EcoRadio

Category: Population

  • Population Clock

    Population clock
    		  

      On 30 April 2009 at 08:18:22 PM (Canberra time), the resident population of Australia is projected to be:

      21,746,528

    This projection is based on the estimated resident population at 30 September 2008 and assumes growth since then of:

    • one birth every 1 minute and 50 seconds,
    • one death every 3 minutes and 48 seconds,
    • a net gain of one international migrant every 2 minutes and 36 seconds leading to
    • an overall total population increase of one person every 1 minute and 30 seconds.

    These assumptions are consistent with those used for Series B in Population Projections, Australia, 2006 to 2101 (cat. no. 3222.0).

    RELATED PRODUCTS:

    States and Territories

    Australian Demographic Statistics (cat. no. 3101.0)

    Population by Age and Sex, Australian States and Territories (cat. no. 3201.0)

    Animated Population Pyramids


    Local government and other regions

    Regional Population Growth Australia (cat. no. 3218.0)

    Population by Age and Sex, Regions of Australia (cat. no. 3235.0)

    Births and Deaths

    Births, Australia (cat. no. 3301.0)

    Deaths, Australia (cat. no. 3302.0)


    Historical

    Australian Historical Population Statistics (cat. no 3105.0.65.001)

    Population projections

    Population Projections, Australia, 2006 to 2101 (cat. no. 3222.0)

    Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians

    Experimental Estimates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, Jun 2006 (cat. no. 3238.0.55.001)

    Other statistics

    Demography Releases

    Current World Population

  • 2008 Revision of World Population Prospects

     

    2008 Revision of World Population Prospects

    Key Findings

    1. In July 2009, the world population will reach 6.8 billion, 313 million more than in 2005 or a gain of

    78 million persons annually. Assuming that fertility levels continue to decline, the world population

    is expected to reach 9.1 billion in 2050 and to be increasing by about 33 million persons annually at

    that time, according to the medium variant.

    2. Future population growth is highly dependent on the path that future fertility takes. In the medium

    variant, fertility declines from 2.56 children per woman in 2005-2010 to 2.02 children per woman

    in 2045-2050. If fertility were to remain about half a child above the levels projected in the medium

    variant, world population would reach 10.5 billion by 2050. A fertility path half a child below the

    medium would lead to a population of 8 billion by mid-century. Consequently, population growth

    until 2050 is inevitable even if the decline of fertility accelerates.

    3. In the more developed regions, fertility has increased slightly in recent years so that its estimated

    level in 2005-2010, 1.64 children per woman, according to the 2008 Revision is higher than the onereported in the 2006 Revision (1.60 children per woman). As a result of the slightly higher projected

    fertility and a sustained net in-migration averaging 2.4 million annually, the population of the more

    developed regions is expected to increase slightly from 1.23 billion in 2009 to 1.28 billion in 2050.

    4. The population of the 49 least developed countries is still the fastest growing in the world, at 2.3 per

    cent per year. Although its rate of increase is expected to moderate significantly over the next

    decades, the population of the least developed countries is projected to double, passing from 0.84

    billion in 2009 to 1.7 billion in 2050. Growth in the rest of the developing world is also projected to

    be robust, though less rapid, with its population rising from 4.8 billion to 6.2 billion between 2009

    and 2050 according to the medium variant.

    5. Slow population growth brought about by reductions in fertility leads to population ageing, that is, it

    produces populations where the proportion of older persons increases while that of younger persons

    decreases. In the more developed regions, 22 per cent of population is already aged 60 years or over

    and that proportion is projected to reach 33 per cent in 2050. In developed countries as a whole, the

    number of older persons has already surpassed the number of children (persons under age 15), and

    by 2050 the number of older persons in developed countries will be more than twice the number of

    children.

    6. Population ageing is less advanced in developing countries. Nevertheless, the populations of a

    majority of them are poised to enter a period of rapid population ageing. In developing countries as

    a whole, just 9 per cent of the population is today aged 60 years or over but that proportion will

    more than double by 2050, reaching 20 per cent that year.

