In an answer to a question on environment, I had opined that extreme population growth retards the quality of environment there. However, some of my colleagues had expressed that people in developed countries with high life style, are more responsible for degradation of the environment and ecosystem.
How do you think about it.
You are requested to post your opinions on environment pollution in respect to population and economic growth with appropriate data and references.
How S&T has affected the quality of environment, and what ways it has, to ensure uplift of environment quality. What measures are required in a society to combat this huge problem, which is unseen by the large proportion of the population.
http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/essay/effects-of-population-growth-on-our-environment/39624
https://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2007_HartePopNonlinear.pdf
Article Population Growth and Environmental Degradation
Article Impact of Population Growth on Environmental Degradation: Ca...
https://saferenvironment.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/population-growth-and-environmental-degradation/
Well, there is always an endless debate on this issue: whether population growth causes environmental degradation. Supporters from both sides, either agree or not agree, can provide various evidences to justify their argument.
I would rather look at the figures and facts that are generally acceptable:
(i) Ecological footprint
(ii) CO2 emissions
The ecological footprint measures human demand on nature, i.e., the quantity of nature it takes to support people or an economy. It tracks this demand through an ecological accounting system. From here, we realized that human footprint has exceeded the bio-capacity (the available supply of natural resources) of the planet by 20%. When comparing the ecological footprint of both the developed and developing, one may find that developed countries are always exceeding much more than the developing countries. For example, the U.S. footprint per capita was 9.0 gha, and that of Switzerland was 5.6 gha, while China's was 1.8 gha.
When looking at the amount of CO2 emissions, it is even clearer that industrialized countries (which are always the developed) are releasing higher amount CO2, even though environmental awareness is higher among the developed countries.
Also, these two indicators pointed out that increasing population is actually causing higher degree of quality degradation to the environment or nature.
A good article that I found on the issue of relation between environmental degradation with development and population: http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu03pe/uu03pe0c.htm .
I think that humanity should develop a culture to co-exist with nature with reviving (how much so possible) environment and ecosystem on the Earth.
Awareness to environmental issues are essential, and government should do it by advertisements on televisions, radio and newspapers.
Environmental degradation is obvious in this populous world. The sustainable development could be achieved by integrating 4 major elements :
Environmental Sustsiabalibity
Economic Sustainability
Political Sustainability
Social Sustainability
The sustainable development for future generations could be achieved by implementing "Beat the Heat and Save Environment For Tomorrow", the suggested attitude is strongly recommended.
Regards,
Jahangir
Well most of it is covered : I try
separate recycle vs organics (not to contaminate land fills)
Walk and not use car (save on $$$ and gas)
Save water (I try harrrrrd)
Do not waste food (sad truth many many go without a morsel)
Please maintain hygiene ...
I think govermentns should leave the "consumer economy" because it enhances consumer spending. There is also a need to redefine happiness away from consumption, confort and pleasures.
The number of users of environmental resources is a factor of its degradation. However, a well sensitized and educated populace, no matter how large, can sustainable use nature's resources.
On the other hand, less populated persons who are not sensitized or have not had Environmental Sustainability Education (ESE) are likely to degrade the environment wantonly and at a higher degree.
Its not just numbers in population that influence environmental resource abuse but the lack of education in changing the attitudes of uncensored use of biodiversity in the environment.
More Copulation (unprotected) → More Population → More Pollution.
INDIA IS TRAPPED IN THAT CHAIN
Thanks.
Population growth is one of the major problems facing the peoples of the world, especially the peoples of the third world, and the problem of rapid population growth is the cause of any other problem. The rapid growth of the population is attributed to any developments in the environment in various industrial, commercial, food, social and educational fields. The explosion or inflation of the population emerged with the age of industry and scientific progress, accompanied by poor planning of development and sanitary methods of waste management. It also used fuel sources from coal and petroleum for industry, starting with the manufacture of aircraft, trains, cars and factories, and removing trees and forests to secure cities and streets. As people continue to harass the environment and provide the necessary food due to the high numbers of the population with the lack of arable land, then deliberately use chemicals and pesticides annually and non-stop, which adversely affected the quality of the soil and the loss of production capacity, which affected the lack of agricultural crops and this inevitably causes damage to the environment and its factors .
Dear Prabhat Ranjan,
I have a paper: Research Demographic Transition: Impact of Population Control – Techn...
