sign in sign up
<<
Home , Overconsumption, Population Connection

Overpopulation and : Where Should We Focus? An NPG Forum Paper by Michael G. Hanauer

We Have So Many Choices There are many pieces to our environmental perhaps because these are the problems we each see in puzzle, which when assembled can ensure that our our own backyards. To those with a more overarching planet and everything on it have a joyful ride now and view, and issues stand out into the indefinite future. We call that , because they are largely local and because they are and this is our work, our goal and our passion. But that causal, that is they occur at a community level and tend sustainability can and must be achieved without each to underlie or exacerbate many individual problems. of us manipulating all of the puzzle’s pieces. Each Both of these pieces are important to our ride toward of us must decide which pieces to focus on – which sustainability. Where should we place our emphasis ones we feel are overarching in their effect, which and our ? ones we as individuals and organizations can impact, and which are most overlooked. In , there is How Do We Choose From a rule of thumb called the 20-80 rule which says that the Causal Two? 20 percent of the underlying problems often cause 80 There are many widely read books with titles percent of the significant effects. To be successful in like Fifty Easy Ways to Save the Earth. Almost all of the longer term, an individual or organization needs these books approach issues from the point of view to choose carefully. of reducing (over)consumption. We often hear how the U.S. has 5 percent of the world’s population, 20 percent of underlying problems yet consumes 25 percent of its resources. It’s also cause 80 percent of significant true that the developed world, with 23 percent of the population, uses about 66 percent of the Earth’s effects. resources. Yes, it can sound like just a consumption problem, but the magnitude of this consumption Because the so severely aggravates actually makes population even more important to so many of the world’s environmental problems, preserving our environment and quality of life! because of our responsibility to set an example for the In many environmental and population circles, world, and because this is my home, I believe that we the traditional thinking dictates that the problem should place a significant emphasis on our domestic in developing countries is overpopulation, while problems (but certainly not entirely). All solutions in the developed world the bulk of the problem is require support and action at the local level, whether overconsumption. This oversimplification, that the you consider local to be a nation, or an individual U.S. has mainly a consumption problem, purveys community. “Think Globally, Act Locally” makes a easy, feel-good answers to many environmentally lot of sense from any perspective. conscious individuals and organizations. Such feel- Much of the environmental movement has chosen good answers are dangerous because they lead to to pursue specific issues such as , forests, incomplete actions by masking the enduring effects global warming, species diversity or open space – of . Let’s explore further.

Revised August 2013 Page 2 Overpopulation and Overconsumption: Where Should We Focus?

