| Send this page to a friend |
Population Matters
Dear Debra I must reiterate what I explained on the phone this morning - that the issue of population is the greatest single threat to all wildlife on the planet. Without population control to bring about a sustainable population there will be environmental catastrophe on a grand scale:
John Sinclair 14 September 1999
The terms 'growth' and 'development' are widely used to mean the same thing, but their differences should be understood. Following the dictionary definition to 'grow' means to increase in size by the assimilation or accretion of materials. To 'develop' means to expand or realise the potentialities of, to bring to a fuller, greater or better state. When something grows it gets quantitatively better or at least different. Quantitative growth and qualitative improvements follow different laws. Our economy, a subsystem of the finite and non-growing earth, must eventually adapt to a similar pattern of development. Source: Introduction to Environmentally Sustainable Economic Development: Building on Brundtland, The World Bank Environment Working Paper No 46, 1991
The greatest threat to biodiversity is the size and rate of growth of human population. Everyday, more people need more space, consume more resources and generate more waste as world population continues to grow at an alarming rate. Human population growth is reducing biodiversity in the following ways:
Source: http://www.austmus.gov.au/biodiversity
Loss of biodiversity does not simply mean a few animal and plant species disappearing, it means the breakdown of whole systems, the systems which purify our water and air, enrich our soils, protect our health and maintain our lives. The State Of Environment Report also stated that the overwhelming cause of the decline in Australia's biodiversity results from the human population, their lifestyles, technologies and demands on natural resources. According to the report, the situation continues to deteriorate as population and demands on natural resources increase.
It is now known that the most diverse and productive area of the ocean is the coastal zone, and that the major source of ocean pollution is what comes off the land. Because 70% of Australia is arid and not suitable for human habitation, the majority of people live in only a small part of the country - known as the Eastern Green Crescent - where growth in human population continues at very rapid rates, even by international standards. The SOE Report states that these patterns of coastal development have serious implications for coastal biodiversity. Even so called 'sensitive' development poses risks to the integrity of remaining natural ecosystems.
"Yes, we could diminish our impact if we all used fewer resources but this is not happening. In fact we are using more. On a per capita basis, energy consumption in Sydney increased by 30 per cent per head between 1970 and 1990, water consumption by 25 per cent, and food consumption by 92 per cent (largely due to increased consumption of grain-fed animals)."
Katharine Betts "We must alert and organise the world's people to pressure world leaders to take specific steps to solve the two root causes of our environmental crisis - exploding population growth and wasteful consumption of irreplaceable resources. Over-consumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we face today." Jacques Yves Cousteau "Population growth is the single biggest threat to life on earth. No doubt at all. A great number of our major environmental problems - whether it is the greenhouse effect or the ozone layer or the despoliation of seas and rivers - are caused by more and more human beings wanting the fresh air of the earth. I'm not one who says that you should let babies die or that you should deny the man in the Brazilian forest the right to grow food for his children, but if we do want a solution to the problem, the correct solution is population control." Sir David Attenborough "Steady growth over time is the creed of the cancer cell. Nothing continues to grow indefinitely on this planet without eventually killing itself and much of the surrounding area. So if you look at the life support systems of the planet as a single system, than human beings in that system have all the characteristics of a cancer." Dr David Suzuki "Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs and to realise human potentialities are simply unsustainable - in both rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts. They may show profits on the balance sheets of our generation but our children will inherit the losses." The World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987 "The growth in our population is the most fundamental problem facing mankind. In Australia, the population is growing as fast as in any advanced country and the rate in south-east Queensland is particularly high. It is at the root of problems from air pollution to loss of bushland." "We should be thinking about the desirable population for regions like south-east Queensland and the Cairns district so we can develop policies to stabilise the population at the appropriate level. If we don't, the quality of life we now enjoy will be destroyed by sheer numbers of people." Professor Ian Lowe
The Editor I am impressed by the article on overpopulation in the November Newsletter. Every single problem in conservation can be ultimately traced back to overpopulation as the basic cause. Nevertheless, all one gets on the subject from most conservation groups is a deafening silence. It is heartening therefore to see WPSQ recognising the problem for the crisis that it is. Sadly, both sides of politics in this country, while giving lip service to conservation matters, promote population growth (eg by high migration policies). Even worse, business interests promote population growth as a means of expanding their business empires regardless of the environmental costs. I would urge readers to support the only group actively trying to do something about this, viz AESP - (Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable Population), P O Box 297, CIVIC SQUARE ACT 2608. (AESP have since changed their name to "Sustainable Population Australia".)
