population

The effects of human population size on our standard of living, our environment, and our prospects for long term sustainability

Prime Minister issues apology for wildlife holocaust

(Photo of the last wolf in Newfoundland from

Crystal ball

As the fog clears from my crystal ball I can see a press conference convened by the then Prime Minister of Canada in 2040, Mr. Jagrup Singh, as he takes the mike to issue an apology on behalf of 55 million Canadians and the federal governments of the previous five decades. It is an apology to the extinct wildlife of Canada that the mass immigration policies favoured by all political parties extinguished, policies kick-started by the Brian Mulroney government and most particularly by Immigration Minister Barbara MacDougall in the early 1990s. In retrospect, the one percent per year immigration growth target proved to be the death knell for farmland, wetlands and wildlife habitat in Canada.

Compromising Enviro NGOs to blame

Prime Minister Singh explained that the massacre occurred because governments of the day took the advice of environmental NGOs like the Sierra Club and the David Suzuki Foundation who advised them that “smart growth” strategies, that is, land use planning, would defend wildlife and farmland from any ecological consequences resulting from runaway population growth and economic development. We could invite the world here and have our cake and eat it too.

In fact, the most famous Canadian intellectual of the time, Dr.William Rees, was quoted as saying that there was “no necessary connection between immigration and biodiversity loss” and if immigrants were settled in dense urban zones strictly defined by planning boundaries then “Greenfield” acreages “would never be compromised.”

We cannot have our cake and eat it too

But Dr. Rees was proven wrong. We couldn’t have our cake and it eat it too. Not even at the beginning of the millennium. Smart growth was a failure from the start. Portland, Oregon was to be its poster child. Instead it was a showcase of its limitations. When the sheep-pen is bursting with people, the wolves are waiting in the wings to extend the urban boundaries and develop the surrounding greenbelts. And those who live in dense neighbourhoods have a footprint that reaches out to impact wildlife living in the hinterland. The residents of highrises consume more than twice the energy of rural residents. Ultimately it is not where Canadians live, but how many of them there are, that proves decisive for the environment. That was the autopsy report for Canada’s wildlife.

Too late

Prime Minister Singh’s apology followed a long Canadian tradition of mea culpas. First it was to the Japanese Canadians for their internment during the War. An apology plus cash. Then the Chinese Canadians got an apology plus cash for the Head Tax. The Liberal government of 2005 gave 2.5 million dollars to Italian Canadians who were negatively impacted by the War Measures Act during the Second World War. And then Ottawa apologized for the Komagata Maru incident. Then there was an apology for the treatment of First Nations children in residential schools. Finally in the year 2020 the Ukrainian Canadian community received an apology for the disgraceful internment of 5000 Canadians of Ukrainian descent during and after the First World War.

Now in 2040 Canada’s wildlife get an apology too. Posthumously.

Who is going to give us a posthumous apology, when we are the authors of our fate?

Recently extinguished species in Canada
(Source: )

Sea-mink Extinguished by fur-trappers from

"According to the Species at Risk Act, the following animals are extinct.

Mammals

* Dawson Caribou, Rangifer tarandus dawsoni, 1984
* Sea Mink, Mustela macrodon, 1894
* Newfoundland Wolf,Canis lupus beothucus, 1911
* Banks Island Wolf,Canis lupus bernardi, 1920
* Cascade Mountains Wolf,Canis lupus fuscus, 1940

Birds

* Passenger Pigeon

Fish

* Blue Gill
* Benthic Hadley Lake Stickleback
* Deepwater Cisco, Coregonus johannae, 1952
* Lake Ontario Kiyi, Coregonus kiyi orientalis, 1964
* Limnetic Hadley Lake Stickleback
* Blue Walleye

Arthropods

* Rocky Mountain locust, Melanoplus spretus, 1902

Mollusks

* Eelgrass limpet, Lottia alveus"

Keep fighting for the Murray Darling in spite of our Government


What's in a title?
Just because the Federal Government calls South Australian Senator, Penny Wong, Australia's "Minister for the Water amd Climate Change," does that necessarily mean that she is really there for the environment?

