Category Archives: Sustainability

New Poll Finds Americans Do Care About Runaway Population Growth by Jerry Karnas

Earth’s human population could hit 10 billion by 2050. A national poll by the Center for Biological Diversity finds a majority of Americans believe the growth is causing species to go extinct, is making climate disruption worse, and that we have a moral obligation to address the problem.

There’s a price for screwing around like we are. And Americans know it.

Every day, we add 200,000 more people to the planet—that’s like adding a city the size of Phoenix every week. We’ve already tipped the 7 billion mark, and we’re on pace for 10 billion by 2050, perhaps 14 billion by 2100.

Think of what it takes to accommodate that many more people: the roads, the pollution, the strip malls, the fresh water, the oil, the land to grow food, the ungodly amount of electronic gadgets and gizmos that have become practically intertwined in our DNA.

And all of these come at a price. The more people we add, the more fossil fuels we dig up, the more wild land we log and pave and mine, the worse the climate gets, the more pesticides we use, the more land we take from wildlife, the more species that are put on an accelerated ride toward utter extinction.

But there is some good news. The American people understand. They’re connecting the dots. They get that we can’t keep growing our human population as if there’s never a price to be paid.

A new national poll commissioned by the Center for Biological Diversity (where I work) and conducted by über-pollsters Public Policy Polling finds that 60% of Americans believe the world’s growing human population is driving wildlife species toward extinction. 57% believe that population growth is making climate change worse. Respondents also said addressing the human population—which topped 7 billion in 2011—is an important environmental issue (59%).

But wait, you might be saying, didn’t I just read a slew of recent news pieces sounding the alarm about how the U.S. is a facing a population catastrophe, that we aren’t breeding enough?

Didn’t I just read how hordes of city slickers are choosing childless lives and about a book titled What to Expect When No One’s Expecting? Didn’t Joel KotkinMegan McArdle, and Justin Green all write pieces about how the real problem is not population growth but population decline?

What’s going on here?

Well, seems there are a few media-savvy Growth Boosters who like the allure of a narrative that says, “Nope, the problem isn’t too many people, it’s that we’re not producing humans fast enough.” These folks have a worldview where population growth is all wisdom and no vice. Grow or die, they say. The bad news is that these folks have a habit of generating a lot of press. The good news is that the American people aren’t buying it.

Do Americans feel that growth is just too fast? You bet they do. Our poll found 50% said the world’s population is growing too fast. Only 4% said too slow. The belief in the tooth fairy would poll higher than that.

The U.S. adds 5,000 people a day to the population ranks. That’s like adding a city of Philadelphia every year. And we certainly take a toll on the planet. Americans consume 18.8 million barrels of oil per day—more than the next four highest oil consumers combined. The same is pretty much true for meat, grains, water, coal, natural gas, and a host of other resources.

The Gunnison sage grouse merits endangered-species protection in part because the human population has doubled in its habitat and will double again in the next 20 years.

The Gunnison sage grouse merits endangered-species protection in part because the human population has doubled in its habitat and will double again in the next 20 years.

Are Americans aware of our disproportionate levels of consumption? Yes, they are. Are Americans OK with these levels of consumption? 48% of the poll respondents said the average American consumes too many natural resources. Only 17% said we consume too few.

Are Americans concerned about the rate that wildlife is disappearing? Absolutely. 61% were concerned about vanishing plants and animals.

Here’s the key question. Do the American people believe population growth is impacting the disappearance of wildlife? Yes: 57% said population growth was a significant cause of plant and animal extinctions. Asked another way, 60% agreed with the following statement: “Human population growth is driving other animal species to extinction.”

We also asked about future growth and its impacts. Our poll found 64% of Americans believe a 10 billion–person planet would result in adverse effects. Only 8% thought this population level would be beneficial.

What about climate disruption? Do Americans connect the cooking of the planet to making babies willy-nilly? Without a doubt: 57% of those polled said population growth was making climate change harder to solve.

Do Americans think stabilizing population will help protect the environment? 54% believe stabilization will.

Florida panthers experienced the second year in a row of record-breaking road-kill deaths due to increased traffic and development in panther habitat.

Florida panthers experienced the second year in a row of record-breaking road-kill deaths due to increased traffic and development in panther habitat.

Nothing on Earth happens in a vacuum. It’s a closed system that begins to buckle under the sheer weight of human demands. Scientists are increasingly linking population growth and overconsumption to our environmental challenges. In just the past few months scientists have found:

  • The Colorado River system is under assault by a growing population, and there are serious doubts it can meet the West’s demand for water in the coming decades.
  • Florida’s aquifer, the water supply for 19 million people, is experiencing saltwater intrusion because of overpumping.
  • The United States will lose 36 million acres of forest to urban sprawl by 2050.
  • Sixty-six species of coral should be classified as endangered—population and consumption of resources are a driving factor in the threats corals face.
  • The Gunnison sage grouse merits endangered-species protection in part because the human population has doubled in its habitat and will double again in the next 20 years.
  • Florida panthers experienced the second year in a row of record-breaking road-kill deaths due to increased traffic and development in panther habitat.

What is most heartening about our poll is that the American people get it. There is no disconnect between what the scientists are measuring and finding and what Americans are perceiving and experiencing. They aren’t freaking out about population declines. They are increasingly of the view that the world’s population and consumption levels are seriously out of whack with the ecological safety net the Earth provides free of charge to us all.

And finally it comes to this: We asked, if mass extinctions of plants and animals were unavoidable due to population growth, do we have a moral responsibility to address the problem? Sixty percent said yes.

In the end that is the most important conclusion. Americans believe we should do the right thing. The right thing is to start a real conversation about what’s happening to life on Earth. If we don’t, in the end we will only be injuring ourselves.

 

Jerry Karnas is the population campaign director for the Center for Biological Diversity. To learn more about their population campaign, and to sign up to help, go to <http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/overpopulation/7_billion_and_counting/index.html >  This article first appeared in The Daily Beast, February 28, 2013. Reprinted with permission.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Growth, Natural Resources, Population, Sustainability, Wildlife

Focus on U.S. – Editorial by Marilyn Hempel

Periodically we focus on U.S. issues. Why? The United States is the third most populous nation in the world, behind China and India. And because Americans are the world’s super consumers, our ecological footprint is larger than that of any other nation.

