Group items tagged

Scott Cooney of Red, Green, and Blue recently wrote a thought provoking post about the need for population control as a fundamental and necessary tool to deal with a wide range of environmental crises. He refers to population control as the elephant in the room when it comes to policymakers. This is certainly an apt description of the issue, and it may even be considered an understatement. I would go so far as to say that population control is regarded as political suicide and a topic that is seemingly avoided at all costs.

Most climate experts accept that, in order to avoid catastrophic effects of global warming, greenhouse gas emissions (mostly CO2) must be cut by 60-80% by 2050 (though the figure may need to be a 95% cut in the US). The belief that replacing fossil fuels with solar and wind technology can accomplish this reduction tends to overlook several factors: 1. Corporations bombard the world with the message that everyone should consume like Americans do; 2. Corporations tell those in the US that they should ape after the playthings of the rich; 3. Population is growing; 4. Market economics force pathological expansion; and, 5. Solar and wind comprise a minute fraction of current energy. Let's combine these to get an idea of how much solar and wind would need to expand to replace coal, oil, nukes and gas by 2050. First, the US consumes about 25% of the world's energy while having only 5% of the world's population. For the rest of the world to consume at the rate of the US would require global production to increase by a factor of 6.33.

Most Coloradans and Americans plow through their daily lives without a clue as to their future or their children's outlook concerning America's energy crisis. However, last summer, a glimpse of the future confronted them. At $4.20 per gallon of gas, they squirmed on their wallets while complaining, "These prices are insane, ridiculous, crazy…." When a barrel of oil reached $140.00 in August 2008, Americans limited their driving, so much so, they drove 12 million less miles that month. They bought more fuel efficient cars. They carpooled. They clamored for alternative fuels. "We must move toward wind, solar, nuclear and coal for our energy needs," screamed our politicians. "We must provide for future generations and keep our economy growing."

Four decades after his controversial book, The Population Bomb, scientist Paul Ehrlich still believes that overpopulation - now along with overconsumption - is the central environmental crisis facing the world. And, he insists, technological fixes will not save the day.

According to a new report, the cumulative impact of developing Canadian tar sands over the next 30-50 years could be as high as 166 million birds lost, including future generations. Written by scientists from the Natural Resources Defense Council, Boreal Songbird Initiative, and Pembina Institute, the peer-reviewed paper suggests that avian mortality from continued development of Canada's tar sands would provide a serious blow to migratory bird populations in North America. 10 votesBuzz up! "This report is yet another wake up call to the government in Alberta, as it confirms that the cumulative impact of oil sands development is on an unsustainable trajectory," said Pembina Institute's Simon Dyer, a contributing author to the report.

Both the beauty and the fragility of the planet were on spectacular display Monday as TODAY reported on climate change and the power of water from the Ends of the Earth. Hosts Matt Lauer, Meredith Vieira, Al Roker and Ann Curry signed in simultaneously from the Western Hemisphere's longest coral reef in Belize; drought-stricken Australia, the world's driest inhabited continent; Iceland, where fire meets ice; and 13,000 feet up the flank of Mount Kilimanjaro, the "Roof of Africa," whose famous snows and glaciers are on pace to disappear within the next dozen years. Water covers 71 percent of the Earth's surface, but, as Lauer, Vieira, Roker and Curry reported, 1.1 billion people - a sixth of the planet's human population - do not have access to a clean supply of this most precious and essential resource.

Light pollution in the broad sense refers to any nighttime artificial light that shines where it's not needed. This nocturnal brightness can disorient humans and a host of other animals, confounding eyes and biological rhythms that evolved in a world without such light. One way stray rays pollute is sky glow, the scattering of light by clouds and atmospheric particles that makes it difficult to see stars and other features of the night sky-an increasing problem. These maps show the global extent of sky glow. More than just snapshots of the Earth at night, they account for the light-scattering effects of clouds and dust, and show how bright the sky is above a given point on the ground-revealing that most of the world's population lives under night skies fuzzy with the haze of reflected light.

Hazardous-waste spills and discoveries reported to Colorado authorities nearly doubled over the past decade, from an average of 561 a year from 1998 to 2000 to an average of 1,035 from 2005 to 2007. Population growth, carelessness, and the boom in oil and gas drilling are largely to blame.