    7. Globally, the number of persons aged 60 or over is expected almost to triple, increasing from 739

    million in 2009 to 2 billion by 2050. Furthermore, already 65 per cent of the world’s older persons

    live in the less developed regions and by 2050, 79 per cent will do so.

    8. In ageing populations, the numbers of persons with older ages grow faster the higher the age range

    considered. Thus, whereas the number of persons aged 60 or over is expected to triple, that of

    persons aged 80 or over (the oldest-old) is projected to increase four-fold, to reach 395 million in

    2050. Today, just about half of the oldest-old live in developing countries but that share is expected

    to reach 69 per cent in 2050.

    9. Although the population of all countries is expected to age over the foreseeable future, the

    population will remain relatively young in countries where fertility is still high, many of which are

    experiencing very rapid population growth. High population growth rates prevail in many

    developing countries, most of which are least developed. Between 2010 and 2050, the populations

    of 31 countries, the majority of which are least developed, will double or more. Among them, the

    populations of Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Niger, Somalia, Timor-Leste and Uganda are projected

    to increase by 150 per cent or more.

    10. In sharp contrast, the populations of 45 countries or areas are expected to decrease between 2010

    and 2050. These countries include Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cuba, Georgia,

    Germany, Hungary, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Romania,

    the Russian Federation and Ukraine, all of which are expected to see their populations decline by at

    least 10 per cent by 2050.

    11. Population growth remains concentrated in the populous countries. During 2010-2050, nine

    countries are expected to account for half of the world’s projected population increase: India,

    Pakistan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, the United States of America, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the

    United Republic of Tanzania, China and Bangladesh, listed according to the size of their

    contribution to global population growth.

    12. Fertility has continued to fall in the vast majority of countries in the less developed regions. The

    number of developing countries with high fertility (5 children or more per woman) declined from

    59 in 1990-1995 to 27 in 2005-2010, and their share of the world population dropped from 13 per

    cent to 9 per cent. Over the same period, the number of developing countries with fertility levels

    that do not ensure the replacement of the population increased from 15 to 38.

    13. Most developed countries have had below-replacement fertility (below 2.1 children per woman) for

    two or three decades. Among the 45 developed countries with at least 100,000 inhabitants in 2009,

    42 had below-replacement fertility in 1990-1995 and 44 did in 2005-2010. However, between the

    2000-2005 and 2005-2010, 34 developed countries experienced slight increases in fertility. For the

    more developed regions as a whole, total fertility increased from 1.58 to 1.64 children per woman

    between those two periods. Yet, in 2005-2010, 25 developed countries, including Japan and most of

    the countries in Southern and Eastern Europe, still had fertility levels below 1.5 children per

    woman.

    14. In 2005-2010, the 76 countries with below-replacement fertility accounted for 47 per cent of the

    world population. The most populous developing countries with below replacement fertility are

    China, Brazil, Viet Nam, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Thailand and the Republic of Korea, in order

    of population size.

    15. Globally, total fertility is expected to fall from 2.56 children per woman in 2005-2010 to 2.02 in

    2045-2050 according to the medium variant. However, in the more developed regions, total fertility

    is projected to increase from 1.64 children per woman currently to 1.80 in 2045-2050. A major

    reduction of fertility is projected for the group of least developed countries (from 4.39 to 2.41

    children per woman) and the fertility of the rest of the developing world is expected to drop from

    2.46 children per woman currently to 1.93 in 2045-2050, thus nearly converging to the fertility

    levels by then typical of the developed world.

    16. The median age, that is, the age that divides the population in two halves of equal size, is an

    indicator of population ageing. Globally, the median age is projected to increase from 29 to 38 years

    between 2009 and 2050. Europe has today the oldest population, with a median age of nearly 40

    years, which is expected to reach 47 years in 2050.

