“Man lives from nature, i.e., nature is his body, and he must maintain a continuing dialogue with it if he is not to die. To say that man’s physical and mental life is linked to nature simply means that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature.”

The general idea is that disruptions, or interruptions, in natural cycles and processes creates an metabolic rift between nature and social systems which leads to a buildup of waste and in the end to the degradation of our environment.

As people moved into cities they lost the contact with nature, and as a result they became less likely to consider how their actions and decisions affected the environment. Marx also noted that as the income for the workers in the cities increased, capitalists searched for a cheaper workforce outside of the city. Today when half of the world’s population lives in cities this is happening on a larger and more global scale. More people than ever have lost the direct contact with nature. And instead of companies and corporations looking for cheaper workers from the countryside they now look outside the nation’s borders, mainly in developing nations. The developed world is performing a “brain drain” where they are literally stealing the higher educated students and people from poorer and undeveloped nations. This is turn is fueling “a vicious downward cycle of underdevelopment” in the countries affected.

An example of a global metabolic rift and its consequences can be seen in the 19th century trade in guano (bird droppings) and nitrates from Peru and Chile to Europe. In the late 1800s several agronomists and agriculture chemists, such as Justus von Liebig, warned that the transfer of food from the early industrialized agriculture farms on the countryside to the cities had resulted in a severe loss of soil nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. This threat to the food production was the result of the division between town and country. The food was now being transported to cities far away from its source. And its waste products, which before used to help replenish the soil, now ended up polluting the cities instead. So this metabolic rift between town and country resulted in the loss of soil fertility in Great Britain and other nations which in turn led to the global trade of guano and nitrates from Peru and Chile. This trade also involved transfer of labor from China to work on the guano islands in Peru under slave-like or even worse conditions. It resulted in national economies strained by a huge burden of debt, the degradation of the Chilean and Peruvian environment and even led to a war between Chile and Peru over the guano resources. Liebig has said that this hunt for guano and nitrates “deprives all countries of the conditions of their fertility” and even likened Great Britain to a vampire which is “sucking its lifeblood without any real necessity or permanent gain for itself”.

Today guano is still widely sold around the world especially to countries such as France, Israel and the United States. Lately guano has also gained the status as an organic fertilizer which has helped increase the demands for it. But due to commercial overfishing as well as habitat loss and degradation the Guanay Cormorant bird has declined from its former population peak at around 60 million individuals to a slowly increasing population level at around 4 million birds today.

When it comes to anthropogenic global climate change Marx metabolic rift theory can help us to better understand and solve the biggest environmental crisis ever.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that the observed 0.6 °C temperature increases in global temperatures since the middle of the 20th century is a result of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities such as fossil fuels. So we humans have with our overdependence on fossil fuels disrupted the natural carbon cycle and earth’s climate system. We are now accumulating more and more waste emissions into our atmosphere, 23 billion metric tons of CO2 every year, with no end in sight. With devastating effects this accelerating buildup of greenhouse gas waste emissions is warming up our planet and changing our climate.

Because capitalism promotes the accumulation of capital on a never-ending and always expanding scale it cannot be sustainable. So the manmade climate change we are seeing now is, according to Brett Clark and Richard York, a result of a metabolic rift created by the capitalistic world system. To be able to address and solve this carbon rift and stop the worst effects of climate change Marx metabolic rift theory shows us that a complete transformation, or revolution, of our society is needed. If we don’t the carbon rift will continue to expand and we will race faster and faster towards the burning cliff.

References:

• Hornborg, A., J.R. McNeill & J. Martinez-Alier, red. (2007).”Rethinking Environmental History: World-System History and Global Environmental Change”
• Clark, Brett & York, Richard (2005). “Carbon metabolism: Global capitalism, climate change, and the biospheric rift”
• Moore, Jason (2000). “Marx and the Historical Ecology of Capital Accumulation on a World Scale: A Comment on Alf Hornborg’s “Ecosystems and World Systems: Accumulation as an Ecological Process.””
• Foster, Bellamy, John (1999). “The Vulnerable Planet”
• McMichael, Philip (2008). “Contemporary Contradictions of the Global Development Project: Geopolitics, Global Ecology and the ‘Development Climate,” Third World Quarterly.

Photo credit: Julien Harneis

Lord David Puttnam, ambassador for Unicef UK, asks on BBC’s Green Room what kind of price our children and future generations will have to pay for “the three or four carbon-happy generations that have lived before them?”

“Climate change is not just an environmental problem, it is a human rights issue. In fact it’s the biggest child rights problem of our time.

With the potential rise of up to 160,000 child deaths a year in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia directly resulting from climate change, it is children, the most vulnerable children, who will be caught at the centre of the storm.

They will unquestionably carry the greatest burden – both as children and as future adults – and yet they are the least culpable for its damage.”

Puttnam demands that the world “must stop borrowing from the future and act now” on man-made climate change, and that the rights of children should be put as “the core of the climate change policy framework”.

Breakfast: good for you and the planet!

Many teens either skip breakfast or grab something starchy and sugary on the way to school. However, from a nutritional point of view, breakfast is the most important part of the day. The solution? A fast and easy breakfast smoothie. You can make your own with protein powder, yogurt and frozen berries, or try Vega smoothie mixes. They have protein for energy, plus all your vitamins and minerals to start the day right. Vega compared its Whole Food Optimizer to a “traditional North American breakfast” including hashbrowns, eggs and bacon, and a “light North American breakfast” including yogurt, cereal and banana. According to the Vega website, there are 38 times more greenhouse gas emissions created by traditional breakfast and 10 times more greenhouse gases created by the light breakfast compared to Vega. Thus, switching to Vega for a year would be equivalent to turning off a 60 watt light bulb for 12,500 hours, or 521 consecutive days (Source: http://sequelnaturals.com/).

Transportation

If no school bus is provided for your school, consider car-free ways of getting to and from class every day. Walk, bike, or create a “walking school bus”, where a group of children walk to school supervised by one or more adult. It’s safer in numbers, easy on the planet, good physical activity and simple for parents, who can take turns supervising. Visit http://www.walkingschoolbus.org/ for more details. If all else fails, carpool or take transit.

