Overpopulation is world’s No.1 environmental issue
April 18th, 2009 - 2:16 pm ICT by ANI ( 10 comments )Washington, April 18 (ANI): The faculty of a US university has determined that an overpopulated planet is the biggest problem that we face today, followed by climate change and a need for renewable energy resources.
According to a survey of the faculty at the SUNY (State University of New York) College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF), overpopulation is the world’s top environmental issue, followed closely by climate change and the need to develop renewable energy resources to replace fossil fuels.
Just in time for Earth Day (April 22), the faculty at the college, at which environmental issues are the sole focus, was asked to help prioritize the planet’s most pressing environmental problems.
Overpopulation came out on top, with several professors pointing out its ties to other problems that rank high on the list.
“Overpopulation is the only problem,” said Dr. Charles A. Hall, a systems ecologist. “If we had 100 million people on Earth - or better, 10 million - no others would be a problem,” he added.
According to Dr. Allan P. Drew, a forest ecologist, “Overpopulation means that we are putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than we should, just because more people are doing it and this is related to overconsumption by people in general, especially in the ‘developed’ world.”
“But, whether developed or developing, everyone is encouraged to ‘want’ and perceive that they ‘need’ to consume beyond the planet’s ability to provide,” said Dr. Susan Senecah, who teaches the history of the American environmental movement at SUNY.
The ESF faculty pointed to climate change as the second most-pressing issue, with the need to develop renewable energy resources to replace fossil fuels coming in third.
“Experimenting with the earth’s climate and chemistry has great risks,” said Dr. Thomas E. Amidon, who invented a process for removing energy-rich sugars from wood and fermenting those sugars into ethanol.
“This is a driver in climate change and loss of biodiversity and is a fundamental problem underlying our need to strive for sustainability,” he added. (ANI)
- Reduce your consumption to live more 'sustainably' - Apr 25, 2010
- UN calls for technological revolution or 'major planetary catastrophe' - Jul 06, 2011
- Delhi leading the way in combating climate change: Dikshit - Feb 21, 2011
- Clean energy to power the globe by 2050: Report - Feb 03, 2011
- Eat less meat to tackle climate change: UN panel - Jun 03, 2010
- Global Council on Environment launched to "better the universe around us" - May 09, 2010
- Hindu statesman Zed launches Global Council on Environment to 'better the universe around us' - May 10, 2010
- Urban poor vulnerable to climate change: Kumari Selja - Oct 03, 2011
- Karzai backs regional energy projects - Feb 03, 2011
- Chile schools join global environment project - May 19, 2011
- TERI to work with Seychelles on enhancing knowledge base - Jun 03, 2010
- India, Britain to partner in renewable energy - Nov 15, 2011
- India wants equitable response at climate talks: PM (Lead) - Feb 02, 2012
- ICTs can help Kerala adapt to climate change - Nov 19, 2011
- Don't grow the way US did: Jeffrey Sachs to India - Aug 04, 2011
Tags: american environmental movement, amidon, charles a hall, climate change, dr allan, dr charles, dr susan, dr thomas, earth day, earth day april 22, environmental issue, environmental problems, forest ecologist, fossil fuels, new york college, overpopulation, renewable energy resources, sole focus, state university of new york college of environmental s, university of new york college of environmental science
April 20th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Please. Enough of this pathetic religion being crammed down our throats. Climate Change is bunk.
And the myth of overpopulation is just that too. The entire popluation of the WORLD could fit into the state of Texas.
Tyranny and mass murder are far greater and REAL problems.
Academics are lazy. They buy into trendy fads more quickly than they indoctrinate students. Well maybe not that quickly!
April 20th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Try ZPG, zero population growth. That followed after Rachel Carsons Silent Spring.
January 19th, 2010 at 9:55 am
Great, SoCal. Try thinking a little deeper about what one human being requires. Sure, we could all stand up in Texas, but think about the land needed to supply just the basics we need, not to mention the avalanche of crap we think is essential to our life (cellphones, lipstick, shaving cream, sports equipment, ATV’s and snowmobiles, wide-screen TV, car, 10 pairs jeans, etc. etc. etc.) Then think about what happens to our waste, both bodiy and trash. Think about what we’ve done already to our oceans and rivers with our trash. State of Texas indeed. Sounds like you have subscribed to the religion of free markets and endless expansion.
