Showing posts with label population growth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label population growth. Show all posts

Friday, July 2, 2010

Where the Buffalo Roam -- Again


A repost from this blog, circa December 2004.

Thanks to Teddy Roosevelt, Aldo Leopold, Gifford Pinchot, the American environmental movement, the Lacey Act, the Weeks Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Pittman-Roberts Act, the Conservations Reserve Program, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and the Duck Stamp Act (to name just a few), America's wildlife is coming back.

All of this legislation has been supported by hunters who understood the value of the land and the wildlife on it. Environmentalists and hunter-anglers have worked hand-in-hand to bring back the wild turkey, to protect bear habitat, to preserve salmon spawning streams, and to shelter riparian areas.

For the terrier enthusiast, the result is plain to see in the hedgerow and forest: a record number of red fox, raccoon, possum and groundhogs spreading out into historically new territory.

Even species once pushed to the edge of extinction are now roaring back from the abyss -- alligators, bald eagles, beaver, Canada geese, wolves, and buffalo.

If the story of 19th Century America was about stripping the land and exterminating every species on it, the story of the 20th Century has been about bringing it all back.

Where the Buffalo Roam -- Again
San Francisco Chronicle, April 22, 2001

________________


Brian Meirs first noticed it a few years ago. The game was coming back.

It was subtle in the beginning - a few more sharp-tailed grouse along the section roads than usual, more deer peering from the margins of the hayfields at night. Then people started noticing there were larger numbers of pronghorn antelope than had ever been seen, and they were hanging around closer to town.

"Even 10 years ago, you never heard of mountain lion or elk around here," said Meirs, a state game warden who works the vast plains and mesa country around Buffalo. "Now they're pretty common. There are even occasional wolf sightings. It's like the wildlife was back there in the shadows, waiting for a change."

The change has been building for decades. The western Great Plains contain the country's greatest demographic anomaly: Its human population is emptying out. The trend, the 2000 census shows, has really gained force over the past decade with the drying up of the ranching economy.

But as people move away, wildlife is starting to fill the vacuum. In an unexpected way, a vision of the Great Plains as a wild commons is taking hold.

"It's funny - Buffalo Commons is really happening," Meirs said, as he sat in his truck on the main drag of Buffalo, a thoroughfare framed by abandoned storefronts. "Not like people thought it would. But it's happening."

The concept of the Buffalo Commons was floated by New Jersey sociologists Frank and Deborah Popper in 1988. The Poppers observed that agriculture had failed miserably on the Great Plains, and noted that the region would probably be almost wholly depopulated save for a few cities by the mid-21st century.


The highest and best use for the area, the Poppers argued, was in its pristine state: A restored prairie cleared of fences and abandoned ranches, reseeded with native bunchgrasses, teeming with wildlife. And foremost among these resurgent animals would be the emblematic beast of the Plains: the buffalo. Back by the tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands. Plains residents, both white and Native American, would earn their money through ecotourism and franchise hunting, not punching cows and growing dryland wheat.

Because the Poppers' proposal was predicated in part on federal buyouts of private property, it kicked off a howling storm of protest from the Great Plains agricultural community. Ranchers saw it as the most sinister possible example of a federal land grab. Resistance was so great that the idea died aborning.


But that didn't change the reality of Plains demographics - a reality best apprehended from the air.

Fly in a puddle jumper from Denver to Bismarck, N.D., and look down. There are great tracts of Badlands and rolling prairie, huge expanses of "pothole country" spangled with ponds and marshes, entire square miles of dryland wheat and irrigated alfalfa, serpentine brown rivers lined with cottonwoods, the occasional road. Very few ranches, and fewer towns. No cities. The West and East coasts, the intermountain West, the Southwest, the Gulf Coast and the Deep South - they're exploding with development. Even the industrial Northeast, long a laggard in population growth,
is gaining new people.

But not out here where the buffalo once roamed. Nearly three-quarters of Plains counties - 322 of 443 - have lost population since 1930. According to the 2000 census, 272 of 443 of the Plains counties have experienced population declines since 1990.


Demographers estimate that rural counties of the Dakotas could lose an additional third of their population in the next 20 years. From eastern New Mexico through the Texas and Oklahoma panhandles, to large portions of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas and Montana, the story is the same.

The depopulation affecting the region is nothing more than the dying of a dream. Or a scheme, at least. At the turn of the century, the western Plains were considered the globe's most promising emerging breadbasket.

Cattle had thrived on the rich prairie bunchgrasses after the subjugation of the Plains Indians and the elimination of the buffalo.


Now, decided the pols in Washington, D.C., the rich black earth beneath the virgin sod would grow the nation's wheat.

The late 19th century and early 20th century were fairly wet on the prairie, reinforcing a popular idea of the time that "rain followed the plow." But years of drought followed, and homesteaders began washing out. The ruins of their farms are all over the Plains, ranging from abandoned dugout hovels to derelict three-story houses that are home to nothing but bats and owls.

"Agriculture around here is changing so fast you won't even recognize it in 10 years," said game warden Meirs as he sat in his truck listening to the wind whistle down Buffalo's main street. "The cattle and sheep are going by the wayside."

Buffalo Commons, it seems, is destined to occur - no matter what it's called, no matter who loves or hates it. But the forging of the Commons isn't a completely passive process.

True, the great federal investment envisioned by the Poppers didn't happen, nor is that likely. Given general public sentiment against extravagant government spending programs, it's inconceivable that Congress would loosen up the purse strings to fund the purchase of tens of millions of acres of bankrupt rangeland.

Instead, Buffalo Commons is becoming a private enterprise. And leading the movement is media mogul Ted Turner, who appears to have made the North American bison his private totem. Turner owns about 1.7 million acres divided among several ranches scattered across the Plains, and that figure is growing.

"I heard tell that Ted Turner wants to be able to ride all the way from Canada to Mexico on his own land," drawled one Nebraska rancher. "And the way he's going, it isn't going to be too long before he can do that." Turner looks for a certain kind of property: One that's in grass rather than croplands, with natural contours intact. He wants good biodiversity - country that supports substantial populations of wildlife of numerous species. And when he buys properties, he more or less follows the same formula: Tear out all the cross fencing and replant pastures with bunchgrasses and other native vegetation. Bring in the buffalo.

