The fact of the matter is, they do not have too many children when taken in context. I will use Africa as an example, but this argument can be used against any such claim.

Look around you today and you’ll see many examples of families with several children. The average number of children in the UK used to be much higher (National Statistics, 2010).  It is a well known fact that the number of children people have across the world correlates with healthcare and sex education.

If I lived in poverty, travelling 5 hours a day to find water, scrapping through, day by day trying to survive, no schools, no hospitals – I would be called ‘optimistic’ if I thought my children would survive.  In the absence of sick pay, maternity benefits and all the comforts developed countries take for granted, I would look to my children to help the family. Quite frankly the more of them to work the land and provide security the better.  Some of them would probably die, and I’d grow weary with the heavy emotional burden, that I had not been able to beat poverty and drought, to allow them all to succeed.  So in it’s basic form, one reason people have a larger number of children in the developing world is simple a matter of survival.  Much like it was in my grandparent’s day, children frequently died of diseases like tuberculosis and polio.  Life was harder – but no where near as hard as most of the world.

The ecological footprint of each country is another angle.  Footfrints are much smaller in developing countries than those that are developed.  Independent think-tank NEF estimate it takes around 2-5 planets to support developed countries (NEF, 2010). Most under-developed countries use less than one planet.  It’s easy to see that with only a small number of children ecological footprints for families in developed countries would still be larger than those in under-developed world.  If anything, it is us that should be making bold moves like China to restrict population growth, especially if we can’t control our over-consumption.

Still believe there is not enough to go around?  Then just think of all the food we chuck away on a daily basis and think of the food mountains we keep for our security while the rest of the world starves.  The population of developing countries is not the problem my friend.  We are.

Links

Population Action – Average Number of Births per woman in Africa (UN)
http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Reports/Africas_Population_Challenge/Average_Number_of_Births_Per_Women_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa.shtml

NEFs Happy Planet Index 2.0

http://www.happyplanetindex.org/explore/global/index.html

National Statistics – Total Fertility Rate in England and Wales

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=369

As the overdue realisation dawns on governments around the world, particularly those with most to lose because of dense populations perilously exposed to sea level rises, there is a clamour for ‘quick fix’ solutions. Everything from geo-engineering to devices in space designed to block out sunlight.

Whilst well-intentioned, these efforts overlook a far more fundamental problem. This problem can be expressed in a simple, single statement: There are too many people on the Earth, consuming too many resources.

In other words, our impact on the environment can be broadly expressed as follows:

Number of people x Per capita resource consumption

Stabilisation of the global population and a reduction in per capita resource consumption will, in combination, do more to mitigate environmental damage than anything else. The Pareto principle of directing most effort into that which produces the greatest result has never been more important, whilst political prevaricating and drawn-out discussions on relatively minor issues serve only as a distraction.

An effective solution must address both population growth and resource consumption together. There is little point in trying to reduce per capita resource consumption with a surging population as the total impact on the environment will continue to rise.

Politically, however, that is what is happening. Governments regard the subject of population stabilisation as almost taboo. A no-go area not up for debate. Almost immediately, there are accusations of totalitarianism and coercion in reducing family sizes.

Yet, it doesn’t have to be like that. Empowerment and better education of women in developing countries is known to have a downward impact on birth rates. The Obama administration’s progress in encouraging family planning in the US and more broadly within the UN will have a positive longer-term impact. There is so much that can be done and without recourse to totalitarian policies.

However, the size of the problem should not be underestimated. For example, China’s population is still growing now despite the policy of one child per couple having been in place for many years. There is an inherent time lag involved. On top of that there are likely to be greater food shortages and displacement of large populations as climate change impacts upon agriculture in low lying areas, coupled with desertification of areas where deforestation has taken place. This will inevitably compound the problems of migration.

Environmental organisations need to avoid focusing almost explicitly on reducing per capita resource consumption whilst neglecting the other side of the equation; population growth. Global environmental strategies can only be truly effective when addressing both sides of the coin.