    17. The median age is higher in countries that have been experiencing low fertility for a long time. In

    2010, 19 developed countries or areas are expected to have a median age of 40 years or higher, up

    from 11 in 2005. In addition, among developing countries or areas, median ages above 40 were

    reached in Hong Kong SAR China and Singapore. The pervasiveness of population ageing will

    increase by 2050 when all 45 developed countries are projected to have median ages higher than 40

    years and 43 developing countries will also have similarly high median ages. Whereas today abou

    7 per cent of the world population lives in countries where median ages are 40 years or higher, the

    equivalent proportion in 2050 is projected to be 43 per cent.

    18. Countries where fertility remains high and has declined only moderately will experience the slowest

    population ageing. By 2050, slightly fewer than one in five countries is projected to have a median

    age under 30 years (37 countries). The youngest populations will be found among the least

    developed countries, eight of which are projected to have median ages below 25 years in 2050,

    including Afghanistan, Chad, Guinea-Bissau, Niger, Somalia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania

    and Zambia.

    19. Increasing longevity also contributes to population ageing. Globally, life expectancy at birth is

    projected to rise from 68 years in 2005-2010 to 76 years in 2045-2050. In the more developed

    regions, the projected increase is from 77 years in 2005-2010 to 83 years inn 2045-2050, while in

    the less developed regions the increase is expected to be from 66 years currently to 74 years by midcentury.

    20. Life expectancy remains low in the least developed countries, at just 56 years in 2005-2010, and

    although it is projected to reach 69 years in 2045-2050, realizing such increase is contingent on

    reducing the spread of HIV and combating successfully other infectious diseases. Similar

    challenges must be confronted if the projected increase of life expectancy in the rest of the

    developing countries, from under 68 years today to 76 years by mid-century, is to be achieved.

    21. A major concern is that most developing countries are unlikely to meet the goal of reducing underfive

    mortality by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015, as called for in the Millennium Development

    Goals. According to the 2008 Revision, 134 of the 151 developing countries with more than

    100,000 inhabitants in 2009 will not reach that goal. Furthermore, 59 developing countries, located

    mainly in sub-Saharan Africa or belonging to the group of least developed countries, are projected

    to have in 2015 an under-five mortality higher than 45 deaths per 1000, the less demanding target

    set by the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development.

    22. Among the more developed regions, Eastern Europe has the lowest life expectancy and it has

    experienced reductions in life expectancy at birth since the late 1980s. In 2005-2010 life expectancy

    in the region increased somewhat but at 69.2 years was lower than it had been in 1965-1970 (69.6

    years). Despite having recorded some recovery since the late 1990s, Moldova, the Russian

    Federation and Ukraine have currently the lowest life expectancies among developed countries

    (below 70 years).

    23. Although the HIV/AIDS epidemic continues to be a major issue of concern in the global health

    agenda, adult HIV prevalence reached a peak over the past decade or so in at least two thirds of the

    58 countries considered to be most affected by the epidemic and a growing number of them are

    reaching and maintaining lower prevalence levels. Nevertheless, in countries where prevalence has

    been high, the impact of the epidemic in terms of morbidity, mortality and slower population

    growth continues to be evident. Thus, in Southern Africa, the region with the highest prevalence of

    the disease, life expectancy has fallen from 61 years in 1990-1995 to 52 years in 2005-2010 and is

    only recently beginning to increase. Nevertheless, life expectancy in the region is not expected to

    recover the level it had in the early 1990s before 2045. As a consequence, the growth rate of the

    population in the region has plummeted, passing from 2.4 per cent annually in 1990-1995 to 0.6 per

    cent annually in 2005-2010 and is expected to continue declining for the foreseeable future.

    24. Given the low fertility prevailing in developed countries, deaths are expected to exceed births over

    the foreseeable future. Consequently, the population of the more developed regions would be

    World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision xiii

    decreasing if the excess of deaths over births were not counterbalanced by a net migration gain.

