What a Wonderful World. Welcome  to Population Explosion.

This week the United Nations announced the
birth of the seven billionth human, and urged world leaders to consider the
challenges faced by our growing global population. From issues surrounding
adequate access to food and clean water to ensuring reasonable expectations of
safety, medical care and justice, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon asked that
despite fiscal austerity we not turn our backs on the truly impoverished and
remain vigilantly aware of our detrimental impact on the environment.

Luke Malone in Sydney Morning Herald (4
November 2011):

Eco-disaster? … population growth threatens
our way of life, say experts.

Is the baby boom threatening the Australian
way of life? Luke Malone consults the experts.

This week the United Nations announced the
birth of the seven billionth human, and urged world leaders to consider the
challenges faced by our growing global population. From issues surrounding
adequate access to food and clean water to ensuring reasonable expectations of
safety, medical care and justice, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon asked that
despite fiscal austerity we not turn our backs on the truly impoverished and
remain vigilantly aware of our detrimental impact on the environment.

“Today, we welcome baby seven billion.
In doing so we must recognise our moral and pragmatic obligation to do the
right thing for him, or for her,” he said at a press conference on Monday.
“I am one of seven billion. You are also one of seven billion. Together,
we can be seven billion strong – by working in solidarity for a better world
for all.”

According to Ban Ki-moon, the world’s
population will increase to nine billion by 2043 and may almost double,
swelling to 16 billion, by the end of the century. These projections suggest
the dependence we have on natural resources is likely to grow, which could have
catastrophic implications both at home and abroad.

While the highest birth rates are recorded
throughout Africa, it’s important to note that for women of developing nations
it has less to do with choice than a lack of reproductive rights and poor
access to birth control. Not only that, the majority of these nations produce a
near negligible amount of carbon emissions compared to the rest of the world.
It is countries like Australia that are leading the way when it comes to
willfully breeding the next generation of high-impact consumers.

“When you tally species threat, total
carbon emissions, deforestation rates, marine captures, fertiliser use and
water pollution, we have a huge international footprint,” says Professor
Corey Bradshaw of the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide.
“We have the world’s highest mammalian extinction rate and one of the
highest per capita carbon emission rates, we also have one of the higher per
capita water uses, which is intriguing considering we’re also one of the driest
continents. Australia has lost about 40 per cent of its forest cover since
European colonisation. Our so-called small population is actually fairly high
relative to how many people our low-productivity land can support.”

Though prominent population control advocate
Dick Smith flirted with xenophobia last year by suggesting immigration poses
the biggest threat to the country’s environmental sustainability, in reality
statistics show that birth rates claim a higher culpability.

A study undertaken by Oregon State University
scientists Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax in 2008 discovered that the
children of developed countries such as the United States and Australia each
add about 9441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to their parent’s carbon legacy.
To even begin to counter this, parents need to greatly increase their car’s
fuel economy, slash their kilometres by a third, install double window panes
and compact fluorescent bulbs in the home and buy the most energy-efficient
whitegoods available. Even then, this would offset only 1/40th of the emissions
caused by the little ones of a two-child family.

“The babies will need food after they’re
weaned, or immediately if they’re on formula. Producing food requires land,
usually fertiliser and energy for shipping if it’s not homegrown,” says
Alan Weisman, author of The World Without Us. They need clothing: if cotton,
that’s another crop; if wool, land was needed to graze the sheep; if polyester,
that’s a petroleum product that requires more energy to produce.  They drink water, and bathe in it. Their
nappies, if disposable, create more plasticised garbage; if not, they require
water and energy to wash. Depending on the weather, their mother may use
heating or cooling to keep them comfortable. The more babies, the more strain
on sewage systems, in addition to water supplies.  People add up.”

With a current population of just under 22.8
million, data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics predicts that
Australia’s natural increase – the excess of births over deaths – will be a
major factor in a growth that will see our nation reach upwards of 42.5 million
people by 2056.

Though population control as social policy
was a deeply misogynistic failure in China – it is, however, an ongoing success
in Iran, where mandatory contraceptive courses are required before you can
obtain a marriage license – experts say we need to consider the possibility of
voluntary depopulation as a personal choice and environmental imperative.
Alternatively, if we are to continue down this increasingly congested road we
must implement significant measures at personal, state and federal levels to
inhibit the potentially dire consequences.

“As a wealthy country we’ve come to
expect a certain high standard of living that is, in turn, driving up
consumption because of the need to import and distribute so many of our
goods,” says Bradshaw, who suggests that wholesale change is necessary if
we are to support a growing population. “We need to get over our hang-ups
about alternative energy sources. Embracing smart grids and subsidies for
renewable technologies, and overwhelmingly support incentives at the
Commonwealth level – such as a comprehensive and rising carbon price. This will
force our society to turn into a one that emits much less. We have to change
our society radically; we couldn’t live like we do now if we want to pack even
more people into our already resource-stressed country.”

Source: www.smh.com.au