Gary Robertshaw

The Green Providers Directory

www.search-for-me.co.uk

Whilst not questioning the need to seek new and innovative ideas to halt climate change, I couldn’t help but thinking that they were missing a more fundamental point. That is, they assume that we can carry on as we are and that technology will somehow get us out of our self-created mess. The reality is that it can’t – it’s like trying to build a perpetual motion machine. The planet’s capacity to provide for an unsustainably large and growing population of increasingly consumptive people is inherently limited. Beyond this point no amount of technology can fix the problem. That’s not an opinion from a ‘green-minded’ person – it’s a statement of fact.

Ironically, the solutions are already at hand and require no complex science or new technology. However, like an alcoholic who wants to give up drinking, it firstly requires a recognition that a problem exists. Analogously, governments need to understand that our volatile, oil-dependent capitalist structures cannot survive in the longer-term. Depletion of fossil fuels, increasing consumption and competition for scarce resources will inevitably lead to conflict and market collapse at some point in the future.

A shift towards a more sustainable economy, greater energy efficiency and investment in renewable energy would not only introduce greater stability into the markets but would also create many new jobs opportunities in the ‘green’ sector and spin-off businesses. This process of change does, however, need to be accelerated with meaningful investment and a genuine commitment as progress remains slow. To put that in perspective, today less than 2% of the UK’s energy comes from renewable energy sources. We are jostling with Malta and Luxembourg for the accolade of being bottom of the EU league table. The UK has potentially the largest offshore wind resource in the world. Some estimates put this at enough to power the UK several times over (source: Friends of the Earth).

Next, the global population needs to be stabilised. The Earth simply cannot support over 10 billion people without something giving. Whilst populations in some European countries are actually declining, this is being offset by large increases in countries such as India and Nigeria. This is an often ignored and politically sensitive aspect of sustainability policy yet it is one of the most significant problems we face, requiring a co-ordinated, global approach to the problem.

What we need is not more science fiction type technology but a sober, concerted effort to tackle the core issues in a pragmatic and effective manner.

Gary Robertshaw
The Green Providers Directory

I believe that there is a strong, moral argument against the continued burning of fossil fuels even if it didn’t cause climate change. What is the basis of this belief?

Firstly, the rate of fossil fuel use is increasing year-on-year as demand from economies such as those of India and China grows. In tandem, many experts predict that we are close to (or have already exceeded) peak production of fossil fuels. Simple economics shows that increased demand and decreased supply equals increased prices. In my view, this situation will inevitably lead to further conflict as countries vie for an increasingly scarce resource. And even if we weren’t already at peak production then the conflict situation will only have been at best postponed.

Secondly, increased demand for fossil fuels is leading to encroachment into, and destruction of, natural habitats such as those in Alaska and Africa. Even offshore oil drilling is now firmly on the agenda in the US (depending on the outcome of the election). The result will be further degradation of forests, wildlife and natural habitats to feed a growing oil addication.

Thirdly, and probably the most obvious yet most overlooked point, fossil fuels are fundamentally a finite resource. It really doesn’t matter whether we are at peak production or not – fossil fuels will ultimately run out and an alternative will be needed. Talk of ‘it won’t be in my lifetime’ or ‘it will be way in the future’ is really just apathy and denial from people who lack vision. Global economies cannot simply be switched from one energy source to another – it takes many years, even generations, to make the transition. The pragmatic approach is to start the shift now from our reliance on fossil fuels to renewable and sustainable energy sources.

Finally, economies which rely on fossil fuels are becoming increasingly vulnerable. Recent events have shown that increases in oil prices can destabilise markets and send inflation soaring. Longer-term stability and economic growth cannot be sustained in economies which are heavily oil-dependent – a point now begrudgingly accepted by politicians.

Of course, if the burning of fossil fuels is a major cause of global warming as most scientists now believe, then the preceding points simply add weight to an already compelling argument!

Dr. Gary Robertshaw

The Green Providers Directory

This is not a lone voice. Speaking to people generally, my experience is that of a stubborn and persistent belief that climate change is a cyclical phenomenon unrelated to human activity. For example, I have frequently heard stories that the Earth has had ice ages and very warm spells in the distant past long before humans had evolved, and that solar and volcanic activity have more impact on the climate than man. Often, these views are not backed up by scientific evidence, but instead are perpetuated by word of mouth almost to the point that they are regarded as established fact.

Whilst it is certainly true that all the preceding phenomena affect the climate and that there are natural variations in the Earth’s climate over time, these views are misleading and dangerous for several reasons.