Turner believes that ranching can be profitable on the Plains - but not necessarily by raising cattle. He's promoting the sale of buffalo breeding stock and meat, luxury big game and bird hunts and ecotourism tours as the economic saviors of the region.

Unlike many celebrity landowners, Turner isn't gate-happy, and doesn't seem to mind rubberneckers as long as they don't stop to shoot his buffalo. And there are plenty of buffalo to see. Under a sky crowded with lowering gray cumulus, a couple of hundred of the shaggy beasts grazed near a roadside. About a mile away, on the same vast tract of rolling prairie, a similar number fed.

A Lakota hunter could have witnessed precisely this scene in this same place 150 years ago.

And buffalo aren't the only animals thriving on Turner's property. Big coveys of sharp-tailed grouse fly unhurriedly out of the way at the approach of a truck. White-tailed deer bolt from every coulee. Stop to watch scores of blue-winged teal bank and swoop around a pothole, and you catch the eerie, wild yapping of two coyotes singing in antiphony in the distance. Although he is operating on the most ambitious scale, Turner is by no means the only New Age buffalo rancher on the Plains. Many of Turner's compeers don't necessarily share his wildlife habitat goals. But the wildlife is nevertheless reaping the benefits of their bison husbandry.

Kirk Budd, the proprietor of Freshwater Ranch in Nebraska's Sand Hills, has lived the quintessential hardscrabble Plains life. He raised cattle until "they just about starved me out." He was a bush pilot in Canada for years, and was a crop duster until a pesticide accident almost killed him. Things, in short, were looking pretty grim for Budd. He was in danger of busting out, losing his ranch.


Then a few years ago, he bought some buffalo.

"They were cheap then," recalled Budd, crawling out from under an airplane he was repairing at his ranch. "About $400 for a cow. So I figured what the heck." Budd gradually expanded his herd, keeping the heifer calves, selling the bulls. He now owns several hundred buffalo on three ranches totaling 11,000 acres. Many are verging on coal black, and all are huge - much darker and far larger than Turner's brown-and-russet buffalo. His bred heifers sell for about $4,000.

Although Budd doesn't believe bison will utterly supplant cattle on the Plains, he feels buffalo ranching will continue to grow. "The National Buffalo Association says the country's herds are growing at 12 percent a year, but I know it's more than that. I know a lot of people in this business, and everyone is keeping all their heifers. I figure the real figure is more like 40 percent a year."

And compared with cattle, buffalo have been good to his land, Budd notes. Cattle like to wallow in water, tearing up creeks and ponds and trampling vegetation. But buffalo associate water with predators. They all go down at once to drink, then get out right away to higher ground. The creeks stay vegetated, and the water stays clean.

Indeed, the Freshwater Ranch looks markedly different from neighboring properties where cattle are grazed. The forage is in better condition, and the streams and ponds are far more vegetated. A creek that runs by the ranch house looks like prime trout water, and Budd confirms it is full of
large brown trout.

And the ranch burgeons with wildlife. "A lot of critters like being with buffalo," Budd said. "They evolved with them. Deer, elk, antelope, wild turkeys. We even have bighorn sheep on one of our ranches. You can ranch buffalo, maybe even tame some you raise from a bottle. But they're basically wildlife. And you can see that reflected in the condition of the range on any ranch where they're raised."

As bullish as he is on buffalo, Budd doesn't think much of Buffalo Commons. "That will never, never fly out here," he said. "As soon as you start talking big government involvement, people resist. Also, a lot of this land is still irrigated, particularly to the east of the Sand Hills. It's growing soybeans, wheat, corn and alfalfa. "As a general policy, I don't think you should take all that food land out of production for a wildlife park. That's just not good for the nation."

While Plains farmers resist government intervention, they do understand - and appreciate - government subsidies. Federal payouts have been part of America's ranching and farming culture for decades, and although they have diminished in recent years, they're still relied on to make ends meet. Since the mid-1980s, many of those subsidies have been paid to cattle ranchers to conserve wildlife habitat on their lands. In the Dakotas, almost 500,000 acres of upland and wetland habitat have been preserved under these conservation reserve programs, benefiting a variety of species, but particularly migratory waterfowl.

The coteau region - a vast, hilly stretch of glacially carved potholes and ponds in the Dakotas, eastern Montana, Saskatchewan and Alberta - is a duck factory, explained Scott McCleod, a biologist with the northern Plains regional office of Ducks Unlimited in Bismarck. Ducks Unlimited is a conservation organization composed of primarily hunters that preserve wetlands and grasslands prairie. So far, it has saved 8 million acres of habitat essential to waterfowl in the United States and Canada.

"Sixty to 70 percent of the continent's major duck species breed in the prairie pothole region," McCleod said. "During the winter and spring migrations, the potholes serve as critical resting and staging areas for the birds."

The historic temptation for farmers, McLeod said, has been to drain the potholes to increase tillable acreage and plow the grass for relatively profitable crops like wheat, corn and sunflowers. "That's why we like to work with cattle ranchers rather than farmers," said McCleod. "Ranchers are
interested in the same thing we are - preserving the grasslands."

The restoration under way is not necessarily a process that will proceed smoothly and steadily. Federal funds for conservation reserve programs could dry up; a prolonged recession could make the buying of megaranches by conservation-minded billionaires like Turner a thing of the past. But nothing, it seems, will change the bedrock reality of the western Plains: They are not well-suited for agriculture or year-round human habitation.

Native Americans knew how to live on them - by passing through, by following the buffalo that peregrinated from horizon to horizon. The record of permanent settlement on the Plains, on the other hand, has been dismal. One way or another, the Plains will devolve to their earlier condition: To a sea of grass, where people are the transient visitors, wildlife the enduring residents.

