We humans are remarkable creatures. From our humble
beginnings in small pockets of Africa, we have evolved over millennia to colonize
almost every corner of our planet. We are clever, resilient and
adaptable―perhaps a little too adaptable.
The current world population is more than 7.7 billion
people. That’s more than seven billion bodies that need to be fed, clothed,
kept warm and ideally, nurtured and educated. More than 7.7 billion individuals
who, while busy consuming resources, are also producing vast quantities of
waste, and our numbers continue to grow.
The United Nations estimates that the world population will
reach 9.2 billion by 2050. For most of our existence, the human population has
grown very slowly, kept in check by disease, climate fluctuations and other
social factors. It took until 1804 for us to reach 1 billion people. Since
then, continuing improvements in nutrition, medicine and technology have seen
our population increase rapidly.
The impact of so many humans on the environment takes two major
forms:
·
consumption of resources such as land, food,
water, air, fossil fuels and minerals
·
waste products as a result of consumption such
as air and water pollutants, toxic materials and greenhouse gases
More than just numbers
Many people worry that unchecked population growth will
eventually cause an environmental catastrophe. This is an understandable fear,
and a quick look at the circumstantial evidence certainly shows that as our
population has increased, the health of our environment has decreased.
The impact of so many people on the planet has resulted in
some scientists coining a new term to describe our time—the Anthropocene epoch.
Unlike previous geological epochs, where various geological and climate
processes defined the time periods, the proposed Anthropecene period is named
for the dominant influence humans and their activities are having on the
environment. In essence, humans are a new global geophysical force.
We humans have spread across every continent and created
huge changes to landscapes, ecosystems, atmosphere—everything. However, while population size is part of the
problem, the issue is bigger and more complex than just counting bodies.
There are many factors at play. Essentially, it is what is
happening within those populations—their distribution (density,
migration patterns and urbanization), their composition (age, sex and income
levels) and, most importantly, their consumption patterns—that are of equal, if
not more importance, than just numbers.
Focusing solely on population number obscures the
multifaceted relationship between us humans and our environment, and makes it
easier for us to lay the blame at the feet of others, such as those in
developing countries, rather than looking at how our own behavior may be
negatively affecting the planet.
Let’s take a closer look at the issues.
Population size
It's no surprise that as the world population continues to
grow, the limits of essential global resources such as potable water, fertile
land, forests and fisheries are becoming more obvious. You don’t have to be a math
whizz to work out that, on the whole, more people use more resources and create
more waste.
Debate about the actual human carrying capacity of Earth
dates back hundreds of years. The range of estimates is enormous, fluctuating
from 500 million people to more than one trillion. Scientists disagree not only
on the final number, but more importantly about the best and most accurate way
of determining that number—hence the huge variability.
How can this be? Whether we have 500 million people or one
trillion, we still have only one planet, which has a finite level of resources.
The answer comes back to resource consumption. People around the world consume
resources differently and unevenly. An average middle-class American consumes
3.3 times the subsistence level of food and almost 250 times the
subsistence level of clean water.
So if everyone on Earth lived like a middle class American,
then the planet might have a carrying capacity of around 2 billion. However, if
people only consumed what they actually needed, then the Earth could
potentially support a much higher figure.
But we need to consider not just quantity but also
quality—Earth might be able to theoretically support over one trillion people,
but what would their quality of life be like? Would they be scraping by on the
bare minimum of allocated resources, or would they have the opportunity to lead
an enjoyable and full life?
More importantly, could these trillion people cooperate on
the scale required, or might some groups seek to use a disproportionate
fraction of resources? If so, might other groups challenge that inequality,
including through the use of violence?
These are questions that are yet to be answered.
Population distribution
The ways in which populations are spread across Earth has an
effect on the environment. Developing countries tend to have higher birth rates
due to poverty and lower access to family planning and education, while
developed countries have lower birth rates. In 2018, 80 per cent of the world’s
populations live in less-developed nations. These faster-growing populations
can add pressure to local environments.
Globally, in almost every country, humans are also becoming
more urbanized. In 1960 less than one third of the world’s population lived in
cities. By 2018, that figure was 54 per cent, with a projected rise to 66
per cent by 2050.
