Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Environmental Weight of 300 Million Americans

By Brad Knickerbocker, Christian Science Monitor. Posted October 7, 2006.


As the US population rises, environmental problems that were once pushed aside may get worse.
Advertisement

PORTLAND, ORE. -- A flotilla of 100 fishing boats, rafts, and kayaks crossed the Willamette River to a downtown park in Portland, Ore., the other evening to rally for the Pacific Northwest's reigning icon: wild salmon, now plummeting toward extinction due to development across much of the Columbia River basin.

It was a typical event for a "green" city that has one of the best records in the United States for recycling, reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, using alternative energy, and providing public transportation and bike paths.

But Portland's amenities -- its natural setting along the Willamette River and its youthful techie vibe -- are drawing a surge of new people, threatening to erode the very qualities that drew people here in the first place. As the US approaches 300 million people, that's the story of the nation as well.

In many ways, Americans have mitigated the impact of their increasing presence on the land. Since reaching the 200 million mark back in 1967, they have cut emissions of major air pollutants, banned certain harmful pesticides, and overseen the rebound of several endangered species. Despite using more resources and creating more waste, they've become more energy efficient.

The danger, experts say, is that the US may simply have postponed the day of reckoning. Major environmental problems remain, and some are getting worse -- all of them in one way or another connected to US population growth, which is expected to hit 400 million around midcentury. Some experts put the average American's "ecological footprint" -- the amount of land and water needed to support an individual and absorb his or her waste -- at 24 acres. By that calculation, the long-term "carrying capacity" of the US would sustain less than half of the nation's current population.

"The US is the only industrialized nation in the world experiencing significant population growth," says Vicky Markham, of the Center for Environment and Population, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization in New Canaan, Conn. "That, combined with America's high rates of resource consumption, results in the largest ... environmental impact [of any nation] in the world." The boomer challenge

The changing nature of the population also has environmental consequences.

"Today's baby boomers -- 26 percent of the population -- are the largest, wealthiest, highest resource-consuming of that age group ever in the nation's history, and they have unprecedented environmental impact," says Ms. Markham.

The generation's preference for bigger houses and bigger cars -- and the proliferation of them -- are gobbling up more resources and creating more pollution, according to a recent study by the Center for Environment and Population. For example:

• Land is being converted for development at about twice the rate of population growth. When housing, shopping, schools, roads, and other uses are added up, each American effectively occupies 20 percent more developed land than he or she did 20 years ago.

• Nearly 3,000 acres of farmland are converted to nonagricultural uses daily..

• Each American produces about five pounds of trash daily, up from less than three pounds in 1960.

• While the US is noted for its wide open spaces, more than half of all Americans live within 50 miles of the coasts where population density and its environmental impact are increasing.

That concentration poses special challenges for areas near the coast, like Portland, where land is rapidly being gobbled up. The city's population, which is now a bit over half a million, is fairly stable. But surrounding population pressures are great. The metropolitan area grew about 30 percent during the 1990s to just over 2 million. It's projected to grow to 2.6 million by 2010 and to 3.1 million by 2025.

Some groups worry that Portland's growth will undermine its environmental sustainability.

"Population pressures are overwhelming the Portland region's ability to absorb the influx of new people, fueling congestion and rises in land and housing prices," the ecological research group Environmental Tipping Points concluded in an analysis. "Portland's growth rate is twice the national average. With these challenges ahead, it remains to be seen whether this growth will threaten the very assets that Portland's progressive land-use planning policies have managed to protect so far."


Digg!

Brad Knickerbocker is a staff writer at the Christian Science Monitor.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
optimistic
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 7, 2006 1:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This piece is a bit too optimistic to match reality. Only if all cities and nations became as environmentally sound as New Zealand will survival be assured. The fight for survival will not be easy but it must be done: step one, impeach the Bushies for they and China are the world's worst environmental criminals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: optimistic Posted by: themotie
One thing missing
Posted by: HeroesAll on Oct 7, 2006 1:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author praises America for becoming more energy efficient, citing disasters such as Love Canal as a motivating force for 'cleaning up' industry, but there's a thumb on those ecological scales: a lot of industry has been outsourced or offshored or whatever the hell you call it.

So the pollution that goes along with the manufacture that sustains all that consumption is happening in somebody else's countries. Fine for the US, who can proudly point to substantial improvements in their own back yard, but not so nice for the earth, since all that pollution's still in the ecosystem.

And while it's very laudable for local government and other groups to voluntarily implement their own Kyoto process, that's a tiny drop in the bucket in many ways. For one, they're just one small locality. For another, Kyoto is more a token of agreement to just do something than a meaningful step. And for thirdsies, it's actually possible to make a substantial (ie 30 - 40 %) reduction very quickly with lots of small changes to the way we live.