Think also about the modus operandi of cancer cells: unlimited growth.
I think you don’t understand the basics of biological life on earth. We’re parasites on the other living beings here and if we destroy them through our reckless expansion, we cut our own throats.
April 19th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Re: the comment of all the people the world could fit in the state of Texas, it is absurd. The CIA says that we have less than 10% of the land of the earth that is arable. Each person on earth has about 1/2 acre of arable land. On this land he will probably build a house, farm for the food, graze any cattle needed, and have the force necessary to convert CO2 to oxygen.
Any thinking person can see that more people contribute to global warming, which more than 95% of the scientists specializing in the field believe in.
To say without any evidence that there is no global warming, in spite of the rising of the cities, the increased carbon dioxide uptake by the oceans, the melting of the polar ice caps, and the temperature measurements from thousands of stations on Earth and by satellites — – is absurd. It may be nice to hope that there is no global warming — – but hope has nothing to do with truth.
April 30th, 2010 at 12:59 am
Desmodia, I guess Dr. Thomas Sowell isn’t a deep thinker.
If you have to ask who he is, that makes my point perfectly.
And ProBob, when you say each person on earth has about 1/2 acre of arable land, maybe you’ve never been to Hong Kong or Tokyo or even southern Cal. And you say 95 percent of scientists specializing in the field believe in global warming, this is simple hogwash.
The scientists specializing in the field are known as physicists, solar physicists. climatologists and earth scientists and you haven’t one iota of evidence that 95% of them “believe” yet you believe.
In any case, consensus and belief aren’t scientific principles at all.
Consensus reflects the conformity of group think while belief is more a religious contruct than a scientific one.
July 9th, 2010 at 5:35 am
S.Mike typifies ignorant opinions of overpopulation and the effects they have on envirionment.
The old and absurd Texas analogy is a perfect example. If some living thing fits in a shoebox, it must be viable there!
Any remedy to fix this all encompassing problem is doomed to fail if it does not entail reducing human numbers.
July 9th, 2010 at 6:01 am
Dr.Sowell may have impressive credentials, but every scientific discipline has a heretic or two.
A major ‘logical fallacy’ is that whenever an authority in any field makes a claim; it must be true and credible. WRONG!
The same applies to majority opinions.
In general, there have been very few notable errors thru a scientific concensus. And, most scientists follow the principle that it is always preferable to err on the side of caution whenever critical environmental matters are disputed.
November 24th, 2010 at 2:35 am
S. Mike is correct. You could fit the world population into Texas with about the same population density as parts of New York City. You could feed everyone on a vegetarian diet, with the same calorie count as the average American consumes today, by growing food everywhere else in the USA that is already used for farming. You could provide the same amount of power that the average American consumes by building nuclear reactors across the desert where you can’t grow food. If you use feeder-breeder reactors then there’s enough known deposits of nuclear fuel to last around 1000 years. Overpopulation is not an issue.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:41 am
Texas example is completely moronic. Let’s pretend that it’s managable in a thought to fit THE WORLD POPULATION in Texas but it’s highly impossible to do so. That will reduce quality of life big way, too.
NO POLITICIAN WILL TACKLE THIS PROBLEM AS ITS AGAINST VOTE AND THEY ARE AMBITIOUS. REDUCING POPULATION WILL HURT ECONOMICS. AND ECONOMICS FUNDS MOSTLY EVERYTHING.
CHINA HAS DONE GOOD JOB AT CONTROLING THEIR POPULATION.
i would say old rules come in motion now such as SURVIVOR OF THE FITTEST. LETS THE BEST BREED ON AND OTHERS SHOULD NOT BREED.
IT MAY SOUND HARSH TO UNBEST BUT ITS BEEN TRADITION OF NATURE WHERE STRONGER AND WISER MOVES ON…
June 28th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
I think that the skeptics need to read Book 1 of the free ebook series at http://andgulliverreturns.info
After that come up with empirical facts that contradict all of the points. It is the most comprehensive and well-documented boo I have seen. How about it skeptics?