Author: admin

  • Optimum Population Trust

     

    Concerned about the speed of global warming?
    About food, water and energy scarcity – the effects of overpopulation on a plundered planet?
    About the UK’s failure to stabilise its own population?

     

    Support the Optimum Population Trust
    Support research into optimum population sizes
    Campaign for a lower population in the UK
    Sign our Stop at Two pledge!

    World population is projected to rise from today’s 6.8 billion to 9.1 billion in 2050.*  The World Population Clock is ticking.  We are rapidly destabilising our climate and destroying the natural world on which we depend for future life.

    GETTING THE FACTS RIGHT

    The Optimum Population Trust is absolutely opposed to any form of coercion in family planning.

    The Optimum Population Trust believes that Earth may not be able to support more than half its present numbers before the end of this century, and that the UK’s long-term sustainable population level may be lower than 30 million.  Research and policy are summarised on this website and available to all members in the OPT Journal.

    In the UK, population is officially projected to rise from 60.6 million (mid-2006) to 77 million in 2050 – that’s more than another two Londons.**

    * United Nations Population Division, World Population Prospects 2008 Revision, 11 March 2009. ** Mid-2006 based Principal Population Projection, Government Actuary’s Department, and ONS release, both 23 October 2007.

    OPT for a sustainable planet

    NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Image by Reto
    Stockli & Robert Simmon, with MODIS,
    USGS EROS,& DMSP.

  • 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.

     

  • Malcolm Turnbull sets new ETS plan that gears for the recovery

    Malcolm Turnbull sets new ETS plan that gears for the recovery

    Lenore Taylor, National correspondent | April 30, 2009

    Article from:  The Australian

    MALCOLM Turnbull will use an independent economic report on the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme to demand major changes including a better deal for big polluters and tougher emissions-reduction targets as his price for considering support.

    The economic report’s release today comes as the Government concedes the Liberals are their only hope of getting the scheme through the Senate, and labels the Greens “irrelevant”.

    The squaring-off of the major parties before parliament to decide the fate of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme next month comes as the Business Council of Australia appeals for bipartisanship in the interests of investment certainty, suggesting the financial impost of the new carbon cost should be deferred until the economy returns to growth.

    Opposition emissions trading spokesman Andrew Robb will today release a report from the Centre for International Economics that finds the scheme as proposed “threatens the balance sheets of key industries”.

    The report says the scheme does not quantify the economic cost in the short and medium term as the economy makes huge adjustments, and does not take advantage of potentially inexpensive ways to reduce emissions, for example through the use of more energy-efficient buildings.

    “Kevin Rudd said he would bring in a scheme that would deliver deep cuts and not disadvantage our export industries. Good. He should do it. And we’ll support it. But this report shows the scheme on the table fails on both counts,” Mr Robb said yesterday.

    Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change Greg Combet effectively conceded yesterday that the Government would have to deal with the Coalition to get its scheme through the Senate, saying the Greens had “made themselves irrelevant” by arguing for an unconditional 40 per cent cut in emissions, which without an international agreement, would be economic “lunacy”, and opposing transitional assistance for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries.

    Mr Combet accused the Liberals of “extraordinary economic recklessness” by refusing to state a clear policy on reducing emissions pollution.

    “Failing to articulate what their policy is only encourages uncertainty as to their position and possible future carbon prices. I believe this is demonstrating extraordinary economic recklessness in the name of politics,” Mr Combet said. “The Liberal Party needs to tell Australia exactly how much they propose to reduce Australia’s emissions by, how they will deliver these reductions and how much it will cost. To keep putting off such announcements only encourages uncertainty for business and investors.”

    The CIE report supports some aspects of the growing list of Coalition demands, which it believes could protect export industries and deliver a tougher emissions-reduction target than that proposed by the Government by finding new emissions savings in better land and soil management and building efficiency.

    In a speech earlier this year, the Opposition Leader claimed he could find emissions reductions amounting to a 27 per cent cut on 2000 levels by 2020, compared with Labor’s proposal of cuts of between 5 and 15 per cent.

    Mr Robb is now saying the Coalition’s alternative ideas could generate cuts at least as deep as Labor’s.

    Demands being discussed within the Coalition include increasing the compensation for trade-exposed industries to 100 per cent free permits; allowing some flexibility in the nation’s proposed 2020 target, both up and down; delaying the Government’s proposed 2010 start date; and introducing building efficiency and land and soil management regulation to gain extra cuts in emissions that could be added to the Government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme target.

    It is also looking at mechanisms by which greater than expected emission reductions by individuals could be reflected in a more ambitious national target. And it will require a solution for the coal industry, which for technical reasons was left out of the Government’s main compensation scheme.

    Sources said the Coalition had yet to reach a final decision about whether to propose the sweeping amendments, which could prove attractive to business and possibly to some conservationists, or to declare the Government’s bill fatally flawed.

    Mr Turnbull could struggle to unite his party behind proposed amendments. The Liberal and Nationals members of a Senate committee looking at the scheme recently found the Government should “go back to the drawing board” and come back to the Senate next year with a different plan. But the Business Council of Australia, which has continued to support an amended carbon pollution reduction scheme despite public criticism of it from many of its members, appealed to the two major parties to reach a compromise in the interests of business and investment certainty.

