Two Peer Reviewed Publications

Human Population and Carrying Capacity on Earth

The article states that human's may have entered a zone where the carrying capacity of humans on Earth will be reached. The article summarizes this by comparing two examples: U.N. calculations as well as finding the median of 65 "estimate bounds" regarding carrying capacity. The median for high and low projections is very close to projections made by the U.N. These ranges of human population by 2050 are 7.7 billion to 12.5 billion. The large gap found in this estimates prompt the author to note that the prediction of human population is extremely difficult given the fact that unforeseeable events may occur which may have significant effects on the population.

The second-half of this article presents the reader with methods on estimating the carrying capacity through mathematic calculations. One simple formula that stood out to me was the following: food supply/individual food requirement. This formula helps determine whether or not a human population is sustainable in respect to the amount of food available. The same formula applies to water supply. Overall, it seems that predicting carrying capacity is incredibly difficult due to the fact that in most predictions, limiting factors are left out from calculations which may provide inconsistent data when compared to other studies.

All in all, this article is succinct yet thorough. I will undoubtly use this peer-reviewed article to provide evidence in my research paper when analyzing research methods as well as comparing predictions made by different resources. This research paper doesn't provide predictions, but rather presents how information is gathered and starting points for themes to explore in my research paper.

Population Growth and Earth's Human Carrying Capacity (1995). Web. 25 Feb. 2010. .

Population Growth and Climate Change

In this article, the author is quick to show his opinion on population growth and it's correlation to climate change. The author cites many sources, so it is clear that his opinion is derived from extensive research.

"...1.5 million people need food and somewhere to live. This amounts to a huge new city each week, somewhere, which destroys wildlife habitats and augments world fossil fuel consumption. Every person born adds to greenhouse gas emissions, and escaping poverty is impossible without these emissions increasing."

The author is quick to highlight the how disastrous population growth is to the climate change. Though his example of a huge new city each week is a bit drastic, his point is made - though not to strongest I believe.

However, the point of the article is not to explain the damages population growth causes, but rather present a solution: contraception. The more I read about contraception being a major contributor to reaching a dynamic equilibrium in the human population, the more I become convinced.

"The Optimum Population Trust calculates that "each new UK birth will be responsible for 160 times more greenhouse gas emissions . . . than a new birth in Ethiopia."

The previous quote provides more evidence to the notion that climate change isn't because of such a large population, but rather the demand of the populations in developed or developing nations. This statement, however, seems to retract his initial criticism that highlighted population growth as the major contributor to climate change.

Nonetheless, he makes the point that contraception needs to become available to all women around the world and in the right way. Individual nations, their doctors, and religions must endorse contraceptions not just as a way to control the population growth, but rather to help reduce future CO2 emissions. They should not be forced upon women or couples, but rather inform them of how having a fertility rate of 2.0 helps better the planet for future generations to come.

Guillebaud, John. "Population Growth and Climate Change." (2008). BMJ. 28 July 2008. Web. 25 Feb. 2010. .

Reflection on Nathan Lewis' Presentation

After watching Nathan Lewis' presentation, I am surprised at how frank and direct Mr Lewis' facts were. I was really interested in how he presented his facts and opinions. The following bullet points highlight key points he made that caught my attention:

- The fact that there is plenty of renewable fossil oil in the world. 2/3 of the world's oil is untapped and the reason we have yet to tap into those two-third's is because it doesn't make economic sense

- Renewable energy will not play a large role in primary power generation. While renewable energy can help reduce the demand for large power generation, it doesn't quite contribute to generating that power enough to make a large difference. This caught me off guard because of how instilled it is into our population to be environmentally cautious and the notion that renewable energy is the way to go is always emphasized. It seems as though we have been paying attention to the wrong energy source.

- Without energy, all other world issues can't be resolved. Doesn't every supporter of each major issue say this in respect to their research?

All in all, his research and data proves invaluable to those that will be researching energy for their Senior Project. That being said, all topics could pull excerpts from his transcript to support their respective research papers. Because my research paper is in regards population, it is easy to take his data of how much consumption will be needed by 2050 and use it as a con for having a large human population.

The more I continue to read and research (prior to writing this blog I wrote out my outline for my research paper) the more excited I am to write this research paper.

Overpopulation and Global Warming

Three Annotated Articles

Article #1:

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/population-growth-and-global-warming/

Summary:

The purpose of this article is to compare two major issues - Population Growth and Global Warming - and note how both go hand-in-hand. The main idea the article gets across is that population control is more cost-efficient than investing in energy-efficient technology. The article also states that in order for the amount of C02 being added to the atmosphere to decrease, the number of contributors needs to be stabilized. If the population continues to increase, CO2 emissions will continue to rise as well. Both issues are directly related to each other.