Firstly, it gives intuition precedence over scientific evidence. This situation is made deliberately worse by large corporations with vested interests in encouraging doubt and disagreement surrounding the debate on made-made climate change. In actuality, there is now a widespread consensus amongst the scientific community and environmental researchers that human activity is the chief cause of current global warming. The climate is changing much faster than the very long timeframes over which previous changes occurred and there is a strong correlation between the recent changes and man-made emissions.

I have often seen a parallel between this situation and that of the tobacco industry when research first suggested that smoking may cause lung cancer. The tobacco industry dismissed the claims as erroneous and suppressed its own research, while smokers themselves reassured each other that the scientific evidence was wrong. It was only after the scientific evidence became overwhelming that the link between smoking and lung cancer came to be accepted, but the intuitive misconception that smoking does not damage health still persists amongst some people today. In tandem, the tobacco industry still seeks to deny that its products are addictive and injurious to health. The oil industry is pursuing a similar strategy with respect to climate change.

Secondly, what happens when the oil runs out? There is no ‘plan B’. Many experts believe that we have passed the point of peak oil production and that steadily increasing oil prices are inevitable as demand from the Chinese and Indian economies grows. Fundamentally, oil is a finite commodity and whether you accept that climate change is linked to man-made emissions or not, alternative energy sources are going to be needed at some point in the future if we are to sustain our economies.

Finally, is it not also intuitive to believe that pumping out billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere and clearing millions of hectares of rainforest each year might just be causing some damage to the planet? It seems to me that denial and apathy must be overcome before there can be widespread acceptance that human actions are having a harmful effect on the planet. It could well be a slow process.

Dr Gary Robertshaw – The Green Providers Directory

Users search on EcoSearch.org, just as they would on any other search engine. The results come straight from Google, but here’s the cool thing – they donate all of the profits from their ad revenue to green organisations.

Simple win-win.

As I sat there, it dawned on me that maybe society needs some help with Climate Change. Maybe society needs a little bit of Change Management.

Prosci came up with a change management model called ADKAR. They call it a model, but some may call it common sense, a Tao or even a bit of advice.

Apparently these five steps enable you to recognise what you need to do in life, to survive change (or at least make yourself feel better about it).

1. Awareness – ‘For things to make sense, you’ve got to know why change is needed.‘

- Famine, mass immigration, food crashes, economic risk, disease caused by climate change. If you think Climate Change is a left-wing conspiracy, then you really haven’t read enough. I’m not being nasty, it’s just simply the way it is.

2. Desire – ‘You must have the desire to support and participate in change‘

- As James Lovelock said in The Guardian(1) ‘Humanity is in a period exactly like 1938-9, when “we all knew something terrible was going to happen, but didn’t know what to do about it”. But once the Second World War was under way, “everyone got excited, they loved the things they could do… they had a sense of purpose – that’s what people want.” At the moment people are in denial, because they can’t relate to catastrophic climate change on a personal level. They won’t make environmental improvements until the waves are at the doorstep.

3. Knowledge – ‘Once the need for change is realised, you wonder how to change, and minimise the impact on your own life’

- GreenGirlsGlobal, GreenGuysGlobal, and all those leading the environmental on-line ‘ecolution’ can help increase your knowledge. Information about making environmental improvements has never been so widely available.

4. Ability – ‘You need the ability to implement new skills and behaviours. Can you rise to the challenge? ‘

- Recycling, growing, building, helping, engineering, discovering, complaining, campaigning. There’s something for everyone

5. Reinforcement – ‘Making change, making history. It can only happen with reinforcement‘

Once you’ve cracked all the previous points, change large enough to save the world can only happen, if you help others through the process. Don’t forget, not everyone surfs the Internet.

We are headed towards a 2-degree rise in global temperatures. IPCC scientists have told us that this is the limit of safety (2). For those of you that think this will make the summers nicer, think again. Reports from the Center for a New American Security (3) and the OECD (4) have climate change could induce: mass immigration, crop failures, disease, economic crises and international security issues. It’s not just about the sea level.

Kevin Watkins UN Development Report recently said that it require take rich countries to make a 80% reduction in Carbon Dioxide for there to be a fifty-fifty chance of the temperature not rising by 2 degrees (5).