While many enthusiasts for centralization and urbanization
argue this allows for resources to be used more efficiently, in developing
countries this mass movement of people heading towards the cities in search of
employment and opportunity often outstrips the pace of development, leading to
slums, poor (if any) environmental regulation, and higher levels of centralized
pollution.
Even in developed nations, more people are moving to the
cities than ever before. The pressure placed on growing cities and their
resources such as water, energy and food due to continuing growth includes
pollution from additional cars, heaters and other modern luxuries, which can
cause a range of localized environmental problems.
Humans have always moved around the world. However,
government policies, conflict or environmental crises can enhance these
migrations, often causing short or long-term environmental damage. For example,
since 2011 conditions in the Middle East have seen population transfer (also
known as unplanned migration) result in several million refugees fleeing
countries including Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. The sudden development of
often huge refugee camps can affect water supplies, because land damage (such
as felling of trees for fuel) or pollute environments (lack of sewerage
systems).
Population composition
The composition of a population can also affect the
surrounding environment. At present, the global population has both the largest
proportion of young people (under 24) and the largest percentage of elderly people
in history. As young people are more likely to migrate, this leads to
intensified urban environmental concerns, as listed above.
Life expectancy has increased by approximately 20 years
since 1960. While this is a triumph for mankind, and certainly a good thing for
the individual, from the planet's point of view it is just another body that is
continuing to consume resources and produce waste for around 40 per cent longer
than in the past.
Ageing populations are another element to the multi-faceted
implications of demographic population change, and pose challenges of their
own. For example between 1970 and 2006, Japan's proportion of people over 65
grew from 7 per cent to more than 20 per cent of its population. This has huge
implications on the workforce, as well as government spending on pensions and
health care.
Population income is also an important consideration. The
uneven distribution of income results in pressure on the environment from both
the lowest and highest income levels. In order to simply survive, many of the
world’s poorest people partake in unsustainable levels of resource use, for
example burning rubbish, tyres or plastics for fuel.
They may also be forced to deplete scarce natural resources,
such as forests or animal populations, to feed their families. On the other end
of the spectrum, those with the highest incomes consume disproportionately
large levels of resources through the cars they drive, the homes they live in
and the lifestyle choices they make.
On a country-wide level, economic development and
environmental damage are also linked. The least developed nations tend to have
lower levels of industrial activity, resulting in lower levels of environmental
damage.
The most developed countries have found ways of improving
technology and energy efficiency to reduce their environmental impact while
retaining high levels of production. It is the countries in between—those that
are developing and experiencing intense resource consumption (which may be
driven by demand from developed countries)—that are often the location of the
most environmental damage.
Population consumption
While poverty and environmental degradation are closely
interrelated, it is the unsustainable patterns of consumption and production,
primarily in developed nations, that are of even greater concern.
It’s not often that those in developed countries stop and
consider our own levels of consumption. For many, particularly in industrialized
countries, the consumption of goods and resources is just a part of our lives
and culture, promoted not only by advertisers but also by governments wanting
to continually grow their economy.
Culturally, it is considered a normal part of life to shop,
buy and consume, to continually strive to own a bigger home or a faster car,
all frequently promoted as signs of success. It may be fine to participate in
consumer culture and to value material possessions, but in excess it is harming
both the planet and our emotional wellbeing.
The environmental impact of all this consumption is huge.
The mass production of goods, many of them unnecessary for a comfortable life,
is using large amounts of energy, creating excess pollution, and generating
huge amounts of waste.
To complicate matters, environmental impacts of high levels
of consumption are not confined to the local area or even country. For example,
the use of fossil fuels for energy (to drive our bigger cars, heat and cool our
bigger houses) has an impact on global CO2 levels and resulting
environmental effects. Similarly, richer countries are also able to rely on
resource and/or waste-intensive imports being produced in poorer countries.
This enables them to enjoy the products without having to deal with the
immediate impacts of the factories or pollution that went in to creating them.
On a global scale, not all humans are equally responsible
for environmental harm. Consumption patterns and resource use are very high in
some parts of the world, while in others—often in countries with far more
people—they are low, and the basic needs of whole populations are not being
met.
