Consumption, Not Population Is Our Main Environmental Threat

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Let's challenge the convenient notion that "over-consumers" in rich countries can blame "over-breeders" in distant lands.

By Fred Pearce, Yale Environment 360.

It's the great taboo, I hear many environmentalists say. Population growth is the driving force behind our wrecking of the planet, but we are afraid to discuss it.

It sounds like a no-brainer. More people must inevitably be bad for the environment, taking more resources and causing more pollution, driving the planet ever farther beyond its carrying capacity. But hold on. This is a terribly convenient argument -- "over-consumers" in rich countries can blame "over-breeders" in distant lands for the state of the planet. But what are the facts?

The world's population quadrupled to six billion people during the 20th century. It is still rising and may reach 9 billion by 2050. Yet for at least the past century, rising per-capita incomes have outstripped the rising head count several times over. And while incomes don't translate precisely into increased resource use and pollution, the correlation is distressingly strong.

Moreover, most of the extra consumption has been in rich countries that have long since given up adding substantial numbers to their population.

By almost any measure, a small proportion of the world's people take the majority of the world's resources and produce the majority of its pollution.

Take carbon dioxide emissions -- a measure of our impact on climate but also a surrogate for fossil fuel consumption. Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world's richest half-billion people -- that's about 7 percent of the global population -- are responsible for 50 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions.

Although overconsumption has a profound effect on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts of our high standard of living extend beyond turning up the temperature of the planet. For a wider perspective of humanity's effects on the planet's life support systems, the best available measure is the "ecological footprint," which estimates the area of land required to provide each of us with food, clothing, and other resources, as well as to soak up our pollution. This analysis has its methodological problems, but its comparisons between nations are firm enough to be useful.

They show that sustaining the lifestyle of the average American takes 9.5 hectares, while Australians and Canadians require 7.8 and 7.1 hectares respectively; Britons, 5.3 hectares; Germans, 4.2; and the Japanese, 4.9. The world average is 2.7 hectares. China is still below that figure at 2.1, while India and most of Africa (where the majority of future world population growth will take place) are at or below 1.0.

The United States always gets singled out. But for good reason: It is the world's largest consumer. Americans take the greatest share of most of the world's major commodities: corn, coffee, copper, lead, zinc, aluminum, rubber, oil seeds, oil, and natural gas. For many others, Americans are the largest per-capita consumers. In "super-size-me" land, Americans gobble up more than 120 kilograms of meat a year per person, compared to just 6 kilos in India, for instance.

I do not deny that fast-rising populations can create serious local environmental crises through overgrazing, destructive farming and fishing, and deforestation. My argument here is that viewed at the global scale, it is overconsumption that has been driving humanity's impacts on the planet's vital life-support systems during at least the past century. But what of the future?

We cannot be sure how the global economic downturn will play out. But let us assume that Jeffrey Sachs, in his book Common Wealth, is right to predict a 600 percent increase in global economic output by 2050. Most projections put world population then at no more than 40 percent above today's level, so its contribution to future growth in economic activity will be small.

Of course, economic activity is not the same as ecological impact. So let's go back to carbon dioxide emissions. Virtually all of the extra 2 billion or so people expected on this planet in the coming 40 years will be in the poor half of the world. They will raise the population of the poor world from approaching 3.5 billion to about 5.5 billion, making them the poor two-thirds.

Sounds nasty, but based on Pacala's calculations -- and if we assume for the purposes of the argument that per-capita emissions in every country stay roughly the same as today -- those extra two billion people would raise the share of emissions contributed by the poor world from 7 percent to 11 percent.

Look at it another way. Just five countries are likely to produce most of the world's population growth in the coming decades: India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians.

Even if we could today achieve zero population growth, that would barely touch the climate problem -- where we need to cut emissions by 50 to 80 percent by mid-century. Given existing income inequalities, it is inescapable that overconsumption by the rich few is the key problem, rather than overpopulation of the poor many.

But, you ask, what about future generations? All those big families in Africa begetting yet-bigger families. They may not consume much today, but they soon will.

Well, first let's be clear about the scale of the difference involved. A woman in rural Ethiopia can have ten children and her family will still do less damage, and consume fewer resources, than the family of the average soccer mom in Minnesota or Munich. In the unlikely event that her ten children live to adulthood and have ten children of their own, the entire clan of more than a hundred will still be emitting less carbon dioxide than you or I.

And second, it won't happen. Wherever most kids survive to adulthood, women stop having so many. That is the main reason why the number of children born to an average woman around the world has been in decline for half a century now. After peaking at between 5 and 6 per woman, it is now down to 2.6.

This is getting close to the "replacement fertility level" which, after allowing for a natural excess of boys born and women who don't reach adulthood, is about 2.3. The UN expects global fertility to fall to 1.85 children per woman by mid-century. While a demographic "bulge" of women of child-bearing age keeps the world's population rising for now, continuing declines in fertility will cause the world's population to stabilize by mid-century and then probably to begin falling.

Far from ballooning, each generation will be smaller than the last. So the ecological footprint of future generations could diminish. That means we can have a shot at estimating the long-term impact of children from different countries down the generations.