In the developed world, per capita consumption with increasing population, gains from conservation levels are all within the same order of magnitude. Yes, and are likely to be quickly overwhelmed. in highly populated sections of Western Europe and Still, such efforts are an important part of the solution. Japan levels are somewhat lower than ours (often due to smaller and more expensive living spaces, higher Isn’t Technology Our energy costs, and fewer cars), but not vastly different. Ace in the Hole? On the other hand, most third world consumption Frequently, we believe that technology can solve levels are between 0.5 and 5 percent of ours. This any problem. The inherent fallacy in this approach vast difference is not because these people recycle, is that the greatest cause of new problems is techno- use little plastic or don’t drive a turbo-charged car fix solutions to old problems. Even our present – it is because they have no car, no central heat, no population growth was brought on by technology refrigerator, and maybe no house at all! which prevented or cured disease and allowed large It is this lack of the most basic items, items which gains in food productivity (often by increased use of most of us believe every should be able to have, fertilizers and pesticides, and cruel treatment of farm which make up most of the consumption difference animals). But, the most important implication here is between the haves and the have nots. In the developed that technology rarely produces lasting solutions, only additional difficult choices and tradeoffs. An example Technology rarely produces is the solar or electric automobile. The batteries are polluting in production and disposal. The solar panels lasting solutions, only additional are polluting to produce, the power generated to charge difficult choices and tradeoffs. the vehicle usually requires power plants, and we still keep gaining more cars. world, even if every effort were made to cut frills and And what about the choices for those power inefficient consumption, these basics still have us out plants? Burning fossil fuel uses (foreign) oil and consuming a third world citizen by a factor of five contributes to the greenhouse effect, nuclear generation to fifty. Reasonable levels of consumption are not involves safety concerns and the problems of spent morally wrong, in fact most of us believe that they fuel disposal, hydroelectric plants and their associated are desirable. We need to allow all of the world’s dams spoil our rivers’ natural beauty and harm citizens a reasonable lifestyle while at the same time – and raise the question of just how many dams can be heading toward sustainability. This will require a leap built? What about solar, fusion, and power too cheap in consumption for developing countries, a practical to meter? Even if such methods can one day produce and therefore smaller reduction in consumption for meaningful amounts of energy, what are the side effects developed countries, and population stabilization or and other tradeoffs? reduction for all. Population levels are critical to the Technology usually provides many options, each dream and are too often overlooked. of which has different side effects. Making a choice What About the Effects of often requires selecting the lesser of a number of Conservation and Recycling? evils. Today, because of higher population levels, the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome makes it In a broader sense, the idea of reducing consumption nearly impossible to rationally choose – often none can and should incorporate the industrial processes are really acceptable. Almost every choice involves that produce the goods and dispose of the pollutants, leaving something behind in somebody’s backyard. in addition to what and how much is consumed by individuals. Processes that will produce fewer Population Size Matters byproducts, use more abundant or replaceable Most to the Big Picture and resources, or facilitate recycling can help to reduce Over the Longer Term environmental impact. In addition, affecting these Even where new technology or reduced kinds of changes may be done faster than changing consumption might help, consider the following: population trends. But we must also recognize that Overpopulation and Overconsumption: Where Should We Focus? Page 3