We cannot give up on humanity now. For all the bad things in this world there are at least twice as many good things. The challenges we face together as a species are not insurmountable. We owe it to those generations that have given us our freedom, we owe it to future generations across the world.

Climate change isn’t a war, a great fire or a pandemic. But like all those challenges it requires commitment, strength, creativity and all the technological ingenuity that humanity can muster. In the words of Nelson Mandela. ‘Sometimes it falls upon a generation to be great. You can be that great generation.’

(1) ‘Enjoy Life while you can’, The Guardian, 1 March 2008

(2) ‘Too late to avoid climate change’, The Independent, 19 September 2007

(3) The Age of Consequences : The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change, The Center for a New American Security

(4) OECD 2008, Environmental Outlook

(5) UNDP, ‘UN Focuses carbon burden’

Tony’s message was clear. “Democracy is not just voting every 5 years, watching Big Brother in between and wondering why nothing happens. Democracy is what we do and say. Where we live and work….”

Like anything in life if you want to use, it you need to know how to. Democracy is a lot like that, if you want to make real changes, you need to learn to use it.

Last year I visited my local Member of Parliament (MP) to find out how to use the system.

This is what I found out…

Email campaigns
You plug your name and address into a website, like magic an email wings its way to your local politician describing your disdain for whaling, climate change or the latest concern of the day.

Lots of people make a difference, but MPs sometimes treat these emails like a petition. It’s easy to sign something without giving it much consideration and MPs know this. “If you get 15 e-mails in one go, the usual reaction is not ‘this is important’ but ‘oh God, my inbox is full of e-mails!”

Effectiveness rating: *

Protests
The Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, Gandhi’s march, the Iraq war protests.

Protests can raise important media attention and apply intense pressure to political systems. They can even be used to highlight the ridiculousness of legislation, such as Mark Thomas demonstrations against restrictions on campaigning in Parliament Square.

Effectiveness rating: * to ****

Letters
I highlighted the sentiment of an email was the same as a letter but was told: “It would be better if somebody wrote a letter in their own words. Sometimes if lots of people send an email it can have an impact, but most of the cynical politicians will think ’somebody has just gathered 50 people to annoy me by filling up my inbox”.

I guess the pen is mightier than the keyboard.

Effectiveness rating: **

Face to face
Many politicians run appointments when you can go along and meet them in person. Don’t be shy, most of them are human. If you know a few people with the similar concerns go along together. If there are many of you why not invite them to come and see you.

Politicians know that issues must be really important to their constituents when they take the time to meet them.

Effectiveness rating: ***

Political systems are different in every country. The guidance above will help you get started, but it is by no means exhaustive. All politicians are different and vary in the type of communication they take most notice of. Different countries have different forms of democracy. The more liberal a democracy is, the more accountable the government to the people, the increased civil and political rights people have and the freer and fairer elections are. (Dahl, 1989)

I know people that give up even before they’ve tried, they tell me their concerns, ‘One person can’t make a difference’. I believe they can. Florence Nightingale, Nelson Mandela, Abraham Lincoln. History is full of individuals and groups making a difference.

Over the last few weeks I’ve decided to see my MP about Climate Change. I’ve dusted off the notes from my Environmental Science degree, boned up on the latest developments from the IPCC, and have taken it upon myself to give my MP a grounding in the climate science basics.

The first meeting went well. Once we had finished our ‘Save the World’ talk, I took it upon myself to complain that it takes 5 years in my town to get an allotment. A giant leap from the melting permafrost, or destruction of the rainforest, but I’ve come to realise that everything is connected to everything.

Effectiveness rating: ? Watch this space

References:

Dahl, R. (1989) Democracy and Its Critics, Yale University Press, New Haven

Links:

In the UK you can find out who your local MP is at http://www.WriteToThem.com

Mark Thomas – Mass lone demonstrations : Against legislation to prevent free protest around British Parliament http://www.markthomasinfo.com/demo/default.asp

The IPCC assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of risk of human-induced climate change. http://www.ipcc.ch

After a successful weekend at the south bank, the WWF giant boat & plane with thousands of names on them have been delivered to the House of Parliament. Let’s hope that MPs will get the message and support a truly effective Climate Change Bill.