Waste-Free Lunch

• Use stainless steel water bottles instead of plastic disposable ones. As I’ve mentioned before, stainless steel is non-toxic, durable, easy to clean and does not rust. Green Bottle (http://www.greenbottleonline.com/) has plenty of fun designs kids will love to brag about to their classmates. They come in 12 oz, 20 oz and 25 oz sizes with a variety of lids including sport tops.
• Look for non-toxic, BPA free Tupperware such as Preserve. Some companies like By Nature and Bento Box Systems offer complete lunch sets for kids including cloth napkins, reusable bags and storage containers. Nubius Organics sells toxin-free reusable cutlery made from bamboo.

Clothes

For back to school clothing shopping, thrift stores are the way to go. Treasure hunting at second hand stores can be just as much fun as showing off the new fashions. It’s amazing to see how many designer labels and never-worn items there are. Plus, kids and teens love having unique pieces that’ll be the envy of all their friends.

For new clothes, even the biggest stores such as Roots Canada, H & M and The Gap are jumping on the organic cotton bandwagon for kids clothes. It’s never been easier to find eco-friendly clothing close to home and at reasonable prices. Just make sure the percentage of organic fibre is high—be wary of 10% organic cotton/90% polyester blends! Bamboo, hemp and soy are other great earth-friendly fabrics.

Supplies

• Before school starts, sort through supplies from the previous years and keep whatever possible. You’ll be saving money in the process.
• Refillable pens and pencils are a smart alternative to disposables. Or, if you prefer, Earthzone pencils are made out of 100% post consumer recycled newspapers—no wood used!
• Paints should be water, not oil based.
• From binders to notebooks, avoid PVC plastic, instead opting for cardboard and paper. In all your paper purchases, look for recycled and non-chlorine bleached options. Remember that unless it says “Post-consumer waste” it may be scrap paper that never left the factory. Try Ecojot Notebooks—they come in cute, stylish patterns and are 100%  post-consumer recycled. For printer paper, most big brand retailers offer recycled options as well. Along the same lines, reduce before you re-use—don’t print rough copies of assignments unless absolutely necessary.
• Backpacks should ideally be made from all-natural materials, such as durable hemp. Otherwise, check out PVC free options at http://www.nubiusorganics.com.

At-School Projects

Environmental class projects don’t have to be reserved for Earth day. There are tons of fun ways to encourage environmental activism to suggest to teachers and school staff. Younger children may enjoy taking nature walks, going on field trips to the recycling depot, and planting trees in the school yard. Students in older grades may wish to start a class vegetable garden and school compost project, or petition for organic options in their school cafeteria.

“On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide,” Jones said in his resignation letter, issued in the wee hours Sept. 6. “I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for our future.”

The attacks, reminiscent of the far right’s “tea party” efforts to savage late-summer health-care town halls, centered on allegations about actions before Jones accepted the administration post last March. Among the accusations were characterizing Republicans with an expletive (for which Jones has since apologized), signing a petition to investigate whether the Bush administration allowed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks (Jones has repeatedly said the petition didn’t reflect his views) and early-90s involvement in a small Marxist-oriented group.

But critics of the far-right drive saw a broader agenda.

“Van was in a very strong position to really change the way our economy works so that it works for everybody and it works for the environment, so that we can have a planet for our grandkids and great grandkids to live on,” Taj James, executive director of the Oakland-based Movement Strategy Center, told the KPFA Morning Show Sept. 8.

Emphasizing that the election of President Obama was just “the ticket to the game,” not its end, James said too many progressives have been “sitting in the bleachers watching, not out on the field playing,” allowing “a small number of very hateful people to immobilize the administration” and slow the momentum the movement built to get Obama elected. He added, “The right wing understands that if they can use the politics of fear and distraction to paralyze this administration, they can over time take this country in a really terrible direction.” Another perspective was offered by James Rucker, who heads Color of Change, a web-based organization dedicated to making sure African Americans and all under-represented people have a political voice regardless of race or class. Jones helped found the group but is no longer associated with it.

Rucker told Democracy Now! that Color of Change began to campaign against Beck when the right-wing pundit called Obama a racist and asserted the president had a deep-seated hatred for white people. Color of Change launched a campaign that Rucker said has resulted in nearly all Beck’s national advertisers abandoning the show.

Although Beck didn’t mention Color of Change by name, Rucker said, the talk show host “went from having mentioned Van Jones to Van becoming essentially public enemy number one in his mind, and he absolutely went about a smear campaign,” cherry-picking statements and long-ago affiliations.

Other organizations Jones helped found or has been affiliated with were also quick to express their anger.

“Smear campaigns designed to sabotage our movement for an equitable, green economy are attempts to distract people from what really matters, building a future that is green and just for everyone,” Jakada Imani, executive director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, said in a statement. “We’re outraged by the attacks Van and his family have suffered at the hands of those who have made it their mission to derail a clean, green and just future for our country.” Jones co-founded the center in 1996.

Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, who heads another organization Jones helped found ― Green for All ― called on supporters not to be distracted by “the rants of those who fear our vision,” but instead to rededicate themselves to “the issues our opponents refuse to debate: ending global warming, lifting people out of poverty, restoring the economy, and bringing health to our communities.”

And the labor-environmental-business Apollo Alliance, on whose board Jones formerly served, called Beck’s attacks on it “just the opening salvo in a smear campaign that will ramp up as the right wing continues to attack President Obama and our work to bring about energy security, climate stability and long-term economic prosperity.”

Author: Marilyn Bechtel, People’s Weekly World Newspaper

This past weekend around 50 000 people from around Germany protested in Berlin against nuclear energy. The demonstrators protested against threats from the current right wing government to extend a deadline for the country’s 17 nuclear reactors.

“In Berlin an estimated 50,000 people have joined a demonstration against nuclear power in the run-up to the German general elections.

The rally was headed by a convoy of 350 tractors, which drove past the office of Chancellor Angela Merkel,” Radio Netherlands Worldwide reports.

Back in 2001 the former Social Democratic chancellor, backed up by the Greens, pushed through a new legislation in 2001 that would phase out nuclear energy from Germany within two decades. But the Social Democratic and Green government lost the election in 2005 to a right-wing coalition consisting of the current Chancellor Angela Merkel’s center-right Christian Democrats and the liberal Free Democrats.

Angela Merkel, who successfully blocked a strong climate deal for the European Union last year, now wants to scrap the nuclear phase-out legislation that the SPD pushed through in 2001. This is similar to what is happening in Sweden after a coalition of right-wing parties won the recent election there. According to Merkel, Germany “cannot phase out nuclear energy as quickly as some imagine.”