    “Business needs a bipartisan approach,” a BCA spokeswoman said. “We need the Government and the Opposition to work together. We need the industry assistance measures to address the competitiveness concerns. We need the bill fixed and passed but we need the implementation to be calibrated to reflect the costs to the economy

  • Living off the grid

    Q. Hi Umbra,

    You’ve made several mentions of living off the grid in previous columns, and I was wondering where someone should find such things? It seems as though there are secret communities and communes that everyone seems to know about but me. How would you find an off the grid community, or go about living off the grid yourself?

    Anica
    Corvallis, Ore.

    A. Dearest Anica,

    No one is hiding anything from you, don’t worry. You just haven’t met any off-the-grid folks. By the way, if you do find anything that could qualify as a secret community, off the grid or no, I would bicycle fast in the other direction. Especially in Oregon or Southwest Washington.

    woman in gridGrid expectations.iStockYou have two distinct questions, but of course pursuing either may result in an answer to both. Living off the grid mainly refers to finding some way to produce your own electricity and hence eschew reliance on the public electric grid. This is done firstly through reducing the need for electricity, and secondly through alternative power generation via wind, solar, or hydro. So, to go about living off the grid, I would start researching the potential for wind, solar, or hydroelectric power at my own home. If I were a renter, I would start looking for a home to buy in an area where one of these things was possible. I wrote about micro-wind and solar some time ago, and mayhap it will soon be time for this column to touch on microhydro as a home power source.

    Meanwhile, let’s say you do own a home, and you want to start researching whether you can afford a solar array, or put up a wind turbine. You can start with my old columns, which could give you some basics on whether you have enough sun or space for a turbine, but then I would immediately start an internet hunt for solar interest groups or vendors in Oregon in general, and in Portland, Corvallis, and Eugene. I would also keep a sharp eye out at co-ops, natural food stores, libraries, and other places frequented by well-meaning environmentalists who like to post fliers, and I would read those very fliers, hoping for workshops about anything related to off-the-grid living.

    The larger “off-the-grid” scene could include workshops on growing your own food, raising your own animals, serious energy conservation, home energy efficiency … things like that. I would go to available workshops, or events, or festivals, and if I were feeling less shy than usual, I might even work up the nerve to talk to someone who looked friendly. If there were a solid-looking solar or wind group on the internet, I might pump myself up to give them a phone call and start getting information. If you want to meet likeminded people, workshops are a good place to start, whether or not they are directly related to your specific needs. Eventually you’ll meet enough people, and they’ll know people, and you’ll find that the secret club has let you in.

    In terms of entire communities living off the grid, or at least less reliant on the grid: if the word of mouth and flier technique above does not lead you to them, then you’ll need to formally look for “intentional communities” that have an off-the-grid focus. Start with Communities Magazine and see where it takes you. Some of those Oregon intentional communities could be pretty darn fun to visit (this one has hot springs).

    One crazy human wonderful thing I learned about over the winter is kind of related to off-the-grid communities: the Haul of Justice. It’s a group of bicycling volunteers who originally joined together in Eugene and now do yearly rides in various parts of the country, helping anyone who needs assistance. Thanks to my off-the-grid, intentionally communitizing best bud for the inspiring reading about these bicycling wonders, who are now in their own off-the-grid community in Missouri. See, it’s no secret cabal, it’s just human connection—I know my friend, she knows all these people … you will soon know such people too.

    Best of luck in your quest for an ungridded life.

    Zingily,
    Umbra

  • A climate of doubt

    April 23, 2009, 11:22 pm

    A Climate of Doubt

    climate documents

    [UPDATE, 2 p.m.: I’ve added a fresh post with comments from two members of the climate coalition’s advisory committee.]

    Documents have surfaced that offer a glimpse behind the public face of industries that, in the mid-1990s, were fighting hard to slow movement toward mandatory restrictions on greenhouse gases. You can read some of the material online. My article in The Times has more detail on how the documents illustrate the difference between the public stance of the Global Climate Coalition — the main industry voice on climate then — and what its own scientific advisers were saying.

    At the time, the target was the international climate agreement that, in December 1997, became known as the Kyoto Protocol. While the United States signed the agreement, it was clear from a forceful Senate vote months earlier — a 95-to-0 preemptive rejection of any treaty that would harm the economy or be unfair — that President Clinton or any successor would have a very tough time getting the approval from Congress necessary for ratification.

    There’s no way to gauge whether the industry-financed campaign of lobbying, public relations and advertising helped build that Senate blockade to ratification. But environmental campaigners say it’s clear that a little uncertainty goes a long way toward sustaining public inertia on an issue with the time scale and complexity of human-driven climate change.

    “Their objective was always to slow things down,” said Kert Davies, a climate campaigner at Greenpeace. “Their argument was essentially the inverse of the precautionary principle: We shouldn’t do anything until we know everything.”

    William O’Keefe, who was chairman of the Global Climate Coalition and a senior official at the American Petroleum Institute when the documents were produced, rejects such assertions. “The idea that there is some great industrial conspiracy to thwart progress is one of the greatest myths,” he told me. “Industry is rarely united on anything, and on this issue it’s totally not united.”

    The most important document is the final draft of a status report on climate science written by the science and technology advisory committee to the climate coalition late in 1995. It raised a host of questions about the scientific orthodoxy at the time, as reflected in the 1995 report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But it was similarly critical of what it called “contrarian” arguments against the idea that human-generated gases could substantially warm the world.

    That section was excised and the document itself never was publicly released. Have a look and see what catches your eye.