PLANET IN PERIL? Some researchers suggest that human impacts on the planet, such as the climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions, are accelerating out of control.
Image: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
LONDON -- The impact of human activity on the Earth is running out of control, and the amount of time in which action can be taken to prevent potentially catastrophic climate change is rapidly dwindling, a leading scientist from the Australian National University told a global scientific climate conference in London yesterday.
Not only is the impact on the Earth's environment and climate already being seen at all levels, but the damage is accelerating, professor Will Steffen told the opening day of the four-day Planet Under Pressure conference, which has gathered together some 2,800 scientists from around the globe.
"The last 50 years have without doubt seen one of the most rapid transformations of the human relationship with the natural world," he said. "Many human activities reached takeoff points sometime in the 20th century and sharply accelerated towards the end of the century. We saw a 'great acceleration.'"
He added, "It is the scale and speed of the great acceleration that is truly remarkable. This has largely happened within one human lifetime."
The conference has already declared that the Holocene Epoch is now over and that the Anthropocene -- in other words, the epoch when the impact of human activity will be clearly seen in the future in the geological record -- has already begun.
Steffen said the impact of human activity was already being felt on a planetary level on the carbon, water and nitrogen cycles, citing as an example that people now generate more reactive nitrogen artificially than the planet does naturally.
"Where on Earth are we going?" he asked, pointing to melting ice sheets and vanishing Arctic permafrost, which has the potential to release far more carbon dioxide over coming centuries than is currently produced from burning fossil fuels.
Moving beyond 'critical thresholds'
"The key point is, either we turn around a lot of these trends -- the carbon dioxide trend, deforestation and so on -- or we allow them to continue and push beyond critical thresholds," Steffen said.
Speakers at the conference pointed to the growth of so-called dead zones in coastal areas due to high carbon dioxide emissions as well as phosphorus extraction and fertilizer production, also noting higher air and oceanic temperatures, ocean acidification, biodiversity loss, growing populations and rising water stress.
Professor Diana Liverman of the University of Arizona said there were some hopeful signs -- the rate of population growth is slowing, carbon and energy intensity is starting to decline, and in some areas, forests are growing -- but they are offset by many overwhelming factors.
"Average resource consumption per person, already high in some regions, is growing steeply in emerging economies even as many poor people cannot meet basic human needs," she said. "In some countries, people are consuming far too much, including carbon, water and other resources embodied in trade. We have a long way to go to turn things around."
But sociologist Kari Marie Norgaard of the University of Oregon, who has written a book on the subject of climate change and public attitudes called "Living in Denial," said that while science may be clear -- albeit under challenge from the climate skeptics -- the general public is far from convinced.
"Climate change poses a massive threat to our present social, economic and political order. From a sociological perspective, resistance to change is to be expected," she said. "People are individually and collectively habituated to the ways we act and think. This habituation must be recognized and simultaneously addressed at the individual, cultural and societal level."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
36 Comments
Add CommentSo, what is Kari Marie Norgaard of the University of Oregon saying, "She wants a one-world government set up to handle everything?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the best step to take is 'keep doing what we are doing' until the Earth extracts about 4 to 5 billion humans and about 5 million animals and fish. Maybe then all these stupid deniers will pull their heads out of their ass** and start doing something to try and correct the problems we are causing, but then it will be too late, won't it.
JamesDavis took the words out of my mouth. Nature makes adjustments and will most definitely do so here. Sadly, you will never change the Corporate mentality of profit over everything else, no matter what the cost is. I am in total agreement with James. Let's do nothing and let nature make the adjustments to this planet, which will entail reducing the human population too. Nature itself will adjust and adapt to the changes. We have seen this in countless situations of lifeforms living in places that would seem impossible. It's just another page in history.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find it incredible that this report about a conference of scientists focusing on the impact of humanity on the Earth's environmental systems could barely mention that the single most critical factor in the production of the effects being discussed is population growth! IMO, population should be the primary focal point of discussions!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis seems to be the 4,000 pound baby in the room - few people seem to notice his presence.
Global
Population/Year (U.N. Population Fund)
1 - 1800
2 - 1927
3 - 1960
4 - 1974
5 - 1987
6 - 1999
7 - 2012
9 - 2050 (projected)
The population has increased seven-fold since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The aggregated effects of population * industrialization have overwhelmed the global ecosystem and continue to do so, especially as the industrialization of existing populations increases!
If we continue to ignore the critical effects of population growth (even if it could be stabilized at current levels), we do so at our own peril!
clarification: U.N. population units (above) are billions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree 100%. Why don't we teach this in schools? I have never heard anything meaningful related to overpopulation in any educational institution I have attended. Overpopulation may be the giant baby in the room, but religion is the elephant in the room.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisplantmaven - I didn't want to mention that (and it's not just one). Also, the easiest way to produce a growing economy is to grow more producers and consumers! This approach generally keeps the cost of production low and demand high - governments may not even be aware that they are encouraging population growth though their actions and policies (such as taxes)...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispokerplyer - Thanks - I keep trying, anyway!