“But in the long term, that’s to say in the second half of the century, we will experience a large amount of renewable energy sources. We are convinced that we will be able to stop using nuclear energy at some point”, Merkel said.

The Social Democratic chancellor candidate, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, is accusing Angela Merkel’s center-right Christian Democrats and the liberal Free Democrats “of leading the country into an energy policy dead-end and endangering domestic security.”

On the same day as the anti-nuclear protest in Germany were taking place Greenpeace released a survey which found that 59% of Germans are against Merkel’s proposal to extend the deadline for the country’s already aging nuclear reactors.

“Our responsibility is to phase out power plants that endanger the health and livelihoods of future generations, said Greenpeace Finland’s nuclear campaigner, Lauri Myllyvirta at a speech the Brandenburg Gate.

“Each year nuclear power plants are kept running means more nuclear waste, more uranium mining, higher risk of accidents. There is no excuse: Climate change can be best tackled without nuclear plants. The nuclear phase-out in Germany is one of the reasons for the success of wind and solar energy all over the world. A relapse into nuclear power in Germany would send a very bad signal to other countries.”

Nils Diedrich, a political scientist at Berlin’s Free University, says that if Merkel and her right wing coalition manage to push through this pro-nuclear legislation “we’ll see a real battle”. He warns that “then there will be massive demonstrations.”

Although Germany is one of the leading countries in renewable wind energy it still has a dirty and toxic energy portfolio. 42% of the country’s energy comes from coal and 23% from nuclear energy. Only about 15% of the energy comes from clean renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

Images from the Gruene.de

Photo credit: Deivis

During a recent visit to Cuba, we stopped by an agricultural cooperative on the outskirts of Havana. Its farmers and cooperatives across the country are part of what’s widely acknowledged as the world’s largest organic farming experiment. Hundreds of thousands of farmers at the grassroots proudly proclaim themselves part of Cuba’s “environmental movement.”

In 2008 Cuba was devastated by three full force hurricanes that caused some $10 billion in damage, including 400,000 homes destroyed and widespread crop damage. Cubans link the growing destructive power and frequency of the hurricanes with global climate change. Understandably, environmental awareness and the need for radical measures to curb global warming run high.

Remarkably, in 2006 the World Wildlife Federation rated Cuba as the only country that combined high human development standards as defined by high literacy and health indexes with a low ecological footprint including electricity consumed and carbon dioxide emitted per capita.

This got me interested in the path of sustainable socialist development Cuba has chosen and how environmental consciousness developed. How could an underdeveloped country with limited economic resources have an environmental record better than its wealthy neighbor to the north? The story gives one great hope that planet Earth can be saved.

The effort to reverse environmental destruction and follow a path of sustainable development is all the more remarkable considering Cuba’s history, the US blockade and continuous efforts to overthrow its government.

The Revolution charts a new course

When Christopher Columbus first landed on Cuban shores in 1492 he was taken by the beauty of the island, then covered 95% by forests. Soon Spanish and later US colonialists began a slash and burn destruction that transformed Cuba into a sugar colony and wiped out the indigenous population. By the late 1800s the land had been largely stripped of the trees and one-fourth of the world’s sugar was produced there. By the 1950s only 14% of the forests remained.

In Dialectics of Nature, Frederick Engels illustrated how the capitalist drive for profit in Cuba was destroying the island’s ecology. Spanish planters “burned down forests on the slopes of the mountains and obtained from the ashes sufficient fertilizer for one generation of highly profitable coffee trees … what cared they that the heavy tropical rainfall afterwards washed away the unprotected upper stratum of soil, leaving behind only bare rock!”

But there was also a parallel history – those patriots who treasured the land and its beauty, those who formed the growing independence movement. The acknowledged father of the country Jose Marti wrote in the 19th century, “To live on earth is more than duty to make it well.”

When the Cuban Revolution took place in 1959, environmental protection became a priority because leading revolutionaries were already ecologically committed. The first Agrarian Reform in 1959 nationalized the large landed estates and contained a clause on “The Conservation of Forests and Soils,” setting aside large preserves of some of Cuba’s greatest natural treasures including the famed Zapata Swamp and wetlands with the endangered Cuban crocodile.

In subsequent years advanced environmental legislation was adopted and codified in the Constitution, although laws were not always enforced. Scientists and educators were among those leading the environmental movement and headed up the agencies responsible for implementing a new policy.

Many organizations were founded that comprised a grassroots environmental movement including the National Zoological Society, Pro Naturaleza, the Foundation for Man and Nature, the National Association of Small Farmers, the Confederation of Trade Unions and Federation of Women. The Communist Party of Cuba and former president Fidel Castro are leading environmental advocates.

The Cubans have made serious mistakes over the years under the immense pressure of economic development and scarcity. But they have also learned from their mistakes and adjusted policies. Not surprisingly they began constructing socialism by largely copying the Soviet model that stressed industrialization without full regard to environmental impact. They soon realized the resulting damage and also that a model fitting their particular circumstances was needed.

For example, by the 1980s industrial pollution had grown, algae blooms appeared, hotel construction in Varadero had caused beach erosion and large scale industrialized farming using irrigation had caused widespread salinization and degraded the soil. This sparked a debate over the course of agricultural development and Cuban government officials began to consider a new direction.

In 1992 under the impact of the growing global environmental movement, the World Summit at Rio de Janeiro was held. Castro attended and delivered a ringing call to address economic and social underdevelopment and poverty with sustainability. He remarked,

“If we want to save humanity from destroying itself, we have to distribute more equitably the riches and available technologies on this planet. Less luxury and pilfering from a few countries for less poverty and hunger for the rest of the Earth. No more transfer to the Third World of lifestyles and habits of consumerism that ruin the environment.”

While the Cubans had already begun to implement some sustainable practices it was the crisis of world socialism and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 that radically accelerated the process. Eighty-five percent of Cuban imports including oil, farm implements, chemical fertilizers and foods stuffs came from the socialist community. When socialism collapsed Cuba was forced to change overnight.

Change was most dramatic in the agricultural sphere. The Cubans turned to organic farming using oxen, natural means of pest control and by spreading the manure of draft animals on the fields. Farmers emphatically told us when the blockade ends they will continue organic farming because it is better for the environment, the working conditions of the farmers and produces healthier food for the people.