Because Americans are the world's super consumers, our ecological footprint is larger than that of any other nation.

Because Americans are the world’s super consumers, our ecological footprint is larger than that of any other nation.

U.S. population continues to grow rapidly, by approximately 3 million people per year. Indeed, the U.S. annual growth rate (0.96%) is much closer to that of developing countries such as Morocco, Vietnam and Indonesia (all at 1.07%) than to other developed nations such as Denmark (0.25%), Taiwan (0.19%) and Belgium (0.07%). The main difference is that population growth in the developing world is driven by high fertility rates, while population growth in the United States and the rest of the developed world is mostly driven by immigration—and the relatively higher fertility rate of immigrants.

U.S. consumption of natural resources has not abated either. The U.S. ranks highest in most consumer categories, even among industrialized nations. American fossil fuel consumption is double that of the average resident of Great Britain, and two and a half times that of the average Japanese. The continuing surge in numbers of Americans offsets individual efficiencies or reductions. For example, even if the average American eats 20% less meat in 2050 than is 2000, total U.S. meat consumption will be 5 million tons greater in 2050 due to population growth.* In a nutshell, our Ecological Footprint is twice that of Western European nations, and they have a high quality of life!

For the good of the planet and for the good of human civilization, the U.S.—along with all nations—should stabilize population as rapidly as possible.

Immigration is not our favorite subject, largely because almost every discussion of immigration becomes emotional, and sheds more heat than light on the subject. We have tried very hard to find articles that present facts, not feelings (although we have included some examples of ‘feeling’ articles to show the difference).  As Herman Daly wisely observed, “Immigrants are people, and deserve to be well treated; immigration is a policy, and deserves rational discussion.” Don’t miss his article on page xx.

We are continuing our series on happiness and sustainable living with a look at the work of the City of Santa Monica’s sustainability program.  For those of you who have requested more good news, this is an excellent example of creative thinking and positive action.

In the midst of mass shootings, bombings, and other tragic events, the United Nations declared, with almost no news coverage, the first ever International Day of Happiness (March 20, 2013). This signifies recognition of the relevance of happiness and wellbeing as universal goals in people’s lives, and acknowledgement of the importance of these goals in public policy objectives.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared, “People around the world aspire to lead happy and fulfilling lives free from fear and want, and in harmony with nature.” There are three essential facets to happiness or wellbeing: personal, community and planetary—and all three are interconnected. We think wellbeing should be embedded in the concept of sustainable communities, as part of a global movement away from our addiction to growth.

Wellbeing supports building physical, emotional and psychological resources for genuine “wealth”.  Each of us can take responsibility for contributing to ourselves, our families, friends, communities and world, rather than relying on institutions or governments to provide ‘happiness’. Good health both faciltates and results from greater happiness, but there are subtle differences between wellbeing and happiness. Happiness is often understood as a temporary emotional state, while wellbeing encompasses a longer-term sense of peace and prosperity in our lives.

Our ultimate vision is of a world in which everyone’s genuine needs are met within the limits of the planet’s resources and carrying capacity. Wellbeing for people and ecosystems will become the central measure of progress in any society interested in living sustainably.

As Mr. Ban said. “On this first International Day of Happiness, let us reinforce our commitment to inclusive and sustainable human development and renew our pledge to help others…. When we contribute to the common good, we ourselves are enriched. Compassion promotes happiness and will help build the future we want.”

*data from Worldwatch Institute

Marilyn Hempel is the editor of the Population Press.

1 Comment

Filed under Consumption, Culture, Immigration, Natural Resources, Population, Sustainability

Book review: Life On The Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation

In Life on the Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation by Professor Philip Cafaro of Colorado State University and Professor Eileen Crist of Virginia Tech, we find top authors and scientists attempting to alert humanity to its impending future viability on this planet.

In Life on the Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation by Professor Philip Cafaro of Colorado State University and Professor Eileen Crist of Virginia Tech, we find top authors and scientists attempting to alert humanity to its impending future viability on this planet.

If you look around the United States, even in the overcrowded, overpacked and gridlocked cities of America—you won’t hear conversations about overpopulation. Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago and more cities feature enormous brown clouds blanketing their cities with an airborne toxic soup that every citizen breathes with every breath. Brian Williams reports on the horrific traffic jams on the East Coast, but he won’t mention the overpopulation factor causing them. Same with Diane Sawyer, Scott Pelley, Wolf Blitzer, Megyn Kelley, Robert Siegel and all the top anchors on all the media reports!

They convey that none of us should question unending growth. It’s like a 450 pound fat man on “Biggest Losers” TV show who can barely walk, knows he’s going to die of a heart attack—but he decides to follow the American mantra of “Sustainable Growth” and keeps shoving Big Macs with double cheese, French fries and a Big Gulp down his gullet until he reaches 550 pounds and beyond.

Both his path and the United States’ path can only end up in the same condition: human misery, suffering and ultimately collapse. But in the case of human overpopulation around the planet, we humans destroy millions of other creatures along the way to our own destruction.

In Life on the Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation by Professor Philip Cafaro of Colorado State University and Professor Eileen Crist of Virginia Tech, we find top authors and scientists attempting to alert humanity to its impending future viability on this planet.

In Chapter 4, Martha Campbell asks, “Why the silence on overpopulation?”

“By 2050, human population is projected to reach as high as 10.5 billion,” said Campbell. “Uganda is projected to grow from 33.8 million to 91.3 million. Niger from 16 million to 58 million, and Afghanistan from 29 million to 73 million.”

That’s not all the growth! India adds 11 million net gain annually to its 1.2 billion (in 2012), while China adds another 8 million net gain annually. Both countries expect to explode to about 1.6 billion. If you have watched NBC lately, Brian Williams reported on the air pollution cover Shanghai and Beijing. He hasn’t covered the water pollution, but the Ganges and the Yangzi Rivers feature open sewer pipes that turn into 20,000 square mile dead zones at their mouths. How do I know? I sailed on both rivers and the water-plastic-debris-trash-human waste made me sick to my stomach.