    During 2010-2050, the net number of international migrants to more developed regions is projected

    to be 96 million, whereas the excess of deaths over births is 58 million, implying an overall growth

    of 38 million.

    25. In 2005-2010, net migration in nine countries or areas more than doubled the contribution of natural

    increase (births minus deaths) to population growth: Belgium, Macao SAR China, Luxembourg,

    Malta, Qatar, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. In addition, in a further 11 countries or

    areas, net migration counterbalanced totally or in part the excess of deaths over births. These

    countries are: Austria, the Channel Islands, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece,

    Hungary, Italy, Japan, Portugal and the Russian Federation.

    26. In terms of annual averages, the major net receivers of international migrants during 2010-2050 are

    projected to be the United States (1.1 million annually), Canada (214,000), the United Kingdom

    (174,000), Spain (170,000), Italy (159,000), Germany (110,000), Australia (100,000) and France

    (100,000). The major countries of net emigration are projected to be Mexico (-334,000), China

    (-309,000 annually), India (-253,000), the Philippines (-175,000), Pakistan (-161,000), Indonesia

    (-156,000) and Bangladesh (-148,000). Although the current economic crisis may reduce migration

    flows in comparison to those registered over the recent past, the major economic and demographic

    asymmetries that will persist are likely to remain powerful generators of international migration

    over the medium-term future.

     

  • Population Control- ultimate greening

    Population control – ultimate greening

    By Green Living Tips | Published 02/5/2009 | family

    The ultimate green tip – don’t have kids

    The issue of population, or more accurately overpopulation, is a really, really sensitive subject, so I want to state from the outset that this article is not directed to those people with children, rather those that are considering having children; be it their first or adding to their clan. What’s done is done, what’s not can be prevented.

    Knowledge is wonderful, but with it comes a heavy responsibility.

    Jonathon Porritt, an advisor to the UK government, believes that green groups are betraying the interests of their members by refusing to address population issues due to the topic being “too controversial”. He’s right, it’s the elephant in the room many of us are trying to ignore for fear of backlash. I had touched on the topic briefly and gingerly in the past with some interesting feedback.

    At the age of 27, I decided that it was important that I did not have children and took the appropriate steps to ensure it didn’t occur. At that stage, it had more to do with genetics than environment, but as I get older I’ve discovered the side benefit was my decision is likely my greatest gift to the planet.

    It’s a decision I have never, ever, ever regretted, so I certainly can’t claim it was a huge sacrifice and be eligible for any martyr awards. The thought of my progeny running about planet Earth sends chills down my spine to be quite honest :).

    For me to perpetuate the line would have contributed so much additional environmental strain, even if my kids missed getting hit by the genetic boogeyman. For example, the average life expectancy of Australians, Canadians, folks in the USA and UK is between 77 – 80 years. At an average of 11 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year, the average Aussie will generate more than 880 tons of carbon emissions in one lifetime. That doesn’t include all the other harm we do.

    But what if I didn’t stop at one child and had two or more? Or what about my child’s children, their children and so on. What if some of them became heavy tobacco smokers like me? The mind boggles at the potential environmental impact if I had decided to have kids. It could potentially have many thousands of tons of greenhouse gas emissions and toxic waste within a few generations. Even if I reduced my personal impact by 75%, that could be wiped out by me introducing a single mini-me to this planet.

    Here’s a few stats gathered from Mother Jones about the carbon footprint of children:

    – One child in the USA generates as much CO2 as 106 Haitian children.

    – In the region of 223 trees would be needed to offset the CO2 generated by a child watching 3 hours of TV every day for 18 years.

    – In 2006, volunteers collected 68,720 lbs of toys and 33,469 lbs of diapers during global beach cleanups.

    – The average student bins up to 90 lbs of lunch-box leftovers and packaging each year.

    Sure, I could have taken steps with my kids to avoid some of those things, but that doesn’t mean they would have continued it. My parents warned me about drugs, but that certainly didn’t stop me losing a decade of my life to them. The machine of marketing is in kids’ ears for so much of their lives and it’s incredibly pervasive and persuasive. I know because I’m part of that machine.