In addition, the Cubans found the highly centralized model of agricultural production inefficient, so they broke up the large state enterprises into smaller cooperatives. This allowed decentralized operation and created the basis for grassroots democratic management and local responsibility.

Over one million bicycles were imported from China and five new bicycle production plants were built. Over 500,000 bikes were put in operation in Havana.

The Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment (like our EPA) was created to oversee environmental policy and its enforcement.

In 1993 the National Energy Sources Development Program was adopted whose first aim was conservation and energy efficiency and to begin to use more renewable energy sources.

As Renewable Energy World Magazine noted,

“All rural schools, health clinics, and social centers in the country, not previously connected to the (electric) grid, were electrified with solar energy, and today 2,364 of the solar electric systems on the island are on rural schools. Making lights, computers, and educational television programs accessible to every school child in the country; this program won Cuba the Global 500 award from the United Nations in 2001.”

The Energy Revolution

However these measures proved inadequate. So in 2006 Cuba adopted what was called the Energy Revolution consisting of five aspects: conservation, upgrading the electric grid, greater use of renewable resources, greater exploration of local gas and oil and greater international cooperation.

Conservation was deemed the key element. Castro remarked,

“We are not waiting for fuel to fall from the sky, because we have discovered, fortunately, something much more important – energy conservation, which is like finding a great oil deposit.”

The program has proved a great success in part because the whole country has been mobilized to participate through a mass education campaign. An army of young social workers is responsible for going door to door to convey the latest environmental practices.

Cuba became the first country to totally replace incandescent bulbs with energy saving compact florescent bulbs. Inefficient and highly polluting kerosene stoves were replaced by electrified rice cooking pots bought from China.

The national power grid has been modernized and decentralized. Hundreds of micro hydroelectric systems were built; urban farming and the use of hydroponics have been expanded.

Two large wind farms have been constructed on the coast; a 100-kilowatt solar electric power plant and thousands of independent solar powered systems have been built in rural areas. Recycling sugar waste products is producing bio-fuels.

Another important result of the Rio Summit was a call to preserve the world’s biodiversity. Cuba was among the first countries to embrace this challenge. Biodiversity was seen as an integral part of sustainable development and led to environmental protection by law. After a countrywide discussion, it adopted the National Strategy and Plan of Action for Biodiversity in 2000 and identified 42 different ecosystems including 17 that were described as ecologically sensitive.

Reforestation has increased to 21% and is growing. Forests and trees are under strict protection.

Because of the global economic crisis, Cuba is paying more on the world market for food imports. During the recent July 26th celebrations President Raul Castro called for food sovereignty to reduce costs. But this will also lower Cuba’s carbon footprint further by reducing the use of global transport. Local transport is being reduced by the expansion of urban farming.

Because Cuba’s beautiful coastal areas haven’t been stolen by the rich, carved up and sold off for summer homes or profit, but instead remain under public ownership, it’s possible to offer protection of coastal wetlands, mangrove swamps, beaches and the coral reefs which are said to be among the best preserved in the world.

Cuba has established coastal zones out to sea where construction is banned and protection zones of highly limited development inland 60-80 meters beyond the vegetation line. The true test will come when new facilities are constructed to accommodate the influx of US tourists anticipated when the blockade falls. Can development and environmental protection be meshed with the many joint construction projects?

Cuba’s example shows that a society geared toward socialist development, where working people hold economic and political power, is far superior to capitalism when it comes to dealing with the environmental crisis and actually reversing environmental destruction.

Monopoly corporations who constantly obstruct passage of environmental laws or thumb their nose at enforcement because it conflicts with their drive for maximum profits do not dominate Cuba. There is no bribing legislators and spreading of phony science.

Cuba’s example illustrates how socialism puts people first, how economic development and sustainability can be synonymous, how a country can learn from its mistakes and have the flexibility to deal with problems and crises as they arise. At a moment when the global economic crisis, vast inequality and poverty are inextricably linked to the global environmental crisis – socialism offers the only viable path to ensure humanity’s future.

Author: John Bachtell
People’s Weekly World Newspaper, 09/03/09

“According to one person who has read the drafts, the new policies will include buying up to 50% of the reduction from abroad. If this is true, it means that the UK will not cut its greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050, as the government promised. It means it will cut them by 40%. Offsetting half our emissions (which means paying other countries to cut them on our behalf) makes a mockery of the government’s climate change programme.”

Monbiot writes that “if global justice means anything”, the rich West must of course make deeper cuts than the poorer developing countries. “We have the most to cut and can best afford to forgo opportunities for development”, Monbiot writes on the Guardian.

“Carbon offsetting makes sense if you are seeking a global cut of 5% between now and for ever. It is the cheapest and quickest way of achieving an insignificant reduction. But as soon as you seek substantial cuts, it becomes an unfair, impossible nonsense, the equivalent of pulling yourself off the ground by your whiskers. Yes, let us help poorer nations to reduce deforestation and clean up pollution. But let us not pretend that it lets us off the hook.”

It is, like always, worth a read: The rich can relax. We just need the poor world to cut emissions. By 125%

Photo credit: jurvetson

Top scientists and economists tell us that Carbon Trading (Emissions Trading Scheme, ETS) proposals are dangerous, fraudulent Ponzi schemes and that genuine, non-manipulatable, equitable Carbon Taxes are urgently required to help stop planet-threatening carbon burning. [1].

16 million people die avoidably each year from deprivation (including 9.5 million infants) – and this global avoidable mortality holocaust is increasingly climate change-impacted. However, estimates from Dr James Lovelock FRS indicate that about 10 billion people will die this century due to unaddressed global warming – this including 6 billion infants, 3 billion Muslims, 2 billion Indians and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. [2, 3].

Excess deaths (avoidable deaths) associated with the Bush (now Obama) wars and occupations in 1990-2009 (Occupied Haiti, Occupied Somalia, Occupied Palestine, Occupied Syria, Occupied Iraq, Occupied Diego Garcia, Occupied Afghanistan and US robot drone-bombed NW Pakistan) now total 9-11 million. [3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

It can be estimated from UN Population Division data that there are a total of 655,000 non-violent avoidable deaths from deprivation per year and 1,795 each day in the various Occupied countries of the American Empire. Thus in the first 6 months of Obama’s rule as President of the United States of America there have been 328,000 avoidable deaths from deprivation in the Overseas American Empire – this figure of about 0.3 million avoidable deaths in the Overseas American Empire under Obama does not include violent deaths from military actions of the US or its surrogates (as a notorious US general once declared: “We don’t do body counts’). [5, 7].