Herewith is the Abstract:Abstract
The post-World War II period was witness to governance of global affairs of economy with little regard for the greater good of the total global population in mind and hence did not adopt the ecosystem approach to utilize technology to mobilize the ecological resources for achieving sustainable development objectives. What they have done so far is to apply technology to remain affluent.
Interpreted in terms of Ehrlich’s equation: Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology where impact has been equated with population, multiplied by consumption (affluence), and multiplied again by technology, to assert that heavy consumption by industrialized countries contributed more to the problem than escalating birth rates in the less developed countries.
Translating I = PAT or Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology, into goals of sustainability, it is noted that Ecosystem Balance = economic development + social development, while Impact of Development = Impact of population growth + Impact of social development seeking affluence + Impact of Technology (promoting supremacy in trade and weapons) + Impact of improvement in quality of life.
This modified form of Ehlrich’s equation apparently suggests that the development processes aiming at improvement in quality of life have to depend on technology or technological development. Development processes in the industrialized countries have not only improved the quality of life of their people and provided affluence but also promoted their supremacy in trade and weapons through technological development.
Ehlrich had contended that consumption and population growth should both be curtailed or else human population will exceed the carrying capacity of the earth. Modified Ehrich’s equation is related to the emerging environmental trends e.g. rising global temperatures, declining fish catches, shrinking farmland, increasing urbanization and the rampant viral epidemic.
There is growing concern however that technology is being increasingly used for keeping the defense production industries fully operational. That helps the warring nations in sustaining supremacy over one or the other civilization. The general trend is for higher and higher standards of living thereby becoming less and less sustainable.
As always population growth has a marked influence on levels of consumption and the efficiency of resource use. The sustainability goal is to raise the global standard of living without increasing the use of resources beyond globally sustainable levels; that is, not to exceed the capacity of planet Earth. Information generated by reports at national, regional and city scales confirm the global trend towards societies that are becoming less sustainable over time.
Mirza Arshad Ali Beg
Dear Prabhat Ranjan,
Figures provided by Chee Hang Foo on ecological footprint clearly suggest that USA, the highest user of technology has larger ecological footprint compared with China despite both managing population growth. Both countries are economically on top and also responsible for manipulating the resources and fixing them into unavailable forms, always aiming to improve the quality of life and inculcate superiority complex, yet consuming the internal resources and causing their irreversible depletion.
Accordingly the exploiting countries have, with their technologies skimmed out as the main beneficiary and emerged at the top of the status pyramid. Affluence and poverty have assumed new dimensions in that the rich with its entrepreneurial and manipulative skill is in a better position to transform the resources into available and unavailable forms, separating itself out in the meanwhile from the impoverished environment.
Placing the figures on ecological footprint in the modified Ehlrich's equation shows that managed population has, with higher technical skill altered/degraded the quality of environment, while population growth, managed or otherwise has no part in degradation of the environment.
Mirza Arshad Ali Beg
Dear Prabhat Ranjan,
Please have a look at these attached sources.
Good luck!
@ Mirza Arshad Ali Beg: I could not agree with you on
"while population growth, managed or otherwise has no part in degradation of the environment." . I see that rivers and forests are disappearing in my state and country.
A population in developing world also has instruments superior to other organisms and we start to utilize technologies in self-benefit, without thinking the future of all the living system on the earth.
That is my kind opinion.
@Arvind Singh: Attachments by you are interesting and informative.
Re-spreading of some communicable diseases are very shocking. Pollution is bringing lost of life systems by chemical and physical attacks on the same.
Knowledge without vision
, may be destructive.
Dear Prabhat Ranjan,
A revisit to the modified equations and translating
I = PAT or Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology..... (1)
into goals of sustainability, will show that
Ecosystem Balance = economic development + social development.... (2)
On the other hand
Impact of Development ~/= Impact of population growth + Impact of improvement in quality of life + Impact of social development seeking affluence + Impact of Technology (promoting supremacy in trade and weapons) . ... (3)
Equation (3) shows that the share of population growth (managed or otherwise) has a small part in the development processes compared with processes aiming at economic development + social development.
In case of social development seeking improvement in quality of life and application of technology promoting supremacy in trade and weapons the share is much larger than observed for development aiming to provide the basic needs. As such the latter have miniscule part or no part in degradation of the environment.
Application of technology for promoting supremacy in trade and weapons, and keeping in preparedness for wars and war-like situations degrades the environment much faster than situations enjoying life in peace.
Correct me if you are still in disagreement.
