Green...shoot...foot

Let's get this straight.

The latest leaked (maybe this should be 'whattheyaretellingustheywillbesaying'news'@sky.com/bbc.co.uk) big budget idea is to accommodate the growing population being encouraged (how is that working out, as one doubts these folk will consume much less) is... build more council homes. Concrete. Driveways. Water for washing cars and running off to drains. Lots of extra A+, but still energy sucking devices. And as a bit of free feedback to help that multimillion £ research, I suspects bees don't thrive when the greenery is paved over. Just a thought.

It's many things (lots of lovely voters). But let's give up any pretence of it being green. And remind me, what are the fuel consequences of grinding around all (school zones for sure worthy) urban areas at 20mph?

Metaefficient - NEW - City Of Green Rings To Be Built In Korea - if you must build, maybe this is a way to do it and keep the green spaces.

Way too rational

Are there any more seats left on top?

What we want is extremes! That's what the activist groups and ratings-hungry media need... and thrive on.

Just like with climate change. I was at an event recently designed to raise 'awareness' of the issue, and foolishly accepted a group invitation to share my views, which are, roughly, that I think the climate is behaving in a negative way, and it's quite possible that the actions of man may not be helping, so I'll do all I can in mitigation but would need more convincing on some more drastic advocacies that could consume resources in an equally damaging way.

Of course, I please none present and was universally castigated for being a sceptic, denier, hairshirt and treehugger in equal measure.

For this reason, I consider any venturing near issues of population as very brave indeed. Especially if you mention Gaza in the same breath.

CATEGORY - POPULATION

One thing is for sure, you won't see much opinion from me on this one!

Yes, I am a wuss.

ARTICLES

Newsnight - How do we feed the world in the future?

Indy - Are there just too many people in the world?

There are a few, very few, with the courage to write about the topic of population. Even fewer in positions of leadership amongst them, much less prepared to consider how to address the issue.

If, as seems evident, our global numbers are expanding, as there is a fixed, finite area to accommodate and support us all, and the consequences of our existing, there has to be an end point.

And it's worth noting to all the vegetarian advocates who often crop up in such discussions that their... very worthy... case simply buys more time, even if we ignore the design fault that made most of us omnivores.

And speaking of Mother Nature, she might be argued to have erred in other aspects of her creation. Our newly found ethical overrides, on top of technology, pretty much ensure most checks and balances she put in place to maintain an ideal level of our race are negated.

Mind you, with SARS or 'global warming' maybe she has indeed already have ready all she needs ready to get things back under control. And, brutally, one view being suggested is that such as a multi-year drought (however caused 'globally') might be her way of trying to do as she intended, but gets rather countered by keeping vast populations barely alive in camps where there is little to do that what else comes naturally by artificial drip-fed means isn't that sustainable. Of course, like many caring Western celebs and commentators, this notion appalls me, and hence no alternatives can really be easily discussed for fear of the inevitable reactions to even raising the point. So, having slammed the lack of international statespersonship, I certainly would not envy anyone who tried to should the burden of Global Triage.

However, voluntary birth control certainly seems a heck of a good start. Just... bear in mind, it still only buys time.

Times - The population explosion on Europe’s doorstep - I am reassured that 'we' are going to 'peak' at 9.5 (not 10 in round figures?) Billion, but don't fancy the notion on how this is arrived at, literally or figuratively

Times - Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population by Matthew Connelly - A book review

Newsnight -

Amazing level of intellectual heft and experience brought to bear on this important subject. Well, from Mr. Porritt at least. So one of four non-blondes wasn't bad.

As I pour chocolate sauce over a profiterole, I am struck by the finite area of the globe as the brown stuff covers it.

Not that we are likely to get to full coverage, even with technology stacking us up as it sends our waste below (not too sure on where the feeding bits go...oh well).... I do believe the planet (which will persist well after we have gone) already is demonstrating corrective systems of its own.

Guardian - No kidding, BMJ - Points being made, and missed, in spades

Indy - No coercion in family planning - missed the original, sadly

Science Daily - courtesy of Dave from Solarventi - Population Policy Needed In Order To Combat Climate Change, Experts Argue - Sheesh, we Westerners certainly have an impact.

Indy Letters - More people than the planet can hold

Telegraph - Save the planet by cutting down on meat? That's just a load of bull - Pull out pin, lob... and duck

Indy - Some hints for saving the world - Or... just get the extremes agitated again

Times - Cassandra: stay childless and save the environment - My mute observations continue.

Times - EU and Green envy at China-style restrictions on family size

Times - Two children should be limit, says green guru - 416 comments. 'Nuff said.. well, obviously not.