Capitalism (an economic system which is effective and advantageous when adequately controlled and moderated) is often grounded on a principle of perpetual growth. Economic growth can be achieved by prosperity, and/or population growth, and/or expansion of markets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs population growth slowed in the US (farms used to require lots of children, family planning, women gaining jobs and then careers), weak immigration controls and corporate globalism were escalated to expand markets.
When nations turn to what I like to call, "sustainable economics" the pressures on population growth, and the effects of that growth will subside. And I believe, the decline in pressures would have a significant impact. It would be treating a root cause, rather than trying to control symptoms.
But developed countries target GDP growth, and developing countries hope for even greater growth. The impact of economic expansion in nations such as China and India are examples.
What would be the downside of planning for sustainable economic activity, rather than growing the economic activity? I think we can have upward mobility and financial opportunity in a sustainable economy that results in a sustainable population level. Even if you do not, its a challenging mental exercise.
Would world power shifts necessarily occur if emerging nations grew economies greater than developed nations engaging in sustainable economics? At what point should a growing economy begin shifting to sustainable use of resources and populations when both still exist?
The slowed population growth in the U.S. is still projected by the U.S. Census Bureau to increase by more than 1/3 by 2050, from ~314k currently to ~423k.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery simply, if the U.S. GNP does not increase commensurately as a percentage of global economy then, in real terms, the standard of living for the U.S. population must decline.
IMO, barring any catastrophic world economic collapse, the educational development of enormous populations of undereducated people around the world is most likely to ensure that the U.S. economy will continue to decline in relation to several other populous countries.
Fortunately for mankind, nature has a way out of man's present dilemma. It is called a pandemic. With globalization and the resulting increase in air travel along with the food chain now going global, it is a matter of when, not if, a pandemic will occur that defies conventional medicine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you ever raised rats and the population got out of control, as I did when I was a teen, you would discover that caged rats turn to violence, homosexuality, cannibalism and inbreeding as the cage gets more crowded. Fortunately for the rats, my experiment ended in disaster when a flood wiped them all out one day when I was at school. The sad fact is that humans are already at the tipping point and just to be very clear on this, the Earth is nothing more then one big cage for us all.
Let's not underestimate the pitfalls of over population. Unlike what I was taught by Capuchin Monks in High School, who claimed that there was plenty of room on Earth so go forth and multiply, it has become glaringly apparent they were as wrong as they were shortsighted. Either we all figure it out soon or it certainly will be too late to get a handle on it all.
Well put - thanks!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, how anyone survive a catastrophe that might kill billions of people? The only viable option might be to abandon all contaminated areas...
This has to be a first: all the commentators on a SciAm climate change story are in agreement (so far). Of course excessive human population is the base culprit for climate change. What to do about it? You could just let things go as they are, and let nature readjust like a lot are suggesting. You could also take a more sinister approach and eliminate the excess ourselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we follow that rationale, all we have to do is come up with the criteria for "reduction" (has a nice ring to it . . . better than murder). If that's what you want, go for it; just leave me out of it. I'm not qualified to even make suggestions on such an undertaking (I have no desire to). But don't worry, it's not a cop-out I'm taking here. At the present time I am dying, so I refuse to make suggestions that would be impossible for me to take responsibility for. At least after I'm dead my carbon footprint will be negligible. Good luck with this stuff, guys.
Nothing any politician is capable of doing will solve the coming population related disaster. The best each individual can do is make sure he/she is not around when the lemmings run wild.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion is the driver of our population explosion and the number of religious people are increasing exponentially. The Saudi Arabian funded violent Islamic jihad has fueled a religious revival worldwide. Democracy is to blame to a large extent. In societies where every person's vote is equal to every other, having the greatest number of dumb followers ensures dominance of the sect voting as a block, as religious groups do. The upcoming US election is being covered by media in Australia and we see religion playing a strong role in your politics. An atheist like me or my prime minister stands no chance. PS My prime minister is also being targeted by religious groups here and may loose out to the religious right.
The situation is hopeless. Get ready for famine and extinction.
By far the largest and fastest growing Islamic population appears to be in India, and does not appears to be associated with any "Saudi Arabian funded violent Islamic jihad" movement. Since you're naming names, the other largest population that are expected to grow the most in the next few decades include the U.S., Nigeria, Ethiopia, Brazil and the Philippines. Of those, Roman Catholic and other Orthodox Christian churches' policies may significantly contribute to growth, but IMO other factors appear to be more deterministic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to me that the single most critical factor in increasing populations is increased availability of food. This is especially true in India.