Mirza Arshad Ali Beg
Population growth is one of the major factors responsible for environment degradation. Its effects are felt on the natural environment through generation of waste, threat to biodiversity and strain on forests due to overexploitation of plant and natural resources, enhanced pollution level due to urbanization, industrialization and transport development; land degradation due to intensive farming and excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides, deterioration in human health and destruction of all kinds of living bioda due to air, soil , water bodies and groundwater pollution and climate change.
Dear Prabhat Ranjan, Yogish Chandra Tripathi & Chee Hung Foo,
I have discussed this issue in detail at: Research Population Control – Technology & Affluence during Fourth De...
Herewith is an addition to the basic argument:Reassessment of Industrial Activity by Modified Ehlrich’s Equation: Increasing application of Technology to attain affluence and superiority in trade and weaponry has entailed emerging environmental trends depicted by e.g. rising rate of emission, rising global temperatures, declining fish catches, increasing urbanization, shrinking farmland, and the rampant viral epidemic. It may be observed from modified Ehlrich's Equation that weightage of the Technology component: {(Technology for affluence); (Technology for rapid rate of development); (Technology for providing safety and security); (Technology for promotion of superior status in trade and weapons); (Technology for promotion of arms industry aiming to achieve overkill capacity)} in the equation, is much larger than that resulting from traditional development processes aiming to provide the basic needs for sustenance of growth of population. Furthermore, Technology for promotion of higher status in trade and militarism has taken the centre stage; this keeps the arms production industries fully operational; it prompts the warring nations to sustain supremacy over one or the other unit of civilization. This is adequately reflected by a look at the amount of CO2 emissions released and comparing it with Growth of GDP. Clearly the industrialized countries are releasing higher amounts of CO2, and GHG emissions besides generating larger amounts of wastes even though environmental awareness is higher among them.
📷 📷
Greenhouse gas emissions versus population growth World Population vs. Global CO2 emissions 1850-2006
(http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/06/population-growth-vs-emissions-growth/)
Analysis in terms of World Population vs. Global CO2 Emissions for 1850-2006 shows that emissions rate has grown more sharply than population from 1950 onwards, with the only exceptions being noted during the economic recessions of the early 1980’s, early 1990’s, and around 2000. In fact Emissions have been growing at a rate twice as high as the rate of population growth. In the developing world there has been above average growth of population but lower per capita emissions, while in the developed world it has been exactly the opposite. This observation supports the earlier argument that Technology is the determining factor in shifting the Ecosystem balance to the negative, namely towards higher degradation. http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/06/population-growth-vs-emissions-growth/
Analysis in terms of per-capita emissions and rate of growth of population, shows the rate of growth of population has slowed yet total population continues to rise. GHG emissions including CO2 have continued to rise in the atmosphere. Furthermore emissions per capita appear to have grown dramatically in the industrialized countries since the dawn of new millennium, despite the slowdown in population growth.
Analysis in terms of CO2 emission shows that of the 9.9bn tons of carbon in the form of CO2 emitted from fossil fuels in 2015, 41% came from coal, 34% from oil, 19% from gas, 5.6% from cement production and 0.7% from flaring. Averaged over the last decade, emissions from fossil fuels and industry account for 91% of anthropogenic/human-caused CO2 emissions, with 9% coming from land use change.
📷 📷 Graph: World Population vs. Global CO2 emissions
The above graphs uphold the point that emissions resulting from application of {(Technology for promotion of superior status in trade and weapons) + (Technology for promotion of arms industry aiming to achieve overkill capacity)} have been growing at a more rapid rate than population from 1950 onward with exception noted during economic recessions. Since 2000, emissions have been growing at a rate that is twice the population growth rate. This is attributed to the growing share of Technology component in equation (3): {(Technology for providing safety and security) + (Technology for promotion of superior status in trade and weaponry) + (development of arms industry aiming to achieve overkill capacity)}. In a subsequent analysis this increase is attributed to initiation of war on terrorism, and counter-terrorism.
