The Silent Crisis: Confronting the [unspoken] Population Crisis

October 4th, 2009  |  Published in Journal  |  5 Comments

OPTThe Optimum Population Trust

The OPT is a think tank and campaign group concerned with the impact of population growth on the environment. They believe that overpopulation causes many of today’s problems from climate change to resource depletion. Here Brian McGavin and Andrew Ferguson reveal the extent of overpopulation and suggest solutions that the New Generation should take in order to avoid crisis.

For many decades there has been a wilful blindness in recognising that population is one of the pre-eminent problems facing the New Generation. A problem that is driving the astonishing growth of fossil fuel use and its depletion, climate warming, bio-diversity loss and species extinction, the growing shortage of fresh water to meet human needs – and as a consequence of these changes – the prospect that agriculture will be unable to produce enough food to feed us. Together, these changes are the most important immediate challenge to humankind. The threat – still largely unrecognized – transcends all the other problems that transfix our policy makers.

Both the UK and US governments have completely overlooked the conclusions of a past Royal Commission and a Presidential Commission respectively, both of which warned that existing population levels were already high enough.

The Silent Crisis

Most people are unaware that as recently as 1930 world population was barely two billion, not the 6.8 billion now. Almost never do the media portray reduction in human numbers as a beneficial step away from the impossibility of endless population growth.

The UN 2006 Revision of world population estimates makes an often quoted presumption that the human population will reach around 9.2 billion by 2050. This increase of 2.4 billion from today’s level is equivalent to the total size of the world population in 1950, and it will mostly take place in the less developed nations.

But this assumption on population growth may be too low. The 2007 Population Reference Bureau Data shows world population is growing at a rate of 1.2% a year. It assumes that this current growth rate will decline, based on population trends of the recent past. But in many countries, particularly in Africa and parts of the Middle East, populations are rising rapidly, and growth rates show no sign of decline.

If the current rate of global population growth continues at its present rate of 1.2% a year, then by 2070 world population would expand from its present 6.7 billion to reach nearly 14 billion over 80 million additional people each year demanding ever more resources.  Growth does not equal prosperity or life quality.

Saving the Planet and Greenwash

Even if we could make renewables, like wind power, generate 80 per cent of our electricity needs, a probably impossible task, in Britain CO2 emissions would reduce by just 16 per cent and electricity accounts for just one-fifth of total emissions.

Even if the world achieved the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recommendations to cut 1990 emission levels by 60 per cent by 2050, which is unlikely, almost all the effort would be cancelled out by population growth.

The UN now admits that it won’t meet its Millennium Development Goals in Africa. Many countries in Africa already have massive unemployment and not enough food. How will they provide all the schools, jobs, hospitals and food to feed populations that are set to more than double and, in some cases, more than quadruple in size?

Global demand is soaring, arable land and water are becoming scarce – and then there is the impact of climate change. World energy consumption grew by 11 per cent between 1989 and 1999. Most forecasts project energy demand will grow a further 60 per cent between 2002 and 2030, due to rising global population and economic growth in countries like China and India.

Amazingly, politicians and economists are far from convinced that population is a problem.  Indeed they become worried as soon as they see a declining population. Which government organisations, NGOs or media consistently carry information related to the following vital matters?

  • In the next ten years it is likely to become indisputable that the petroleum geologists were right and that there is going to be a permanent and increasing scarcity of oil.
  • Within the next twenty-five years, it is likely to become indisputable that there is going to be a permanent and increasing scarcity of natural gas.
  • There is fairly good evidence that during the final quarter of this century the availability of all fossil fuels will be less than ten per cent of what it is today.
  • There is good reason to suppose that renewable sources of energy will supply only a small fraction of the energy presently available to us (mainly from fossil fuels).
  • Nuclear energy is unlikely to meet our growing energy needs. Along with the huge problems of storing deadly waste, many experts believe there isn’t the commercially extractable uranium available to fuel any significantly increased energy contribution from nuclear power beyond the next 20 to 30 years.

With the above constraints, and others such as climate change, water shortage, and loss of fertile soil, it is unlikely that more than a third of the present world population, and also one third of the present United Kingdom population could be supported in modest comfort.

Our Solutions

Unless the New Generation takes steps to tackle this challenge overpopulation will have serious and negative effects. Fortunately, the solutions are not rocket science.  Firstly, what we propose is that globally, full access to family planning is provided for the 200 million women who do not have it, that couples should be encouraged to voluntarily “stop at two” children to lessen the impact of family size on the environment, and that this should be part of a holistic approach involving better education and equal rights for women.