    The other thing that constantly springs to my mind for those of us who fully understand where humanity is at – why would you want to bring children into a world that’s falling apart environmentally? We can’t guarantee their survival, nor can we even be confident in it. Are we offering them the “gift of life” or a terrible curse? Some talk about their “right” to children. But where does that “right” come from? Mother Nature issues us with no such right.

    Are we listening too much to our animal instincts but using our “superior” intellects to rationalize our having children rather than facing the fact this planet needs to be fixed before we can continue expanding, or even just maintaining current population levels? Many say even at current levels, the population is unsustainable long term. We really need to think long and hard about why we have children.

    The finger is often pointed at developing countries regarding their tendency to generate massive broods, but I feel those folks have a better justification than most of us do. They don’t have the education we do and it’s their survival strategy for when they get older. With mortality rates so high in many country they need to have more children. Until we address their poverty, nothing will change there. But in order for us to maintain our comparatively lavish lifestyles, they must stay poor. It’s sadly just how the system works for now and it’s a system doomed to fail.

    Let’s face it; we humans aren’t exactly an endangered species and no matter what types of controls are put in place, be they from government or nature throwing devastation our way, it’s unlikely everyone will stop procreating all at once and for humanity to disappear from the planet altogether.

    Let me play the devil’s advocate here – even if it did, why would that be so bad? Why is it so important in the grand scale of things that our species continues to survive forever? Seems to me that the way we are going it couldn’t be – we appear to have some sort of collective, subconscious death wish.

    If it is so important, what’s wrong with Africans taking over the world for example? Or Chinese, or Indians? Who cares as long as it’s an element of the species that by that time knows how to look after the darned place.

    Our societies and commerce systems are based on the false assumption that infinite expansion is realistic. Deep down, most of us know that is insane. Knowing is one thing, experiencing it is another. We, and the next couple of generations are going to quickly see that this is not the case. Not only the environment, but our own financial systems have turned against us already.

    For those of us with the education and knowledge of the perils of overpopulation, it’s up to us to make what for some will be a huge sacrifice – to not have any/more children. That doesn’t stop us from teaching the current and next generation about our mistakes so that they may avoid them. Want kids or something to nurture? Adopt. Consider getting a recycled pet even.

    For the others who don’t fully understand the danger we our now facing with overpopulation and the environmentally generally – continue to eat, drink and be merry by all means, but if you do, just don’t have kids – that can be your contribution; there’s nothing further you need do or understand. Going green for you can be that easy. Sounds like a fair trade for not having to compromise your lifestyle don’t you think?

    Let’s just give churning out kiddies a bit of a rest for a while and see how this mess pans out.

     

  • Religion steps into the politics of population and poverty

    The links between population growth, poverty and consumption were clearly expressed by the British Medical Journal in August, just before the world economic crisis changed the context of the debate.

    “The world’s population now exceeds 6.7 billion and
    consumption of fuel, water, crops, fish, and forests exceeds supply.

    “Every week an extra 1.5 million people add to greenhouse gas emissions and
    escaping poverty is impossible without these emissions increasing.”

    British Medical Journal – August 2, 2008

     This week’s statements from Poznan that climate change may have to play second fiddle to attempts to shore up the world’s financial markets have an uncanny echo for the 84% of the world’s population that were told the discussion of the Millenium Development Goals, designed to address world poverty, would have to wait until the economic crisis on Wall Street settled down.

    By world poverty, we do not mean that some people’s retirement funds are frozen and so they cannot meet their house repayments, we mean that two billion people face every day with no income, no possessions and no visible means of support. They have less than you would, here in one of the world’s richest countries, if you had $1 per day to purchase your food, accommodation and clothing. Like them, you would be able to afford a cup full of dirty water and just enough nutrients to remain alive.

    They have no future. Every year about one percent of them die, hideously, and their children are condemned to follow their footsteps.

