“Population overload”, BBC Focus, issue 207. This article provides an overview of the population growth issue, and the problems facing campaigners trying to bring attention to it, noting that fewer people means other social and environmental problems can be alleviated. It also notes that even if reduction measures were put in place soon, growth would still continue for decades due to momentum:
Provided all populations reach a fertility below-replacement level, the UN projects that the world population could peak late in the 21st century, and then begin declining for the first time in hundreds of years. But to achieve that we have to put the brakes on population before 2050. The trouble is, population increase until mid-century cannot be avoided. High fertility in the past, especially in the developing world, has built an inevitable momentum that fuels population growth – like a car braking at high speed, it’s going to take longer to come to a complete stop. There is still a high concentration of women of child-bearing age alive, so even if global fertility rates suddenly dropped to replacement level, it would take ageneration or two for the population to finally stabilise.
Articles from The Age:
“Most back immigration”, 1/12: this only involved a survey of 2000 people; hardly representative. “Migration numbers at record high”, 4/12. Alarming statistics on the yearly immigration rate (500 000!) and high birth rate. This is also making housing impossibly expensive, much to the delight of greedy investors and developers, but few others.
The federal and state governments have strongly supported the surge in immigration, arguing that it adds to Australia’s skilled workforce, diversity and economic strength. Without it, the Australian economy certainly would have gone backwards in the year to June.
Never mind the damned economy, what about keeping Australia liveable?
“Giving women a choice key to family planning”, 3/12.
The key to preventing a near-doubling of global population by 2050 is to enable women in developing nations to choose the size and spacing of their families, according to the United Nations population chief. Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, who heads the the United Nations Population Fund, said research showed about 235 million of the world’s women would like to cap their family sizes but had no access to family planning. Rejecting approaches such as China’s One Child policy, she said that slowing down future population growth could be achieved only through voluntary means.
Nonetheless, the world environmental situation is so dire that limits on the number of children allowed should be considered by governments, no matter how draconian this seems.
“Population control best way to cut emissions”, 4/12. A proposed scheme by the Optimum Population trust to provide contraception to people in poorer countries.
The cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the trust claims that family planning is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions. Every £4 ($A7) spent on contraception, it says, saves one tonne of carbon dioxide being added to global warming, but a similar reduction in emissions would require an £8 investment in tree planting, £15 in wind power, £31 in solar energy and £56 in hybrid vehicle technology.
But clueless religious groups oppose this: “But it would be misleading if it was spent in this way. It should go to things like disaster risk reduction, food security and water.” Fewer people competing for food will mean more food and water available to go around.