Oil Price Plunges from a Zenith In the first half of 2008 we saw oil climb to approach $150 a barrel amid the pundits' warning of oil rocketing to $200 a barrel and way beyond due to the phenomenon of Peak Oil. In the wake of those heady days we have now witnessed the slumping of oil prices to well under $100 a barrel into October. We have often heard that this is all within the context of declining oil supplies and escalating demand due to the rapid economic development taking hold in large regions and populations of earth, for example like in China and India, in addition to the maintenance of development in the more developed countries like the USA and Europe. The graph below illustrated this rise and fall of oil prices, and particularly the fall in prices from an all time zenith of a few months ago (Williams, 2008).

Some of us wonder why some people we know worry little about the trend of sharply rising prices for food and petroleum. They may even acknowledge we have a huge population size and that the environment has been ravaged, but still the situation seems to them normal and stable. Theirs is a laid-back mindset common to those content to pay their bills, or perhaps they have given up on seeing fundamental societal change. They may be well-educated, liberal people. They are not usually the ones striving to change our culture toward respect for nature, although they are inclined to save the planet a bit and support social justice.

The deal just taking shape between Iraq's Oil Ministry and four Western oil companies raises critical questions about the nature of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq - questions that should certainly be addressed by presidential candidates and seriously discussed in the United States, and of course in occupied Iraq, where it appears that the population has little if any role in determining the future of their country.

Humanity is sitting on a railroad track, and a train is speeding toward us. The name of that train is global oil shortages. But, let's start at the beginning. Oil was discovered in 1859 in the United States. However, we did not appreciate its many uses, so production and consumption began slowly. During the years between World War I and World War II we learned of its many uses, but only in the last few decades have we built our dependency on oil. Now, all our clothes, food, transportation, construction depend on petrochemicals. As the oil production/consumption line has risen, the food production line has followed and also the global population line.

As the pain induced by higher oil prices spreads to an ever growing share of the American (and world) population, pundits and politicians have been quick to blame assorted villains--greedy oil companies, heartless commodity speculators and OPEC. It's true that each of these parties has contributed to and benefited from the steep run-up. But the sharp growth in petroleum costs is due far more to a combination of soaring international demand and slackening supply--compounded by the ruinous policies of the Bush Administration--than to the behavior of those other actors.

The deal just taking shape between Iraq's Oil Ministry and four Western oil companies raises critical questions about the nature of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq -- questions that should certainly be addressed by presidential candidates and seriously discussed in the United States, and of course in occupied Iraq, where it appears that the population has little if any role in determining the future of its country.

US GDP per capita, and US median family income, in thousands of chained 2000 US dollars. (GDP from the BEA, median family income from Data 360, and population from the Census Bureau). Bottom: Percentage of persons who responded to the question "Taken all together, how would you say things are these days‐‐would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?" with each of the three options. (General Social Survey).

A federal appeals court today rejected Bush administration plans to expand offshore drilling in Alaska. The three-judge panel agreed with environmentalists, saying the Bush-era Department of Interior's plan to open drilling in Alaska's Chukchi and Beaufort Seas failed to consider impacts on marine life and the environment. The court has ordered the Interior Department, now run by Ken Salazar, to conduct a proper analysis of environmental impacts and risks before moving ahead with any plans for offshore drilling in these sensitive areas. The Chukchi and Beaufort Seas are home to approximately one-tenth of the world's total polar bear population, along with walruses, seals, and whales.

THE graphs climbing across these pages (see graph in detail, or explore the data) are a stark reminder of the crisis facing our planet. Consumption of resources is rising rapidly, biodiversity is plummeting and just about every measure shows humans affecting Earth on a vast scale. Most of us accept the need for a more sustainable way to live, by reducing carbon emissions, developing renewable technology and increasing energy efficiency. But are these efforts to save the planet doomed? A growing band of experts are looking at figures like these and arguing that personal carbon virtue and collective environmentalism are futile as long as our economic system is built on the assumption of growth. The science tells us that if we are serious about saving Earth, we must reshape our economy.

The impact of the green revolution into biofuels is impacting more than anyone could have guessed on the availability, and thus the cost, of food. From 2002 until February this year the cost of a basket of food rose by 140% according to a World Bank report (1). The impact is being felt worldwide. We are now facing more pressures about how we work and live given