Bison are generally considered the emblematic animal of the Great Plains, and reintroduction efforts for the shaggy beasts are almost universally popular. But there's another keystone Plains species essential to grasslands restoration - and it's not nearly as esteemed as the buffalo. Prairie dogs were once the most common mammal in North America. In the late 19th century, about five billion prairie dogs of five species inhabited the Plains from Canada to Mexico. The vast majority were black-tailed prairie dogs, a stocky, buff-colored rodent that weighs between two to three pounds. Their vast towns comprised complete ecologies in their own right: One in Texas measured 100 miles wide, 250 miles long and contained an estimated 400 million dogs.

Prairie dogs shaped the Plains as much as the buffalo, and a considerable array of wild species depended on the rodents for shelter and food. The prairie dogs' various diggings provide
shelter for a great many animals: badgers, foxes, burrowing owls and a tremendous variety of reptiles, amphibians and insects.

The huge quantity of feces and urine produced by the dog towns was a gigantic fertilizing mechanism for the Plains. Today, prairie dogs only inhabit about 1 percent of their former range; the black-tailed prairie dog is a candidate for protection under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Their decline began shortly after cattlemen moved to the Plains. Seen as competitors with cattle for forage, the dogs were poisoned and shot out.

A coalition of environmentalists is agitating for a return of the dog. "Prairie dogs are decreasing in numbers across their range," said Jonathan Proctor, a program associate with the Predator Coalition Alliance in Bozeman, Mont. Proctor's group was able to secure a temporary ban on poisoning on federal lands through a petition to list black-tailed prairie dogs under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

But the dogs are still shot in large numbers, often for sport. Such activities are widely condoned by ranchers. "There's no shortage of prairie dogs," said South Dakota rancher Pat Clark, who said the animals compete with cattle for grass and endanger livestock with their burrows. "They're all over the place." But scattered families of prairie dogs are no indication of the general health of the five species, Proctor said. Despite the pressures facing prairie dogs, Proctor said he is guardedly optimistic about their future. Colorado recently banned sport hunting for black-tailed prairie dogs, and South Dakota and Montana are considering similar restrictions, said Proctor.

"Basically, they'll come back if we stop actively killing them," he said.



.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Prince Charles on Population & the Environment



Prince Charles has called for greater investments in family planning in order to slow the rate of global environmental destruction, even as he has hailed the success of family planning investments in many developing countries around the world.

Not too big a deal, right?

And yet Martin Beckford, The Daily Telegraph's "Religious Affairs Correspondent" seems to think it is:

[Prince Charles] said more needs to be done because of the “monumental” problems that face the environment as population numbers “rocket” and traditional societies become more consumerist. There needed to be more “honesty” about the fact the “cultural” pressures keep the global birth rate high.

The Prince also said the traditional religious views of the sanctity of life, which are often used to oppose the use of condoms and other contraceptives, must be balanced with the imperative to live within the limits of nature.

His comments, made in an important speech on Islam and the environment, will be seen as controversial within both the green lobby and some religious circles.

Although the heir to the throne is a long-standing champion of ecological causes and the benefits of faith, some believe that Western commentators do not have the right to tell residents of less wealthy nations that they should have fewer children or consume less in order to keep carbon emissions down. Many of the world’s great religions, meanwhile, oppose the widespread use of contraception.


Astute readers will notice that Martin Beckford does not quote a single person from any faith community anywhere in the world, nor does he quote anyone from "the green lobby".

Yes, that's right, he quotes no one.

Zero. Nada. Empty Set.

This is a reporter???

Nope. Not in my book.

Here are the facts:

  1. Examples of dramatic fertility decline exist on every continent around the world, regardless of faith or culture.

  2. Roman Catholic countries have the lowest fertility rates in the world. Italy has one of lowest Total Fertility Rates in the world and has had legal abortion since 1978.

  3. Iran, the center of Shia Islam, has a Total Fertility Rate below replacement, and lower than that of the United States. The local condom factories are endorsed by the Imams.

  4. Fertility declines in Asia and Latin America have been jaw-dropping, from China, Chile, Brazil, Japan and Korea (below replacement TFR) to Indonesia, Vietnam, Mexico and Argentina (within striking distance of achieving replacement-level TFR).



In fact, the most important determinant of family planning is not religion, but mandatory public school enrollment combined with expressed and active support of family planning programs by local and national government officials, and widespread access to a full array of modern, low-cost, contraceptive methods.

The good news, as the graph below suggests, is that the world has moved beyond contrived controversy about the population and environment connection.

In a world where forest is falling to field, and field is falling to freeway, the world has come to see family planning as a gift that keeps on giving,

That is as true in South Africa as it is in Spain, as true in China as it is in El Salvador. Too bad The Daily Telegraph did not send a real reporter to spread the news.



.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

When Population Growth Comes Homes to Roost

.

Today is Earthday, and it also happens to be that time of year when more than 250 species of neotropical migratory birds are now flying north to spend the Spring and Summer in North America.

Beginning in the early 1970s, scientists began to notice that many of these bird species seemed to be in decline

What was going on?

Scientists have concluded that the decline of neotropical migratory song birds in the United States is closely linked to four issues, which in turn are closely linked to human population growth and habitat destruction.


  1. Tropical Forest Destruction
    The population of Latin America and the Caribbean has doubled in the last 35 years, and with it has come unprecedented destruction of tropical rainforests. As populations have exploded, more landless peasants have colonized forest areas and cleared vegetation, with slash-and-burn cycles becoming progressively shorter. At the same time, logging over wide areas, and the rapid expansion of commercial farming, has accelerated the disappearance of forests and fueled the rapid destruction of once-lush bird habitat. In the Peten region of Guatemala, for example, 77 percent of the land was covered in dense forest in 1960. By 1990, that number had fallen to just 29 percent.

  2. Pesticide Use Overseas
    Neotropical migratory birds are being killed by the heavy use of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides, which are used to boost crop productivity to feed increasing numbers of people in the developing world. In some cases, birds are poisoned outright by chemical application, or by consuming grain and insects that have been sprayed. In other cases, the pesticides accumulate and concentrate within the birds, resulting in deformed chicks or eggshells that are so thin they break before hatching.

