Article: Population Growth Leads to Environmental Stress

Although it's long been suspected that human activity has greatly contributed to environmental stress, it's only recently that science has begun to show just how great a role that activity is playing.

In an article published in the journal Nature Climate Change, Michigan State University's Thomas Dietz and his colleague, Eugene Rosa of Washington State University, take a critical look at the various factors that have long been prime climate-change suspects. One in particular: The role of population growth.
 
"How does population growth influence greenhouse gas emissions?" Dietz asks. "Well, in looking at most nations of the world during the last few decades we find that for each 1 percent increase in population, we get a bit more than a 1 percent increase in emissions."
 
And with the Earth's population projected to reach 10 billion by the end of this century, "it unquestionably will add to the stress we place on the planet," Dietz said.
 
Until recently, climate-change debate had focused on whether it was brought about by human activity. Recently that debate has shifted to what sorts of activities are creating it.
 
"No single factor acts independently of the others," said Dietz, a professor of sociology and environmental science and policy, and assistant vice president for environmental research. "The effect of population size depends on consumption; the effects of consumption depend on how many people are consuming at that level."
 
Another factor that has sparked climate-change debate focuses on how affluent a nation is. On one hand it's argued that more affluent nations use more resources, thus creating more emissions.
 
On the other hand, citizens of more affluent nations tend to be more socially conscious and are willing to work and pay for a cleaner environment.
 
"For example," Dietz said, "increased use of electricity generated by renewable sources that do not emit greenhouse gases might partially or wholly compensate for the tendency toward increased emissions that come with increased affluence."
 
Dietz and Rosa write that they are not optimistic about the future, calling the paper they did "sobering."
 
"The population and economic growth that can be anticipated in coming decades will tend to push emissions substantially upward," they wrote.
 
The only possible saving grace, they say, is improved technology and changes in the way humans use resources.
 
"However, these changes will need to be huge because they must counter substantial increases in scale coming from population growth and especially increasing affluence."

 

Comments

Wed, Jun 27, 2012 cwilson Seattle

Mark's "70's Deja vu remark shows a healthy ignorance about the effects of population doubling every few decades and a hole bunch of formerly 3rd world folks now consuming near first world levels. All evidence is liquid fuel lifestyle is limited, the natural-gas boom is a bubble about to burst, fresh water supply diminishing lika a bandalized plastic pool. Have you seen a recent photo of polar ice? If you think the world is violent now , (over religious silliness and oil), what do you think our kids prospects are when sea level rises. Where does most of the world population live?, atop the rockies or at the seashore? What do you think will happen when a high percentage of the planet decides to move uphill -- do you think there will be some conflict?? The air is cleaner since 1970 because of major work in auto engines and lead and sulfur aren't needed in a working automobile. There ain't nofossil fuel prospects that doesn't involve Carbon Dioxide increasing massively!!! , (Unless we die back). No solutions at hand for keeping warm or moving lots of folks or farming for 7 Bilion and growing without accelerating the global warming. Yep, we can use technology, Mark ,but the at-hand solution involves eating mushrooms - mushroom clouds. I say this based on our track record of sharing and playing-nice. The at hand solution is an advance of the technology of the third reich. Tell me, is this "final solution" -- Darwinian free-for-all pooulaton reduction your choice? Maybe we should change our religions to face-away from the belief the earth is a crummy rest stop on out trip to Disneyland-paradise. Have we met our match in the mirror?

Tue, Jun 12, 2012

Cleaner air is great. I agree. But we are pumping C02 into the atmosphere at ever increasing levels. This is not good. We need to move forward with solar electricity as fast as we can afford to. If we cover our roofs with solar panels we could get all the energy we need for our houses and our electric cars to.

Tue, Jun 12, 2012 Mark Michigan

Hello: Another doomsday paper. Sounds like the 1970s all over. Examples abound in the U.S. about how much better we are environmentally as compared to the 1970s, even with a doubling of the number of people and the products we use (e.g. cars, plane flights, electric usage, etc.). For example, the U.S. EPAs own website includes graphs depicting how dramatically cleaner the air is in the U.S. since the 1970s. Doomsday hasn't happended. I doubt if humanity will let it happen in the future.

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above