"OverLoaded Train" in India, more and more people are crammed into the same space, trying to live, breathe, grow food, find jobs and enjoy 'quality of life'.  In a country of 1.26 billion people (and still growing rapidly!) is there any room for tigers or elephants or other creatures?  Photo from churchandstate.org.uk

“OverLoaded Train” in India, more and more people are crammed into the same space, trying to live, breathe, grow food, find jobs and enjoy ‘quality of life’. In a country of 1.26 billion people (and still growing rapidly!) is there any room for tigers or elephants or other creatures? Photo from churchandstate.org.uk

At 82 million, Egypt, a country that cannot feed itself in 2013 and relies on grain imports, expects to hit 150 million by mid century. Do we need to guess their fate?

“In 1900, Ethiopia had 5 million, in 1950 it had 18.4 million, in 2010 it had 85 million and is projected to reach 173 million by 2050,” said Campbell. “Their rapid population growth figures in the decimation of nearly all of Ethiopia’s forests and consequently climate change.”

On a personal note, I researched to find that Africa houses nearly 1 billion people in 2013, but expects to reach 3.1 billion within 90 years. Can you imagine every human scavenging every last creature on this beautiful continent for food? Nothing will be left of all those wonderful creatures. In 1900, Africa sported 12 million elephants. Today, 475,000 remain and their numbers are dwindling fast due to poachers.

Campbell calls the subject of population “delicate” because it involves sex, cultures, religions and serves inequities around the world. Such religions as Islam, the Catholic Church, and many others don’t take kindly to birth control.

Campbell discusses the six reasons for the population “Perfect Storm” facing all life on this planet, especially humans causing it.

  1. While birth rates fall, the sheer number of humans causes growth, due to ‘population momentum’.  Right now that momentum adds about 1 billion people every 12-13 years.
  2. Overconsumption of water, resources, animal life, arable land and resource exhaustion accelerate with the population momentum.
  3. Anti-abortion activists, religious leaders and conservative think tanks have intentionally reduced attention to population growth.
  4. Many folks think that disease like AIDS have stopped population growth. Not so!
  5. Even after the Cairo population conference and the Rio debates, there is still not enough financing of family planning programs on a global level. Cultural and religious practices still dominate women in too many places.
  6. The dominant “endless growth” paradigms of countries like Canada, America, Australia and even Europe—maintain a death grip on any discussion of overpopulation.
"Garbage Family"  Despite China's rapid economic growth and strict no-migration laws, there remains a marked disparity between the country's wealthy and the poor. This family, originally from Guizhou Province (far-western China) moved to the rich Delta Yangtze River coast in search of a better life. They currently work in a Jiangsu landfill, sifting through garbage in search of any re-sellable items.  In a country of 1.35 billion people (and still growing!) -- is there any room for Pandas or any other wildlife?  Photo and commentary by Sheilaz314/Flickr/cc

“Garbage Family” Despite China’s rapid economic growth and strict no-migration laws, there remains a marked disparity between the country’s wealthy and the poor. This family, originally from Guizhou Province (far-western China) moved to the rich Delta Yangtze River coast in search of a better life. They currently work in a Jiangsu landfill, sifting through garbage in search of any re-sellable items. In a country of 1.35 billion people (and still growing!) — is there any room for Pandas or any other wildlife? Photo and commentary by Sheilaz314/Flickr/cc

Campbell said, “Use of family planning prevents death from unintended pregnancies and from induced abortions. Children from smaller families are more likely to enter and stay in school.”

This chapter brings home the enormity of the power of cultures and churches and corporations to squash the population discussion. It shows that cultures and beliefs trump and override reason, empirical evidence, common sense and logical action.

Thus, 10 million children and 8 million adults die of starvation and starvation related conditions every year around the globe. Another 18 million stand in the doorway of death in 2013. All life on the brink?  If we do nothing about overpopulation, iit’s only a matter of time.

Frosty Wooldridge has bicycled across six continents—from the Arctic to the South Pole—as well as eight times across the USA, coast to coast and border to border. He presents “The Coming Population Crisis facing America: what to do about it” at <www.frostywooldridge.com>.  His latest book is: How to Live a Life of Adventure: The Art of Exploring the World, copies at 1-888-280-7715.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Consumption, Environment, Family Planning, Growth, Human Rights, Population, Sustainability, Wildlife, Women's Rights

Immigration and the Environment: It’s About The Numbers by Leah Durant

Kelp

The US-Mexico border fence in Southern California.

As Americans prepare for the President’s next four years, many conservationists are feeling a bit disappointed about the direction the US is heading in meeting environmental goals. While there have been recent rumblings of the Administration’s plan to move quickly with a solution to the county’s immigration predicament early in the President’s second term, unfortunately most of this energy is being devoted to discussions of amnesty rather than more sensible immigration enforcement. Members from both sides of the aisle fail to realize how essential immigration restrictions are to ensuring the health of the planet and the preservation of the nation’s fragile ecosystems.

Many policy makers still consider it taboo to address how massive immigration to the US, both legal and illegal, is driving unsustainable population growth.

If current immigration trends continue the US is projected to reach half a billion people by midcentury. Considering the huge amount of energy the average American consumes, Americans must find ways to reduce our per capita consumption of fossil fuels in order to avoid major ecological disasters. However, conservation is only part of the solution and will never provide the total solution we need to ensure a sustainable future.

The carbon footprint of an average American is many times greater than the footprints of our counterparts in the developing world. A 2009 Oregon study found that environmental practices such as recycling, driving fuel-efficient cars or using solar energy only barely reduces the overall impact that the average American has on the environment. Ultimately, to enact a positive change the fertility rate/number of Americans must be addressed in some way.

Three million individuals are added to the US population per year. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that new immigrants and births to immigrants contribute to an increase of 2.3 million people in the US every year. Statistics have found that immigrants ultimately drive up the US fertility rate and thus are heavily responsible for the burgeoning US population. Obviously, the most sensible corrective to this high growth rate is reduced immigration levels, but political leaders have been extremely reluctant to even raise this possibility. We should not expect the rest of the world to pick up our slack and help balance this environmental tragedy.