  3. Suburban Sprawl and Forest Fragmentation
    As the population of the United States has grown from 76 million in 1900 to over 300 million today, cities and suburbs have sprawled outward. Fairfax, Virginia, for example, a suburb of Washington, D.C., saw 69 percent of its forest converted to homes and businesses between 1980 and 1995. As human populations have risen, and forests have fallen, primary predators such as wolves, bobcats, and cougars have been wiped out, while the ecological niche of meso-predators such as raccoons, possums and foxes has expanded. The result has been massive predation of Neotropical songbirds, which tend to nest in the open and near the ground rather than in tree cavities or higher up in the forest canopy. Along with suburban sprawl has come fragmentation of once unbroken tracts of wild woods. America’s national forest system now contains over 383,000 miles of logging roads — a distance eight times longer than the interstate highway system. With forest fragmentation has come an invasion of native and non-native birds that compete with deep-forest species for food and nesting sites. One example is the brown-headed cowbird. Cowbirds were once confined to the forest edges of mid-western prairies where they fed in grasslands grazed by roaming bison. Today, however, because of widespread forest fragmentation, parasitic cowbirds can be found all across the United States. A single cowbird may lay as many as 20 eggs in a breeding season — one or two eggs per songbird nest. Because Neotropical migrants tend to build open cup-shaped nests, and raise only a single brood a year, they are particularly susceptible to cowbird parasitism.

  4. Intensive U.S. Farming Practices
    As American farmers make increasingly intensive use of their lands, bird populations suffer. Post-to-post cultivation has wiped out hedgerow thickets where many songbirds used to nest, while many farmers now cut hay three times a year where they used to cut just once. The result is that hedgerow and ground-nesting birds like the northern bobwhite, the eastern meadowlark, the vesper sparrow, and the grasshopper sparrow are in rapid decline.

As bad as things are now, they are likely to get worse in the years ahead. The reason: massive immigration, both legal and illegal, which is expected to drive the population of the United States from 300 million to over 500 million by 2050.

This is a repost from April 2004 of a piece written in 2002.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Bill Gates on Energy for Everyone ... Forever




Bill Gates talks about the need to transition to the Next Energy Economy, and he explains why we need it to lower Co2 to prevent global warming, to maintain our own way of life, and to improve the lives of less fortunate people in the developing world.

Here's the good news: It's doable.

As Gates notes, "a molecule of uranium has a million times more energy than a molecule of coal" and we know (in theory) how to power reactors using uranium-235 found in natural uranium.

By building "Terrapower" nuclear reactors, and fueling them with the nuclear waste (depleted uranium) that is in storage right now, we could take care of our energy needs for the next millennium or more.

Depleted waste uranium now housed in steel cylinders at the Paducah Kentucky Gaseous Diffusion Plant could supply America's current energy needs for 200 years -- and that's just one nuclear waste dump!

In other news, the Obama Administration has announced $8 billion in new federal loan guarantees to build two nuclear reactors in Georgia -- the first new nuclear reactors built in this country in more than 30 years. Right now, about 20 percent of all U.S. electrical needs are supplied by nuclear power. The Obama Administration's budget would triple – to $54.5 billion – loan guarantees available for new nuclear construction.
.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Wendell Berry's Pipe Dreams



Earlier this Spring, Wendell Berry, the poet, writer, cultural critic and farmer, spoke at George Washington University, about four blocks from my office. You can see a portion of his presentation in the video, above.

Berry has made a small name for himself as a professional mourner for rural America, and as a confirmed Luddite who embraces a kind of romantic pastoralism.

To his credit, Berry notes that there is a certain dissonance to his presence, and indeed his very existence.

"I flew up here, to tell you, among other things .... that if I was going to get here guilt free, I would have had to walk.

This is paradox we are all caught in, and it ought to give us an appropriate sense of complexity.

[pause] ... Seems to me that for 35 or 40 years, I have been flying about all over the country to tell people, in effect, that they ought be be staying home.

[pause] ... That's a hard nut to crack."


Of course, he does not even try to crack it. And why should he?

After all, his stock in trade is not solving the world's social and economic problems, but bemoaning the way things are even as he paints a gauzy and pastel-tinted picture of the way things used to be.

I am not trying to break Wendell Berry's rice bowl here. He is a very good writer. I just wonder whether Berry gets his groceries delivered from town as Thoreau did? I do not know, but I would not be too surprised. After all, it's much easier to talk about living a simple life than it is to actually get off the grid and live a fully self-sustaining existence without benefit of trans-continental (and even international) commerce.

I do know that Berry bemoans the fact that his little town of Port Royal has gone from 18 stores to just 3.

I sympathize. If making a rural living was so great, more people would be doing it.

Now, to be clear, I am not begrudging Berry his airline flights.

Nor am I begrudging him his suit (which he did not make) or his shoes (which he did not make).

What I am going to call Wendell Berry out on is something else: his use of a manual typewriter.

Now, I do not care how Berry writes. He can scrawl on the wall with a crayon if he wants. He is a very good writer, and however he wants to work is more than fine with me.

What I object to is Berry's idea that he is virtuous because he uses an old manual typewriter rather than a computer.

His reasoning? He says he does not want to use electricity for fear of giving support to coal mining, and:

"when somebody has used a computer to write work that is demonstrably better than Dante's, and when this better is demonstrably attributable to the use of a computer, then I will speak of a computer with a more respectful tone of voice,
though I still will not buy one."



Right. Got it. Don't bother Berry with the facts. He is a poet bent on rhetorical flourishes. He will do what he wants to -- which of course is his right.

That said, I would point out that Dante did not write with a typewriter.

Dante did not use a machine made of metal and plastic, assembled in a factory sweat shop.

Dante wrote with a quill pen on vellum that was skinned from sheep that were probably slaughtered less than 50 miles from where he lived.

Berry, on the other hand, has spent 40 years flying about the country telling us to not do what he does.

His books are printed on bleached pulp wood paper that is the very definition of modern industrialism.

In the video, seen above, the lights, the video recorder, and the microphone are all powered by electricity. So too was the loom that wove his suit, and the machine that sewed his shirt.

So too, might I add, is the computer on which you are reading this little missive, and upon which I type at this very minute.