Individuals living in developed countries have, in general,
a much bigger ecological footprint than those living in the
developing world. The ecological footprint is a standardized measure of how
much productive land and water is needed to produce the resources that are
consumed, and to absorb the wastes produced by a person or group of people.
What is the solution?
How do we solve the delicate problem of population growth
and environmental limitations?
1. A BIGGER PIE: TECHNICAL INNOVATION
This theory looks to innovation and technology as Earth’s savior,
not only to extend the planet’s human carrying capacity, but to also improve
the quality of life for each individual. Advances in food production
technologies such as agriculture, water purification and genetic engineering
may help to feed the masses, while moving away from fossil fuels to renewable
power sources such as wind and solar will go some way to reducing climate
change.
‘Economic decoupling’ refers to the ability of an economy to
grow without corresponding increases in environmental pressure. In 2014 the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released a report titled 'Decoupling
2', which explored the possibilities and opportunities of technology and
innovation to accelerate decoupling, and an analysis of how far technical
innovation can go.
Funding and research should be a high priority in these
areas, but we must accept that technology can only do so much, and is only part
of the solution.
2. FEWER FORKS: EDUCATION AND POLICY
CHANGE
This theory is based on demographic transition, effectively
finding ways to slow or stop population growth resulting in fewer people
fighting for resources or ‘slices’ of pie.
Birth rates naturally decline when populations are given
access to sexual and reproductive healthcare, education for boys and girls
beyond the primary level is encouraged and made available, and women are
empowered to participate in social and political life.
Continuing to support programs and policies in these areas
should see a corresponding drop in birth rates. Similarly, as the incomes of
individuals in developing countries increase, there is a corresponding decrease
in birth rates. This is another incentive for richer countries to help their
poorer neighbors reach their development potential.
Providing a health, educational or financial incentive has
also proven to be effective in combating some population issues. For example,
paying money to people with two or fewer children or allowing free
education for families with a single child has been trailed with some success.
However, there are debates about incentive programs (such as
paying women in India to undergo sterilization). Opponents question whether
accepting these incentives is really is a choice, or whether the recipient has
been coerced into it through community pressure or financial desperation.
Fewer forks can also cover another complicated area—the
option of seriously controlling population growth by force. China has done so
in the past and attracted both high praise and severe humanitarian criticism.
This is a morally-, economically- and politically-charged topic, to which there
is no easy answer.
3. BETTER MANNERS: LESS IS MORE
The better manners approach seeks to educate people about
their actions and the consequences of those actions, leading to a change in behavior.
This relates not only to individuals but also governments. Individuals across
the world, but particularly in developed countries, need to reassess their
consumption patterns. Numerous studies have shown that more ‘stuff’
doesn't make people happier anyway.
We need to step back and re-examine what is important and
actively find ways to reduce the amount of resources we consume. Taking shorter
showers, saying no to single-use plastics, buying less, recycling our waste and
reviewing our mode and frequency of travel may seem trivial, but if millions
around the world begin to do it as well, the difference will begin to add up.
Governments too need to instigate shifts in environmental
policy to protect and enhance natural areas, reduce CO2 and other
greenhouse gas emissions, invest in renewable energy sources and focus on
conservation as priorities.
Developing countries should be supported by their more
developed neighbors to reach their development goals in sustainable, practical ways.
In reality, there is no single, easy solution. All three options must be part
of a sustainable future.
Where to from here?
Population is an issue that cannot be ignored. While we can
all do our bit to reduce our own global footprint, the combined impact of
billions of other footprints will continue to add up. There are many who
believe that if we do not find ways of limiting the numbers of people on Earth
ourselves, then Earth itself will eventually find ways of doing it for us.
Governments around the world should begin to recognize the
seriousness and importance of the situation, and take steps to reduce the
environmental impacts of increasing populations and consumption such as through
pollution reduction targets for air, soil and water pollutants.
With more than 7.7 billion people on the planet, it’s easy
to assume someone else will tackle and solve the issue of population and
environment. Yet it is an issue that affects us all, and as such we’re all
responsible for working towards a sustainable future in which everyone is able
to enjoy a good quality of life without destroying the very things we rely on
to survive. It’s possible, but it will take the combined and coordinated
efforts of individuals, communities, and governments to get there.
No comments:
Post a Comment