1. Population growth directly drives increasing small cluster home, survive with more traffic, cope overall consumption, but not vice versa. The with more regulations or tolerate a government existence of a person necessarily consumes with a more diluted political representation, does resources, takes up space, and disposes of waste not mean that we should. How long can our society products. In the poorest regions of the world, tolerate ever increasing population? Don’t we want localized destruction is taking place due primarily a quality of life for ourselves and future generations to overpopulation because per capita consumption that is much better than just tolerable? is at subsistence levels. When we talk about the 5. Conflict and stresses are much more likely when affluent U.S., consumption takes on even more people are pushed closer together. When we are in significance. But, by accepting that “reasonable” a denser environment, our neighbor’s actions have levels of consumption are O.K., we must bring a more adverse impact upon us. We are forced population into the formula since each additional to limit our actions with respect to the rights of person has a much more significant impact on the others, to put up with losing some rights, or having ecosystem. Overpopulation actually occurs at a additional regulations to enforce our rights. This lower point with a higher standard of living. conundrum is further aggravated as resources 2. Population growth creates problems beyond become more scarce. the impacts of excess consumption. Will just 6. Just reducing consumption will do relatively little decreasing consumption have an appreciable over the long term to save the 20 thousand species or lasting effect on reducing the crowds at our of plants and animals we are pushing off the planet national parks or our loss of open space? Can each year. Habitat loss, probably the biggest direct just dealing with consumption halt the loss of problem, is impacted by our individual ecological personal freedoms, privacy, the loss of direct footprints. While reducing consumption will political representation, the inability to find reduce the size of that footprint, the total habitat solitude or the reduction of stress or crime? Can loss will only grow if population continues to dealing with consumption alone reduce traffic grow. Much of the world’s habitat loss is greatly or lines at the mall or supermarket, or will it just aggravated by U.S. population growth. reduce the amount people buy per trip? Will just reducing consumption stop , or just 7. Like other discrete environmental issues, alter the form and time it takes to happen? Will overconsumption has many components, each of only reducing consumption keep our communities which will need to be confronted with analysis, from raising taxes to continually provide more committees, bureaucratic agencies, standards, infrastructure, more services, and more schools? regulations and funding. Population stabilization (or eventual reduction), which will alleviate so many other underlying problems, is actually Overpopulation actually occurs easier and less expensive to accomplish if we just at a lower point with a higher acknowledge its impact and make the effort to do standard of living. so. Population is not getting the attention it should. There are many organizations with programs aimed 3. Overpopulation has many additional social impacts at reducing consumption. Because many people as well. Wilderness, quiet, privacy and the need choose to believe that dealing with consumption is the for occasional solitude are important to individuals answer – they often don’t acknowledge that stopping in a civilized society. These are all things we population growth is a necessary component of the lose as the population expands and takes up more solution. While two countries (China and India) habitat. More than simply concern for an excessive have larger than the U.S., from the point “,” we need wild spaces and of view of global environmental impact it is the U.S. living space to nurture our spirit. that is the most overpopulated. Many of the most 4. Pushing people together also perpetuates a loss of intractable global environmental problems, such as personal freedom. Just because we can live in a the greenhouse effect and ocean pollution, are largely Page 4 Overpopulation and Overconsumption: Where Should We Focus? caused by the U.S. and the developed world. With per capita consumption levels likely to grow significantly All environmental organizations worldwide, and likely to shrink only marginally here, the multiplier effect of each U.S. resident continually need to incorporate the population becomes ever more critical. connection into their programs Most or all will ultimately fail to a Practical Solution U.S. population is now at 316 million. Census In a survey by Utne Reader of its own (very Bureau projections indicate that our population environmentally concerned) readers, only 21 percent said is likely to reach 399 million by 2050. Important they would be willing to do without a car and only 13 analysis and calculations from the biological and percent would forgo their Quarter-Pounders with cheese. physical sciences support the contention that U.S. With a major effort we might be able to marginally lower population is now at about double the sustainable level. U.S. consumption rates, but that reduction will be (and has Attainable reductions in consumption will not do the been) overwhelmed by population increases. Between job if we do not also stop population growth. We all 1970 and 1990, 93 percent of the increase in U.S. energy want a truly sustainable world which can support a use was due to population growth. reasonable standard of living with reasonable levels Meat, fish, low-yield vegetables, shrink wrap, of consumption for all. paper, autos, and personal computers are not morally Population growth is important in itself, and in its wrong. The higher the population, the more personal effect on overall consumption growth. In the long term, choices we must give up and the lower the resulting stopping population growth is a necessary part of the quality of life. Just reducing consumption here without sustainability equation. All environmental organizations bringing it to third-world levels will do little to lower our impact if population keeps growing. Those fifty, need to incorporate the into their easy, feel-good ways to save the earth are worthwhile, programs or all will ultimately fail. and are even an important part of our total ride toward If environmental organizations and activists don’t sustainability. But when those easy answers publicly keep the population issue front and center, who will? mask the need to ask and resolve hard questions about our nation’s population growth, those answers become a problem in themselves. About the author: Michael G. Hanauer is a former Director of , Inc., Co-Chair of the New England Coalition for Sustainable Population, a director of GrowthBusters.org, and past Chair of ZPG of Greater Boston. Views expressed are those of the author. © 1998, 2013 by NPG. Permission to reprint is granted in advance. Please acknowledge source and author, and notify NPG. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of NPG. This Forum, as well as other NPG publications, can be found on our website at www.npg.org. NPG is a national membership organization founded in 1972. Annual dues are $30 and are tax-deductible to the extent the law allows. Please write or call for a list of available publications.

Board of Directors Negative Population Growth, Inc. Voice: (703) 370-9510 2861 Duke Street, Suite 36 Fax: (703) 370-9514 Donald Mann, President Alexandria, VA 22314 email: [email protected] Frances Dorner, www.npg.org Secretary/Treasurer Josephine Lobretto SIGN UP TODAY AT WWW.NPG.ORG Sharon Marks FOR OUR NEW INTERNET NPG JOURNAL! Diane Saco