The United Nations Environmental Programme has published a new report on the state of the global environment. The report, entitled Global Environment Outlook 4, evaluates the state of the global atmosphere, land, water, and biodiversity and changes that have taken place over the past 20 years. The development of proven solutions to problems like air and water pollution are said to provide reasons for optimism. But the report's authors also point out that persistent problems like climate change and species loss still need to be addressed.
Drastic changes need to take place to prevent major environemental catastrophes within the cureent century according to the report. For example, to prevent the most severe consequences of climate change global greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut by 50 percent by 2050. The report calls upon developed nations to reduce their total emissions by 60-80 percent and for developing nations to accept emissions reduction commitments.
A number of problems contribute to the complexity of finding and implementing solutions to the global environmental crisis. For one, the population of the earth has grown by 34 percent in the past 20 years. Burdensome debt repayments prevent some of the world’s poorest nations from developing to the point where they can address domestic environmental degredation. The globalization of trade has led to the proliferation of foreign invasive species. And most of the world’s energy continues to be produced in ways that damage the environment.
The costs of inaction are made clear in the report. More than 2 million people die prematurely from exposure to air pollution each year. The hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic has continued to grow. The resulting increase in ultraviolet solar radiation threatens human health, plants and ocean life, and food production. Human activity has led to a .74º C increase in average global temperatures since 1906. Experts have predicted that temperature could increase by up to 4º C. A 2º C increase in average global temperatures could lead to major and irreversible damage to the environment.
Unsustainable land use is affecting human health by causing soil erosion, nutrient depletion, water scarcity, and by interrupting natural biological cycles. Changes in land use patterns have resulted in soil degradation, and the release of organic carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at alarming rates. The prevalence of fertilizer use in agriculture has led to significant problems as well. Nutrients escaping farmlands have caused algal blooms, altering the fragile balance found in natural ecosystems and in some cases destroying habitats.
Current human practices are threatening the earth’s biodiversity in ways never before experienced. Species loss is taking place at a rate 100 times faster than at any other time because of the damage being done to natural habitats by human activity. 30 percent of amphibians, 23 percent of mammals, and 12 percent of bird species are currently under threat. The introduction of alien species has led to the destruction of natural habitats, such as in the Black Sea where the introduction of the comb jellyfish has led to the serious consequences for local fisheries. Increasing global demand for food and natural resources is exacerbating the current threat to biodiversity. Use of natural resources for energy production is also a key source of ecosystem destruction.
The GEO-4 concludes that governments must alter their priorities in unprecedented ways if the serious consequences of current trends in environmental degradation are to be avoided. It calls for governments to prioritize policies aimed at protecting the global environment over policies aimed at producing maximum economic growth. The sustainability first approach advocated by the authorsof the report calls for cooperation between governments, civil society, and the private sector with the goal of environmental renewal and increasing the well-being of all of humanity in an equitable fashion.
For more information about the report, go to the UNEP website.
Our World is a weekly column produced by Gather Political Correspondent David Anderson. David is a graduate student studying political science at the University of New Hampshire. You can read all of his articles under the tag "Live From New Hampshire".
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 40
It seems to me that this is the main problem we have...just too many people. But that is a harder problem to solve than just changing technology. Some of the poorest nations on the planet have the highest birth rates. We know that rising standards of living tend to result in smaller families...but that is a slow process. We may not have time to wait for that to adjust the world population.
If we don't do something about it, nature will do it for us, I fear.
The FLDS people are the only ones I know of who are practicing polygamy in this country, and there are only a few of them. Their contribution to the population problem is insignificant. But the practices of those groups...forcing barely adolescent girls to marry middle aged men who keep them in virtual white slavery...are abhorrent and illegal. It is a national disgrace that these people have not been prosecuted more energetically. There have been a few convictions...recently Warren Jeffs, the head of the FLDS was arrested.
I wrote an article about the FLDS over a year ago.
Here is the link.
What sorts of things do you think can be done to help reduce population growth?