Despite having what is arguably a mixed record on the environment, the President’s success in setting strict vehicle mileage standards and funding renewable energy projects have done volumes to educate Americans about their day-to-day impact on the environment. Though these accomplishments are worthy of recognition and our individual consciousness may be greater, we are still light years away from any major breakthroughs. The President and congressional leaders need to move away from timid, partial answers and embrace a radically altered framework to address environmental concerns. Let’s hope whatever solutions they propose, that those solutions do address the impact of immigration and overpopulation on the environment.

Leah Durant is the Executive Director of Progressives for Immigration Reform, a 501(c)(3) organization which seeks to examine the unintended consequences of U.S. immigration policies and strives to enhance the working conditions of people worldwide. Prior to her tenure at Progressives, Ms. Durant served as an Attorney with the Civil Division of United States Department of Justice. Ms. Durant holds a B.A. Degree from the University of Maryland, College Park, and a J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law. Source: Progressives for Immigration Reform <http://www.progressivesforimmigrationreform.org&gt; November 15, 2012. Reprinted with permission.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Immigration, Population, Sustainability

The Great Transition: Building a Wind-Centered Economy by Lester R. Brown

As fossil fuel prices rise, as oil insecurity deepens, and as concerns about pollution and climate instability cast a shadow over the future of coal, a new world energy economy is emerging.

As fossil fuel prices rise, as oil insecurity deepens, and as concerns about pollution and climate instability cast a shadow over the future of coal, a new world energy economy is emerging.

The great energy transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy is under way. As fossil fuel prices rise, as oil insecurity deepens, and as concerns about pollution and climate instability cast a shadow over the future of coal, a new world energy economy is emerging. The old energy economy, fueled by oil, coal, and natural gas, is being replaced with an economy powered by wind, solar, and geothermal energy.

The Earth’s renewable energy resources are vast and available to be tapped through visionary initiatives. Our civilization needs to embrace renewable energy on a scale and at a pace we’ve never seen before.

We inherited our current fossil fuel-based world energy economy from another era. The 19th century was the century of coal, and oil took the lead during the 20th century. Today, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)—the principal climate-altering greenhouse gas—come largely from burning coal, oil, and natural gas. Coal, mainly used for electricity generation, accounts for 44% of global fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. Oil, used primarily for transportation, accounts for 36%. Natural gas, used for electricity and heating, accounts for the remaining 20%. It is time to design a carbon- and pollution-free energy economy for the 21st century.

Some trends are already moving in the right direction. The burning of coal, for example, is declining in many countries. In the United States (the #2 coal consumer after China) coal use dropped 14% from 2007 to 2011 as dozens of coal plants were closed. This trend is expected to continue, due in part to widespread opposition to coal now being organized by the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign.

Oil is used to produce just 5% of the world’s electricity generation and is becoming ever more costly. Because oil is used mainly for transport, we can phase it out by electrifying the transport system. Plug-in hybrid and all-electric cars can run largely on clean electricity. Wind-generated electricity to operate cars could cost the equivalent of 80-cent-per gallon gasoline.

As oil reserves are being depleted, the world has been turning its attention to plant-based energy sources. Their potential use is limited, though, because plants typically convert less than 1% of solar energy into biomass.

Crops can be used to produce automotive fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel. Investments in U.S. corn-based ethanol distilleries became hugely profitable when oil prices jumped above $60 a barrel following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The investment frenzy that followed was also fueled by government mandates and subsidies. In 2011, the world produced 23 billion gallons of fuel ethanol and nearly 6 billion gallons of biodiesel.

But the more research that’s done on liquid biofuels, the less attractive they become. Every acre planted in corn for ethanol means pressure for another acre to be cleared elsewhere for crop production. Clearing land in the tropics for biofuel crops can increase greenhouse gas emissions instead of reducing them. Energy crops cannot compete with land-efficient wind power.

The scientific community is challenging the natural gas industry’s claim that its product is fairly climate-benign. Natural gas produced by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking (a much-touted key to expanding production) is even more climate-disruptive than coal because of methane gas leakage. (Methane is a potent contributor to climate change.)

The last half of the twentieth century brought us nuclear power, once widely touted as the electricity source of the future. Although nuclear reactors supply 13% of the world’s electricity, nuclear power’s limited role in our future has been clear for some time. It is simply too expensive.

Countries around the world are richly endowed with renewable energy, in some cases enough to easily double their current electrical generating capacities. A revamped clean energy economy will harness more energy from the wind and sun, and from within the Earth itself. Climate-disrupting fossil fuels will fade into the past as countries turn to clean, climate-stabilizing, non-depletable sources of energy. The growth in the use of solar cells that convert sunlight into electricity can only be described as explosive, expanding by 74% in 2011. Early photovoltaic (PV) installations were all small-scale—mostly on residential rooftops. That’s changing as more utility-scale PV projects are being launched. The United States, for example, has under construction and development more than 100 utility scale projects. Solar-generated electricity is particularly attractive in desert regions such as the U.S. Southwest because peak generation meshes nicely with peak air conditioning use.

The world’s current 70,000 megawatts of photovoltaic installations can, when operating at peak power, match the output of 70 nuclear power plants. With PV installations climbing and with costs continuing to fall, cumulative PV generating capacity could surpass 1 million megawatts in 2020. (Current world electricity generating capacity from all sources is 5 million megawatts.) Installing solar panels for individual homes in the villages of developing countries is now often cheaper than it is to supply them with electricity by building a central power plant and a grid.

The heat that comes from within the Earth—geothermal energy—can be used for heating or converted into steam to generate electricity. Many countries have enough harnessable geothermal energy to satisfy all of their electricity needs. Despite this abundance, the geothermal energy capacity installed as of 2012 is only enough to provide electricity for some 10 million homes worldwide.

Roughly half of the world’s 11,000 megawatts of installed geothermal generating capacity is concentrated in the United States and the Philippines. Altogether, 24 countries now convert geothermal energy into electricity. The United States, with 130 confirmed geothermal plants under construction or in development, will be bringing at least 1,000 megawatts of generating capacity online in the near term. Worldwide, this accelerating pace could yield 200,000 megawatts of generating capacity by 2020.