Yours faithfully
60 per cent of Queensland's rare, threatened or endangered plant species are found in the urban growth areas of South East Queensland? There is almost no doubt that increasing populations will live in local government areas adjoining the eastern seaboard of Australia, and be particularly concentrated in South East Queensland. If current trends in growth continue, by 2050 almost every coastal council will have to provide services for double the present population, and many areas are likely to see up to 10 times their current populations ? The State of the Environment (SoE) Report for Queensland released in November 1999, identified the 'ecological footprint' - the area of ecologically productive land needed to maintain the lifestyle of South East Queenslanders - as being 6 ha per person. Yet our 'fair share' is estimated to be a mere 1.5 ha.
This week (ending 14 March 1998), 18 eminent scientists, including best-selling author, Dr Tim Flannery, wrote to the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, calling on the coalition to develop a formal population policy. Population and the Environment We are writing to express our deep concern over the lack of a national population policy. This issue has particular currency because immigration intake levels will soon be decided. The continuing decline of the Australian environment, as documented in the 1996 State of the Environment Report, is alarming and contrary to the goals of Ecological Sustainable Development (ESD) set by the Council of Australian Governments. The SoE Report, the ESD Committee on Population, and the Australian Academy of Science all agree that our population size, and high rate of growth relative to comparable affluent countries, are prime factors causing this decline. In 1994, the House of Representatives committee for long term strategies published the findings of its inquiry into the future population of Australia. The report called strongly for a community wide debate to precede and inform the development of a national population policy. In 1995, the Australian Academy of Science published the results of the symposium on population, which included a joint statement by the Academy's working party. Point six is: 'It is therefore essential that the issue of the continent's population become part of the national debate over our future. From such debates, the Federal government must develop a policy on population, which should include the issue of population size.' We believe that social, economic and environmental issues make the development of a population policy a matter of national urgency. This policy should be consistent with the goals and principles of ESD. It would inform and make transparent Government decisions in relevant areas. The Government rightly takes into account humanitarian, family reunion and economic issues when determining migration levels. As well, since population size affects every Australian and every river, valley and harbour of Australia, it is essential that population size also be considered. For this to be done, a national population policy is essential.
The scientific heavyweights include[d]
A policy of high population growth based on high levels of immigration will see Australian greenhouse gas emissions increase twice as fast compared with a policy of zero net immigration, The Australia Institute warned today. Faster growth in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions - already per capita the highest in the industrialised world - will require additional costly measures if Australia is to meet its commitments under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The study is published in the current issue of People and Place, the journal of the Centre for Population and Urban Research, Monash University, and simultaneously as an Australia Institute research paper entitled Population, growth and greenhouse gas emissions: Sources, trends and projections in Australia. The authors, economists Dr Clive Hamilton and Hal Turton, have calculated emissions under six scenarios ranging from low fertility with zero net immigration to high fertility with high net immigration. Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, Australia is committed to limiting emissions to 108 per cent of 1990 levels by 2008-12, or an estimated 120 per cent after declining emissions from land clearance are factored in. Australia's energy emissions already exceed 120 per cent of 1990 levels. Dr Clive Hamilton, who is the Executive Director of The Australia Institute, said: "Environmental issues can no longer be ignored in the population debate in Australia, and this is the first comprehensive study of the effect of population growth on a big environmental issue. "Some sections of business are now publicly calling for a population policy of 50 million by the year 2050. This would require immigration to be set at 450,000 each year, an absurd proposition. "They have clearly not considered the impact that a high population policy would have on greenhouse gas emissions and on our international commitments. It is inconsistent for business to call for high population growth and to complain about the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions." The study observes that over the last 15 years Australia has experienced the highest population growth of the industrial countries and the second largest increase in energy-related carbon dioxide emissions. While the efficiency of electricity generation has improved, Australia lags behind other countries in the proportion of energy obtained from natural gas. The new research shows that immigration to Australia more than doubles the greenhouse gas emissions of the immigrants with the average energy-related emissions from the countries of origin standing at 6.6 tonnes per person compared to Australia's 15.8 tonnes per person. The paper calculates that each additional 70,000 immigrants (the annual intake under a 'medium' immigration policy) will lead to additional emissions of 20 million tonnes of greenhouse gases by the end of the Kyoto target period (2012) and 30 million tonnes by 2020. These increases overshadow an expected reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 6 to 10 million tonnes from the Federal Government's recently announced 2 per cent renewables policy in the electricity sector. "In broad terms, therefore, a decision to adopt a policy of high net immigration of 140,000 per year would require two or three 2 per cent renewables policies to offset the increase in emissions." The paper concludes: "The Federal Government will need to introduce further policies to restrict emissions from the energy sector in order to meet Australia's international obligations, especially in the second and subsequent Kyoto commitment periods. "Clearly population policy could be an important tool for meeting Australia's target. "The Government could reduce energy-related emissions during the commitment period by up to 6 per cent of 1990 levels by restricting the immigration intake from now until 2012. Conversely, any increase in the current immigration intake will require more severe restrictions on the economy to control emission-producing activities."
|