We can’t ignore the environmental taboo
15 10 2007 
I wrote yesterday that personal over-consumption of resources and indulgent lifestyles are among the causes of climate change, but they are only part of the problem and reduced personal consumption is only part of the solution - even if a crucial one.
There is another, even more serious underlying cause to climate change, and indeed to all forms of pollution, environmental degradation and resource depletion.
It’s a fundamental issue that is carefully stepped around by most environmental scientists, commentators and activists, and one that’s actively buried by religious groups, social activist campaigners and politicians, all of whom regard it as taboo.
That steaming dog turd lying on the path towards a “brighter, greener future” is global population growth.
No one wants to see it, no one wants to smell it, no one wants to step in it and, in particular, no one wants to clean it up.
Depending on the assessment tools used, humanity passed the point at which global resources could sustainably support the world’s population in the late 1980s.
Ever since then, we have been living on borrowed time as we live on credit - borrowing from the future to support an ever-burgeoning population today.
The technical term is ecological overshoot, which is only possible because humanity can liquidate its ecological capital rather than living off annual yields.
But as with domestic credit, once the interest on the loan starts to exceed our capacity to pay, there will be a crunch but it will be a much harder one than losing the house and going bankrupt.
And that’s why the naive, complacent and self-deluding emphasis that politicians, scientists, technologists and environmental activists put on a combination of reducing consumption and technological innovation as a means of checking climate change is so wrong.
It ignores a fundamental component of a famous and simple equation:
Environmental Impact equals Population times Consumption times Technology.
Population is first for a very good reason. It is a fundamental driver of the other two factors - it doesn’t add to them, it multiplies them.
So even if you cut Consumption and improve Technology, then the actual Environmental Impact will continue to rise so long as there is an exponential growth in population.
Even, or perhaps more correctly especially, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change skips merrily over the Population component of Environmental Impact.
It’s understandable why this is the case.
Despite what most people believe, the IPCC is not a dictator of policy nor a formulator of science.
The IPCC is body of government-appointed experts whose job is to summarise current scientific knowledge on the evolution of the climate and the science therein.
Its philosophy has, by necessity and design, to be one of collating and promoting policies that are relevant and largely palatable to all its 180 governmental masters, instead of generating new policies that may be radical, prescriptive and unpalatable to many.
(That’s also something that is ignored by climate change sceptics and the less informed - the IPCC’s science and policies are extremely consensual, mainstream and conservative.)
What this leaves us with is an over-riding global emphasis on fixing technology and changing consumption patterns - both of which have finite limits.
There are no new miracle technologies on the horizon - just ongoing refinement of existing technolgoies, while the push to improve the lives of the world’s poor and deprived will moderate any cuts in consumption among the world’s wealthy and indulgent.
Where does that leave humanity?
With no choice but to look afresh at the population growth genie and the sooner, the better.
At present, we are allowing cultural, religious and political problems to rise up and block any further discussion of the subject.
It’s not politically correct to recognise that China’s population growth controls have almost certainly made a contribution to curbing resource consumption and climate change at least equal to the West’s technological and consumption reduction solutions.
It’s too provocative to say religions that oppose birth control and population control are actually contradicting themselves when they simultaneously call for immediate action to mitigate effects of global climate change.
No, population growth is just like a dog turd - too smelly, too messy and too contaminating for anyone to notice, much less address.
The problem is, that as with dog turds, if you ignore population growth then eventually the path to the future will be blocked solid and the world will be left a squalid, festering mess that’s not fit for anyone.
By refusing to acknowledge that Population is something we should all be addressing to curb our Environmental Impact, we are refusing to fully open our eyes and unblock our noses while making the inevitable fall into the mess that much more severe.
I must admit, one of the reasons we decided not to have children, is that (apart from adding to the overburdening of the planet’s population) we do wonder what sort of a mess the world will be in, a few years from now. Sad it is, indeed.
On a completely different subject, any idea what’s happened to ‘A Country Life’, lately? I’ve been trying for weeks now to get onto it (how I found you in fact); but I just keep getting some computer jargon mentioning ‘crash’ & ‘repair’.
What’s also sad is the way population control is so-often hijacked by both the right and the left in politics, as well as by religious groups and social activists.