BBC - Is it selfish to have more than two children?

Guardian - Cutting consumption is more important than limiting population

Guardian - NEW - Lack of water still kills

INFORMATION (cautions on objectivity)

optimumpopulation.org

The rise of the rest

I actually don't think of other countries as 'the rest', but this is an interesting set of stats, especially if you consider the enviro-impacts.

Rise of the Rest - Futuresgroup.wordpress.com

Mind you, it's good our PM is concerned about Mrs. Tweed, nee Goody, as a matter of priority.

Is over-population the key problem?

I, like Peter, am somewhat of a wuss when it comes to mentioning the 'policy that dare not speak it's name', but this piece, by Paul Valelly of the Indy, definitely warrants a thorough read.

The article contains so many facts and figures that my head is still spinning. The key points to note, however, seem to be that when it comes to population:-
- nothing is simple,
- there are loads of paradoxes,
- religion, and cultural differences, are very important,
- social change does make a huge dent in birth-rates,
- the magic figure is 2.1 births per couple,
- large parts of Europe are well below 2.1

The UK is destined for a declining (and aging) population. Perhaps the article on the report by the BMJ in Science Daily that we mentioned a little while back was not considering all the facts?

My mind has always felt that over-population IS the key problem for our planet as an entity, but after reading this, I'm not too sure, as the implication is that as the world's population gets more educated, and more wealthy, the population, in the main, will naturally decline.

Well, it does sort of make sense ......

.... doesn't it?

This from Science Daily comments on a report by the British Medical Journal that suggests that population control is one of the better methods of combating climate change.

"The biggest contribution UK couples can make to combating climate change would be to have only two children or at least have one less than they first intended"

"each new UK birth will be responsible for 160 times more greenhouse gas emissions … than a new birth in Ethiopia."

Sooooo, the policy that dare not speak it's name gets substantive support from the medicos. I guess that we are going to see a major furore develop here before long.

Addendum - THE Register - Doctors: Third babies are the same as patio heaters - Oh, this will help. Why do I suspect a canal barge of green nappies is headed for a converted windmill as we gaze on.

Addendum 2: - (14:10) Now the Telegraph has also picked up on the story - and put it in the 'Your View' section. Should be quite an interesting set of comments developing once it gets spotted.

It's a view, certainly

Over on my other blog, there is reference to a BBC Editor who is 'helping' the government on some political options.

There is a small storm however, based on the fact that he essentially outlines an either/or for them, and by association the reader, that sort of throws the imposition or sparing of pain ultimately back on the public. Basically tax more or provide fewer services.

What he has been caught doing, and held to account for, is ignoring another option which, while equally unpalatable, should at least be in the mix. And that is trim the fat within the machine of government itself first. No real surprise of course, bearing in mind the unique way the BBC is funded, and the way this government has conducted itself over the last decade. How many more packaged and pensioned civ. servs and quango-getters on the public payroll now...1 million?

Which is what struck me reading this, for obvious reasons that will become clear, if horrible to be thinking about:

The natural consequence of human greed

There is no excuse not to do what one can, but it certainly makes me even more determined not to get on the sanctimonious route of many of the greenerati who may do all sorts of stuff, and doubtless rush to print to tell us they are, and we should, but for whom the actual back to basics suggested in this piece would not be part of the programme so long as the economy, nice job and/or trust fund delivers.

Sometimes it's too easy

You know how I have this thing for those who spout messages not always being the best messengers?

'Eco-warrior' Prince Philip attacks big families

He's essentially correct. Just... totally the wrong person to say, or be given airtime to say it, like most green advocates/converts who are immune from the consequences of their pronouncements.

And to all the veg. advocates: on a finite planet such a diet just buys the expanding population time.

Up a GM tree

I have tended to steer clear of GM. hence I share this as is, but more because of the referral to the issue of population.

As the world begins to starve it's time to take GM seriously

This I am also a bit of a wuss on when it comes to commentary (GM is more a case of absolutely not knowing enough to do so, despite doing a 1/2 a degree in something pretty close. Mind you, I was at college with Mendel - the extremes of 'fact' in the thread comments cases in fact).

As with the two 'E's, I do find I lack patience with the idealistic, simplistic and totally self-serving pronouncements of those who wish to ban something without any clear suggestion on how the consequences of such a ban would be handled.

Of Food Prices, Population Growth, Climate Change, Biofuels and even Malthus!

A very interesting article from FinFacts covering, well, just about everything you could care to mention! And some fascinating facts........

"we now consume about fifty thousand times as much energy as our ancestors once did" Wow!

And have you heard of Norman Borlaug? They reckon that he has "saved more lives than any other person who has ever lived." Gosh! And I've never even heard of him before!