I'm looking forward to George Monbiot's latest book, because I believe he's looked into all these issues and their proposed solutions/remediations. And he's always a good read.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not again!
Posted by: Temporary on Oct 7, 2006 1:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another "blame the immigrants and save the enviorment" article. Even stormfront is more tolerant then you guys!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not again! Posted by: Joshua Holland
So why not throw open the borders? We're dead anyway, right?
Posted by: edith on Oct 7, 2006 4:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are going to drown in our own sewage, have undrinkable water, flooded cities and less area to grow food. so why not just drop all immigration restrictions? So what if every other society has immigration restricitons? So what if illegal immigrants are a gift to employer exploiters to slash wage levels as our unions topple and health insurance costs and higher taxes shred what's left of our paychecks?

Let them all in. I'm sure these are very environmentally careful people who will teach profligate Americans how to respect the land, conserve resources and find alternatives to petroleum. Mexico is the model of conseration and ecology preservation. Let us be educated by these stewards of the Earth who spurn materialism! Finally, a solution to the junkyard we have turned America's countrysides into: immersion into Latin American urban culture!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Reopen the haciendas, si! Posted by: edith
» Next: who else can we export? Posted by: eddie torres
Serious About Saving The Environment? Get Rid Of Your Car Today
Posted by: Douglas on Oct 7, 2006 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Short of that talk is cheap. I have not owned or driven a car for the last 30 years. I walk or bicycle to work, live close enough to grocery, drug and other stores that I can walk to do my shopping, and when I must travel long distances, I rely on public transportation. Such a lifestyle is possible right now. Those of you who do drive cars and intend to continue driving your cars should cease and desist from claiming to be environmentalists or pretending to even be concerned with the environment. I know it may be hard for you to admit, but if you drive a car any other environmental friendly action you may take hardly matters. That is the sad truth. If you care about the future of humanity GET RID OF YOU CARS!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Or telecommute if you can Posted by: edith
» And curb your baby-making! Posted by: Moonray
A mix of sober reality and corporate propaganda
Posted by: JohnF on Oct 7, 2006 2:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps in trying to strike a balance, this article becomes a bit confused in its mix of sobering reality and disingenuous optimism. These lines from the article sum up much of what's being said by environmental scientists not working for corporate vested interests:

"The danger, experts say, is that the US may simply have postponed the day of reckoning... By that calculation, the long-term "carrying capacity" of the US would sustain less than half of the nation's current population."

This line comes from the right wing, pro-corporate expansion (read pro-population growth) think tank, the American Enterprise Institute:

"The average new house today is about a third larger than the average house in 1970, however the energy consumption is about the same as the smaller house in 1970," (Perhaps true, but an intentional distraction.)

The article's last section contains this well worn argument from the usually right wing Brookings Institution:

"The people who argue that we're going to run out of energy, that we're going to run out of water, that we're going to run out of other natural resources, overlook the fact that time and again technology has been able to overcome those limitations."

It's a direct reflection of the notion popularized by the late Julian Simon, the prototypical "cornucopian" who argued that world population growth can and should go on literally forever, until we simply move from this planet to others not yet trashed.

In fact, he said,

“We have in our hands now - actually in our libraries - the technology to feed, clothe and supply energy to an ever-growing population for the next 7 billion years . . . Even if no new knowledge were ever gained . . . we would be able to go on increasing our population forever.”

This of course is just more corporate propaganda, meant to inure you to any concern over population growth so that big business can make as much money as possible before a state of world crisis forces us to do something.

So who do you listen to, the scientists pointing out that we've merely postponed the day of reckoning, or the corporate lackeys who dismiss it completely?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Babies pose biggest global threat
Posted by: Moonray on Oct 8, 2006 3:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Americans (and others around the world) continue to reproduce like rabbits, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the Earth is being severely damaged by the world's soaring population.

Until strict limits are placed on human reproduction in the U.S. and worldwide, nothing else we do environmentally will make much difference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank Catholicism and ignorance Posted by: Elmowilcox
saving the environment
Posted by: amazed again on Oct 8, 2006 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recently spoke to my son here in Australia and was extremely happy to hear that he as an electrician had been offered work, putting solar panels for electricity on the roof of new homes in his region, evidently each region has electricians being offered the work by a solar company and the Commonwealth Government are paying half the cost to connect for home owners. I believe that the intention is for all homes to one day be connected to this Solar grid. Once the owner has used his needs The extra power made in this way will be put into the Grid and the home owner will be paid for this.

We have a multi cultural society and not every one is wealthy.

I hope that this is one idea that will cross the Pacific from west to east, as it seems the ideas from USA coming our way are often to our detriment. such as Iraq war etc.

If every one did their bit I am sure we could save this poor planet without complete reliance on Government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Deindustrialization is a component of why our environment isn't worse
Posted by: davelwhite on Oct 8, 2006 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing that is seldom mentioned, I think, is the connection between de-industrialization in America and the successes that have taken place in environmental stewardship here. Yes, the Cuyahoga River in Ohio no longer catches on fire, and the Mississippi is almost clean enough to swim in here in Minneapolis where I live. But that isn't just because we have improved production processes to be less polluting-- probably the main reason is that we have MOVED production processes to other countries with lower labor costs, which has the side effect of moving our environmental problems elsewhere too. China has huge environmental problems reminiscent of the early Industrial Revolution in England or the U.S. No, they don't ONLY produce products for us, but we are a huge part of their export market.