UNICEF data informs that 4,000 under-5 year old Occupied Palestinian infants die each year, about 90% avoidably and due to war criminal Occupier non-provision of life-sustaining food and medical requisites unequivocally demanded of Occupiers by the Geneva Convention i.e. US-backed, Obama-backed, racist Zionist (RZ)-run Apartheid Israel deliberately murders 3,600 Occupied Palestinian under-5 year old infants each year. [8].

Of course if Obama were genuine he would insist on Carbon Taxes rather than ETS fraud; he would stop all wars, all occupations and the Iraqi Genocide and Afghan Genocide; and would insist that US-funded Apartheid Israel cease the illegal, war criminal abuse of Occupied Palestinians in what the Catholic Church describes as the Gaza Concentration Camp – but of course pro-Zionist, pro-war, pro-coal, Establishment-beholden Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) simply won’t.

[1]. Gideon Polya, “Experts: Carbon Tax needed and NOT Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)”, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group, 2009.
[2]. Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007.
[3].Gideon Polya, “Climate Disruption, Climate Emergency, Climate Genocide & Penultimate Bengali Holocaust through Sea Level Rise”.
[4]. Gideon Polya, “9-11 excuse for US global genocide. The real 9-11 atrocity – millions dead (9-11 million) in Bush wars (1990-2009)”.
[5]. UN Population Division: http://esa.un.org/unpp/ .
[6]. Gideon Polya, “Pro-Zionist Western genocide denial”.
[7]. Gideon Polya, “Hey, hey, USA, how many kids did you kill today? Answer: 1,000”.
[8]. UNICEF data on the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Nevertheless, environmentalists and environmentalist groups are being seduced into supporting the Carbon Trading ETS approach e.g. that of Obama that is now before the US Senate and the disastrous, proposed, pro-coal Australian ETS . The weak argument they offer is that “something is better than nothing”.

The pro-coal, pro-war Rudd Labor Government of Australia was elected in November 2007 with promises to the electorate that it would stop Australia’s involvement in Occupied Iraq (18 months since the election, two thirds of Australian troops are still there and there has a big boost to Australian forces in Occupied Afghanistan) and that it would take strong action on man-made climate change (but its post-election actions have been largely confined to rhetoric and propaganda while Australia’s world-leading per capita Domestic and Exported greenhouse gas pollution continues unabated).

The Rudd Labor Government did sign up Australia to the Kyoto Protocol in 2007 (a decade late) but balanced this by helping the US sabotage the Bali Climate Conference by refusing to agree to definite targets. As a ploy to avoid having to do anything concrete to decrease Australia’s world-leading Domestic and Exported greenhouse gas pollution (54 tonnes per person per year as compared to a world average per capita GHG pollution of 6.7 tonnes per person per year), the Australian Government appointed an economist Professor Ross Garnaut to research climate change for about a year and then proceeded to propose a softened version of Professor Garnaut’s final recommendations.

The Australian Government cap-and-trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) proposal was called the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” (CPRS) but the reality as estimated from US Energy Information Administration data is that the Australia ETS will INCREASE Australian Domestic and Exported GHG pollution by about 80% above the 2000 value by 2050 (see “Australia’s “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere”) whereas top climate scientists are demanding that atmospheric GHG needs to be urgently REDUCED (see “Experts: Carbon Tax needed and NOT Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)”).

Further, top climate scientists and climate economists are increasingly blunt in their assessments that a straightforward Carbon Tax is the way to go and that the cap-and-trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) approach in general is highly flawed; will reward major polluters; has not and most likely will not deliver timely reduction in GHG pollution; and will lead to a destructive market manipulation “bubble” that will make the recent market meltdown look like a picnic (see “Experts: Carbon Tax needed and NOT Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)”).

The cap-and trade ETS of the pro-coal Australian Government is a dishonest scam that ignores top scientific and economic advice in proposing a rigged auction of GHG pollution licences in which only major polluters can participate (an auction that would be illegal in other contexts). Even worse, the receipts from the rigged auction are largely returned to the major polluters who can also keep polluting cheaply by purchasing very cheap carbon pollution offsets offshore from massively deforesting countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.

Politically, the Australian ETS has been a great success for spin-driven, pro-coal, pro-war, pro-US Rudd Labor because it has succeeded in fooling the public into believing that it is actually doing something against climate change – whereas the reverse is true i.e. it is doing nothing concrete to reduce GHG pollution and indeed is doing the reverse by permitting massive expansion of coal burning, gas burning and coal and LNG exports while damaging Australia’s remaining renewables industry.

While the Greens oppose the ETS as a scam and the conservative Liberal a party-National Party Coalition oppose the ETS because it is flawed and/or may harm particular business interests, an ignorant and media-brainwashed Australian electorate continues to put its faith in an ignorant, dishonest, and dangerously incompetent pro-coal Australian Labor Government.

A recent estimate was that about 25% of Australians opposed the Carbon Trading ETS, with half opposing because it won’t work and half opposing because they are climate sceptics or are otherwise pro-coal and think it may work.

The great political success of Rudd Labor has been to also split the environmentalist movement. While the over 140 Climate Action Groups who met at the Canberra Climate Action Summit in January 2009 oppose the Government’s ETS and want REDUCTION of atmospheric CO2 from the current 390 ppm to 300 ppm, other environmentalists have been persuaded to come out in support of the highly flawed Government ETS that will commit Australia to INCREASING its world-leading GHG pollution.

The pro-ETS environmental groups include the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Climate Institute have now, sadly, been joined by leading Australian environmentalist Professor Tim Flannery. The essential argument appears to be “something is better than nothing” or as stated by Professor Flannery “I personally think they [the Greens] should vote for the CPRS and get it through. Because a first step is better than nothing.”

Below is a critique of an interview by ABC Lateline presenter Tony Jones with well-known Australian environmentalist Professor Tim Flannery (see ABC TV Lateline 29 June 2009). I have treated this as a kind of “student’s oral examination” and have inserted below correcting comments with appropriate references as required in bold in square brackets. Flannery has failed the Examination in key technical areas (it is no excuse that he was originally a Humanities Bachelor of Arts graduate from Melbourne’s Humanities-eminent La Trobe University before embarking on an eminent scientific career) and has also failed the Environment by supporting the pro-coal Australian Government’s highly flawed, cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme (ETS) that is misleadingly and paradoxically called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).