Each alternative energy source—whether solar, geothermal, or wind—has a major role to play, but it is wind that is on its way to becoming the foundation of the new energy economy.

In the race to transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy and avoid runaway climate change, wind has opened a wide lead on both solar and geothermal energy. Solar panels, with a capacity totaling 70,000 megawatts, and geothermal power plants, with a capacity of some 11,000 megawatts, are generating electricity around the world. The total capacity for the world’s wind farms, now generating power in about 80 countries, is near 240,000 megawatts. China and the United States are in the lead.

In the race to transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy and avoidrunaway climate change, wind has opened a wide lead on both solar and geothermal energy.

In the race to transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy and avoid
runaway climate change, wind has opened a wide lead on both solar and geothermal energy.

Over the past decade, world wind electric generating capacity grew at nearly 30% per year, its increase driven by its many attractive features and by public policies supporting its expansion. Wind is abundant, carbon-free and nondepletable. It uses no water, no fuel, and little land. Wind is also locally available, scales up easily, and can be brought online quickly. No other energy source can match this combination of features.

One reason wind power is so popular is that it has a small footprint. Although a wind farm can cover many square miles, turbines occupy only 1% of that area. Compared with other renewable sources of energy, wind energy yield per acre is off the charts. For example, a farmer in northern Iowa could plant an acre in corn that yields enough grain to produce roughly $1,000 worth of fuel-grade ethanol per year, or he could use that same acre to site a turbine producing $300,000 worth of electricity each year.

Because turbines take up only 1% of the land covered by a wind farm, ranchers and farmers can, in effect, double-crop their land, simultaneously harvesting electricity while producing cattle, wheat or corn. With no investment on their part, farmers and ranchers can receive $3,000 to $10,000 a year in royalties for each wind turbine on their land. For thousands of ranchers on the U.S. Great Plains, wind royalties will one day dwarf their earnings from cattle sales.

Wind is also abundant. In the United States, three wind-rich states—North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas—have enough harnessable wind energy to easily satisfy national electricity needs. Another attraction of wind energy is that it is not depletable. The amount of wind energy used today has no effect on the amount available tomorrow.

Unlike coal, gas, and nuclear power plants, wind farms do not require water for cooling. As wind backs out coal and natural gas in power generation, water will be freed up for irrigation and other needs.

Perhaps wind’s strongest attraction is that there is no fuel cost. After the wind farm is completed, the electricity flows with no monthly fuel bill. And while it may take a decade to build a nuclear power plant, the construction time for the typical wind farm is one year.

Future wind complexes in the Great Plains, in the North Sea, off the coast of China or the eastern coast of the United States may have generating capacity measured in the tens of thousands of megawatts. Planning and investment in wind projects is occurring on a scale not previously seen in the traditional energy sector.

One of the obvious downsides of wind is its variability. But as wind farms multiply, this becomes less of an issue. Because no two farms have identical wind profiles, each farm added to a grid reduces variability. A Stanford University research team has pointed out that with thousands of wind farms and a national grid in a country such as the United States, wind becomes a remarkably stable source of electricity.

In more densely populated areas, there is often local opposition to wind power— the NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) response. But in the vast ranching and farming regions of the United States, wind is immensely popular for economic reasons. For ranchers in the Great Plains, farmers in the Midwest or dairy farmers in upstate New York, there is a PIMBY (“put it in my backyard”) response.

Farmers and ranchers welcome the additional income from having wind turbines on their land. Rural communities compete for wind farm investments and the additional tax revenue to support their schools and roads.

One of the keys to developing wind resources is building the transmission lines to link wind-rich regions with population centers. Perhaps the most exciting grid project under consideration is the ‘Tres Amigas’ electricity hub, a grid interconnection center to be built in eastern New Mexico. It will link the three U.S. electricity grids—the Eastern, Western, and Texas grids. ‘Tres Amigas’ is a landmark in the evolution of the new energy economy. With high-voltage lines linking the three grids where they are close to each other, electricity can be moved from one part of the United States to another as conditions warrant. By matching surpluses with deficits over a broader area, electricity wastage and consumer rates can both be reduced. Other long distance transmission lines are under construction or in the planning stages.

We know that rapid growth in wind generation is possible. U.S. wind generating capacity expanded by 45% in 2007 and 50% in 2008. If we expanded world wind generation during this decade at 40% per year, the 238,000 megawatts of generating capacity at the end of 2011 would expand to nearly 5 million megawatts in 2020. Combined with an ambitious solar and geothermal expansion, along with new hydro projects in the pipeline, this would total 7.5 million megawatts of renewable generating capacity, enabling us to back out all of the coal and oil and most of the natural gas now used to generate electricity.

In addition to the shift to renewable sources of energy, there are two other critical components of this climate stabilization plan: rapidly increasing the energy efficiency of industry, appliances, and lighting, and restructuring the transportation sector, electrifying it as much as possible while ramping up public transit, biking and walking. (With this latter component, we would be able to back out much of the oil used for transportation.)

This energy restructuring would require roughly 300,000 wind turbines per year over the next decade. Can we produce those? For sure. Keep in mind that the world today is producing some 70 million cars, trucks, and buses each year. Many of the wind turbines needed to back out fossil fuels in electricity generation worldwide could be produced in currently idled automobile assembly plants in the United States alone. The plants would, of course, need to be modified to shift from automobiles to wind turbines, but it is entirely doable. In World War II, Chrysler went from making cars to tanks in a matter of months. If we could do that then, we and the rest of the world can certainly build the 300,000 wind turbines per year we now need to build the new energy economy and stabilize the climate.

For the first time since the Industrial Revolution began, we have an opportunity to invest in alternative sources of energy that can last as long as the Earth itself. The choice is ours. We can stay with business as usual, or we can move the world onto a path of sustained progress. The choice will be made by our generation, but it will affect life on Earth for all generations to come.

