POPULATION AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has done many
constructive and beneficial things. The policies, actions, and leadership
of the Agency are crucial to any hope for a sustainable society. In a
recent report from the Agency, we read:
In view of the increasing national and international
interest in sustainable development, Congress has asked the Environmental
Protection Agency ( EPA ) to report on its efforts to incorporate
the concepts of sustainable development into the Agency's operations.
The Report ( EPA 1993 ) is both encouraging and distressing.
It is encouraging to read of all of the many activities of the Agency
which help protect the environment. It is distressing to search in vain
through the Report for acknowledgment that population growth is at the
root of most of the problems of the environment. While the Brundtland
Report says that population growth is not the central problem, the EPA
report avoids making this allegation. But the EPA report makes only a
very few minor references to the environmental problems that arise as
a direct consequence of population growth.
The EPA report speaks of an initiative to pursue sustainable
development in the Central Valley of California:
where many areas are experiencing rapid urban growth
and associated environmental problems...
A stronger emphasis on sustainable agricultural
practices will be a key element in any long-term solutions to
problems in the area.
There is no way that "A stronger emphasis on sustainable
agricultural practices" can stop the "rapid urban growth" that
is destroying farmland! An emphasis on agriculture cannot solve the problem.
To solve the problems, one must stop the "rapid urban growth"
which causes the problems. It is pointless to focus on the development
of "sustainable agricultural practices" when agriculture will
soon be displaced by the "rapid urban growth." However, if "A stronger
emphasis on sustainable agricultural practices" means "stop the
conversion of agricultural land to urban or other developments,"
then there is logic to the second of the statements.
With our present social and value systems, it is almost
impossible to maintain agriculture in the face of urban population growth.
In speaking of the New Jersey Coastal Management Plan
for the management of an environmentally sensitive tidal wetland, the
EPA report says:
The project involves balancing the intense development
pressures in the area with wetlands wildlife protection, water
quality, air quality, waste management, and other environmental
"Balancing" sounds nice, but it needs to be recognized that
"balancing" generally means "yielding to."
In the Pacific Northwest:
The EPA... is an active participant in these discussions,
which focus on sustaining high quality natural resources and marine
ecosystems in the face of rapid population and economic growth
in the area.
These quotations of minor sections of the EPA report
make it clear that the EPA understands the origin of environmental problems.
Thus it is puzzling that the Agency so carefully avoids serious discussion
of the fundamental source of so many of the problems it is called on to
In this thirty page report on the Agency's programs,
the term "sustainable development" is mentioned hundreds of times, and
population growth, the most important variable in the equation, is mentioned
just these few times. It is as though one attempted to build a 100 story
skyscraper from good materials, but one forgot to put in a foundation.
A proposal for the establishment of a "National Institute
for the Environment" ( 1993 ) is being advanced. If the proposed institute
is to be effective, its mission and charge must include, "Studying the
demographic causes and consequences of environmental problems." This means
"look at the numbers!"
THE MARGINALIZATION OF MALTHUS
We have seen how major national and international reports
misrepresent and downplay ( marginalize ) the quantitative importance
of the arithmetic of population sizes and growth. The importance of quantitative
analysis of population sizes was pioneered by Thomas Malthus two hundred
years ago, ( Appleman 1976 ) but the attempted marginalization of Malthus
goes on today at all levels of society.
In an article, "The Population Explosion is Over"
Ben Wattenberg finds support for the title of his article in the fact
that fertility rates are declining in parts of the world. ( Wattenberg
1997 ) Most of the countries of Europe are ( 1997 ) at zero population
growth or negative population growth, and fertility rates in parts of
Asia, have declined dramatically. Rather than rejoicing over the clear
evidence of this movement in the direction of sustainability, Wattenberg
sounds the alarm over the "birth dearth" as though this fertility
decline requires some immediate reversal or correction.
The most extreme case is that of Julian Simon who advocates
continued population growth long into the future. Writing in the newsletter
of a major think tank in Washington, D.C., Simon says:
We have in our hands now - actually in our libraries
- the technology to feed, clothe, and supply energy to an ever-growing
population for the next 7 billion years... Even if no new knowledge
were ever gained...we would be able to go on increasing our population
forever. ( Simon 1995 )
It has been noted that a spherical earth is finite, but
a flat earth can be infinite in extent. So if Simon is correct, we must
be living on a flat earth. ( Bartlett 1996 )
LIVING AT THE LIMIT
As populations grow and demands on resources increase,
an aspect of the problem that is often overlooked is the fact that there
are major fluctuations in the ability of the environment to satisfy our
needs. In the case of municipal water, if we build new subdivisions sufficient
to consume the limiting maximum output of our of our municipal water supply
in wet years, then in dry years we will be seriously short. When one is
living at the limit of a renewable resource, small fluctuations in the
annual yield of the resource can cause major dislocations. Prudence dictates
that one should plan to consume no more water annually than the water
supply can deliver during the dryest years. This problem is even more
critical with world food supplies, which are very dependent on the vagaries
of global weather patterns.
THE WORLDíS WORST POPULATION PROBLEM
Echoing a view expressed earlier by the Ehrlichs ( Ehrlich
1992 ) Bartlett points out that because of the high per capita consumption
of resources in the U.S., we in the U.S. have the worldís worst population
problem! ( Bartlett 1997 ) Many Americans think of the population
problem as being a problem only of "those people" in the undeveloped
countries, but this serves only to draw attention away from the difficulties
of dealing with our own problems here in the U.S. It is easier to tell
a neighbor to mow his / her yard than it is for us to mow our own yard.