Quotes of Interest:

"Are condoms and birth control pills more cost effective than windmills and solar panels as tools to curb global warming? Yes, and by a wide margin, contends Thomas Wire, a postgraduate researcher at the London School of Economics and author of a recent study asserting that family planning is nearly five times more cost effective in mitigating global warming emissions than green energy technologies like wind and solar power. "

The author states that, based on research, family planning is more cost-effective than "going green". In the long run, a stabilization in the human population can stabilize CO2 emission and - potentially - decrease the amount of CO2 emitted.

"It is easy to see why. Population control measures like China’s one-child policy, and forced sterilization campaigns by various countries during the 20th century, have led many to associate such efforts with racism and totalitarianism."

I find myself agreeing entirely with this statement. People can, at times, be incredibly sensitive on certain topics; this often leads to issues never being highlighted in large conferences. Unfortunately, population control is one that proves to be, at times, an ethical dilemma.

"The United Nations Population Fund’s most recent annual report explicitly linked slower population growth with reduced greenhouse-gas emissions."

This is evidence that backs up the author's claim that with a less-populated world there will be fewer CO2 emissions.

Article #2:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/708/global-warming-and-population#PopulationandClimateChange

Summary:

This article defuncts the notion that CO2 emission is directly related to an increase of population. The following excerpts are statements that provide evidence.

Quotes of Interest:

"For example, the world’s wealthiest 20% (i.e. the rich countries) consume approximately 80% of the world’s resources, while the rest of humanity shares the other 20% of resource consumed, as noted in the consumption section of this web site."

That statement alone is enough to suggest the notion that it is the larger,more developed nations that contribute the most. It isn't the amount of people in a nation - it's about the demand.

"There are concerns, however, that many developing countries are pursuing the same path to development that the current industrialized countries have, which involved many environmentally damaging practices. Ironically much of the advise and encouragement to follow this path comes from the western economic schools of thought. There is therefore an urgent need to focus on cleaner technologies and an alternative path to a more sustainable form of development."

The author of this article acknowledges both sides of the case and claims that in order to avoid developing nations of becoming large CO2 emitters. Because they are following in the footsteps of larger nations, it is important for the leading nations to set a right example.

"The economic, political and technology choices thus have a more important bearing on climate change than “over population.”"

The author expresses doubt regarding the issue of overpopulation and clearly dismisses it as a major cause of climate change.

Article #3:

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release09Sep09.htm

Summary:

Similar to the first article, the author emphasizes the idea that population control is more effective than green-alternatives. This article, however, presents more detailed facts and figures.

Quotes of Interest:

"Each $7 (£4) spent on basic family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a tonne. To achieve the same result with low-carbon technologies would cost a minimum of $32 (£19). The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended."

Based off of these numbers, family planning is up to 3 times more cost efficient than the eco-friendly technology. It makes sense to invest in contraceptions so that two major issues can be addressed: the excessive burning of fossil fuel and an exponential growth in population.

"This part of the solution is so easy, and so cheap, and would bring so many other social and economic benefits, from health and education to the empowerment of women. It would also ease all the other environmental problems we face – the rapid shrinkage of soil, fresh water, forests, fisheries, wildlife and oil reserves and the looming food crisis."

It seems as though this article suggests that by addressing the over-population crisis we will be able to address other world-issues - including our environment.

"All of these would be easier to solve with fewer people, and ultimately impossible to solve with ever more."

This is a good point to get across to many whom skepticise whether or not we could fix our current major issues. However, I would argue that with a greater amount of people can come a greater amount of wisdom to create solutions.

Conclusion/Reflection

Overall, I have come to temporary-conclusion that population growth and global warming are not directly associated with each other; however, what is the issue is that leading nations are demanding more than ever before. I do not disagree with the notion that humans are causing CO2 emission, but what have problem agreeing with is the idea that an increase of population all over the world and their higher consumption of natural resources is why Global Warming is occurring. In my opinion, it is the lifestyle that people in economically leading nations have for a convinient lifestyle.

The new idea of investing in contraception as an alternative to using "green" technology is certainly one worth pursuing for a possible theme in my Senior Project video. There is no doubt in my mind that green technology is an effective way to reduce CO2 emissions - but if there were a cheaper alternative to reducing CO2 emissions, I would certainly encourage others to atleast take note of the cheaper alternative - not to mention that it could potentially stabilize our world population (a major issue which I respectfully disagree with as of now).


Sources Cited

"CONTRACEPTION IS “GREENEST” TECHNOLOGY." Optimum Population Trust. Web. 11 Feb. 2010. .

"Global Warming and Population — Global Issues." Global Issues : social, political, economic and environmental issues that affect us all — Global Issues. Web. 09 Feb. 2010. .

"Population Growth and Global Warming - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com." Energy and Green Business - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com. Web. 10 Feb. 2010. .