Correlation between economic activity of the population and GHG emissions identified in the above graphs leads to the following conclusions:
i) Emissions have been growing at a higher rate than population from 1950 onward, with the exceptions denoted by economic recessions,
ii) Emissions have been growing at rates twice the rate of population growth since the year 2000,
iii) Rate of population growth peaked in 1987 when CO2 was 350 ppm and population was five billion, compared with the current 400+ ppm and 7.2 billion respectively,
Year 1987 marks the onset of the Fourth Demographic Transition.
iv) Addition of 50 ppm CO2 during the 15 years since 1985 is attributed to anthropogenic sources including the additional two billion carbon feet;
v) With the beginning of New Millennium, Countries with rapid rate of population growth and large populations started having smaller yet significant emissions per capita,
vi) Most population growth in developed nations is driven by people seeking better population to resource ratios and ethnic conflicts leading to fugacity and fleeing + fleecing conflict,
vii) Increasing use of Technology component in modified equation (3) in the industrialized countries, has possibly raised the per capita emission dramatically, while their population growth has slowed, and quite in contrast the population of the aged has increased;
viii) Averaged over the last decade, emissions from fossil fuels and industry account for 91% of human-caused CO2 emissions, with 9% coming from land use change,
ix) Of the 9.9bn tonnes of carbon in the form of CO2 emitted from fossil fuels in 2015, 41% came from coal, 34% from oil, 19% from gas, 5.6% from cement production and 0.7% from flaring.
x) 2016 was the first full year in which atmospheric CO2 concentration stayed above the 400 ppm landmark.
xi) Rising concentrations mean rising temperatures. The temperature of the Earth has not risen since 1987. The rise in temperature is only 0.83oC during the last 50 years. (Population growth vs. emissions growth (http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/06/population-growth-vs-emissions-growth/);
xii) WMO has confirmed that 2011-2015 was the hottest five-year period on record and it expected 2016 to be hotter, beating 2015 into second place with a global average temperature of 1.2oC above the long-term average. This means 16 of the 17 warmest years on record will have been since 2000.
xiii) The impacts cited above are attributed to the growing share of Technology component in equation (3)
xiv) Escalated share of Technology component pertaining to {(Technology for providing safety and security) + (Technology for promotion of superior status in trade and weaponry) + (development of arms industry aiming to achieve overkill capacity)} in modified equation (3) is likely to be the dominant feature of the Fourth Demographic Transition, leaving the population component far behind.
The link between population growth and pollution, and environmental degradation, has not been clearly established. The most polluted areas of the world are not the most populated. The direct evidence of the effect of population growth on the environment is clearer for forest loss and soil degradation than for pollution. Population is not the only factor affecting environmental degradation.
@Hamit Can: Thank you for your suggested papers emphasizing that after a threshold, impact of population on the environment is non-linear and complex, resulting more stress on environment.
@Chee hung Foo: I agree with your observations that people from developed countries do not do for environment sufficient despite their awareness. I accept that deterioration in developed countries are remarkable due to more impacts on environment per capita.
I have observed destruction of natural habitats immensely in areas with very dense population in my country i.e. India.
Thank you for your balanced answer.
Thanks to @Zin Eddine Dadach, Alpana Sathya Murthy, and @Jahangir Khan for their remarkable answers and views.
@Dickson Adom: Thank you for your opinion that environment education can play a positive role in environmental protection. However any geographical area has a maximum capacity to sustain a population with healthy life.
@Mirza Arshad Ali Beg: I agree with your findings that population has less impact on environmental degradation as emissions of CO2 is larger than population growth.
However, where population density has crossed the critical density, the situations can be different. I am from a state with most dense population in India, and am seeing the environment being degraded by common people at a larger scale; which IS creating numerous problems horribly.
I am talking about an area with terrible environmental degradation.
I appreciate your endeavors to add answers with remarkable findings.
With Regards and Appreciations.
@YOGESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI : I agree with your remarks that world's most polluted areas are not most populated also. Population affects forests, as it is easy to cut the trees. Soil degradation results due to improper use of the soil.
S&T avails humanity to exploit the resources on the Earth, and advanced technologies are deteriorating the biosphere at larger scale.
We need strategic growth on the Earth, which needs wise utilisation of resources and population. Only planned population has stamina to make and follow strategies. Population burst can be cancerous on the Earth.
Dear Colleagues and Friends from RG,
Directly proportional relationships can be seen between the increase in the population of the entire human population and the scale of environmental degradation. However, population growth is not the only major contributor to environmental pollution and degradation. The scale of pollution and degradation of the natural environment varies from country to country, organizational cultures, economic systems, etc. The rate of economic growth, people's standard of living and the issue of environmental reforms, systemic instruments for environmental protection and other elements of implementing sustainable development principles also affect the scale of pollution and degradation. the environment. This is an important issue because in individual countries the above-mentioned determinants are developed to varying degrees. Therefore, the scale of pollution and degradation of the natural environment varies considerably in individual countries, which is mainly related to the level of implementation of the principles of sustainable pro-ecological development in accordance with the green economy philosophy.
Best wishes
- Badges
- Science topic