Uncontrolled Population Blamed For Climate Change - IPS News

[hatrack]

KARACHI, Jul 31 (IPS) - When it comes to climate change population matters, particularly for countries in South Asia, Africa and some Arab countries, says Prof. Khalid Rashid. A mathematician and physicist in Pakistan, he has long been studying the phenomenon of global warming and views the uncontrolled population explosion with much trepidation.

EDIT

"Deep down human population is the main cause. If the world population would stay around 100 million, this population could afford an energy-intensive, yet sustainable, lifestyle. The effect on the planet would be small," says Prof. Rashid. The mathematician in him begins calculating. "It is very obvious that by 2050, the Indian subcontinent will have to support 350 million Pakistanis; 1.65 billion Indians; 40 million Nepalese; 300 million Bangladeshis and 30 million Sri Lankans. The total will be about 2.4 billion people. This was the total population of the whole earth around 1950. The strain on resources will be tremendous, and consequences catastrophic," he prophesies.

By then the glaciers in the Himalayas will be gone, the monsoons will be erratic, sometimes too much or too little rain; new uncontrollable diseases will have emerged, he adds. "We are headed for a mega disaster. It will come overnight. We will wake up, and find that all we had yesterday (food, water, electricity) are gone," the professor concludes.

The world's population is projected to increase by 40 percent in 2050. Pakistan, with an annual growth rate of 2.69 percent, as given in the government's Statistical Year Book 2006, will be the sixth most populous country. There seems to be no stopping the runaway growth here because birth control is often portrayed as anti-people. The subject is not broached. The country's political and religious leaders who could make a difference are to blame.

EDIT

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38730

[Deja Q]

1. Of a planet inhabited by 6.5 billion people, nixing 6.4 billion should be a real treat...

Also, if he wants to talk about birth control we should be grateful of the low birth rates imposed by the US and Europe.

[Bobbieo]

3. Bush's Global Gag Order which he signed

as his first act as POTUS has greatly contributed to this number of people. FYI - the order cut US funding from International Planned Parenthood.

[phantom power]

5. Population crash -- nature's way of telling you to slow down.

[GliderGuider]

7. It's not just the West. Take a look at Kerala

It's an Indian state of 30 million people, with third world incomes ($500/yr) but a TFR of 1.8 compared to Rajasthan's 4.2 and the 4.7 of Uttar Pradesh. This has been accomplished through the usual (yet still unusual) means - the education and empowerment of women and the provision of family planning services. It all came about because of a communist state government elected in 1957 that put social reform at the top of its agenda.

Kerala is evidence that poverty is not incompatible with low and declining population. It's a living laboratory that should be carefully studied.

[kestrel91316]

2. Oh dear. This guy's gonna get himself fatwa'd........

[cliss]

4. I have some news for Professor Rashid.

He doesn't need to worry about the populations going that high. It ain't gonna happen.

At this moment, we've got a world population of 6.5 billion, and that is not sustainable. We've got food supplies which are threatened, oil prices which are steadily going up (agriculture is one of the most oil-dependent industries), pollution, and global warming due to too many warm bodies.

No need to worry because the problem is going to take care of itself. A LOT of people are going on a drastic diet.

[The2ndWheel]

6. "If the world population would stay around 100 million

this population could afford an energy-intensive, yet sustainable, lifestyle."

Maybe if they were all in one spot. If 100 million people were scattered around the planet, you wouldn't have energy intensive anything. You wouldn't have much of a tax base to build the infrastructure.

[Gloria]

8. Here's an interesting related article that adds human occupation of land mass to the problem:

It goes on to say that no one knows what the tipping point is in terms of how much is too much. Posted in today's World Energy Watch at Buzzflash.com

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0725-pnas.html

Humans appropriate 24% of Earth's productivity
Human landscapes occupy 35% of the planet's ice-free land surface
mongabay.com
July 25, 2007

Researchers have developed the first geographically detailed analysis of humankind's impact on the biosphere, as represented by a metric known as HANPP or human appropriation of net primary production. The results are presented and discussed in two papers published in the July 6 online edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Using vegetation modeling, agricultural and forestry statistics, and geographical information systems data on land use, land cover, and soil degradation that localizes human impact on ecosystems, a team lead by Helmut Haber of Austria's Klagenfurt University show that humans are presently appropriating 23.8% of potential net primary productivity -- 15.6 pentagram of carbon per year. Of this amount, 53 percent of appropriation results from harvest, 40% from land-use-induced productivity changes, and 7% from human-induced fires. The work shows that humans are having a massive impact on Earth's resources.

"Our research has documented that Humans are indeed becoming a force in changing the global environment," David Zaks, a research assistant at the University of Wisconsin - Madison's Center for Sustainability & the Global Environment (SAGE), told mongabay.com. "The importance of these studies lies in reframing previously benign numbers into a story that more effectively portrays our collective actions on the planet."

The researchers present a series of maps that show how humans are appropriating the planet's resources. Zaks says that in most areas background productivity has decreased due to human activities, though in some areas it has been artificially increased through intensive fertilization, irrigation and mechanization of agriculture. The researchers add that intensification is a matter of necessity, resulting from shrinking opportunities for expansion -- croplands and pastures now rival forests as the largest ecosystems on the planet, occupying 35 percent of the ice-free land surface. The rise of such human dominated landscapes has come at the expense of natural ecosystems.

MORE

[GliderGuider]

9. That's sobering. Thanks for posting it.

I've been seeing unsupported statements that we were already appropriating 40% or more of the earth's net biological productivity. I guess a solid estimate of 24% doesn't give much extra room for hope, though.

As usual the productivity we have already appropriated will be the lowest cost and easiest to access. That means that if we need to expand that amount it will come at progressively higher and higher cost in energy, ecological and economic terms. Anyone want to hazard a guess what it would cost humanity to support another 50% of its population? I'd bet the next 3 billion would cost about the same as the current 6 billion. We're looking at terminal damage to the ecosphere if we even try. I hope the limits to growth get here soon, or we are going to "entropificate" the whole damn planet. As in apply the second law of thermodynamics until all the useful bits are converted to waste.