Berry thinks he is more virtuous than you and I because he pounds away on a typewriter.

Could he be simply more ignorant?

You see, I have read Mr. Berry's work, and while it is very beautifully written, I think it would be greatly improved if it was leavened a little bit by something other than romantic philosophy. A few facts. A little data. Some history. Maybe a smattering of real-world economics.

For example, in the poem that Mr. Berry reads in the video above, he moans that "the forests are ruined and the fields are eroded and the streams polluted."

Now, I do not want to quibble, but if Mr. Berry did some research, he would know we have more forests in America today than we did 50 years ago, and we have less soil erosion, and we have cleaner rivers, streams and lakes.

It was not modern farmers that made the Dust Bowl, or modern loggers that clear-cut Appalachia.

In modern America, we have fewer sewer outfalls than we did 50 years ago, and a lot more secondary and tertiary water filtration systems.

Does Mr. Berry not know this?

There is nothing wrong with beautiful words, but at some point it all becomes a little too close to aromatherapy: a nice smell to have wafting through the room, but pretty far from the kind of medicine we really need if we are well and truly sick.

And Mr. Berry thinks we are a very sick nation.

I am not so sure. I will profess agnosticism on the point, and let his thesis stand.

Nor am I quibbling with all that Berry has to say -- far from it.

Mr. Berry decries the fact that the world is moving too fast.

I salute that notion. I believe it was Mahatma Ghandi who observed there is more to life than increasing its speed.

Mr. Berry says we need to cultivate community and personal relationships more.

I do not disagree. One does not need to send money around the globe to engage in charity or good works.

Mr. Berry decries the decline of rural agriculture, and celebrates a return to the kind of rustic agricultural life that existed 50, 70 or even 100 years ago.

It is here where Mr. Berry and I part company.

You see, we no longer live in an age of schooners and candles. When Mr. Berry was born, in 1934, the population of the world was 2 billion. Today, the population of the world is 6.8 billion.

When Mr. Berry was born, the population of the U.S was 122 million. Today it is 310 million and growing rapidly.

Just as Mr. Berry cannot afford to come to Washington, D.C. by walking, so too can the nation no longer afford to plow its fields with horses.


The complete history of the world in 15 seconds.



As for electricity, I am not sure what Mr. Berry is afraid of. Surely he knows he does not need to make his electricity from coal? We have solar cells, windmills, generators that run on home-brewed bio-diesel, min-hydro sets powered by small streams, methane converters, and bicycle-powered generators, all commercially available off-the-rack, and easier to find than a typewriter repair shop.

You mean to tell me that in reading all of those copies of Mother Earth News, Wendell Berry never figured out how to make electricity without an electrical cord plugged into a coal-fired utility grid? Then he sure wasn't trying too hard!

But let's come back to that computer.

You seem, I am not pro-computer, I am anti-ignorance. I am pro-substance.

I do not mind poetic words, but they should be wrapped around something more than a vague yearning for a simpler time, and a beautiful whine that the world is not as it once was.

Yes, the world has real problems. It always has. Sadly, Mr. Berry (like Henry David Thoreau before him) does not seem to have real answers.

Take the issue of population growth.

Bill McKibben, who introduces Berry in the short video clip, above, wrote a book called Maybe Just One.

McKibben gets it: the natural world is not committing suicide, we are killing it.

And we are not killing the natural world because we are malevolent: we are killing it because there are too damn many of us.

So what does Wendell Berry have to say about human population growth?

Not a thing so far as I can see.

Well, that's not quite true is it? No, instead, he gives us more poetry and failed philosophy.

He tells us that there used to be a "natural" method of family planning called abstinence and self-restraint.

Really? Fascinating. You see, I am a demographer by training, and what I know for a fact is that the "natural" method of population growth has never been abstinence and self-restraint -- it has been fantastic and depressing rates of childhood mortality. That is how we really controlled population from the dawn of time until very recently. Surely Mr. Berry knows this?

And, at the risk of being being seen as mean-spirited, let me note that Mr. Berry's own family does not seem to have practiced too much "self-restraint" at the time of his birth. You see, Mr. Berry is the first of four children.

Four children!

Four children is a higher fertility rate than that of Zimbabwe, the Philippines, Burundi, Cambodia, South Africa, Honduras, India, Nicaragua, Mexico, Syria, Iran, Bangladesh, China, or Indonesia today.

What would the world be like if everyone had four children, and human population doubled every 25 years ad infinitum?

If we only keep score from the year of Mr Berry's birth, we would have nearly 16 billion people on earth today, rather than 6.8 billion.

The simple truth is that there is no amount of simple living that Mr. Berry can do to save the amount of resources that might have been saved if his parents had stopped at just one or two.

Which is not to say I am blaming Mr. Berry for his parent's inability to practice self-restraint.

I am simply pointing out that population and family planning choices matter a lot more than whether you grow a few organic tomatoes in your back yard.

Of course, when it comes to farming, things get really interesting with Mr. Berry and his own rural economy.

You see, Mr. Berry has become a kind of touchstone for the "eat local and eat organic" crowd.

Having read Michael Pollan, they see exported corn and soybeans as evil, and the local farmer's markets (if one can be found that is actually selling locally-grown produce rather than repackaged stuff from Florida and California) as nirvana.

The little joker buried in the deck here, however is that Mr. Berry's own farm is not a vegetable farm.

Mr. Berry's farm grows corn (that evil weed) and other grains, as well as tobacco (cough, cough).

In fact, tobacco has been the touchstone of the Berry household -- the cash crop that made everything else work, not only on his farm, but in his larger farming community which he now so eloquently bemoans the decline of.

Why did Berry and his neighbors grow tobacco? Simple: You could make a lot of money by plowing just a few acres of poor soil.

Never mind that tobacco bled the land white.

Never mind that tobacco killed 400,000 to 500,000 Americans a year -- more Americans than alcohol, AIDS, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined.

And how come the Berry farm no longer grows tobacco today?