I think a lot of political talk both on the center-left and the right is kind of blithely ignorant about this. We talk about "post-industrialism" as if we have somehow figured out a way to live prosperous First World lives without any stuff being made in factories, and responsible environmentalism (say, developing wind farms) runs into the problem that our population is so disconnected from the reality of producing things that they think they can get something for nothing (e.g. have electrical power with no effect at all-- no windmills in their sightlines, absolutely no birds dying, etc.). Surely, we should design our industrial equipment to be as sustainable and low-impact as physically possible, but I think a lot of Americans are so used to thinking of material production as "something from the past" that for them, moving all production somewhere else (where no environmental rules at all are followed) is "better" than having a sustainable/low-impact facility where they might have to experience smaller inevitable environmental costs of any form of mass production.

You see this in discussions like electric mass transit or the over-hyped "hydrogen economy" too-- if the air is clear over a person's car or train, they assume the problem is fixed, even if the car is indirectly powered by dirty coal in some other part of the country. The overall lack of experience with production jobs also seems to play a part in people thinking they can still be "green" while having large houses and cars. I suspect our forebears who worked in farms and factories had much more of a direct visceral connection to the fact that bigger things require more energy and stuff-- I know working in construction when I was young gave me that visceral feeling of "Thank God this is only a 15-square roof instead of a 20-square, 'cuz I'm tired of hauling shingles."

The fact of the matter is that the old-style Industrial Revolution with its dirty smokestacks and child labor never died. It just moved, so we don't have to see it. Could we make it better-- improve labor conditions, use improved clean factory technology, and reduced consumption? Yes. Will we, if most of the worst effects are relocated across the ocean? Doubtful, I think.

dave

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another example of the need for a visceral connection to resource use
Posted by: davelwhite on Oct 8, 2006 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As another example of how people's lived experience prevents them from understanding their ecological footprint, consider commuting: If you get a new job that changes your commute from 10 miles each way to 20 miles each way and you drive, then (assuming there are no traffic bottlenecks) you will probably not even notice. But if you bike you will surely notice and appreciate the difference, and maybe consider moving. Same thing if you take transit-- although with transit inconvenience is measured more in number of transfers than number of miles.

Traffic is the thing that hits people where they live if they drive-- but none of these things impact the employers who are directing where most of these people go, because they don't have to pay for the commute (now THAT would be an interesting way to affect business behavior through government intervention-- not sure if it would work, but it would be an interesting debate). I know I have selected workplaces within biking distance for the express purpose of shortening my commute only to have my employer (in this case liberal nonprofit employer) open a new office or consolidate with another organization clear across town. As the IT manager I strove to prevent people from having to drive 50 miles round-trip to interact with people at the new office, by supporting telecommuting and stuff-- but despite attempts to educate staff, the management and other workers still preferred face-to-face meetings to such a degree that something like $60K a year was wasted on mileage reimbursement alone (not counting staff time).

With decisions made in business, I guess connections to resource use need to be made through greater per-mile costs (a standard environmental proposal-- more gas taxes-- although the work-time mileage reimbursement of $0.45 per mile is already steep and it still doesn't discourage mileage) and maybe making employers pay for some of the commuting costs they generate through relocations, etc. (which I haven't heard of before).

Dave

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the real problem
Posted by: AdamG on Oct 9, 2006 12:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The one primary thing, if anything, that is killing the environment is human's pysche itself. We see things abstractly, evaluating things out of context. We then make decisions based on those observations.

The closest thing we observe is our own immediate needs as individuals and those we associate ourselves with. We then make short term decisions that we feel will best serve those needs.

Problem is, most times those needs are being met at the expense of something else. We, directly and indirectly, negatively affect others livelyhoods in order to support our own. Given a big enough time and space frame, those very things we have compromised contribute to supporting our needs. In plain english, we end up shooting ourselves in the foot.

On a basic level, we need to go about meeting our personal needs that, at minimum, doesn't unduly deprive something or someone else of the opportunity to meet their own needs. At best, in the meeting of our own needs, we would increase the opportunity for others to meet their needs. We need a culture that is accomodating, rather then predatory.

For example, in food growing, it is possible to farm in a way where soil organic matter is conserved and increased, where wildlife species that are displaced are encouraged in other ways, and where food is grown to meet an actual need rather then be used as a tool to perpetuate poverty.

Just substituting many of the things needed to support our current lifestyle with more benign forms is not enough. There will never be a "clean" energy car, organic twinkies, or non-polluting power plant. The only "free" lunch we have comes from the sun. We need to learn to harness the energy of the sun with "living" processes in order to meet our needs. We need to be content with a life of abundance, and not one of luxury. We need to love and sacrifice ourselves unconditionally to those that do the same to support us. We need to acknowledge, appreciate, and reciprocate that same love and sacrifice.

We need to start doing it not now, but yesterday, before it is too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]