    This is the reality of the new world order.

    By 2015 there will be twenty cities collectively containing 500 million people. More than half of those people will be this poor. These urban poor are the world’s new slaves. Unlike the Africans transported to the Americas three centuries ago, these new slaves are not fed and housed, their children are not nurtured and employed. These people are discarded if they injure themselves at work and swept out with the garbage. There are more slaves now than at any other time in human history and those slaves are worse off than they have ever been before.

    This is the reality of the new world order.

    The world’s richest people, five percent of the total population, control fifty percent of the world’s wealth. The world’s poorest people, fifty percent of the total population, control five percent of the world’s wealth. Wealth has been becoming more concentrated since the end of the second world war.

    The point of underlining this huge disparity in wealth, which is reflected directly in resource consumption, is because it goes to the very heart of the population debate.

    The challenge for governments of every political flavour is that there are no palatable solutions.

    The state of the debate

    The standard answer from United Nations agencies, the political wing of the environmental movement and commentators such as George Monbiot is that the world population is flattening out. It will stabilise at around 9 billion people somewhat conveniently, about one billion or so below the estimates of the earth’s carrying capacity.

    The projection is based on the fact that as people become more affluent and better educated, they delay having children until later in life, or decide not to have children at all. As the Pope correctly observed, the birth rate of most European nations is below the death rate. As their native populations shrink they rely on immigration to supply the labour force necessary to support the aging population.

    “Educate and empower women,” David Suzuki has said a number of times, “and you will reduce population growth and increase affluence at the same time.”

    The challenge is that because we are nearing the upper limits of the available resources we cannot increase the affluence of the poorer four fifths of the world without reducing our own.

    As Professor Thomas Malthaus correctly observed in 1798, human greed dictates that political solutions will be difficult to achieve. “No fancied equality, no agrarian regulations in their utmost extent, could remove the pressure of it even for a single century …  the argument is conclusive against the perfectibility of the mass of mankind.”

    He actively campaigned against the poor laws of the time, arguing that since the poor were destined to die miserably because of the fundamental laws of population there was little point wasting precious resources on them.

    The real challenge of our time is to prove him wrong.

    The Millenium Development Goals were signed by 189 countries in May 2000 and set specific targets to be achieved by 2015. Halfway to the timeframe, we are less than half way toward achieving any goal and moving backwards on many of them.

    Even more disturbingly, our leaders have proven incapable of reaching any long term agreement on sharing resources more equitably for the long term good of humanity collectively. The collapse of the Doha round of trade talks earlier this year and the stale mate at Poznan last week indicate the depth of the challenges meeting any framework, even one as clear, simple and well-supported as the Millenium Development Goals.

    Alternative solutions

    When the dilemma’s raised by world’s best practice cannot be resolved by the best thinkers and diplomats of our time, some people have begun to wonder if we are asking the right questions. California Interfaith Power and Light is not a utility company spawned by the excesses of Enron, but a theological movement that attempts to find a morality that can save the world.

    Their “Love God, heal the world” message is in keeping with many other organised churches that have recently made statements to the effect that it is immoral to consume resources that will condemn future generations to a poorer lifestyle than we enjoy.

    More profoundly, groups like the Forum on Religion and the Ecology are exploring the nature of morality, the relationship between secular politics and moral imperative and the role of authority in guiding human behaviour.

    The annual forum was held in New York last month and explored the views of many different religious traditions on these important matters.

    The challenge is whether a cynical 21st century audience can be driven to adopt a moral framework that limits their immediate personal satisfaction for the sake of the long term good. If the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, it looks like things will get pretty grim before we learn our lesson.

  • Senate refuses to discuss population

    The Australian Senate this week voted not to consider the challenges of population growth. Greens leader Bob Brown put a motion to the Senate, calling on the government to develop a white paper to address  the challenges of supporting the projected stable population of 9-10 billion people on a planet constrained by climate change and finite resources. He also moved that the White Paper consider the capacity of Australia to support a larger population.

