BBC: Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'

[GliderGuider]

Population controls 'will not solve environment issues'

A worldwide one-child policy would mean the number of people in 2100 remained around current levels, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

There may be 12 billion humans on Earth by 2100, latest projections suggest.

These growing numbers mean a greater impact on the environment than ever, with worries about the conversion of forests for agriculture, the rise of urbanisation, the pressure on species, pollution, and climate change.

The picture is complicated by the fact that while the overall figures have been growing, the world's per-capita fertility has been declining for several decades. The impact on the environment has increased substantially, however, because of rising affluence and consumption rates.

[GliderGuider]

1. Not even a thermonuclear war would help

In their paper, the researchers also look at the impact on numbers of a global catastrophe in the middle of this century. They found that even an event that wiped out two billion people would still leave about eight and a half billion in 2100.

"Even if we had a third world war in the middle of this century, you would barely make a dent in the trajectory over the next 100 years," said Prof Bradshaw, something he described as "sobering".

Man, even one of the four horsemen wouldn't help to get us out of this jam. I guess it will be up to the other three, then.

[Warpy]

2. Oh, I think we'll likely see contagion by then

Any true killer will arrive unannounced, spread rapidly and kill quickly.

Ebola is a poor candidate because the only place it has a chance of spreading rapidly enough is the Indian subcontinent.

[enlightenment]

3. Nature does have a way of taking care of these things.

That said, I don't think that "it won't matter if we shoot for making fewer humans" is necessarily helpful. It may not make much of a dent, but it can't hurt to try.

[bananas]

4. Barry Brook? He really discredited himself over Fukushima

He made statements showing he's not just biased but also clueless, here's an example:

1. There is no credible risk of a serious accident.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-earthquake/

and later in that discussion:

There will be no breach of containment and no release of radioactivity beyond, at the very most, some venting of mildly radioactive steam to relieve pressure. Those spreading FUD at the moment will be the ones left with egg on their faces.

I am happy to be quoted forever after on the above if I am wrong… but I won’t be.

- posted 12 March 2011 at 1:55 PM by Barry Brook

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-earthquake/#comment-113871

He wasn't just spouting that crackpot bullshit on his own site,
he was interviewed on tv news a number of times in Australia.

It's not just that he was wrong - but that he was so damn sure about it.
Makes it hard to take anything he says seriously.

edit to add: a year later, he was still spouting anti-science pro-nuclear bullshit: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-15/green-spinning-fukushima/3832080

[GliderGuider]

6. So is he right or wrong on overpopulation? And how about Bradshaw?

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/corey.bradshaw

Biography/ Background


I direct The Environment Institute's Climate and Ecology Centre and the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences' Global Change Ecology Group.

I have a broad range of research interests including population dynamics, extinction theory, palaeo-ecology, sustainable harvest, invasive species and climate change impacts & mitigation (see more detail below).

Here's a link to the paper in PNAS:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/10/23/1410465111

Abstract
The inexorable demographic momentum of the global human population is rapidly eroding Earth’s life-support system. There are consequently more frequent calls to address environmental problems by advocating further reductions in human fertility. To examine how quickly this could lead to a smaller human population, we used scenario-based matrix modeling to project the global population to the year 2100. Assuming a continuation of current trends in mortality reduction, even a rapid transition to a worldwide one-child policy leads to a population similar to today’s by 2100. Even a catastrophic mass mortality event of 2 billion deaths over a hypothetical 5-y window in the mid-21st century would still yield around 8.5 billion people by 2100. In the absence of catastrophe or large fertility reductions (to fewer than two children per female worldwide), the greatest threats to ecosystems—as measured by regional projections within the 35 global Biodiversity Hotspots—indicate that Africa and South Asia will experience the greatest human pressures on future ecosystems. Humanity’s large demographic momentum means that there are no easy policy levers to change the size of the human population substantially over coming decades, short of extreme and rapid reductions in female fertility; it will take centuries, and the long-term target remains unclear. However, some reduction could be achieved by midcentury and lead to hundreds of millions fewer people to feed. More immediate results for sustainability would emerge from policies and technologies that reverse rising consumption of natural resources.

The article itself is paywalled, but the Supporting Information and Datasets are available:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/10/23/1410465111/suppl/DCSupplemental

[cprise]

5. A difference of 5 billion people = Whatever

Never mind a One Child policy; Its sad that people will use stories like this to justify their anti-birth control stance.

[The2ndWheel]

7. We can't account for every interest

It's a conflict of interests. That's why we can't be self appointed stewards of the planet.