With regard to other countries, we can offer family planning assistance
on request, but in those countries we have no jurisdiction or direct responsibility.
Within our own country we have complete jurisdiction and responsibility,
yet we fail to act to help solve our own problem. In a speech at the University
of Colorado, then U.S. Senator Tim Wirth observed that the best thing
we in the U.S. can do to help other countries stop their population growth
is to set an example and stop our own population growth here in the U.S.
There can be no question about the difficulty that we
will have to achieve zero growth of the population of the U.S. An examination
of the simple numbers makes the difficulty clear. In particular, population
growth has "momentum" which means that if one makes a sudden
change in the fertility rate in a society, the full effect of the change
will not be realized until every person has died who was living when the
change was made. Thus it takes approximately 70 years to see the full
effect of a change in the fertility rate. ( Bartlett & Lytwak 1995
POPULATION GROWTH NEVER PAYS FOR ITSELF
There are many encouraging signs from communities around
the U.S. that indicate a growing awareness of the local problems of continued
unrestrained growth of populations, because population growth in our communities
never pays for itself. Taxes and utility costs must escalate in order
to pay for the growth. In addition, growth brings increased levels of
congestion, frustration, and air pollution.
In recent years, several states have seen taxpayer revolts
in the form of ballot questions that were adopted to limit the allowed
tax increases. These revolts were not in decaying rust-belt states; the
revolts have been in the states that claimed to be the most prosperous
because they had the largest rates of population growth. These limits
on taxes were felt to be necessary to stop the tax increases that were
required to pay for the growth. Unfortunately the growth has managed to
continue, while the schools and other public agencies have suffered from
the shortage of funds.
How do we work on the local problem? Many years ago
I was discussing population growth of Boulder with a prominent member
of the Colorado Legislature. At one point he said:
"Al, we could not stop Boulder's growth if we wanted
"I agree, therefore let's put a tax on the growth so
that, as a minimum, the growth pays for itself, instead of having
to be paid for by the existing taxpayers."
His response was quick and emphatic:
"You can't do that, you'd slow down our growth!"
His answer showed the way: communities can slow their population
growth by removing the many visible and hidden public subsidies that support
and encourage growth.
The Tragedy of the Commons ( Hardin 1968 ) makes it
clear that there will always be large opposition to programs of making
population growth pay for itself. Those who profit from growth will use
their considerable resources to convince the community that the community
should pay the costs of growth. In our communities, making growth pay
for itself could be a major tool to use in stopping the population growth.
PSEUDO SOLUTIONS: GROWTH MANAGEMENT - SMART GROWTH
From the highest political and planning circles come
various suggestions that are intended to address the problems caused by
growth and thus to improve the quality of life. Many of these suggestions
are "pseudo solutions" to the problems. At first glance, these
sophistic solutions seem logical. A momentís thought will show that, in
fact, they are false.
The terms "growth management" and "smart
growth" are used interchangeably to describe urban developments that
are functionally and esthetically efficient and pleasing. Sometimes these
planning processes are advocated by those who believe that we canít stop
population growth, therefore we must accomodate it as best we can. Other
times they are advocated by those who are actively advancing population
growth. The claim is made that growth management and smart growth "will
save the environment." They donít save the environment. Whether the
growth is smart or dumb, the growth destroys the environment. "Growth
management" is a favorite term used by planners and politicians.
With planning, smart growth will destroy the environment, but it will
do it in a sensitive way. Itís like buying a ticket on the Titanic.
You can be smart and go first class, or you can be dumb and go steerage.
In both cases, the result is the same. But given the choice, most people
would go first class.
PSEUDO SOLUTIONS: CREATING JOBS
The favorite rallying cry of community leaders and politicians
is, "We must create jobs."
One must respond to this cry by asking:
Did you know that in your community,
creating jobs increases the number of people
out of work?
Most people donít understand this, even though it can be
explained easily. If the equilibrium unemployment rate is 5 % , and a
new factory moves into town, the hiring at the new factory may lower the
unemployment rate to 4 % . But then new people move into the town to restore
the unemployment rate to the equilibrium value of 5 % . But this is 5
% of a larger population, so the number of unemployed people has increased.
Every time 100 jobs are created in a community one can look for about
5 more unemployed people in the community.
The only possibility for having permanently low unemployment
in a region is to build a wall around the region so that people canít
move in to take the jobs. The constitutionally acceptable way to "build
exclusionary walls" around a region is to be so successful in promoting
your region that you drive up real estate prices to a very high level
so that people canít afford to move into the community. This is the case
in many popular recreational areas.
PSEUDO SOLUTIONS: BUILDING HIGHWAYS
It is frequently said that we can reduce congestion
and air pollution by building high-speed super highways. This can be proven
false by noting that if this were true, the air in Los Angeles would be
the cleanest in the nation. The falacy arises because of the fact that
the construction of the new highways generates new traffic, not previously
present, to fill the new highways to capacity. ( Bartlett 1969 )
PSEUDO SOLUTIONS: REGIONAL PLANNING
As populations of nearby cities grow, the call is made
for "regional solutions" to the many problems created by growth.
This has two negative effects:
1 ) Regional planning dilutes democracy. A citizen participating
in public affairs has five times the impact in his / her city of 20,000
as he / she would have in a region of 100,000 people.
2 ) The regional "solutions" are usually designed
to accomodate past and predicted growth and hence they foster and encourage
more growth rather than limiting it. In the spirit of Eric Sevareidís
Law ( below ), regional "solutions" enlarge the problems rather
than solving them.
One concludes that regional solutions to problems already
caused by growth will work only if the growth is stopped.