    Liberal leader in the Senate, Nick Minchin, voted against the motion despite having spoken early in his parliamentary career on the importance of limiting population growth.

    There is a scientific consensus that the planet cannot support 10 billion people at the level of consumption enjoyed by today’s western countries but widely differing political views as to what action should be taken to avert disaster.

    The Generator News – Week ending December 5th,2008

     

     

  • Return of the population time bomb

    Or so it would seem. Ignoring that logic, most environmentalists today avoid half the equation. An emailer’s assertion was typical: “John, if everyone on Earth just consumed less, as they do in Mexico, say, we wouldn’t have exceeded carrying capacity.”

    It’s a simple notion: reduce per person consumption and end our environmental problems. And it lets us sidestep the issue of population size and growth, a subject of much concern in the 1960s and 1970s but taboo today.

    Why taboo? Much credit goes to pressure from social justice activists. They’ve insisted in recent decades that any focus on numbers inevitably violates the right of women to manage their own fertility.

    China’s one-child policy notwithstanding, humane, successful population programmes in countries as varied as Thailand, Iran, and Mexico contradict that assertion.

    Nevertheless, the criticism has cowed environmentalists and NGOs which once championed the population cause, influencing policy, pushing the subject off the agenda, or shifting the emphasis solely to “reproductive health” without the numbers.

    Looking then for a way around the problem of growing human numbers, most environmentalists now suggest a reduction in individual consumption is all we need to solve our ecological problems.

    Are they right? The work of the Global Footprint Network (GFN), home of the “ecological footprint,” points to the answer. Measuring consumption as the use of biologically productive land and sea, their data shows a global maximum sustainable footprint, at today’s population, of just under 1.8 global hectares (gha) per person. Currently, by drawing down nonrenewable resources, we’re a bit over 2.2gha, overshooting Earth’s limits by about 25%.

    What if everyone took the emailer’s advice and converged on Mexico’s level of per capita consumption? Resource use would plummet in developed countries while rising in many of the poorest. (Surely we could not deprive the latter of the chance to raise their standards of living?) But it wouldn’t get us to 1.8gha. At 2.6gha, Mexico’s footprint is 32% too high. A drop to the level of Botswana or Uzbekistan would put us in the right range.

    But that’s not low enough. We’d next have to compensate for UN projections of 40% more humans by the middle of the century. That would mean shrinking the global footprint to under 1.3gha, roughly the level of Guatemala or Nigeria.

    There’s more. The GFN authors point out their data is conservative, underestimating problems such as aquifer depletion and our impacts on other species. In response, the Redefining Progress group publishes an alternative footprint measure which has humanity not at 25%, but at 39% overshoot. But that too, the authors concede, is an underestimate.

    While in overshoot, moreover, we erode carrying capacity. Once we’d got to some level of consumption on a par with countries living today in abject poverty, we’d find there were fewer natural resources on which to draw than there had been when we started.

    Ultimately, there are limits to how much we can reduce per-person use of land, water, and other resources. A purposeful drop on the part of industrialised countries to consumption levels comparable to those of the poorest areas in the world is not only wholly unrealistic but, at today’s population size, would not end our environmental woes. Our sheer numbers prevent it.

    We have no alternative but to return our attention to population, the other factor in the equation. Already in overshoot, we must aim for population stabilisation followed by a decline in human numbers worldwide.

    Humane, empowering measures have documented records of success at reducing fertility rates. Most importantly, we have to provide easy access to family planning (pdf) options while educating parents through the media in the benefits of smaller families and family planning. We should educate and empower girls and women to give them options and help free them to make decisions concerning family size. And we should end government incentives for larger families. We must do these things internationally and vigorously, with a keen eye toward numbers, monitoring results and making adjustments accordingly.

    The stakes are too high to waste time evading the issue. Doing so is intellectually dishonest and a setup for global tragedy. It’s time environmentalists ended the silence on population.