In short, the Australian CPRS (that Professor Flannery now supports) involves rigged auctions of greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution licences for major GHG polluters with the receipts being largely returned to the major GHG polluters. It is estimated that this CPRS policy means that Australia, one of the World’s worst per capita GHG polluters, will INCREASE its Domestic and Exported GHG pollution to 80% above the 2000 level by 2050 (see “Australia’s “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere”).

Parts of the transcript of the ABC Lateline interview with Professor Flannery are given below  [my comments are in bold in square brackets].

QUOTE: “Tim Flannery, adjunct professor for Environmental and Life Sciences at Macquarie University and chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council joins Lateline to discuss the latest summit.

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Joining us now in the studio is Professor Tim Flannery, well-known environmental expert, a former Australian of the Year and also chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council.

Thanks for being here, Tim Flannery.

TIM FLANNERY, CHAIRMAN, COPENHAGEN CLIMATE COUNCIL: It’s a pleasure, Tony.

TONY JONES: Let’s start with the US energy bill, and how much does this new bill Obama has pushed through his Lower House at the very least, how much has it changed the game globally on climate change?

TIM FLANNERY: Well, look, it’s a very significant development. You know, that bill seeks to reduce emissions [annual i.e. per annum?] beyond a 2005 baseline by about 17 per cent [by when?]. And what that means is that for the first time ever, really, US emissions of greenhouse gases will peak about five years from now, and that’s a fantastic achievement if we can do that and then have a slow reduction. Now, of course, we’d all like it to be more ambitious, but you’ve got to live with what’s actually achievable in a place like the US.

… [discussion about the US Obama Administration Waxman-Markey energy, climate change and Carbon Trading ETS bill that is now before the US Senate] …

TONY JONES: Well, no response yet from China or India on this [proposed US carbon-related tariffs] and I suspect partly because it seems to have slipped under the bar. It’s now only being reported in fact in the ‘New York Times’ and the ‘Washington Post’. So, it happened in the middle of the night. A lot of people didn’t notice for the whole weekend and now they …

TIM FLANNERY: Including me.

TONY JONES: Well, now they’ve noticed. And so what response do you expect there will be from China and India? Because it does look like a threat: get on board or we’ll put tariffs on your goods.

TIM FLANNERY: It does. I think it’s gonna be much, much tougher for India than China, this sorta stuff. And – which is a pity, because with the Congress win in the last election in India there’s been a softening of the Indian position, and with the right signals, I think India may come on board. This may make it more difficult for India to deal with … [In actuality, India’s annual per capita GHG pollution of 2.2 tonnes CO2-e per person per year is about one third of the world average and 25 times lower than Australia’s annual per capita Domestic and Exported GHG pollution of 54; Indian PM Manmohan Singh has actually PLEDGED that India’s annual per capita will never exceed the average for Developed countries, this already being much lower than the World average and vastly lower than that of the US, Europe and Australia: http://smh.com.au/environment/.../us-says-scientist-20090709-desd.html ].

China’s different. China’s been playing tough all along. They’ve been saying, you know, “Unless you guys reduce by between 25 and 40 per cent by 2020, we’re not gonna be part of the deal.” Now that’s probably a negotiating position; we’re yet to see. But this again will make it somewhat harder, but I don’t think it makes it impossible for China.

[Flannery ignores the reality that Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter and a world leading greenhouse gas (GHG) polluter. Thus Australia’s domestic and exported “annual per capita GHG pollution” is 54 tonnes CO₂-equivalent per person per year –  2 times that of the US, 10 times that of China, 25 times that of India and 60 times that of Bangladesh; for details and documentation see “Australia’s “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and the Biosphere”].

TIM FLANNERY: Well, look, offsets will be allowed – industrial offsets, right? So, if you produce a given amount of pollution, you can offset some of it by sequestering carbon in soils on farmland, which can be done through better agricultural practices and so forth, through charcoal making, another interesting technology, through reforestation, better rangelands management, better management of cattle and so forth. So there’s a number of different ways of this occurring. It’s yet to be seen specifically how the offsets will be made, but it definitely represents a real advantage to rural America and a very genuine set of offsets too. This actually helps with the climate problem. We know that this is such an overwhelmingly large problem that about half of the avoided emissions that we’ve gotta make over the next decade will come from sequestration in agriculture and forests.

TONY JONES: It is extraordinary when you think about that level of potential sequestration, but how does it actually work? I mean, biochar, for example, will – which Malcolm Turnbull has talked about quite a bit; you haven’t heard much from the Government on this issue. Will biochar be available to US farmers to offset carbon emissions?

TIM FLANNERY: Look, the specific technologies, I think, are yet to be debated, but I would be surprised if biochar weren’t included in there. I mean, the precise nature of the offsets, I should say, are still being worked out, but I’m sure that charcoal is one of the obvious ones. And just to let you know how that works, you know, just imagine a coal-fired power plant burns a ton of coal, you get 3.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide because the little carbon atoms join with bigger oxygen atoms to make them a CO2 molecule [you actually get much LESS because not all coal is carbon and not all the carbon, C, gets burned or fully oxidized to CO2]. That floats around in the air, a plant gets hold of it, strips the oxygen off again [NO, just some of the oxygen O is stripped off] and just keeps the carbon in its own tissue, so you’ve got that 3.7 going back to a single ton again ’cause there’s carbon in the plant structure itself [NOT SO; the photosynthesis equation is actually : CO2 + H2O -> CH2O + O2 i.e. carbohydrate (CH2O)n is generated, not carbon, C]. You then combust that, make charcoal out of it and then store the charcoal, which is almost pure carbon, in the soil.

TONY JONES: So, how does this work for a farmer? I mean, you’re talking about part of their crop is used obviously for export; the rest of it, the waste then becomes turned into charcoal and therefore somehow holds the carbon that’s in that waste. Is that what you’re talking about?

TIM FLANNERY: That’s absolutely right. If you look at a tree, it’s basically just congealed carbon [NO,  it is actually carbohydrate, mainly cellulose, (CH2O)n], you know, that’s what it is, effectively. And there’s people overseas developing some very ingenious ways of permanently capturing that carbon as charcoal. One of the best plans I’ve seen is out of Sweden where an agronomist is developing a thing called a “charvestor”. And a charvestor would simply go along and harvest a crop, but also harvest a crop waste. It’ll put the crop waste into a charcoal making machine and it’ll bin the synthetic gas you get out of that machine, which is a valuable protect, and the crude oil substitute’ll go into another bin, and the charcoal’ll get spat out the back and be put back into the field and give you a better crop yield next year.