China's Family Planning policies that generally limit couples to one child are expected to severely constrain future population growth. However, there have been several studies indicating that births are being significantly under reported, especially in rural areas. Please see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/7787661/Chinese-hiding-three-million-babies-a-year.html
The policy does seem to be having significant effect, since the gender of born children is now skewed towards males. Long term effects (especially on population aging and gender composition) are still undetermined.
There seems to be no human method of effectively reducing the global population other than enforced birth control. However, as SuperString so poignantly explains above, this is something that the global population would have to collectively impose on itself - an unlikely solution. Alternatively, natural processes of catastrophic population collapse will eventually correct our violations. I hope that some can survive.
I disagree that population is the problem. There are more cattle in the world by weight than people. There are also more ants, more krills and 80x more microbes by weight than people on earth. You can fit all 7 billion people in Texas with each family having a big house and spacious outdoor garden, and the rest of the world will be uninhabited.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is overconsumption and the consumerism promoted by unrestrained free market capitalism. The same brand of capitalism that led to the financial meltdown.
As I understand, the impact of one person freely consuming resources would be negligible. The impact of the growing billions of people and the increasing percentage who are freely consuming resources is the problem. Total resource consumption is determined by the number of people consuming resources and the amounts that they each consume. In very general terms, total resource consumption determines total ecological impact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, wouldn't 7 billion people (and their gardens) locked up in Texas all quickly die of dehydration?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many of you have chosen not to have children?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many of you have chosen not to have children?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this171,891,840 is the number of square acres in Texas... not even enough space in Texas to give half the US population an acre per citizen. I sure as hell don't want to have to live on a square acre and grow my own food...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDamn, I only clicked the button once, and it posted one of my posts 5 times? SA, can you delete four of them, please?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou don't need an acre for a house and garden. And a family is not one person. And you have the rest of the world for farming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not total population that counts it's total resource consumption. You only need 100 watts to stay alive, 2kW to power your home and if you walk and ride bicycle, zero energy for transport. But of course Americans consume much more than that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW go to Hong Kong and see if they're dying of dehydration. The population density of Hong Kong is higher than 7 billion people in Texas.
But if you use the rest of the world for farming then what's the point in cramming everyone into Texas?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you take water from wherever necessary to sustain 7 billion people then their environmental impact is not restricted to Texas.
How would water and food distribution and waste management work for 7 billion people living anywhere at the population density of Hong Kong? Would the impact to the world's ecology be lessened in any significant way?
I suggest that 7 billion people living in a very small area could not survive without providing support infrastructure that is not available to most of the world's population today. As a result, total resource consumption would increase.
Again, total resource consumption = total population * average individual resource consumption. Population is the most critical component, since every surviving individual consumes some minimal resources.
As for American's inefficient use of large resource volumes, do not overlook uncontrolled population growth in regions that cannot provide adequate resources. Even those living unfortunate lives consuming absolute minimal resources significantly contribute to humanity's global ecological impact.
Obviously, neither Americans, Europeans, Indians, Chinese nor Australians can scrap their existing support infrastructure and move to an ideal location with new, more efficient infrastructure. Even if that were possible, total resource consumption and ecological impact would exceed current levels.
In the meantime, no one can commute to job sites throughout Texas or across town in Chicago during wintertime on a bicycle. Same for deep sea fishing, farming, etc. - those that produce and process the resources necessary for humanity's sustenance cannot be crammed into some communal rooftop.
By the way, calories consumed by bicycle riders must be supplied by increased food consumption, so at a minimum the energy necessary to grow food for the world and transport it to the population must be considered in any evaluation of ecological impact - there is no free source of energy in the real world.
I have chosen to have children but have decided to have no more than two. Theoretically, that will just replace my wife and I. Also, other than male pattern baldness, I have relatively good genes and it would do the next generation a disservice not to pass them on =)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is irresponsible though for those who cannot support themselves to continue to populate. It is equally as irresponsible to reproduce and not properly educate your offspring, sending idiots out into the world.
Our "Point of No Return" was in 80's years...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur "Point of No Return" was in 80's years...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike many here, I think overpopulation is the problem but you're not going to change the cultural or religious beliefs of Africans nor can you change the ways of the Catholic church, the religious-right or Muslims. In short, prepare for the inevitable (probably not in my lifetime). It's going to be ugly and messy. I hope I'm wrong, I really do. On a more sinister note, our troglodyte opponents have all the firepower. The intelligentsia are defenseless. When the fit hits the shan, who do you think is going to survive?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But if you use the rest of the world for farming then what's the point in cramming everyone into Texas?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou don't need the whole world for farming. The world's arable land can feed 100 billion people. The point is, contrary to popular misconception, the world is too big even for 7 billion people.
