Why do so many environmentalists shy away from talking about overpopulation?

Question

To me, you can't honestly talk about carbon emissions without talking about the number of carbon emitters.

Answer 1

What you say is incorrect. If you ever look at the works of Sir Richard Attenborough does not shy away from the subject:

http://www.solarnavigator.net/climate_chaos_independent_david_attenborough.htm

http://www.foe.co.uk/living/poundsavers/david_attenborough.html

or how about Margaret Mead?

"The United Nations Population Conference, which concluded on 31 August in Bucharest, passed by acclamation a World Plan of Action that dramatized the growing global concern for the planet's plight.… At Bucharest it was affirmed that continuing, unrestricted worldwide population growth can negate any socio-economic gains and fatally imperil the environment.…

"Those governments for which excessive population growth is detrimental to their national purpose are given a target date of 1985 to provide information and methods for implementing these goals." - Margaret Mead; "World Population: World Responsibility," Science, Vol. 185, September 27, 1974, p. 1113.

The UNPC has been working on this problem for decades and now has some support from the later formed IPCC.

Here is a list of groups that do not shy away from the issue at all that you can check for yourself their stands on third world population:

http://www.audubonpopulation.org/

http://www.nwf.org/population/

http://www.sierraclub.com/population/

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/

http://www.populationpress.org/

http://www.unfpa.org/

Every single environmental group that has any kind of clout and international standing is being very vocal about population control. The only thing is timing. We first need the developed world to lower their standard of living and control CO2 emissions and give an example to other countries on how to be sustainable.

I don't know what planet you are on but no environmentalist would ever shy away from the overpopulation crises. Some are just being more vocal about it then others.

All the founders of every single environmental group had been very vocal on this issue. You obviously don't know much about the history of the environmental movement. You can't be an environmentalist and think that our population situation is not a problem. Total disconnect.

Answer 2

Noz says the one child in America emits more than several children in the developing world. So the current population of 6 billion and the projected population of 9 billion in 2050 is irrelevant? If the whole world turn back into the "stone age" don't you think 6 people foraging for food and burning fuel for cooking and heating would would not have an impact on the environment (which it would not sustain for long) of course it would, it's already happing in developing countries with impact on local wildlife being used as a food source and timber collected from forests. Putting aside the carbon emissions issue for now, the reason why the current population is being feed (a large part anyway) is the use oil, like it or not. High yield farming practices are able to feed high pollutions because of oil. The use of oil is used in every process of the food production process, from the tractor that tills the soil, the chemicals, fertilizers, harvesting, packaging, transport. Without it the world would not be able to feed so many people. We are running out of oil, we are approaching peak oil output production. High population only compounds the problems we already have. Over population has impact on the future quality of living (and survival) of every person, the environment, CO2 levels, housing affordability , road congestion and so on. Population is inseparable from the environment and quality of life. People are too confident in a technology solution that may be "around the corner". It might not arrive to save us.

Answer 3

The reason I don't bother much with it is because it doesn't matter.

We have most of the technology with the rest within a decade (almost certainly, the Sulphur Iodine cycle shouldn't take too long to be implemented into a hydrogen production facility) to provide a standard of living better than average in a western countries to everyone on the planet without destroying the environment so we can solve the global warming problem without needing any reduction in population. We just need to be allowed to use it.

Besides, any attempt to reduce population without solving the problem of CO2 emission is only going to delay the problem, not stop it.

Gregory C: I don't know where you get the idea that Nuclear fission which has been used for decades is still "just around the corner" when it's been proven to be a lot safer than wind power. It may be too late to save us but it won't be due to problems with the technology.

Answer 4

The reasons for global warming is not primarily over population but mainly the industrialized nations over use of fossil fuel.

However, if you use the term "overpopulation" to describe a situation when the earth cannot supply enough for all of us, then global warming will LEAD to that.

Earlier in history when climate has changed, people and animals have been able to move to other areas. Now, there are practically no places left to move to when we bit by bit destroy more areas of our earth. IPCC estimates that there may be over 150 million of climate refugees in the mid century. Where will they go when the resources all over shrinks?

Personally, I feel that we in the rich world has an obligation to do our very best to make sure the resources on earth can supply everyone with the essentials to survive. It's not impossible today. Global warming will make that task much harder.

Answer 5

I can't believe the ignorance of some people. Overpopulation goes beyond just global warming and C02 levels. Please take a look at the very interesting links that Monkey M has provided above.

http://www.nwf.org/popandenvironment/index.cfm

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=199§ion=2

"Human activities have destroyed 11 per cent of the globe's arable land, the size of China and India combined, and over 40 per cent is now degraded in some way. As a result, every year, the world's farmers must feed 77 million more people with 27 billion fewer tons of topsoil" http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=199§ion=2

Answer 6

There are any number of clubs around the world that believe that we are overpopulated. Noting that the countries with the strongest population growth actually have the lowest per capita carbon emissions. One child in America emits more than several children in the developing world.
Also, if we were 100% renewable and kept our fossil fuel use to approx 2 tonnes CO2e per year - we would be fine.
Also it is kinda socially unacceptable to send birth control to third world coutnries. All the lefties start talking about racist conspiracies. When people are educated and safe they have fewer children because they are in better control of their futures: their children don't have to be their retirement policy.

Answer 7

I am a little confused why a lot of the answers to your question appear to have focused on the third-world, all around the world population is growing?
Its western 'civilization' (and I use the term loosly) that is causing the bulk of the problems with the planet.

I speak as someone who is not religious and I do not intend to offend - but surely religious families of +10, in western countries are more of a burden on the planet than those in the third world?
In third world countries large families live to survive, in western countries they only consume: clothing, transport, excessive amounts of food (in some cases).... they all have to be clothed, housed, fed. They all gain their own transport and demand and consume energy to power all of the technical/electrical wonders that their location on the planet gains them access to?

1 village in the third world leaves less of a dint on the planet than a single child living in the western world.

I think if the worlds population is to be be examined we should first look inward.

Answer 8

I certainly don't shy away from this subject as I believe that is the biggest indirect problem this planet faces.
I encourage people to adopt over giving birth. I think America should have a one or two child policy similar to China, at least until we all start living much more sustainably.
My husband and I already decided to adopt instead of having our own.
Until then, however, our babies are rescued animals.

Answer 9

politically incorrect, I would assume, also the main focus is on global warming which is presumably an industrialized nation caused problem. .

Population of developed countries is stabilizing or even net declining- but these are the countries with the biggest environmental impact.

Population is a problem, but it is not the top of the list anymore.

Answer 10

Because the SIMPLEST method of controlling overpopulation is WAR!! (Removes a whole lot of males of breeding age, economically!)