Secondly, we believe that in the UK, population should be allowed to stabilise and decrease by not less than 0.25 per cent a year to an environmentally sustainable level, by bringing immigration into numerical balance with emigration (zero net migration), by making greater efforts to reduce teenage pregnancies, and by encouraging couples to “stop at two” children.

Follow population updates from the OPT website.


Responses

  1. Ben Pile says:

    October 5th, 2009 at 6:20 pm (#)

    Brian McGavin and Andrew Ferguson want the New generation to stop having babies.

    They claim that the UK needs to stop reproducing, reducing the UK’s population by at least 0.25% a year. But even if this was achieved, the population in the year 2050 will have only reduced to 55 million – a reduction of less than 6 million, and less than 10%.

    The same targets achieved world wide (i.e. 0.25% reduction in population per year) would amount to a population of 5.4 billion in 2050.

    The reason we need to stop having babies, the authors claim, is that we face an array of environmental and resource-shortage problems.

    1. We are going to hit ‘peak oil’ at some point in the next ten years.
    2. ‘Within the next twenty-five years’ we will face natural gas scarcity.
    3. Renewable forms of energy will not be found.
    4. There is only sufficient uranium deposits to last for 20 to 30 years.

    So, by 2050, we will still face these alleged challenges, having only reduced the population by <10%.

    McGavin and Ferguson's argument fails on its own terms. The maths clearly demonstrate that the scenario they present isn't going to be solved by their solution. Population reduction is a very long-term strategy, and the problems they present will happen (according to them) well in advance of any pay off from it.

    Meanwhile, there are good reasons for believing that the problems they have presented as reasons for limiting population are just as fictional as their solutions.

  2. Anonymous says:

    October 16th, 2009 at 6:01 pm (#)

    > If the current rate of global population growth continues at its present rate of 1.2% a year, then by 2070 world population would expand from its present 6.7 billion to reach nearly 14 billion – over 80 million additional people each year demanding ever more resources. Growth does not equal prosperity or life quality.

    This is flat out stupid. What planet are you living on that you haven’t noticed that the world’s population growth has slowed substantially, and show signs of stabilizing? Current estimates are that it will peak in around 2050 at about 8.5 billion, and then move into a steady decline. And that’s assuming no natural or man-made catastrophe (like encouraging the far less stable Islamic states to get nukes) doesn’t have a major impact on growth.

    Almost all of the European states have ALREADY been experiencing negative growth, and the USA/Canada have only grown as a result of immigration, or they, too, would be experiencing negative growth.

    “If current growth rates extended into the future…” is about as dunderheaded as thinking gets. The world isn’t linear. And there are widespread things affecting things like population growth which such foolish assumptions ignore. Hint: there’s a reason Ehrlich, and the entire Club of Rome, were so blatantly wrong about the conditions that lay only 20-30 years ahead of them (that is, 10-20 years ago!). They made dunderheaded assumptions about trend lines, just like yours.

    Go read some Julian Simon. You people are utterly without a clue.

  3. John Cody says:

    October 28th, 2009 at 6:17 pm (#)

    See this link from the BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8318010.stm

    Interesting reading, it highlights the importance of immigration policy to population levels.

  4. John Schmidt says:

    December 2nd, 2009 at 4:05 am (#)

    Dissappear yourself – if that is your solution. I believe that the world is unfolding as it should. Change is inevitable, and there will always be room for one more.

  5. MPin says:

    December 10th, 2009 at 12:18 am (#)

    I was reading the ‘anonymous’ response (oct 16 2009), and I think the guy must live in Europe or other developed country. Negative growth ? just in Europe, because in the rest of the world it is totally the opposite.
    Here in Brazil where I live (wich by the way is located in South America, for those who can´t see beyond his own belley) we experience a 2.2% growth rate per year.
    Can you imagine countries like India, China and so many others in Africa and Latin America, growing at rates equal or greater than this ?
    Even here, in this so called ‘developing’ country, what we see is that the rich portion of society is having less children, just like Europans and North Americans, and the poor portion is still having too many children, which leads to bigger misery.
    So how many people Earth can stand ? 2 billion, 9 billion, 20 billion people ? Are we in a kind of ‘population race’ against another planet that I should know ?
    Why it is so important for economists to affirm that we can afford to have more people living here ? That the economy will stand for it ? That the science and technology will find its way to feed this population ?
    If you are the one with a good quality of life, probably you are not worried if Earth have 5 or 50 billion people. It simply doesn´t matter for you!
    But put yourself within the ones who are living in plain misery. Imagine that you are deeply poor, starving, with no education. And this scenario is the same for all your friends and family. You are trapped!
    So, my conclusion about all this is that we should have less people living in this world, most of them with good quality of life.
    I prefer 100 people living decently, instead of 1000 just surviving.

Leave a Response