If you consider the UK for example, the population passed 60.5 million in 2006 - this is believed to be an under-estimate - and is growing by at least 350,000 a year.
But the UK has just 24 million hectares of land to absorb all the impacts of the consumption of 60 million people - that’s less than half a hectare per person and it shrinks further every year as the population grows.
Britain’s fertility rate current stands around 1.87, below the replacement rate of 2.1, which means that if population replacement was entirely down to fertility then the population would be in decline.
The reason that the population is not declining and, in fact, is growing is down to immigration, both legal and illegal.
But if you dare to suggest that Britain, like the rest of the world, needs to bring its population back to a sustainable level (by some counts around 30 million people or the population in the years just prior to 1900) by encouraging further declines in fertility and immigration (so that inflows remain below outflows), then you’re either welcomed by the right as “anti-foreigner” or condemned by the left as a “racist bigot”.
In fact, I’m neither - and am an immigrant myself - but the so-called debate on population is far too simplistic to recognise that you can see a need for population control and strict limits on immigration for reasons other than race, bigotry, selfishness and intolerance.
As for ACL, I’ve had nothing to do with that forum for a long time, although I did hear that it was being put up for sale.
A thoughtful post can be found on Beansprouts: Blog Action Day
And a good one from Martin.
Then there’s MusEditions perspective.
Green in the Desert points out that there are green choices everywhere - including hair care.
Thank you for the linkback, stonehead. This is a fascinating perspective, and I haven’t run into any other blog tackling the over-population issue on this blog action day. I have so enjoyed reading about you and your family, and your sidebar is filled with excellent resources every day, not just B-A-D. (Hmmm, didn’t realise ’til now what the acronym was
)
Peace, my crofty friend.
As for population control, well, I’ve done my part. Or rather refrained from adding to the issue
CJWriter lists five ways to save the environment.
Guerson over on Building Bridges has a unique cultural heritage that underpins her message to think of the example we set for our children.
That Norwegian Guy goes off topic with a list of daily things to do.
Vivian Nelson Melle has one of the best messages - “There is still hope and all change, big and small, is valuable”.
And 21st Century Mummy neatly links the excesses of Christmas with the environmental costs.
I am inclined to lean your way with the comments re population growth and/or immigration. In particular when the truth is faced and the replies flung back are along the lines of “racist” or “bigot” or similar. Even when the response you receive is a lighthearted one, from associates of whatever hue, it almost inevitably includes the phrase “look out you will be regarded as a racist” or similar.
Unbought Delicacies reminds us “you can effect change wehrever you live, with every decision you make”.
Andy Roberts on DARNet makes the case for distributed research to help reduce energy, materials, carbon emissions and congestion by demonstrating the viability of technologies that will aid a low-impact economy. And in passing he also makes a very critical point - the need for comprehensive regime change.
Online Goddess puts the case against palm oil.
Shedworking makes the case for working from your shed instead of going to work. (I like his style!
)
Shedblog looks at ways of making your shed more environmentally friendly.
You’re right, overpopulation is one of the most serious problems we’re facing, but it’s one that few people seem to be talking about. I think a part of it is because people are afraid the ways of combating it come very close to eugenics and that’s a topic people are very uncomfortable talking about. But we have to be realistic; if it’s something we don’t face now, then we’ll get to a crisis point where we won’t be able to recover; just like the predictions of when we will run out of fossil fuels - we need to plan for it beforehand, not put it off for another generation. Once again it’s about taking responsibility.
The interesting thing is that there have been predictions of a massive population decline by 2050; Russia’s population in particular is expected to decline by 31 million people. But that decline is going to be largely negated by the continuing increase in developed countries like the US. So what it’s really showing is the widening gap between social classes, between the West and the developing world. The population problem comes back to poverty, illiteracy, AIDS, and other issues as well, so perhaps realistically the only way to deal with it is to include them all as part of the same problem, not as separate issues. And hopefully B-A-D is playing a part in getting people talking about the process.
Great post, Stonehead. Good food for thought for all bloggers involved in this day.
I’m not sure if it’s the sheer quantity of population or how it is organised. It could be argued that a larger population in a future period of well managed sustainability will mean more people to help clean up the mess left over from the past. There must be some absolute limit though, but it’s probably much much higher than that which can be sustained under the present anarchy.