The other Environment Minister, Peter Garratt, hasn't been there to save Port Melbourne's marine environment. It seems like, with two Federal environment ministers, Australia is just trashing nature faster, and setting the rest of us up for the four horsemen.

All over Australia, concerned citizens are trying to warn, educate and activate their fellow citizens because they simply cannot rely on the government to do it.
Let us not be too naive. People need to remember that governments do not save the environment or conserve national treasures; it is always people who force conservation.

Governments just step in afterwards and link their names to a popular success.

Bearing this in mind there is a great deal of reason for Australians everywhere to keep on fighting for the Murray Darling River so that the government finds it too difficult to maintain the strongholds of the big end of town, big users, corporates, and irrigators with impressive short-term cash-flows, on the MDB.

But now some of those big users say they are ready to swap water for cash.

In an announcement which shocked Australians, on 6th August 2008, Penny Wong declared that the government would not take water from higher up to save South Australia's Lower Lakes (Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert.)

Yesterday, 11 Aug 2008, about 5000 people (an extraordinary turn-out for South Australia) came to Goolwa at the Mouth of the Murray and booed the name of Penny Wong and Premier Mike Rann, in their absence. John Coombe, Alexandrina Council chief executive, stated that there are more than 5000 gigalitres still stored upstream, and he called for at least 250 gigalitres to be sent down the Murray. Apparently recognising that our economy relies on the environment, he called for a better performance on the issue from leaders, first for the river and the environment and then for communities and business.

Adelaide ecologist David Paton said that a permanent larger flow is needed.

The Australian that Adelaide ecologist, David Paton, said, "The recent (Council of Australian Governments- COAG) agreement had {...}simply put off the decisions until 2018." He indicated that a permanent larger flow was needed.

Not enough water has been left by agriculture and towns to permit the river to keep functioning. This is one hell of a statement about modern economics, government and technology; it seems that our government and economists have vastly overestimated this continent's capacity for abuse; they cannot blame incipient climate change for all of this.

ETS and extra taxes will not solve the problem of climate change

Extra pricing and taxes (ETS) is the solution to climate change. We need to actually address the causes of greenhouse gas emissions, not slap on extra charges and add to the general public's woes and diminishing lifestyles! Our government is using India and China as an excuse to drag their heels on climate change, and this is so they can continue to be driven by commercial gains and economic growth! We are one of the world's largest ghg emitters per capita, so ethically we are more duty-bound to find solutions, and reduce our capitalistic extravagances. Coal-based fuel needs to be incrementally phased out and replaced with renewable sources. We need to invest in carbon credits with our forests, fauna re-population and flora revegetation. Livestock industries need to be dismantled, or drastically reduced, and we need a zero population growth policy. The fact that our governments are deliberately increasing our population at this time is indicative of their ignorance of climate change - they can't be addressing the cause of climate change and be encouraging the driver of it (humans and their activities) at the same time! More people means a higher demand for goods and services, despite losing the Murray Darling rivers, The Great Barrier Reef, our biodiversity etc etc! It doesn't make sense. The three big causes of greenhouse gas emissions are industries based on coal, livestock and unsustainable agriculture, and a growing population. These three areas need to be addressed and alternatives invested in! Slapping on extra charges for energy and water - this is indicative of how governments "think"! It is all about money, greed and profits - the only language they know.

“Better to have children in Ethiopia than UK”

