Two recent pieces in Northwest publications make us wonder if maybe the overpopulation discussion that loomed so large early in the modern environmental movement may be making a comeback as a key environmental issue:
The Global Footprint Network, which calculates the effect humans have on the environment and translates it to acres of land and water, estimates it would take more than two Earths to support human needs for food, raw materials and energy by 2050 if the U.N. projections are right.
The group figures the human population is already above Earth’s sustainable limit — the threshold at which humans can use resources without depleting the environment.
Wisely, Learn included a chart showing how much Americans consume in natural resources. While it’s true that population is important, consumption levels are arguably as important.
The piece drew some curious comments. Here’s one of my faves:
Population growth is like global warming. It is a hoxe. Even if it’s happening, humans aren’t causing it.
Huh? (Hoxe is sic, btw.)
These 50 years of urban expansion are viewed by critics as classic “urban sprawl,” but this is not mainly true. Rather it has mostly been urban growth necessary to accommodate a population four times as large, another 2.3 million people. Perhaps surprising to some, the average density, which did decline from 1950 to 1970, in the postwar suburban boom, has risen over the last 30 years.