The US population is expanding mainly due to immigration. Compared to India and Middle Eastern Nations, we do not have a population growth problem here. But I certainly agree with you that the practice of forcing young women to have ten or even five children is deplorable.
To answer your question, David: Raising standards of living, improving sex education and making contraceptives readily available are the main things that can be done. But there is another problem in nations like India, where large families are viewed as desirable by the lower economic classes. Somehow that outlook needs to be changed. China had the same problem, and has solved it in a fairly draconian fashion by decreeing that families can have only one child. This has been fairly effective in urban areas, but not in agricultural areas where farmers want all the sons they can get to help on the farm.
"I probably should NOT have been shocked..."
The fact that "The GEO-4 concludes that governments must alter their priorities in unprecedented ways if the serious consequences of current trends in environmental degradation are to be avoided... " should be on all of our minds as we get closer to election day.
Bert, immigration is simply a movement of population. We need to address the population growth across the planet. I think there are a number of contributing factors that contribute to overpopulation - poverty, high child mortality rates, minimal or no education, religious beliefs, etc. It is true that, overall, richer, healthier, more educated people tend to have less children. The issue I raised above is alarming to me in that these are people who are usually educated, well-to-do, living in a first world country, and yet have excessively large families based on religious principles. If we, as a first world nation, cannot collectively reduce our birth rates, then what hope can we have that third world countries do it?
Thanks for the regular reminders, much appreciated!
Just kidding David, good article. I am waiting for the new report from the IPCC, isn't that coming in November?
Your notes on population are good. I recently had an argument here on gather with somebody about that U.S. family that had 17 kids, the person said gee what's wrong with that, maybe they just like having a big family. Argh.
Yes, that was my point about US population growth...it is caused by immigration, not high birthrates here, despite the efforts of the polygamists.
As a nation, we have not achieved ZPG yet, but we are approaching it if you leave out immigration. Many European nations have already achieved it, and in fact they are in NPG...their populations are declining...Italy, France and I think some Scandinavian nations.
Nevertheless, much of the world is still making waaay too many babies.
The other thing is the illegal immigrant that bring more children into the world so that our government pay for their medical and education. There have been cases where illegals have gone to college and gotten in on grants and other government money. This is not right to the kids that can not afford to go to college. Sorry a little off topic.
Dawn - this is not a matter of money - it is a matter of finite resources in the world. We need to be responsible not just to our own families, or our own countries. We need to be responsible to the world and its finite resources. Just because somebody can buy up those resources with their disposable incomes, does it make them any more deserving of clean water or edible food than other countries? We deal too much here in America with wealth - do we want to promote the ethical argument (or lack of ethics, rather) that only the people who can afford to purchase resources deserve them? Shouldn't everyone in the world be able to access drinking water and food?
It is easy to blame population for our problems, and population does play a role. But a lot of the problems we face exist because a minority of the people living on the earth are using a disproportionate amount of our world's natural resources. It is just as important that those living in the developed world alter their lifestyles. By consuming less and taking actions to live more sustainably we can make a difference. Nor do we need to abandon the mode of life we currently enjoy, we just need mofidy it.
We KNOW that there are large numbers of people dying today from lack of potable water and adequate food. We KNOW that if those people were to migrate from unteneble situations, there would be a huge stress on the area to which they migrate. Are there figures to suggest that, even with population growth halted, there would be viable solutions for those dying? I know we absolutely NEED to drastically lower our consumption levels across the board, but I'm curious if things could achieve a balance even now with our current population levels.
Exactly right, Spartan. The Catholic church is making big gains in Africa, and the nations where they are strong...like Nigeria...are suffering a population explosion. In part, because the Church refuses to condone the use of contraceptives or any form of sex education beyond the promotion of abstinence.
This is such a serious issue and I agree with Spartan and Bert that the Catholic Church is the problem in Countires such as Africa and other developing Counties. If you get there first, and the the majority of the population is ignorant, they beleive what you say is the truth when in truth the Catholic church is making the problem much worse.
I think Spartan brought up a key point...The Catholic Church needs to drop its efforts against birth control, particularly in third world countries. It's time it faced up to its responsibilities to the preservation of the planet....