It is not because Berry "got religion." Wendell Berry himself explains his home-farm economics:

This is tobacco country. We've lost two-thirds of the allotment in the last few years, courtesy of the global economy. Not the anti-smoking people. This is traditionally a mixed farming country. Tobacco was the staple crop, but we also grew corn and small grains. The small grains were grown as cover crops on the tobacco and corn ground.... Tobacco acreages have declined here because the companies can fill their needs more cheaply elsewhere. The other products we grow are thrown into the world market to compete as best they can. With the help of subsidies, of course. In Kentucky we have always raised for export. One of this state's problems is that it hasn't added value to its agricultural products. I would say we are adding less now than ever. Louisville used to have two or three packing plants, for instance, and a stockyard. But no more. Most of the things that are produced in this state are shipped out, to have the value added elsewhere.


Right.

Berry's complaint is that foreign tobacco is killing Americans, not American tobacco.

He does not voice an objection to tobacco deaths, or the $96 billion a year we spend on smoking-related health care costs. He objects to the fact now we import death rather than grown it in local fields.

Wendell Berry's daughter, Mary Smith-Berry, is also a farmer, living just up the road from her father. In an interview she explains the economics of her region, and her creative solution for the modern era. As the article notes:

The land in Kentucky is rolling - beautiful, but much of it marginal for agriculture. For many generations, farmers relied on tobacco as their cash crop.

"Tobacco, for all its other problems, was a decent crop for a family to raise and make a fair price," Smith said. But the federal tobacco buyout program of 2005, which ended years of subsidies, made growing tobacco unprofitable for many.

Smith said the buyout had unintended consequences. Although tobacco had rarely been the only crop on a Kentucky farm, without the tobacco base, it is hard to keep farms as farms. The farm across from the Smiths' has been subdivided, and more neighboring land might be.....

.... Then, on a trip to California, Chuck Smith happened to ask a vineyard and winery owner how many acres of grapes he had. He was expecting to hear 300 to 400 acres; the answer was eight.

"Chuck said to me, 'That's tobacco,'" Smith said. "It's a way to make a living on a small area of crop."

So the couple is now proprietor of Smith-Berry Vineyard and Winery, which is open to the public five days a week.


I am glad Mary Smith-Berry and her husband have found a way to make a living on their farm courtesy of Internet-driven tourism.

Boutique wineries with musical groups to draw in the crowds are a thriving small-farm business in the hill country of my own native Virginia as well.

But let's not kid ourselves that this is "essential" agriculture any more than tobacco was, or marijuana is.

This is entertainment agriculture for well-heeled yuppies who burn thousands of gallons of gasoline driving out to sit on the grass listening to music at weekend wine tastings.

This is a nicety for rich people, not a necessity for our tables.

Tobacco, booze and marijuana have never made us stronger as a nation -- they have made us stupider, sicker, and less productive.

They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You want to know the solution?

Less ignorance and more knowledge.

And you know the cheapest way to get that?

Buy a computer, plug it in, and Google away. You can even read, listen to, or watch a little Wendell Berry if you want!


Monday, July 20, 2009

Population Growth & the Limits of Accommodation

I have, at various times in my life, been a ghost -- the hand inside the sock puppet, the idea and knowledge and voice behind the person with good hair who reads the lines in a speech and gets promoted up the chain of command for giving it.

There are no complaints here, so long as the check clears.

That said, sometimes, long after a speech has been given and no one can quite remember who gave it, I like to dust off a piece and trot it out for the ideas that are in it.

The speech, below, was given to Western land managers in Wisconsin some 5 or 6 years back by someone I will not mention, and it details the complex relationship between U.S. population growth, regulation, and the environment.

I post it here simply to illuminate the rather complex relationships that exists between population growth, economic growth, regulation, and agricultural policy.


The Limits of Accommodation


It's great to be here in Wisconsin, the home state of Aldo Leopold.

It is a true honor to be a stand-in for Senator Gaylord Nelson, the Father of Earth Day.

Senator Nelson was originally asked to speak about the environmental consequences of U.S. population growth for the American west.

I am going to speak on the same topic - a topic too often given short shrift in the environmental movement, but one that remains a core environmental issue.

My comments about population and the environment follow a pretty simple structure -- I am going to talk about where we have been, where we are, and where we are going.

I am not going to give you answers - I am going to give you scenarios and choices and ask you to think about those choices.

Good people can -- and will -- choose different futures for America and for the west.

That is perfectly fine. I am not interested in the choice so much as the process. I want the process to be thought through. I want the issues to be hashed out and mulled over.

And above all, I want the answers to come from the American people - not politicians in Washington or stock traders on Wall Street.

As Wood Guthrie said so well, "this land is your land."

First, let me talk about where we have been.

Well, we've been on Earth.

I make this point not to be flip, but to say that the story of U.S. population growth closely parallels that of world population growth --- at least through the first half of the 20th Century.

Between 1930 and today, world population tripled from 2 billion to 6 billion people.

This is a phenomenal rate of population growth, and it has shaped every thing on this planet, from coastlines to mountaintops, from the jungles of the Amazon to the pack ice of the Arctic.

During the same period of time, the population of the U.S. also grew by leaps and bounds, soaring from 122 million people in 1930 to over 285 million today -- not quite a tripling, but far more than a mere doubling.

Between 1935 and 1965, the U.S. and the world shared a similar population and environment story.

As human populations burgeoned, massive amounts of toxins - from raw sewage to pesticides - were washed into fresh water streams and rivers.

Overgrazing of marginal lands resulted in rapid erosion and desertification on all continents.

Over-fishing, pollution, and coastal development resulted in the systematic depletion of fish stocks and the destruction of reef systems.

New roads were ripped into once pristine areas - from jungles to mountaintops.

As more and more humans spread into new areas of the world, once-natural eco-systems were transformed into human-focused profit centers.

This is the population-environment history of the world, and for a long time it was the history of the United States as well.

Beginning about 1965, however, something interesting began to happen -- the environmental history of the U.S. began to diverge from that of much of the rest of the world.

While population growth continued apace, both in the U.S. and the world, the environmental consequences of population growth seemed to slow here in the U.S.

In the last 30 years our water has actually gotten cleaner

Our air has gotten better.