"US stocks of wheat are at a 60-year low and world rice stocks are at a 25-year low."

"The rise in the price of oil has resulted in the US diverting 20% of its maize/corn production for biofuels and the European Union 68% of its vegetable oil production."

Meanwhile, looking at the world's population figures:-
AD 0001 ~300 Million
AD 1000 ~310 Million (Yes, that's a 10 million increase in 1000 years!)
AD 1500 ~450 Million
AD 1804 ~1 Billion
AD 1927 ~2 Billion
AD 1960 ~3 Billion
AD 1975 ~4 Billion
AD 1989 ~5 Billion
AD 2000 ~6 Billion (Yes, that's a 1 Billion increase in 11 years!)
Today ~6,662,731,966 (At midday today - probably several 100 thousand more in a few hours!)
AD 2010? ~7 Billion?
AD 2050? ~9.2 Billion+?

From a 10 Million increase in a thousand years, to a 10 Million increase over a matter of days! Maybe Malthus wasn't so crazy after all, simply a little ahead of his time. It doesn't look too good really, does it?

Addendum:
At least it looks as if the EU is going to revue the biofuels targets - from the Guardian.

Of wolves and moose .....

... a fascinating article on the delicate balance between the wolf and moose populations on Isle Royale on Lake Superior's north-western side; reported by the National Examiner. As neither species was indigenous to the Archipelago it has been a fascinating ongoing biological study site for decades.

Well worth a read as it clearly indicates just what a delicate balance there is between conflicting species. Until the wolves arrived over an ice bridge, the moose population expanded so rapidly that they almost overgrazed the islands and starved to death. Perhaps its an example that could mirror what may happen as mankind's population continues to expand at an ever increasing rate?

Quote of the day - Shining knights... and high horses?

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil weighs into the biofuel 'debate':

"Food is expensive because the world wasn't prepared to see millions of Chinese, Indians, Africans, Brazilians and Latin Americans eat. We want to discuss this not with passion but rationality and not from the European point of view."

Whether you agree or not, it is refreshing to see a statesperson actually say something that does raise the issue of some often pretty sanctimonious finger wagging with often equally suspect motives.

The pain with trains is starting to show the strains

I usually quote articles. But often the letters in response to them are more revealing. And sensible.

Take these to an Indy piece on trains: Train blame

I was mainly attracted by the one about the 'Gee whizz' reporting on growth on usage.

As with waaaay too much these days, and it doesn't matter if it's making a case for good or bad, up or down, it seems oddly facile to me that too many journos and editors seem to have a slight blind spot to the fact that there are a lot more of us doing stuff year on year, and that will often explain a lot much more simply than some of the notions that they attempt to gush over or spin into a headline.

Credit where it is due

I have, it is fair to say, some problems with many of the directions our national broadcaster is going.

Every-increasing fee hikes that we have no option but to pay, yet it seems to be expanding into all sorts of commercial areas in all sorts of other places... and frankly the standard of reporting and level of agenda across almost all its offerings is getting farcical to impose on those who have no way to object (all mechanisms, up to and including BBC Trust, are a joke, so essentially it is a £3.5Billion fund for a rather exclusive club to play with pretty much how they like).

However, there are diamonds in the rough. And, if given the choice, I would have paid (or tuned in to give ad revenue to the channel that aired it) for last night's doco on an Indian tiger reserve, using new remote camera techniques.

Superb!

And not a single bit of editorialising in sight. Coincidentally, it did actually make me think a bit about the sheer impacts of population. The reserve is huge, but finite, and with one mother cranking out four cubs who will grow and need territory, I do wonder about how this evolves.

And that is before we introduce the human factor. The area looked gorgeous. Either to a farmer or a holiday development. Sadly, I see no easy solution.

The pending food crisis.....

..... is much more of an immediate problem than climate change, according to the government's new chief scientist, Professor John Beddington, as reported in The Guardian.

"price rises in staples such as rice, maize and wheat would continue because of increased demand caused by population growth and increasing wealth in developing nations. He also said that climate change would lead to pressure on food supplies because of decreased rainfall in many areas and crop failures related to climate."

"Some of the biofuels are hopeless. The idea that you cut down rainforest to actually grow biofuels seems profoundly stupid." Quite!

"Global grain stores are currently at the lowest levels ever, just 40 days from running out."

Rapidly rising prices, all those extra mouths to feed and insufficient land and water. Things aren't looking too promising. Maybe it really is time to start tackling the issue that dare not speak its name?

All nature's creatures

I was tempted recently to get a biosphere.