Doctors' advice to Britons: have fewer children and help save the planet from The Guardian, Friday July 25 2008 I read with some embarrassment the title under which prof.John Guillebaud, and dr.Pip Hayes, express their views in the British Medical Journal. It read: “Better to have children in Ethiopia than UK” Prof. Guillebaud is a Former Co-chair of OPT (Optimum Population Trust) , Emeritus Professor of Family Planning and Reproductive Health, UC London. Ex-Medical Director, Margaret Pyke Centre for Family Planning. The OPT is my favourite source of information and an inspiration for action on population issues. Of course I agree with the article as regard family planning, it is about time that such the burning issue of overpopulation should be exposed for what it is: a stupid taboo which hides the urgency of its solution. Bu that title is clouding the issue by a politically correct deformation of reality and I found it quite disturbing. Is this affirmation a message to make us, debased and spoilt Westerners, feel guilty, or was it an unfortunate report by the Guardian ? Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in an impoverished Africa, and it has already its heavy burden of a raising population, which is projected to reach between 147 million and 195 million in 2050—a tenfold increase in a century. Isn’t this enough tragedy? If we think that more children in Ethiopia should be welcome, think of the destruction of its forests and the unsustainable depletion of resources, the most awesome ecological tragedy and increasing poverty, which is a consequence of this rapid population growth. More babies in Ethiopia, indeed. More deaths and more climate change in Third World countries with a fragile ecosystem, defendless and undernourished people, is this what prof. Guillebaud suggests? Their suffering should prevent him to make such foolish remarks, which sound like an encouragement to breed. These poor people may have a lower footprint than us, but they would love to increase it, if only they could. Prof. Guillebaud should know that what counts is not the footprints, but the number of feet. It is the population in the Third World, where it is going to grow in the near future, where there is the greatest number of young people waiting to reproduce, which is the real danger to the planet and to themselves,

Brumby's call for 'pause' in rate of population growth insufficient

Mr Brumby's concession that our population growth from migrants will be "paused" for a short time is not enough! The argument that Victoria "still needed skilled migrants to help its economy" is indicative of the greed of business leaders at the top-end of town who are driving this growth to the detriment of the environment and the lifestyles of most of its inhabitants. Victoria is the most cleared state in Australia. Thirty percent of Victoria's animals are either extinct or threatened with extinction. Our state has been losing its endangered grasslands at a rate equivalent to more than three football fields a day. So-called "sustainable" industries such as intensive farming, irrigation, native forest woodchipping, and overgrazing are pushing the endurance of Nature to new and dangerous limits. Victoria's climate change figures are predicting the worst-case-scenario! Mr Brumby is arrogantly intent on making more freeways, growth corridors, and other mega-developments, while squashing any protests. He will leave the mammoth task of repairing the damage for the next generation! We can't have continual growth on finite and depleting natural resources.

The Dawn of the Brave New World!

Published online 16 July 2008 | Nature 454, 260-262 (2008) | doi:10.1038/454260a

News

Making babies: the next 30 years

Louise Brown, the first test-tube baby, was born 30 years ago this month after being conceived outside the body using in-vitro fertilization (IVF).

Davor Solter, developmental biologist at the Institute of Medical Biology (IMB) in Singapore has thought to expand the potential of new techniques:
“It will be possible to make iPS( induced pluripotent stem cells) from skin cells, to make germ cells from these, and then combine them to make human embryos.

It means every person regardless of age will be able to have children: newborn children could have children and 100-year olds could have children. It could easily happen in the next 30 years.

Another thing I predict … is the use of artificial placentas. In essence, it would eliminate all the limitations we have now: you could have as many or as few progeny as you want. …”

Alan Trounson, an IVF pioneer and director of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine in San Francisco is very optimist about the possibilities to... eliminate infertility in the Third World!:

“Also I think there will be further expansion of low-cost IVF, especially for women in developing countries who experience social discrimination with infertility. If you remove all the expensive stuff and use low-cost drugs (such as clomiphene) and remove just one or two eggs, and only transfer one embryo, it can be done for less than US$100.”

The following is the opinion of an ethicist , Scott Gelfand, director of the Ethics Center at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater:

“Those who work on artificial-womb technology aren't talking openly about it anymore. My guess is it's a potential lightning rod in our culture. There are some very interesting moral and ethical implications associated with artificial wombs.”

(Really?)

And continues:

If an artificial womb were developed, the government could pass a law that requires people who have a termination of pregnancy to put the fetus into one of these wombs. …and then put them up for adoption we would have one million more babies.”

We congratulate with Zev Rosenwaks, director of the Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility in New York, for his noble objective:

“I see the technology going towards possible eradication of infertility altogether. With nuclear-transfer technology or cell modification, I think we'll be able to generate sperm and eggs for anybody.”

Are these scientists certified lunatics?

Marisa

Pages