, and overlook that, for instance, in 5 states that together comprise 44% of the population, the current fertility rate is over 3.0, far above replacement rate.

Moreover, because of declining mortality, India's own government foresees population growth as still being at 0.9% by 2021, when you say birthrates will be at replacement level, so that a population of 1.7 billion by 2060 is possible -- in a country where, even now, 1/3 of the people lack adequate food.

Thus, because of India's already-large baseline, studies indicate that India will overtake China in terms of population, maybe even heading for 2 billion people.

But I don't mean to pick on India.

Let's get back to the main point:  admittedly fertility is a variable, and we can dance on the heads of pins about whether population in 2100 will be 9, 10, 11, or 12 billion. I don't claim to have inside info on the future reproduction of folks all over the globe. I could post an entire separate essay on population, but I don't want to distract from my main point. The fact is, for at least the next 4 decades the world is projected to grow, and probably throughout this century. We are currently adding roughly the equivalent of Rio de Janeiro, or two Chicagos, to world population every month. I haven't seen one study saying with any confidence that we will flatten population growth by 2050 under current trends. Moreover, per capita resource consumption has been increasing as countries like China and India become more like the U.S.

The principal thrust of my essay was that environmental issues need greater awareness and a more front-burner response. Population is an elephant in the room because many of our environmental problems are directly tied to population.

My story, and I'm sticking to it, is that at current consumption levels, population increase is a real problem. At increasing consumption levels, which is the trend, and which correlates with increased urbanization (also a trend), it is an enormous problem.

I don't have a good idea where to put an additional Rio every month. If someone here does, I'd like to hear it. I submit that adding 2 million people to the six-county Chicago area would add grotesquely to traffic woes, housing affordability problems, metropolitan sprawl, rail and truck traffic, crime, education and infrastructure stresses, water supply and sewage problems, and labor issues, among others.  

Population increases will also serve as justifications for a lot of other things progressives don't much like, such as genetically modified foods, or increased restrictions on mobility and privacy in the name of security.

More workers may augment, in the aggregate and in the short-term, the pay-in to Social Security, but a large increase in the labor supply necessarily has to have a depressing effect on wages if market forces are the main determinant of those wages, unless we reverse the trend of the last century by which human labor was replaced with fossil-fuel and other energy.

A lot more people, a lot less well-off, doesn't sound like good policy to me. We need to break our addiction to "more" as cure-all for lack of planning, and invest in real sustainability. Part of that means having a comprehensive population policy, something the U.S. doesn't seem to have, and part of remedying that means talking about it, which is something parties and candidates fail to do.


[ Parent ]
Jeff, (0.00 / 0)
Let me start by saying I'm not clear why we're having this conversation. You don't seem to be proposing anything that would make our varying views about post-2050 population trends relevant to the decisions we need to make today. Nothing remotely comparable to China's one-child policy. Nothing even comparable to the large incentive payments India offers to men who get vasectomies. Nothing beyond making contraceptives a bit more readily available in some places. But that will have so little effect it could easily get lost in the noise. The overwhelming majority of children are wanted. And I'm sure it's obvious that I support efforts to minimize unwarted fertility, which is in any case a different issue.

So what gives?

I don't know where you're getting data indicating India's fertility rate will be below replacement level by 2015.
This was a (newspaper?) article several years ago. I didn't save the link because I never expected anyone to argue the point.
Any assumptions of India becoming a replacement-rate nation are based on some considerable optimism
But even that article's pessimistic assumption still has the fertility rate below replacement, although nothing is said about when this will be achieved.

Moreover, because of declining mortality, India's own government foresees population growth as still being at 0.9% by 2021, when you say birthrates will be at replacement level, so that a population of 1.7 billion by 2060 is possible
I said fertility rates would be below replacement. Not birth ratees, which are something entirely different. And it's obvious that, given the age structure of the present population, below-replacement fertility rates will allow population growth to continue for a long time. As China's example shows, even with a one-child policy population will continue to grow for at least a generation.
My story, and I'm sticking to it, is that at current consumption levels, population increase is a real problem. At increasing consumption levels, which is the trend, and which correlates with increased urbanization (also a trend), it is an enormous problem.
And yet, it is precisely increasing urbanization and increasing affluence that are bringing population growth down. Rural people, especially in less-developed countries, have as many children as they can because those children represent cheap labor. If you want to keep rural people from having children, you'd better (figuratively, or perhaps not so figuratively) get out your gun. Or else offer the sort of massive subsidies that you are conspicuously not talking about.

By contrast, when people move to the city, they discover that raising children takes both money and time. And the more affluent they bodome, the more they are aware of those costs.

More workers may augment, in the aggregate and in the short-term, the pay-in to Social Security, but a large increase in the labor supply necessarily has to have a depressing effect on wages if market forces are the main determinant of those wages, unless we reverse the trend of the last century by which human labor was replaced with fossil-fuel and other energy
We're not talking about a large increases in the work force, but about averting the decrease in the work force that would be coming in the absence of immigration. The impending decrease that is currently causing so much anguish in Europe and especially in Japan.

Now it's true that, given market forces, we could expect this decline in the number of available workers to raise wages (presumably to the detriment of retiring Boomers). Of course, higher wages also render labor-saving devices more attractive, which would partially offset the decline. Although that doesn't really apply to the creative professions in which immigrants are so prominent. But I suppose you could argue that higher wages would make bright young Americans more inclined to become engineers rather than stockbrokers.

Bill Thomasson

Permission to reprint explicitly granted


[ Parent ]
Prairie State Blue
Front Page - Back Page


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


0 User(s) logged on.
Search




Advanced Search


Misc
View
Powered by: SoapBlox