The Washington Post has called Lester R. Brown “one of the world’s most influential thinkers.” He started his career as a farmer, growing tomatoes in New Jersey with his brother. After earning a degree in Agricultural Science from Rutgers University, he spent six months in rural India, an experience that changed his life and career. Brown founded the WorldWatch Institute and then the Earth Policy Institute, where he now serves as President. The purpose of the Earth Policy Institute is to provide a vision of an environmentally sustainable economy, a roadmap of how to get from here to there—as well as an ongoing assessment of progress. Brown has authored many books. His most recent is Full Planet, Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity. It is available online at www.earth-policy.org/books/fpep  and at booksellers. Supporting data, endnotes, and additional resources are available for free downloading.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Climate, Economy, Energy, Environment, Growth, Natural Resources, Sustainability

Have You Had Enough? by Suzanne York

The book contains an actual blueprint of policies that could create a sustainable economy.

The book contains an actual blueprint of policies that could create a sustainable economy.

A Plan for a Sustainable Economy

“Here’s the deal: forget that this task of planet-saving is not possible in the time required. Don’t be put off by people who know what is not possible. Do what needs to be done, and check to see if it was impossible only after you are done.”  ~ Paul Hawken

This quote by Paul Hawken epitomizes the ideas and initiatives reflected in the new book Enough is Enough: Building a Sustainable Economy in a World of Finite Resources, which lays out a path for overcoming so-called impossibilities in our world. The book constructs a realistic and actionable plan that should guide all of us as we confront increasingly dire and critical issues facing the planet. There will always be naysayers yelling out “impossible!”, but clearly we are way past listening to them.

The basic question that Enough is Enough asks is how we can transition from a global economic system dependent upon unsustainable and endless growth to a steady-state economy. According to authors Rob Dietz and Dan O’Neill, the purpose of the book is to show “how to establish a prosperous yet non-growing economy.”

A steady-state economy is defined as an economy which “aims for stable or mildly fluctuating levels in population and consumption of energy and material.” Even Adam Smith realized there were limits to economic growth. He predicted that eventually natural resources would become more scarce, population growth would depress wages, and division of labor would approach the limits of its effectiveness.

For some people, a steady-state economy is a radical idea. For others, it makes perfect sense in a world of finite resources with gross inequalities and a lot people stuck in the daily grind and not so happy, despite the latest got-to-have-it technology.

Enough is Enough actually builds the groundwork for moving towards a society that lives within its means and focuses on the things people want—happiness, well-being, economic security, food security, good health, clean environment, strong communities, and so on. Perhaps most importantly, it does so in a straightforward and reader-friendly manner.

The book contains an actual blueprint of policies that could create a sustainable economy. Proposed solutions include: establishing more worker-owned companies, prohibiting banks from issuing money as debt (essentially preventing banks from creating money “out of thin air”), local currencies, and work-time reduction (to help reduce unemployment and improve citizen well-being).

Dietz and O’Neill believe the following policy directions would serve as pillars of a steady-state economy:

  • Limit the use of materials and energy to sustainable levels;
  • Stabilize population through compassionate and non-coercive means;
  • Achieve a fair distribution of income and wealth;
  • Reform monetary and financial systems for stability;
  • Change the way we measure progress;
  • Secure meaningful jobs and full employment;
  • Reconfigure the way businesses create value.

Enough is Enough also positively and pro-actively deals with the often taboo subject of population growth. Just as with the economy, a steady population is needed in a world of finite resources. Most importantly, Dietz and O’Neill recognize that “hidden in population numbers are real people”, something that often gets lost in the discussion of a world of 7 billion people, and likely to grow to between 8 to 10 billion by 2050. Unless compassionate, non-coercive policies are devised, any population policy will ultimately not work. Successful policies include actions such as educating girls, empowering women, and providing family planning services.

The two authors bravely wade into the immigration debate, also a tumultuous issue. They are in favor of honoring current U.S. immigration policy of accepting refugees and reuniting families. As for admitting workers with specific skills to fill jobs (also U.S policy), they suggest that the U.S and other wealthy countries are tapping the best educated and skilled foreign workers, which results in a “brain drain” for the developing countries from which these workers mainly come. Developed countries want top talent to spur more economic growth. Yet in doing so, the wealthy (and high-consuming) countries increase population growth to the detriment of less wealthy nations.

It’s a sensitive subject, yet if you look past the emotional arguments around immigration, as the authors do, you’ll see that their position is one where, in their words, “Instead of recruiting educated and entrepreneurial people from abroad, wealthy nations should cultivate talent at home and encourage nations abroad to retain their most capable workers.” In a sense, it’s localizing the workforce, for the good of societies in both developed and developing countries.

The world is facing many critical issues, yet for the most part stubbornly continues with business as usual, to the detriment of society and the planet. Enough is Enough effectively tackles issues too many people want to ignore. Moreover, it not only provides fodder for lively discussions, but practical ideas for achieving a sustainable economy and healthy communities.

Suzanne York is a senior writer with the Institute for Population Studies.

Source: PopulationGrowth.org < http://populationgrowth.org/have-you-had-enough-a-plan-for-a-sustainable-economy/> January 18, 2013. Reprinted with permission.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Economy, Growth, Population, Sustainability

2012: The Hottest Year In USA History by the Center for Biological Diversity

"The blazing temperatures that scorched America in 2012 are a bitter taste of the climate chaos ahead."

“The blazing temperatures that scorched America in 2012 are a bitter taste of the climate chaos ahead.”

The National Climatic Data Center reported that 2012 was the hottest in recorded U.S. history (i.e., since 1895). “The temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree,” read an item in The New York Times, “but last year blew away the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit.” The news confirms the need for rapid, ambitious action on climate, starting with full implementation of the Clean Air Act.


“This puts the heat on President Barack Obama to take immediate action against carbon pollution,” said Shaye Wolf, the Center for Biological Diversity’s climate science director. “The blazing temperatures that scorched America in 2012 are a bitter taste of the climate chaos ahead. Science tells us that our rapidly warming planet will endure more heat waves, droughts and extreme weather. The president needs to start making full use of the Clean Air Act to fight greenhouse gas emissions, before it’s too late.”

So far more than 40 communities around the country agree — Broward County, Fla., just joined the Center’s Clean Air Cities campaign. Will your city be next?