"If you take water from wherever necessary to sustain 7 billion people then their environmental impact is not restricted to Texas."
Earth's surface is 71% ocean. In Dubai, they are desalinating seawater for domestic use. It is physically impossible for 7 billion people to drink even 1% of the ocean's volume.
"How would water and food distribution and waste management work for 7 billion people living anywhere at the population density of Hong Kong?"
The same way they do it in all major cities since the Roman times, by aqueducts, pipelines, roads and rails.
"Would the impact to the world's ecology be lessened in any significant way?"
Of course. Ask any ecologist, engineer or city planner. The same number of people living in a small area has less environmental impact than in a large area. More land is available for agriculture. Less land is converted for residential use, less disturbance to the natural biome.
"I suggest that 7 billion people living in a very small area could not survive without providing support infrastructure that is not available to most of the world's population today. As a result, total resource consumption would increase."
As explained, this is wrong. Total resource consumption would decrease. Do you use more or less natural resources if your road is 10% utilized vs. 95% utilized? (low utilization means you need more roads for same number of people)
"Again, total resource consumption = total population * average individual resource consumption. Population is the most critical component, since every surviving individual consumes some minimal resources."
Individual consumption is more critical since the current rate of consumption is far above the minimum requirement. 25 hp car is enough for most people but who drives a 25 hp car? It's not even commercially available. Most cars are 150 hp or more.
"As for American's inefficient use of large resource volumes, do not overlook uncontrolled population growth in regions that cannot provide adequate resources. Even those living unfortunate lives consuming absolute minimal resources significantly contribute to humanity's global ecological impact."
Who consumes more resources? The rich industrialized economies or the poor agrarian economies?
"Obviously, neither Americans, Europeans, Indians, Chinese nor Australians can scrap their existing support infrastructure and move to an ideal location with new, more efficient infrastructure. Even if that were possible, total resource consumption and ecological impact would exceed current levels."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNope. Total resource consumption and ecological impact would be less. Do you really believe I'm proposing to relocate all people to Texas? I'm just showing earth's resources are more than enough for 7 billion people if only we moderate our consumption and efficiently plan our cities.
By the way, I said cycling requires zero energy because it is already included in my prescribed 2,200 kcal daily diet (100 watts) which includes daily exercise. But if you feel you need additional food to ride a bicycle, one hour of cycling burns 600 kcal. Just eat 12 grams of cashew nuts that's already 785 kcal.
Correction: Make that 137 grams (1 cup) of cashew nuts. 12 grams are just the saturated fat content.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I appreciate the analysis you took the time to provide; isn't it all but impossible that 7 billion people could be convinced to do this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI often hear the "people could live in a space the size of Texas" argument, but it just strikes me as impossible to actually accomplish in any real world scenario.
Don't take it literally. I'm not proposing that we all pack up and go to Texas. The point is if we efficiently plan our cities, 7 billion people can live in an area the size of Texas. It doesn't have to be literally in Texas or even in one place. It can be in many places but the total area is the same. The world is a big place even for 7 billion people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at history and you'll see that fertility rates come down dramatically once women have a little education and their time becomes more valuable working instead of having children. Give women some say in what happens to their bodies and see the fertility rate come down even more. This has happened in the U.S., Europe, Iran, etc. and operates almost without exception.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those people who want to force their "morals" concerning reproduction onto women, many of whom may not share the same "morals", they are causing society to regress and they make overpopulation that much harder to address.
"Play now, pay later" is more popular than the opposite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm glad to see at least the first few comments seem to agree that population is the main issue here. I was also disappointed to see that this wasn't mentioned in the rather conventional article. It seems we're trying to create a monoculture of humans and their support systems, though we fail to recognize how broad the latter is.
I think we need to look, at how to voluntarily (for a start) reduce global population growth, then population. We already have several methods of contraception for females, but should find more ways to 'encourage' their use globally.
How about a better contraceptive methods for males? Researching same, I read that some "primitive" tribesmen, and early Romans, cut a small hole in the bottom of the penis, near the scrotum, as an alternate exit for semen. The Romans had plugs, made of gold, for either exit, depending on the function. I'm imagining instead something like a short section of the "accordion fold" soda straws to direct fluids to either exit, depending on function. With all the body piercing around, this shouldn't be too big a deal. I'm happy to say I'm old enough to not need such.
Since this won't be enough, we also need to replace tax deductions for kids with "birth taxes", ideally proportional to the square of the number of kids per couple times the square of their income.
I think no significant action will be taken until someone can see an immediate profit from it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou bring up a good point about empowerment of women and its correlation to reproduction. It is evident that the majority of the areas that have the highest population increases are also places where women are subjugated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this