TONY JONES: But how do you do it? I mean, it seems to require some kind of furnace that burns without oxygen or without using very much oxygen. How does that work?

TIM FLANNERY: Well, charcoal making’s a really ancient technology. And all you do is basically heat up any biomass – wood or crop mass or whatever – in the absence of oxygen and that basically cooks it. And so you get a gas given off which you can capture, you get a gooey, oil-like substance given off, and that’s a crude oil substitute, and at the bottom of the machine is all of the charcoal which is the carbon-dense part, it’s almost all the carbon in the plant, which is then in a mineralised form so it won’t rot away [NO, it is simply in the form of carbon, C, which will not “rot away and escape back into the air” unless it catches fire and burns: C + O2 -> CO2], and that’s the key to it. Because crop waste, normally, if it’s just put back on a field, tends to rot away and escape back to the air as carbon dioxide [NO, much ends up as methane, CH4, depending upon the conditions and organisms involved, noting that CH4 has 21 times the greenhouse gas efficacy of CO2 on a 100 year time scale], whereas if it’s turned into charcoal it’ll stay in that field for many thousands of years. So it’s locked away permanently out of the system.

….

TONY JONES: You’ve been watching very closely the progress towards the negotiations, or the progress of the negotiations towards December where there’s hope for an agreement. Is there any chance at all that what many scientists want will happen, that is, an agreement to keep temperature rises globally to under two degrees Celsius?

TIM FLANNERY: Tony, we’ve gotta see this as a step in a process, right? And we’re starting very late. There is enough greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to push us perilously close to that two degrees of warming over time, right? We can’t see how this is gonna play out in the longer term because things like charcoal making may pull us back from the brink a bit faster than we previously thought. But I see this Copenhagen meeting as a very important step in the process. It may not of itself limit us – limit greenhouse gas emissions to the point where we’ll be under two degrees, but it is a very important step [not good enough; Europe has set a limit of 2 degrees C warming over 1900 temperature; 90% of respondents from participants at the March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference thought that we would exceed 2 degrees C: http://guardian.co.uk/environment/.../global-warming-target-2c ]. We’ve gotta get emissions to peak first before we can start that reduction [what reduction? We can start reducing net CO2 and net GHG pollution right now].

….
TONY JONES: It’s not only industry, it’s certain key politicians. Senator Steve Fielding had a very important potential vote in the Senate, is now being described by the ‘Wall Street Journal’ as something like a prophet, which is quite unusual to see, and beyond that, there’s a view that Australia is emerging as a sort of epicentre of the new scientific scepticism.

TIM FLANNERY: Australia’s climate dinosaurs are a lot bigger and uglier than the climate dinosaurs elsewhere, that’s for sure. And it is depressing, because it’s just so counter-productive. And, you know, the amount of time industry will waste disputing the science and not getting on with the job of adjusting to the future and a new energy economy in this country is just dismaying.

TONY JONES: What about the other side of the coin – the Greens in Australia? You referred earlier to the pragmatism of the American vote. The Greens, of course, have chosen not to be pragmatic at all, to vote against the carbon pollution reduction scheme [CPRS; Australia’s proposed cap-and-trade emission trading scheme (ETS)], and potentially vote it down, although there are other votes obviously. Do you admire their role, or should they have been, as the American Congressmen were, more pragmatic?

TIM FLANNERY: I think The Greens have been fairly pragmatic throughout the year. I personally think they should vote for the CPRS and get it through. Because a first step is better than nothing. We need to start this journey, you know? And, yes, it’s not entirely adequate for the task, it won’t limit emissions as much as we want, but we’ve gotta start somewhere. Unless we take the first step, we’re not going anywhere [NO; leading scientists and economists argue strongly for a Carbon Tax rather than market-manipulatable Carbon Trading and are saying that cap-and-trade emissions trading schemes (ETSs) are flawed, risky and unlikely to deliver the requisite decrease in GHG pollution; see “Experts: Carbon Tax needed and NOT Cap-and-Trade Emission trading Scheme (ETS)”] .

….” END QUOTE.

Overall  a very  poor performance by Professor Tim Flannery who has clearly FAILED the “examination” as well as the environment.

Contrast Professor Flannery’s weak pro-ETS  argument that “a first step is better than nothing” with the conclusions of the following top climate scientists and climate economists about Emission Trading Schemes (for references and expanded quotes see “Experts: Carbon Tax needed and NOT Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)”).

Professor James Hansen (top US climate scientist; Columbia University; Head, NASA GISS): “The worst thing about cap-and-trade [ETS], from a climate standpoint, is that it will surely be inadequate to achieve the sharp reduction of emissions that is needed. Thus cap-and-trade would practically guarantee disastrous climate change for our children and grandchildren”.

Professor William Nordhaus (Sterling Professor of Economics, Yale University, USA): “To bet the world’s climate system and global environment on an untested [ETS] approach with such clear structural flaws would appear a reckless gamble …The international community should move quickly to replace the current cap-and-trade structure with one in which the central economic mechanism is a tax on greenhouse-gas emissions”.

Professor Jacqueline McGlade (Director of the European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, marine biologist and Professor of Environmental Informatics in the Department of Mathematics at University College London, UK): “His [Nordhaus’] idea is very sensible. We need to move the burden of taxation away from labour to resources — and tax not just on carbon but other resources such as water to tackle the far wider environmental and resource problems we face

Professor Daniel M. Kammen (Energy and Resources Group and Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley):  “a price on greenhouse gas emissions is essential”.

Professor Barry Brook (Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia): “A cap and trade mechanism is by its nature, an all consuming policy instrument that extinguishes the effectiveness of voluntary actions, harming rather than enhancing the evolution of a low carbon economy …  the cap and trade mechanism is the wrong approach and we should instead focus on a carbon tax”.

Dr Robert J. Shapiro (Chair, U.S. Climate Task Force and finance consultancy firm Sonecon; undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs in the Clinton Administration): ”Despite its advocates’ good intentions, cap-and-trade could put America at risk of another meltdown — one originally created and financed by the government itself. None of these painful and difficult issues arise with a carbon tax-shift. Rather, it could enable us to effectively do our part in addressing climate change, while protecting or even enhancing our economic prospects. That’s a deal Congress cannot afford to pass up”.