Much of our most depleted wildlife stock actually recovered.

We have more forest in the U.S. today than we did in 1930.

How is this possible?

The short answer is law, government and urbanization -- the stuff too many pure population pundits never talk about.

In 1911, Congress passed the Weeks Act which resulted in the federal government buying back millions of acres of denuded mountain tops that had been ripped and robbed by timber and coal mining interests. This land is the backbone of the National Forest system we have in the Eastern U.S. today.

At the same time, large-scale farm mechanization and the railroads made marginal farmlands in the eastern U.S. less profitable. Millions of cleared acres were allowed to return to forest.

Even as forests began to regrow back East, a new environmental awareness began to take hold in the U.S.

Led by people like Senator Gaylord Nelson, the nascent environmental ethic that had begun with Teddy Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold, began to take off. By Earth Day 1970, environmentalism had become a mainstream political force - a widely shared common value uniting us across race, religion, political party, class, and geography.

This was a marvelous thing, and marvelous things came out of it. Thanks to the growth of the American environmental movement, new laws were implemented, including the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.

The result was that our air and our water actually got cleaner.

The same divergence that was occurring in terms of forests and clean water and clean air also began to happen with wildlife.

Commercial hunting of wildlife was banned at the turn of the century and, with the passage of the Lacey Act, wildlife hammered to the edge of existence began to slowly recover.

This recovery process was greatly accelerated with the passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973, and with the rise of a professionally-trained corps of science-based land, water and wildlife managers.

The result of new law and good government was extraordinary: things began to turn around.

And what is more remarkable - or perhaps most remarkable - is that things began to turn around even though the population of the U.S. grew by leaps and bounds.

Consider this: Between 1970 and 2000 we added 100 million people to the population of the United States.

This is a LOT of people. One hundred million people is a population greater than ALL of the current populations of California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, Montana, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota and Wisconsin COMBINED.

It is an extraordinary testament to America's environmental ethic and good government that between 1970 and 2000 we added 100 million people to the population of the U.S. and the water got cleaner ... and the air got cleaner.

Today we have more forests in the U.S. than we did in 1900 or 1930 or even 1970.

Today we have more protected land in the U.S. than we did in 1900, or 1930, or even in 1980.

Whale watching is a growth industry.

Today it is hard to imagine that populations of Canadian geese, whitetail deer, and beaver were once in critical danger. Today the issue for these creatures is control, not protection.

Wild turkey have rebounded too. Today there are more wild turkey in the U.S. than there were when Columbus landed.

The American Bison - almost extinct 100 years ago - is now so abundant the federal government will spend $10 million this year to manage down their numbers.

Elk populations have rebounded nicely too. A small elk herd was recently reintroduced into Kentucky -- where they were last seen in 1850.

Elk are not the only thing showing up in old haunts. Red wolves are back in North Carolina. And in Minnesota there are now over 2,500 gray wolves -- twice the target number the Fish and Wildlife Service hoped to achieve for that state when wolves were first protected back in the 1970s.

The alligator story today is not that they are endangered, but that they are eating the poodles of the retirees in South Florida.

The Bald Eagle may soon be off the endangered species list. The Peregrine Falcon already is.

Blue bird houses have helped restore the eastern blue bird. Wood duck nest boxes have brought back the wood duck.

All of this is great news. And it is great news that occurred despite the fact that we added 100 million people to the population of the U.S. in the last 30 years.

* * * * *



Please don't misunderstand me. I am NOT saying everything is fine with the environment.

We still have very serious environmental problems in the U.S. These include:

  • Phenomenal - even alarming -- wetlands loss across the U.S.

  • A coastal fisheries stock decimated by overfishing.

  • Massive crown fires in our forests out West due to 40 years of Smokey-the-bear fire suppression that wreaked havoc on the natural fire cycles.

  • Migrant bird species in decline over vast portions of the U.S.

  • Many wildlife species are still teetering on the edge - the condor, the ocelot, the lynx, and the grizzly bear - to name just a few.


Having said that, the BIG environmental story of the last 30 years is that we have made a HUGE amount of progress right here at home thanks to the rise of environmental regulation and consciousness-raising over the last 30 or 40 years.

I am very proud to say Audubon was part of that effort - an effort you folks were instrumental in making happen as well.

I am amazed it was possible despite the addition of 100 million more people in the United States.

Population growth did not HELP the situation, but the fact that progress was made DESPITE rapid population growth is a remarkable story.

* * * * *



So that is where we have been.

Now let me tell you where we are.

Right now, in terms of population size, the U.S. is the third largest country in the world -- behind only China and India.

The U.S. has the fastest population growth rate of any industrialized country in the world. No country in Europe has a population growth rate as fast as the U.S., and neither does Japan or Canada or East Asia.

Right now, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, about half of all U.S. population growth is due to immigration from overseas, and about half is due to native-born Baby Boomers moving to complete their own families.

Taken as a whole, the population growth rate of the U.S. is 1.1 percent. This may not sound like much - but it means our current population is on a trajectory to double in about 60 years.

To put it another way, our population growth rate right now is faster than that of China or Argentina, and it is about 10 times faster than the population growth rate of Western Europe.

Right now, we are adding about 3 million people a year to the population of the U.S. To put it another way, in terms of population growth, we are adding the population of Iowa every year.

Of course, U.S. population growth is not uniformly distributed.

Out West - where water is scarce and our last pristine wild lands can be found -- we find population growth rates that are truly sobering.

Nevada's population growth rate is now more than 4.3 percent a year - a population growth far faster than that found anywhere in the less-developed world . . . Faster than that of any country in Africa . . . Faster than that of any country in Asia . . . . Faster than that of any country in Latin America.

And Nevada is desert country.

So too is Arizona, which has an annual population growth rate of 2.8 percent -- the same as Pakistan's . . . the same as Tanzania's . . . the same as Honduras.

Colorado's population growth rate is 2.3 percent per year - a rate of population growth equal to that of Ghana and El Salvador . . . and faster than that of the Philippines.

Texas has an annual population growth of 1.89 percent per year - about equal to that of Mexico, and faster than that of Lebanon or Indonesia.