It's one of those do-dads that is a sealed globe that mimics the earth's eco-system. Though I suspect without a few complicating factors, such as animals... and especially the human variety.

It set me to thinking a bit about some of the ideals put about, especially by those who see nature as the best architect and homo sapiens as the fly in the ointment, rather forgetting that we are merely part of Gaia's grand design.

So I just pondered an arbitrary, isolated area sustaining 'life'. Ignoring more global factors, the sun shines, it rains, the seasons change. The plants grow. Herbivores graze, and the availability of food and water regulates their numbers. And, just for good measure, predator carnivores do that job too, with a bit of Darwinian culling going on to on the herbivores and between themselves. On balance, that seems to work. In times of plenty, numbers go up. And in times of hardship they go down. And whatever happens there is an upper limit the land can, and hence will sustain.

Then along comes man. Well, the first to go will be the predators. For a start they are dangerous, and then for another they are competition. Next to go will be the herbivores, at least if they need the land man requires to live upon and grow crops (though we may keep some for burger purposes). And then we do what we do best. And as our numbers grow we occupy this finite space more and more, and cleverly squeeze more and more out of whatever remains to sustain ourselves.

But... and here's the rub... there still has to be a limit. It seems odd that so few seem to have admitted, much less addressed this notion.

Anything else, from plastic bag bans to renewable energy subsidies, seem more tinkering (albeit profitable, at least short term and just to some) simply to buy some more time.

Monbiot on population

Gentlemen (and ladies), fire up your flames.... Population growth is a threat. But it pales against the greed of the rich

With a headline like that, I'm guessing rationality from any 'side' will be noticeable by its absence.

So I think a good lurk is in order here.

One day, the machine will stop

That's a quote taken from John Gray's piece in Sunday's Guardian CIF.

I found the article quite interesting, mainly for the plethora of viewpoints that the usual gamut of posters on CIF bring, but also for Gray's analogy of our planet being an obese patient hooked up to a life support system.

"To some extent, technology may be able to replace the biosphere that has been destroyed, but, like an obese patient hooked up to an artificial life-support system, we will be living on borrowed time. One day, the machine will stop."

He also manages to hint at the policy that dare not speak its name.

"Far more than fantastical schemes for renewable energy, we need to ensure that contraception and abortion are freely available everywhere. A world of fewer people would be far better placed to deal with climate change than the heavily overpopulated one we are heading for now."

Oh, by the way, you'll need a good 20 minutes spare if you want to read all the comments posted.

And, just for balance, as I found the article interesting reading, one poster terms Gray "a flip-flopper who has perfected an incredibly irritating style of writing which is best characterised as 'smugism' : statement of large philosophical beliefs expressed with loads of magisterial certainty, without any argument."

Ouch!

Mankind, the virus on our planet?

Another mention of the 'policy that dare not speak its name', this time from outspoken MEP Chris Davies, as reported in the Cumbrian News & Star, who reckons that "young couples should have no more than one child in a bid to stop global warming."

"While every individual should be cherished, mankind’s reproduction is akin to the replication of a virus. We are swamping the planet and devouring its resources."

In a sense it's difficult to disagree with that last statement, but who is ever going to propose 'population growth control' as a mainstream policy? Perhaps, if H5N1 (the virulent strain of avian flu) ever mutates to a human to human transferable virus, such a policy may not even be necessary?

Enough's enough?

As one who has had two, I was attracted to this piece: Three's a crowd

I have to say we didn't stop at the twins through any great enviro commitment; in fact it was only their arrival that got me to embark on this journey. But even so, it was so wonderfully typical to see how an Observer chatterer could get one to being a 'modern Malthusian'. I am thinking of swapping Jedi for this on the next census or 18-page grant application 'we need to know ALL about you' section.

Actually I rather liked the simple mathematical logic described in the intro.

And, within the rest there is the odd interesting fact, such as this (if true): 'On your acre, can you grow all your food, absorb all the waste your lifestyle creates, have space for your home, recreational space, travelling space, provide the other resources you need and leave space for public services? Obviously not.' As I look at our half acre (mostly uncultivatable), that doesn't look too good when there's five (granny inc.) of us to sustain when the revolution comes or the bomb drops. I wonder what one does require? There's an attraction in having that land area (suitably stocked - including surrounding Claymores to discourage 'visitors') to hand as a fall-back.

In fact the whole piece is a fairly elegant roam around 'the issue', but really dips in, and then out, as do many of those who seem pretty active in stirring furiously in other, related e-areas the rest of the time, especially when it comes to the 'don't do that' invocations.

It all rather makes me think there are those who like flying about getting parachuted into high-profile local conflicts and winning medals for battles, but have no interest in winning a world war.