Stephen Lendman (leading liberal US analyst and commentator): “Contributing $4,452,585 to Democrats in 2008 (around $1 million to Obama) was mere pocket change for what it can reap from scams like cap and trade disguised as an environmental plan. The scheme [the Obama ETS and energy bill] was devised. GS [Goldman Sachs] helped write it. The House passed it and sent it to the Senate. Unless stopped, it will transfer more of our wealth to corporate polluters and Wall Street on top of all they’ve stolen so far from derivatives fraud and the imploded housing and other bubbles”.

Kenneth Davidson (respected economics columnist for “The Age” newspaper, Melbourne; co-editor of “Dissent”):”There isn’t one cap-and-trade scheme in the world that has resulted in a reduction in carbon emissions. Instead, such schemes have made money for the biggest polluters and created a new branch of the derivatives industry that creates new wealth opportunities for brokers and financiers. Rudd’s cap and trade scheme benefits the worst polluters. But the Australian scheme is special. It has been rorted at the planning stage … The carbon scheme is not simply weak. It is fraudulent”.

Professor Joseph Stiglitz (Columbia University; 2001 Economics Nobel Laureate; former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank), December 2007: “The only principle that has some ethical basis is equal emission rights per capita (with some adjustments – for instance, the US has already used up its share of the global atmosphere, so it should have fewer emission allowances). But adopting this principle would entail such huge payments from developed countries to developing countries, that, regrettably, the former are unlikely to accept it … Of course, polluting industries like the cap-and-trade system. While it provides them an incentive not to pollute, emission allowances offset much of what they would have to pay under a [Carbon] tax system”.

Photo credit: Mark Coulson, 5th World Conference of Science Journalists

Photo credit: Hipnos

I often hear people saying that overpopulation is the main problem to our environmental and ecological problems. Some people even claim that it’s responsible for global warming. I also agreed with this idea before. But after reading more about the subject over the years I have changed my mind.

The rich countries in the “North”, i.e. the West, have a “rapidly decreasing” population which is “expected to decline over the next forty years.” Developing countries such as India, China and most of Africa on the other hand is where we will see future population numbers increasing.

And yes. It seems so easy to blame countries with an overwhelming rising population for being responsible for wrecking our planet, climate and environment. Because surely more people must mean more pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Right?

Not really. The West is responsible for about 80% of the worlds CO2 increase. An average person living in Great Britain will in only 11 days emit as much CO2 as an average person in Bangladesh will during a whole year. And just a single power plant in West Yorkshire in Great Britain will produce more CO2 every year than all the 139 million people combined living in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique.

As Fred Pearce from the Yale Environment 360 blog notes, only a small portion of the world’s people are using most of the planets resources as well as producing the most of the greenhouse gases. And those are living in the West:

“The world’s population quadrupled to six billion people during the 20th century. It is still rising and may reach 9 billion by 2050. Yet for at least the past century, rising per-capita incomes have outstripped the rising head count several times over. And while incomes don’t translate precisely into increased resource use and pollution, the correlation is distressingly strong.

[…]By almost any measure, a small proportion of the world’s people take the majority of the world’s resources and produce the majority of its pollution. Take carbon dioxide emissions — a measure of our impact on climate but also a surrogate for fossil fuel consumption. Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world’s richest half-billion people — that’s about 7 percent of the global population — are responsible for 50 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions.”

According to Pearce overpopulation in the developing countries is not the problem. Instead the increasing overconsumption among the planets 7% richest people and countries is to be blamed. And he is not alone in claiming this. George Monbiot, Europe’s leading green commentator, also agrees with this viewpoint. As Monbiot notes in a recent published article on the Guardian:

“As one the graphs King displayed demonstrated, and as the UN and independent scientists predict, the world’s population is expected to peak at around 9 billion by 2060 and then to decline to around 8.5 billion by 2100.

Of course the bisophere can ill-afford to carry these numbers, and they will load an extra 40 or 50% of pressure onto every environmental constraint. It’s an issue, in other words. But the issue?

Until the recession struck, the global rate of economic growth was 3.8%. The world’s governments hope and pray that we’ll be back on this track as soon as possible. Population, of course, is one of the components of economic growth, but the global population growth rate is currently 1.2%.

It’s responsible, in other words, for one-third of normal economic growth. The rest is supplied by rising consumption. Consumption, on this measure, bears twice as much responsibility for pressure on resources and ecosystems as population growth.”

Let’s take a look at the ecological footprint between developing countries and developed countries in the West. An ecological footprint is the estimate on how much land is required to provide you and me with food and other resources as well as cleaning up our pollution. The global average ecological footprint is 2.7 hectares per person.

Sweden, my own country, has an ecological footprint of 5.1 hectares. The UK is on 5.3. Australia has 7.8 and Canada has an average of 7.1 hectares. The United Arab Emirates and the United States of America are on the top spot with an ecological footprint of 9.5 and 9.4. Developing countries such as China only has an ecological footprint of 2.1 hectares while India is on 0.9. And most countries in Africa are around or below 1.0 hectares.

Pearce gives even more examples of unfair consumption between the rich and poor countries:

“Americans gobble up more than 120 kilograms of meat a year per person, compared to just 6 kilos in India, for instance.”

“Just five countries are likely to produce most of the world’s population growth in the coming decades: India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians.”

“A woman in rural Ethiopia can have ten children and her family will still do less damage, and consume fewer resources, than the family of the average soccer mom in Minnesota or Munich. In the unlikely event that her ten children live to adulthood and have ten children of their own, the entire clan of more than a hundred will still be emitting less carbon dioxide than you or I.”

Just like Monbiot and Pearce claims overpopulation is not the problem. Even if we were to get a zero population growth around the world it wouldn’t help us against the climate crisis. Instead the overconsumption among the rich few in the world is the main problem which we must deal with.

Climate Progress writes: “To avoid catastrophic global warming impacts, the rich countries need to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% to 90% by mid-century. The developing countries (not including China) mostly must slow emissions growth, peak by mid-century, then decline — while ending the vast majority of deforestation by 2020. China must peak its emissions by 2020 and then reduce after that, first slowly, then quickly by mid-century.”

Overpopulation is only seen as a major problem because it’s the only thing we in the West can blame the developing countries for.