To learn more about the Clean Air Cities campaign, and how your city can join, go to the Center for Biological Diversity’s website: <http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/clean_air_cities/index.html>

Leave a Comment

Filed under Climate, Energy, Leadership, Sustainability, Weather

A Biological Holocaust in the Making by Leon Kolankiewicz

Is the elephant doomed by insatiable need and greed?

Is the elephant doomed by insatiable need and greed?

As a kid, my second favorite animal was the African elephant.  My favorite was the woolly mammoth, which once roamed across our own North America, as well as the steppes of Eurasia.

Unfortunately, all that remains of mammoths are cave paintings, that and their forlorn bones and tusks – lonely relics of a bygone era.  Mammoths and their cousins the mastodons are extinct, gone forever, felled by the Ice Age, or so said the encyclopedias and textbooks of my youth.  Apparently their shaggy coats didn’t offer enough protection from the piercing cold, or overheated them in the warm whispering winds of an interglacial.

It took a trip some years later to the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles to suggest otherwise.   Exhibits at the George C. Page Museum there depicted the human role in the demise of the woolly mammoth.  These exhibits pointed out that the mammoths and scores of other large beasts (megafauna) in North America had survived multiple advances and retreats of the massive ice sheets that occurred during the Pleistocene.  Until the final advance, when suddenly everything changed.

What changed was that the Earth’s supreme predator arrived from Asia equipped with technology no more advanced than spears and projectile points but a cunning that brute size could not match.  During that final southward surge of the ice – and the corresponding drop in sea level – humans are believed to have marched across the land bridge over the Bering Strait from the Asian continent into a North American primeval paradise teeming with large, wondrous, and dangerous creatures.

There were giant (4-ton) ground sloths, dire wolves, tapirs, peccaries, short-faced bears, American lions, giant condors, giant beavers, and not just fearsome saber-toothed cats but even a 9-ft long “sabertooth salmon” that would have dwarfed even the king salmon.  All of these marvels vanished suddenly in one of the greatest mass extinction events in the recent history of life on Earth.

Upon learning that scientists now implicate human beings in the demise of the woolly mammoth, I used to find solace that at least its relative the elephant survives in the wild to this day – if not on our own continent.  Recent news out of Africa has shaken that solace.

The Wildlife Conservation Society has announced the results of a 9-year study of population trends among forest elephants in Central Africa.   The study found that the numbers of these elephants had dropped by 62% from 2002 to 2011.  The cause of this sharp decline?  Not habitat destruction, but poaching, for the ivory in their tusks of course.  This “blood ivory” is destined for Asia, principally China.  Some 25,000 elephants are being slaughtered annually for the illicit ivory trade.

To a wildlife conservationist and population activist, the welcome attention this ongoing outrage is receiving still falls woefully short of the mark.  The population angle is conspicuously absent.  (So what else is new?)  Yet population figures into this story in at least two ways.

First, the countries of Central Africa where the elephant slaughter is underway all have ultra-high fertility rates, skyrocketing human populations, and widespread poverty.   For instance, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has a total fertility rate (TFR) of 6.3 – that is, on average, each woman gives birth to more than six babies.  Congo’s 2012 population of 69 million is projected to grow 2.8 times to 194 million by 2050!  Its per capita GDP is $216, less than one half of one percent of America’s $49,601 per capita GDP.   It’s no wonder that elephant poaching is an attractive career option for an ambitious young man who needs to put food on the plate for his growing family or wants a little cash to purchase consumer goods like cell phones.

The original scientific paper in the online journal PLoS One concluded:  “High human population density, hunting intensity, absence of law enforcement, poor governance, and proximity to expanding infrastructure are the strongest predictors of decline.”  It’s frightening to say so, but the population projections just cited ensure that all of these factors will go from bad to worse in the coming years.

The second population angle is less obvious, but concerns gigantic China.  While China has taken extraordinary and controversial steps to slow its population growth, there are still 1.3 billion Chinese consumers with rising incomes, each having a greater per capita impact on the environment as they grow more affluent.  And now more and more can afford to buy ivory. Unless China’s rising affluence is accompanied by a more enlightened environmental ethic, the elephant is doomed, pure and simple.  Anti-poaching campaigns will be overwhelmed by powerful demographic and economic forces.

Famed biologist E.O. Wilson once estimated that the total biomass (living weight) of all 7 billion humans on Earth probably outweighs by 100 times that of any large animal species (including the dinosaurs) that ever existed on land.  With this alarming news out of Africa, that ratio just got even more lopsided.  And the African elephant, like the woolly mammoth before it, may yet be pushed over the edge of the precipice into the abyss of extinction – a void from which there is no return.

3 Comments

Filed under Environment, Population, Sustainability, Wildlife

Experts Fear Collapse of Global Civilization by Stephen Leahy

"Television after the Collapse"  photo by Robbt/Flickr/cc

“Television after the Collapse” photo by Robbt/Flickr/cc

“Environmental problems have contributed to numerous collapses of civilizations in the past. Now, for the first time, a global collapse appears likely. Overpopulation, overconsumption by the rich and poor choices of technologies are major drivers; dramatic cultural change provides the main hope of averting calamity.”  ~ Paul & Anne Ehrlich

Experts on the health of our planet are terrified of the future. They can clearly see the coming collapse of global civilization from an array of interconnected environmental problems. “We’re all scared,” said Paul Ehrlich, president of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University. “But we must tell the truth about what’s happening and challenge people to do something to prevent it,” Ehrlich told IPS.

Global collapse of human civilization seems likely, write Ehrlich and his partner Anne Ehrlich in the prestigious science journal, Proceedings of the Royal Society.  This collapse will take the form of a “…gradual breakdown because famines, epidemics and resource shortages cause a disintegration of central control within nations, in concert with disruptions of trade and conflicts over increasingly scarce necessities”, they write.

Already two billion people are near starvation today. Food production is humanity’s biggest industry and is already being affected by climate and other environmental problems. “No civilization can avoid collapse if it fails to feed its population,” the authors say.

