As I've considered the evidence for global warming and massive climate change over the past fifteen years, I was only vaguely aware of the eight hundred pound gorilla among all the scientific research, a gorilla that had the last say on whether we save our planet or not.  That gorilla was the planet's population.  Unless we address the population explosion in a comprehensive way, not much else we do will matter as runaway global warming wrecks the planet.

 

            The significance of population growth to our ability to stop global warming struck me fully when I read an article by Jack Hart, a former editor of The Oregonian.  Hart looked at Portland, OR, and its efforts to reduce CO2, an effort that began twenty years ago.  Headlines in the paper-citizens reduce per-capita driving by 5% over 5 years-made people feel good about their efforts.  But when Hart looked at how much Portland had reduced its total CO2 emissions, he found no reduction whatsoever.  Why?  Because the population of the city had increased by 42%, thus wiping out any progress in reduction.

            Hart gives one specific example that is illuminating.  "A Portland carpooling project saved-according to its own chest-thumping claims-3,000 tons of CO2 over five years.  That's pathetic-we could have accomplished the same thing by slowing metro-area population growth by 30 people a year."  Population numbers count, and they count for a lot.

            What holds true for Portland holds true for the world as a whole.  Looking at per-capita greenhouse-gas production is meaningless.  All that matters in the end as far as the environment is concerned is total greenhouse-gas production.  Unfortunately, world population figures are not encouraging.  In 1999, total world population was about 6 billion, with a greenhouse-gas production of approximately 1 ton per person.  Of course, a person living in Africa produced far less, while someone living in the United States produced nearly 20 tons.  Since 1999, we've added another billion people to the population, and some experts predict energy use could quadruple by 2050 as the population continues to soar.  China alone is building two coal-fired power plants every week to meet its energy needs.  And we must never forget, greenhouse-gas production is a world problem that affects everyone.  CO2 knows no international boundaries.  

            Population puts pressure on every component of our environment.  As the World Wildlife Fund announced, "human activities are causing the most rapid decline in species since the extinction of the dinosaurs."  We've consigned about 25% of our animals to extinction in the last 35 years so far.  Water resources are now stretched to their limits for a majority of people.  Almost one billion people have no access to clean water.  Desertification is increasing, meaning less arable land.

            Population also puts considerable political stress on countries, especially developing countries.  Failed states usually have a mix of disintegrating political and social systems connected with famine and war, almost inevitably connected to a population greater than the carrying capacity of the land, land which is often destroyed in the process by over farming.  The massive losses of forest in the Amazon basin-which some scientists believe is a major controller of weather worldwide-are directly related to population.

            Where are we in terms of the amount of CO2 presently in the atmosphere and the amount that will give us an environment similar to that of present day?  "Target Atmospheric CO2," an article by the leading U.S. climatologist, James Hansen, and coauthors, states, "If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."  Currently, CO2 is rising at 2 ppm annually.

            Where to start?  Without a doubt, helping women in third world countries with family planning would be a major step in the right direction.  Family planning has so many benefits.  Women who can limit the size of their families raise healthier, better-educated children.  Fewer children mean less pressure on the environment.  Fewer children mean less greenhouse-gas emissions.  Win-Win.

            Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the Bush administration has refused to send money authorized by Congress to the United Nations Population Fund-since 2002 $235 million.  A record 181 UN member nations contributed in 2007, and the U.S. was the only one not to for political reasons.  We must change that.  We must give women a chance to control their lives, and in the process, help save the planet.  I can only hope the new U.S. president will see the wisdom of this.

The outlook is grim for out planet if we don't act quickly and decisively to control greenhouse-gases, and we simply cannot ignore the population component if we hope to be successful.  That eight hundred pound gorilla isn't going to disappear of its own accord.