| Dear
EarthTalk: Green groups don’t seem to discuss
human population growth, but I think the biggest issue confronting
the planet is the collective demand we put upon it. And
what is the difference in impact between population growth
in Third World countries, which are poor, against that in
the U.S., where we consume and waste so much more?
-- Ronald Marks,
via e-mail
| |
Human
population is expected to exceed nine billion by 2050,
the result an ever increasing number of poor people
suffering from malnutrition, lack of clean water,
overcrowding, inadequate shelter, and AIDS and other
diseases. Pictured here: Living conditions today in
Srinagar, Kashmir, India.
© Getty Images |
The
global rate of human population growth peaked around 1963,
but the number of people living on Earth—and sharing
finite resources like water and food—has grown by more
than two-thirds since then, topping out at over 6.6 billion
today. Human population is expected to exceed nine billion
by 2050. Environmentalists don’t dispute that many
if not all of the environmental problems—from climate
change to species loss to overzealous resource extraction—are
either caused or exacerbated by population growth.
“Trends
such as the loss of half of the planet’s forests, the
depletion of most of its major fisheries, and the alteration
of its atmosphere and climate are closely related to the
fact that human population expanded from mere millions in
prehistoric times to over six billion today,” says
Robert Engelman of Population Action International.
According to
Population Connection, population growth since 1950 is behind
the clearing of 80 percent of rainforests, the loss of tens
of thousands of plant and wildlife species, an increase
in greenhouse gas emissions by some 400 percent and the
development or commercialization of as much as half of the
Earth’s surface land. The group expects that half of
the world’s population will be exposed to “water-stress”
or “water-scarce” conditions feared to “intensify
difficulties in meeting…consumption levels, and wreak
devastating effects on our delicately balanced ecosystems”
in the coming decades.
In less developed
countries, lack of access to birth control, as well as cultural
traditions that encourage women to stay home and have babies,
lead to rapid population growth. The result is ever increasing
numbers of poor people across Africa, the Middle East, Southeast
Asia, and elsewhere suffering from malnourishment, lack
of clean water, overcrowding and inadequate shelter, and
AIDS and other diseases.
And while population
numbers in most developed nations are leveling off or diminishing
today, high levels of consumption make for a huge drain
on resources. Americans, who represent only four percent
of world population, consume 25 percent of all resources.
Industrialized countries also contribute far more to climate
change, ozone depletion and overfishing than developing
countries. And as more and more residents of developing
countries get access to Western media, or immigrate to the
U.S., they want to emulate the consumption-heavy lifestyles
they see on their televisions and read about on the Internet.
Given the overlap
of population growth and environmental problems, many would
like to see a change in U.S. policy on global family planning.
In 2001, George W. Bush instituted what some call the “global
gag rule,” whereby foreign organizations that provide
or endorse abortions are denied funding support. Environmentalists
consider that stance to be shortsighted, that support for
family planning is the most effective way to check population
growth and relieve pressure on the planet’s environment
accordingly.
CONTACTS:
Population
Action International; Population
Connection
Dear EarthTalk:
How much of an effect, if any, does the carbon dioxide
in carbonated beverages have on global warming?
-- Michael Holmes,
Shenandoah, VA
| |
Cans
and bottles of sodas emit very little CO2 directly
when opened, but the production and distribution of
single-serving beverages of all kinds generate untold
millions of tons of greenhouse gases and other pollutants
every year, while also wasting billions of gallons
of fresh water. And once the drinks have been consumed,
all those cans and plastic bottles have to go somewhere.
© Getty Images |
A typical 12-ounce
can of soda contains up to six grams (.013 pounds) of carbon
dioxide (CO2) gas, which either escapes into the atmosphere
from the liquid upon opening, or from your body after you
consume the contents. So yes, drinking carbonated beverages
does contribute to your “carbon footprint,” but
only ever so slightly.
To provide some
context, every time you burn a gallon of gas driving from
point A to B in your car, about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide
wafts skyward (if you find this hard to believe, visit the
U.S. Department of Energy’s fuel economy website at:
www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml). So, extrapolating out,
a typical car commute to work produces upwards of 700 times
the greenhouse gases as drinking that can of Coke.
But cans and
bottles of carbonated (or non-carbonated) drinks are still
no friends of the environment. The production and distribution
of single-serving beverages of all kinds generates untold
millions of tons of greenhouse gases and other pollutants
every year, while also wasting billions of gallons of fresh
water. And once the drinks have been consumed, all those
cans and plastic bottles have to go somewhere.
Some communities
are diligent enough to capture more than half of all such
containers for recycling—an activity which itself generates
significant amounts of greenhouse gases—but that still
means that more than 40 billion cans are ending up in landfills
each year, or even worse, as litter, according to data compiled
by the non-profit Container Recycling Institute (CRI).
Each un-recycled
can or bottle then must be replaced by an equivalent one
made from virgin materials. CRI reports that just the manufacture
of these replacement aluminum cans each year generates about
3.5 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions, while also
causing other environmental damage from the extraction of
the bauxite from which aluminum is made. Even a larger amount
of resources are used (petroleum-based in this case) and
greenhouse gases emitted from the significant number of
plastic single-serving drink bottles that are thrown away
and not recycled each year.
Consumers can
take a bite out of all this resource waste and pollution
by remembering that, first and foremost, water is the least
costly and healthiest beverage of all (on virtually all
personal and ecological counts). And water drawn from the
kitchen faucet requires no disposable packaging or shipping
to get there, thanks to the highly efficient water-delivery
systems that have been in place in developed countries in
the vast majority of communities for a very long time.
For those who
cannot get by without their soft drinks—carbonated
or otherwise—the best way to lower that carbon footprint
is to buy them in large containers and parse out servings
in cups or glasses. A typical two-liter (67.6 ounce) plastic
soda bottle holds five and a half times the liquid of a
12-ounce container and over four times that of a 16-ounce
container, so it is easy to imagine the resource savings
over time.
CONTACTS:
Container
Recycling Institute; fueleconomy.gov. |
A
SYNDICATED COLUMN ONLY ON AMERICAJR.COM
|