Escalating climate disruption, ocean acidification, oceanic dead zones, depletion of groundwater and extinctions of plants and animals are the main drivers of the coming collapse, they write in their peer-reviewed article “Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?” published this week.

Dozens of earth systems experts were consulted in writing the 10-page paper that contains over 160 references. “We talked to many of the world’s leading experts to reflect what is really happening,” said Ehrlich, who is an eminent biologist and winner of many scientific awards.

Our reality is that current overconsumption of natural resources and the resulting damage to life-sustaining services nature provides means we need another half of a planet to keeping going. And that’s if all seven billion remain at their current living standards, the Ehrlichs write.

"The Earth is One ~ The World Not Yet" photo from NASA

“The Earth is One ~ The World Not Yet” photo from NASA

If everyone lived like a U.S. citizen, another four or five planets would be needed.

Global population is projected to increase by 2.5 billion by 2050. It doesn’t take an expert to conclude that collapse of civilization will be unavoidable without major changes. “We’re facing a future where billions will likely die, and yet little is being done to avoid certain disaster,” he said. “Policy makers and the public aren’t terrified about this because they don’t have the information or the knowledge about how our planet functions,” he said.

Last March, the world’s scientific community provided the first-ever “state of the planet” assessment at the Planet Under Pressure conference in London. More than 3,000 experts concluded humanity is facing a “planetary emergency” and there was no time to lose in making large-scale changes.

In 2010, a coalition of the national scientific bodies and international scientific unions from 141 countries warned that “the continued functioning of the Earth system as we know it is at risk”. “The situation is absolutely desperate and yet there’s nothing on the front pages or on the agenda of world leaders,” said Pat Mooney, head of the international environmental organization ETC Group. “The lack of attention is a tragedy,” Mooney told IPS.

Solutions exist and are briefly outlined in the Ehrlich paper. However, these require sweeping changes. All nations need to do everything they can to reduce their emissions due to fossil fuels regardless of actions or lack of them by any other country, Ehrlich said.

Protection of the Earth’s biodiversity must take center stage in all policy and economic decisions. Water and energy systems must be re-engineered. Agriculture must shift from fossil-fuel intensive industrial monocultures to ecologically-based systems of food production. Resilience and flexibility will be essential for civilization to survive.

A key element in meeting this unprecedented challenge is “…to see ourselves as utterly embedded in Nature and not somehow separate from those precious systems that sustain all life”, writes England’s Prince Charles commenting on the Ehrlich’s paper.

“To continue with ‘business as usual’ is an act of suicide on a gargantuan scale,” Prince Charles concluded.

Stephen Leahy is the senior science and environment correspondent for Inter Press Service News, the world’s largest not-for-profit news agency. Source: IPS News agency, January 11, 2013. <http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/01/experts-fear-collapse-of-global-civilisation/>

Leave a Comment

Filed under Climate, Culture, Economy, Environment, Population, Sustainability

Nature’s Capital by His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales

While it is certainly welcome that so much attention has been devoted over recent years to the challenges posed by climate change, it seems to me that this particular focus has somewhat overshadowed what could prove to be an even greater threat to our well-being—namely the unprecedented degradation of the Earth’s living fabric of species and ecosystems.

Deforestation, collapsing fish stocks, the decline of pollinators, a rash of animal and plant extinctions and the loss of soils are among a whole host of worrying trends that confirm how we are overwhelming Nature’s capacity to supply our ever-increasing demands and to sustain human civilization in the long term.

I have found it increasingly breathtaking that even though so much scientific evidence now abounds on the decline of so many natural systems, it still seems possible to write off these symptoms as simply the inevitable consequences of development, in the belief that we can somehow balance the destruction against the benefits of carrying on with “business-as-usual”. We may have convinced ourselves in the past that we could think this way, but not now. The idea that we can endlessly exploit natural systems in order to sustain economic growth has run its course and is no longer a viable option. We cannot go on as we have done; we have to turn the tide.

For a system to be “sustainable” it must be, by definition, capable of enduring without failure. So, it is a simple test. Does the way we treat Nature guarantee its endurance without failure?  From all the evidence we have, the answer is fast becoming a resounding “no”. In so many realms, by definition, Nature’s life-support systems will plainly not endure indefinitely. Whether it be the air we breathe, the water that feeds our farming, the forests that absorb carbon, or the reefs that protect our coasts, natural systems in all their diverse forms are suffering corrosive destruction, and this will inevitably have a damaging effect on our economic wellbeing, let alone our health, wherever we are in the world. This is the clear message that has come through from a number of recent expert studies, and yet it remains a notion that is evidently still not taking root in the collective view of our place in the world.

This is why for so long I have been at pains to explain how this rather fundamental predicament arises. In large measure it is due to what I would call a “crisis of perception”. It is not so much clever policies nor innovative technologies that we lack; it is more a question of us forgetting the simple fact that we and our economies are a much a part of Nature as the trees and the birds. Just as they are, we are also Nature. It is a mistake, therefore, to put any distance between us and the rest of Nature’s systems. By degrading natural systems, we effectively reduce our own prospects for continued development and long term security.

As the shifts in climatic conditions begin to bite and as critical resources become scarce, the reason why we must attempt to reverse Nature’s decline can be summed up in one word: resilience.  Time and again experience from around the world confirms that Nature provides us with what are often the cheapest and most effective ways of coping with the challenges we face, from water scarcity to the impact of extreme weather events. The more healthy Nature is, the more likely we will be able to cope with the testing circumstances that lie ahead. This is why things like preserving forests and putting the health of the soil at the very heart of our approach are absolutely critical.

All this leads me to conclude that we have to see ecology and economy as two sides of the same coin, and urgently so. The world desperately needs a more integrated view of Nature and how her needs are incorporated into our thinking about development and economics. By properly valuing Nature’s “capital”, it should surely not be beyond the wit of man (and economists!) to establish an innovative market for the “public utilities” provided by ecosystem services? It is a fact that we can no longer ignore: a secure and prosperous future for humanity can only be guaranteed by a much more harmonious coexistence with the rest of Nature’s complex and miraculous system.

Source: Dimensions magazine, International Human Dimensions on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), January 14, 2013.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Economy, Environment, Natural Resources, Sustainability