The best analysis of this phenomenon I have seen is by Paul Murtaugh, a statistician at Oregon State University. He recently calculated the climatic "intergenerational legacy" of today's children. He assumed current per-capita emissions and UN fertility projections. He found that an extra child in the United States today will, down the generations, produce an eventual carbon footprint seven times that of an extra Chinese child, 46 times that of a Pakistan child, 55 times that of an Indian child, and 86 times that of a Nigerian child.

Of course those assumptions may not pan out. I have some confidence in the population projections, but per-capita emissions of carbon dioxide will likely rise in poor countries for some time yet, even in optimistic scenarios. But that is an issue of consumption, not population.

In any event, it strikes me as the height of hubris to downgrade the culpability of the rich world's environmental footprint because generations of poor people not yet born might one day get to be as rich and destructive as us. Overpopulation is not driving environmental destruction at the global level; overconsumption is. Every time we talk about too many babies in Africa or India, we are denying that simple fact.

At root this is an ethical issue. Back in 1974, the famous environmental scientist Garret Hardin proposed something he called "lifeboat ethics". In the modern, resource-constrained world, he said, "each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in." But there were, he said, not enough places to go around. If any were let on board, there would be chaos and all would drown. The people in the lifeboat had a duty to their species to be selfish - to keep the poor out.

Hardin's metaphor had a certain ruthless logic. What he omitted to mention was that each of the people in the lifeboat was occupying ten places, whereas the people in the water only wanted one each. I think that changes the argument somewhat.

Fred Pearce is a freelance author and journalist based in the UK. He is an environment consultant for New Scientist magazine and author of recent books "When The Rivers Run Dry" and "With Speed and Violence" (Beacon Press).

http://www.alternet.org/environment/136449/consumption%2C_not_population_is_our_main_environmental_threat/

[mr and mrs 187]

<thumbs up>

grossly negligent over-consumers. (as an american, that includes me by default.)

[Peikko 1,575]

It is an issue of population. Large populations are not sustainable without massive energy consumption and, perhaps more importantly, a large consumption rate is indicative of a comfortable lifestyle. What does this guy want? Massive populations that live barely live at subsistence levels? What a crock of ###### that is.

[Craneman 2]

It is an issue of population. Large populations are not sustainable without massive energy consumption and, perhaps more importantly, a large consumption rate is indicative of a comfortable lifestyle. What does this guy want? Massive populations that live barely live at subsistence levels? What a crock of ###### that is.

It is called, Redistribution of wealth.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, I don't think so, I think it's called avoiding the problem because there is no realistic solution.

That is not to say that we should all ignore our consumption. It would be a great thing if world religions put WASTE in big capital letters at the top of the SIN tree, in my opinion

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It is an issue of population. Large populations are not sustainable without massive energy consumption and, perhaps more importantly, a large consumption rate is indicative of a comfortable lifestyle. What does this guy want? Massive populations that live barely live at subsistence levels? What a crock of ###### that is.

I thought the author explain in concrete terms why population is not culprit.

[Peikko 1,575]

Right, he says that the West overconsumes. That's fine if one believes that what humans require is a farm, a horse, a plough and a well.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The industrialised economies that are fast catching up with the US (China and India) have really massive populations, far more than we have in this country.

I seriously doubt that those could provide the sort of lifestyle for their populations that we enjoy in this country, it would be environmentally ruinous.

That said, we can reduce consumption in this country, but the debate (at least as far as climate change is concerned) is over how much of our quality of life we are prepared to sacrifice to lower consumption.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Right, he says that the West overconsumes. That's fine if one believes that what humans require is a farm, a horse, a plough and a well.

You elitist snob.

[Peikko 1,575]

And only that if you are bloody lucky. By their very nature the things that make us comfortable, give us a reasonable or high standard or living are indeed energy expensive. I don't happen to have a problem with a reasonable or comfortable standard or living, what I have a problem with is being told that only some people are entitled to that standard of living. My solution is to reduce the population so everyone has a shot at it, his is to allow for ever increasing population growth but live in a fashion that most of us have never experienced and wouldn't particularly like were we to have to. Thank you, but no thank you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If we had a billion people in our country, as China does - we'd all be a lot worse off than we are.

[SpiritAlight 1]

I wish I could plant my butt down long enough to write books.

I have been saying that consumerism aka affluenza is our demise...I've been saying it since the 80s, when I was just getting old enough to see the world.

Oh but this isn't about me and my wayward thoughts and musings.

This is about what has happened globally.

To satiate consumers (people that can afford to shop or get credit to shop), tons of companies (local and offshore) were built to fill the required need.

Look at the mess now.

Okay, this is a broad brush, and still....

Do people really need more than one TV in their home?

Do they need the latest and greatest?

Oh yes, true, things are not built to last, since companies realized that if they built things to last, they would go bankrupt.

Sigh...

And so, people replace their fridges, washers, cars, etc., like they are going out of style.

Oh wait!

They are!!!

Again sigh....look until we remember our elders' values, we will keep burying ourselves.

Under garbage, under debt, under material belongings.

"Things you own end up owning you."

/rant

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the point is that consumption and population are inextricably linked.

Our lifestyle is one that's based on high consumption - in part, because we're using up the natural resources from all over the world.

We couldn't facilitate that same standard of living if we were restricted to the natural resources on our own bit of land.

Edited April 14, 2009 by Private Pike

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Typical British snobbery. Is it no wonder they colonized the entire planet? Good grief.

[AlHayatZween 2]

one day i fear the Americans will eat the Ethiopians.