How dangerous is population growth?

Previous News | Next News

user's rating:

Article tags: monbiot, population

Got an idea to do something?
» Click here to share it.
» Comment on this issue

Why care

George Monbiot directly tackles this question, citing the environmental groups that seem to shy away from the 'p' word (population). He eloquently argues that actually population growth isn't the main worry when it comes to climate change, it's more about the emphasis on economic growth and the 'excesses of the rich' that come with this.

I agree with what George says, acknowledging that population growth causes all sorts of issues that need talking about doesn't mean I accept that it is largely responsible for our climate change woes.

The story

I cannot avoid the subject any longer. Almost every day I receive a clutch of emails about it, asking the same question. A frightening new report has just pushed it up the political agenda: for the first time the World Food Programme is struggling to find the supplies it needs for emergency famine relief. So why, like most environmentalists, won't I mention the p-word? According to its most vociferous proponents (Paul and Anne Ehrlich), population is "our number one environmental problem". But most greens will not discuss it.

Is this sensitivity or is it cowardice? Perhaps a bit of both. Population growth has always been politically charged, and always the fault of someone else. Seldom has the complaint been heard that "people like us are breeding too fast". For the prosperous clergyman Thomas Malthus, writing in 1798, the problem arose from the fecklessness of the labouring classes. Through the 19th and early 20th centuries, eugenicists warned that white people would be outbred. In rich nations in the 1970s the issue was over-emphasised, as it is the one environmental problem for which poor nations are largely to blame. But the question still needs to be answered. Is population really our number one environmental problem?

Click here to read the original link

Comments

24 Mar 08 17:02, by Lizard There's a famous paper called the Tragedy of the Commons by Garret Hardin which deals with the population issue as a threat to common property resources (like the sea for example). You can read it online here .

He argues that as the population grows resources will be overexploited to the point at which they are destroyed, and there seems no way to refute this argument (although there are sections of his paper that don't stand up to close scrutiny, the major issue isn't one of them). Even if we can assume that as a resource becomes more and more depleted those utilising it will try and solve the problem - for example the quota system operating in fisheries - as long as population continues to grow the pressure on these resources will increase.

Personally, I agree with the Ehrlichs. Population growth is the elephant in the room, the main driver of biodiversity loss and climate change. And yet we refuse to talk about it. Most probably because we don't know what to suggest - it is too hard, so we just ignore the issue.

But I'm convinced we must do something. I'm not suggesting the world should adopt a Chinese-style limitation system, as that had many problems of its own. But what I don't understand is why, in many countries, having lots of children is still encouraged. In the UK families get child benefit for each individual child, but are not penalised for the extra pressure they place on public services and the environment by having large families. It has been said that the single biggest thing you can do to lower your own carbon footprint is to not have children, and whilst I myself want children too badly to consider this as an option, I would certainly consider myself environmentally irresponsible if I had a very large family.