The problem is that we’ve gone from using about half the Earth’s biocapacity in 1961 to using 1.25 times its biocapacity in 2003. Improving technology combined with increasing industrialisation and globalisation of agriculture have allowed us to be more “efficient” in our use of the Earth’s biocapacity but the environmental, animal welfare and human costs of that efficiency are very high.
At the same time, the Earth cannot support a population where everyone enjoys a standard of living comparable to that of the industrialised west. If we are not to enforce poverty and deprivation on a huge proportion of the world’s population, then the only solution is to both accept some reduction in “our” living standards to allow some improvement in “theirs” while also managing global population down to a sustainable level.
I just can’t see many of our current breed of politicians and leaders having the courage or moral fortitude to tackle an issue of such magnitude with all its moral, religious and cultural implications.
You have hit the nail right on the head - “against immigration, you’re a nazi - for immigration, you are a do gooding, bleeding heart………” to paraphrase.
We live on a small island that is fast running out of room. So we will continue to build on the flood plains, green belt, virgin land. When our towns flood, we can blame global warming, and that is such a big issue that we can do nothing about it.
(Pause for me to scream…………. Thats better!)
I was watching a David Attenborough wild life film recently about jungles. There is a natural balance in the jungle to prevent one species becoming dominant. If there are too many, disease takes hold and kills some off. It doesn’t matter if you are an ant or a chimpanzee, the rule applies.
Upgrade the jungle to the planet. There is such disgust at death now that humans will do anything to avoid the subject. If a person is unable to keep themselves, western society will keep him. If a person is dangerously ill, science will find a way to keep him alive. If there is drought and famine abroad, the west will send aid and food.
In its way, these are all laudible actions. the problem is that we are saving people that maybe should not be saved. I am not a monster for suggesting this, just a realist. No one wants to lose family members but it is an inevitable outcome of life itself. If we as a species are to survive we must embrace the fact. We are not the end of evolution, merely a part of it and we cannot change evolution to suit ourselves.
Much easier to put in energy saving lightbulbs………….
And disguising her point as disjointed ramblings, our friend Purple Dragon.
Thanks for the kind words about Shedworking. I’d love to see some pix of your own sheds. Also, I produce a free bimonthly pdf called The Shed (now entering its third year) - let me know if you’d like to see a copy and I’ll send one across.
Hi Stonehead, thanks for the link - and your comment - to my post on palm oil. I fear it’s not quite as in-depth or eloquent as your fascinating posts, but if it gets people thinking it’s a good start.
Regarding your post on over-population, this is something I have given plenty of thought to over the years. Every time I read about homeless people, or house-prices on the rise, or how someone has made these worrying little stackable boxes that we’ll all live in in the future, it makes me feel depressed.
There’s no running away from the fact that something needs to be done. As controversial as it may be, I would support a limit on children per family. We no longer have the unlimited freedom for parentage to be a right. Our own inability to exercise control means we now have to rely on someone else to sort it out. Despite bringing it upon ourselves, there will still be an outcry when that someone finally takes the reins and tells us what to do.
On the immigration issue, I have no problem with people coming into the country. But when there are so many that it stretches our resources to breaking point (and beyond) and affects the quality of life for everyone, then it’s simply too much. We need to find a comfortable balance.
It isn’t going to be easy to do any of these things and I suspect there will be much disagreement before we succeed. But, ultimately, there is still time to make a difference if we choose to do so.
Eileen - I strongly agree with your comments about survival of the fittest and how it no longer applies to humans. We allow the weak to survive and breed. It may sound callous to say we shouldn’t, but that is the natural order of things and Mother Nature has been doing it for billions of years. We may think we’re being kind to save people, but what does it mean for the evolution of our species?
You hit the nail on the head my friend!!!
Evolution is driven by a mechanism which follows from the survival of those that survive. The application of values such as “fittest” doesn’t really come into it, so all that is changing is some part of the required characteristicts for survival up until breeding age.
The idea that a reduction of living standards or rather consumption is necessary is quite a reasonable one, and I’m sure it could be achieved without any loss of quality of life nor the imposition of involuntary population control byt not under the present economic system which depends on continuous growth to avoid economic depression.