Of course, the U.S. is not a Third World country - we can pipe water in from vast distances, we can invest in low-flow shower heads and toilets, we can put in drip irrigation systems.

And - if push comes to shove - we can ban golf courses, swimming pools, and grassy front lawns.

In many communities and in many states these measures are already beginning to be put into place as communities find that local population growth has overshot the ability of the region to supply people, business and agriculture with all of their competing water needs.

Water is only part of the problem, of course.

As we were recently reminded with the energy crisis in California and the controversy over drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge -- and in every twist and turn of Middle East politics -- the U.S. is an oil-importing nation.

The good news is that conservation has done great things in the U.S. in the last 30 years. Our refrigerators, air conditioners and home heating systems are far more efficient that they were just 30 years ago. Our cars get twice as many miles per gallon as they used to.

That's the good news.

The bad news is that U.S. population growth has entirely negated these oil-conservation measures.

Remember those 100 million people that we added to the population of the U.S. between 1970 and 2000?

Those 100 million people are equal to ALL of the population of California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho ... ALL the states west of the Mississippi River COMBINED.

Now think about this: ALL of the cars driven in those states - and all of the homes heated and cooled in those states - represent the oil draw down of just 30 years of U.S. population growth.

Everything the current population of the U.S. west of the Mississippi River consumes, pollutes and builds -- now and into the future and forever - is equal to just the last 30 years of U.S. population growth.

The resource consumption and environmental damage caused by the population growth of the last 30 years is not a one-lifetime phenomenon. It will last for the lifetime of the kids and the grandkids of these 100 million new people. The human impact will NEVER stop. And the impact is huge - it is all of the land, water and resource use of the entire population of the U.S. now living west of the Mississippi River.

* * * * *



So that is where we are.

Now, let me talk about where we are going.

The first point I want to make is that we are going to have more population growth.

The question ahead - at least for the next 50 years or so - is not whether we are going to have population growth, but how much of it there is going to be.

The U.S. Census Bureau puts out three scenarios for the year 2050. The high and the low are outer-boundary possibilities, and the middle scenario is the "least likely to be wildly off the mark."

The Census Bureau's LOW scenario is that over the next 50 years the U.S. will add 35 million people -- or a population equal to that of all of California today. To do that, will require an 80 percent cut in net immigration to the U.S. and a pretty steep drop in the U.S. birth rates.

The Census Bureau's MIDDLE scenario for 2050 is that we will add 125 million people to the population of the U.S. in the next 50 years - a population greater than the entire population of the U.S. west of Mississippi River today. For this to occur, we would have to hold immigration at current rates, and keep birth rates from rising any further.

The Census Bureau's HIGH scenario for 2050 is that the population of the U.S. will nearly double. For this to occur, immigration would have to be allowed to double and then triple (what it has done in the last 50 years) and U.S. fertility rates would have to rise to the levels they were in 1967.

Obviously, adding 270 million new Americans to our population would have global resource implications, not just national, as we are the third largest nation in the world in terms of population and far-and-away the heaviest users of natural resources.

The Census Bureau's middle-series projection is probably closest to what we can expect.

It's basically a status-quo projection, and it would result in the addition of 125 million more people to the population of the U.S. over the next 50 years.

Let me remind you how many people 125 million people is. That's a population equal to ALL of the current population of California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, Montana, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota and Wisconsin COMBINED ... plus the populations of Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Mississippi thrown in for good measure.

* * * * *



OK, those are the numbers.

Now, here's a question: Can the U.S. handle the addition of this many people?


Of course it can!

The U.S. can handle 40 million more people.

It can handle 125 million more people.

It can handle 270 million more people.

The question is not whether the United States can handle this population growth -- but at what price.

What are the limits of accommodation?

You see, if we chose a population of 125 million or 200 million more people, other choices flow naturally from that choice.

As John Muir once observed, "if you pull on any one thing in nature, you will find it is connected to everything else." That is certainly true for population.

With the addition of 125 million more people, we may have to turn increasingly large sections of wild forest into tree farms devoid of most wildlife in order to meet our rapidly growing paper, pulp and wood needs.

With the addition of 125 million more people we may have to discourage sprawl by removing or limiting home-ownership tax incentives for those living outside of major urban beltways.

With the addition of 125 million more people - many of them in the arid West - we may have to ban swimming pools and golf courses and lawns . . . and mandate low-flow everything.

With the addition of 270 million more people, we may not be able to export food to the developing world.

I am not trying to be apocalyptic. I am trying to be honest.

If you chose one thing - continued rates of relatively rapid population growth - you may also be choosing something else as well.

* * * * *



Now, let me be a Devils' Advocate.

I started this talk by noting that we managed to accommodate the LAST 125 million people that we added to the U.S. population. While we lost our wetlands, mismanaged much of our western forests, and hammered our coastal fishing stocks, we also had some huge victories at the level of forest regrowth, clean water, clean air, wildlife reintroduction and wilderness protection.

Why can't we do that again?

Why can't we add ANOTHER 125 million people to the population of the U.S. and STILL have everything work out fine?

Perhaps we can.

In truth, no one knows.

In 20 years we may be flying around in solar-catalyst-enabled hydrogen-fueled cars.
In 20 years we may be growing twice as much food in half as much space.

In 20 years we may find a boundless clean-energy source that enables us to desalinate the ocean and pump it to Arizona for a fraction of a penny a gallon, enabling us to put golf courses and swimming pools in the desert without any perceivable harm to aquifers, streams or rivers.

I doubt that this will happen, but it COULD happen. Who knows?

Even if all that happens, however, I think we have questions to face because some things are NOT going to happen again.

We are not going to be able to make progress by enacting obvious legislative remedies like we did in the 1970s. Al of the "easy picking" stuff has been picked. We've already taken most of the slack out of the rope.

Nor are we going to be able to create more political muscle to pull that rope. We are not going to create a new environmental movement in the U.S. We already have a pretty big environmental movement in the U.S. right now -- so big, that Atlantic magazine notes that "everyone is an environmentalist now."

Let me tell you something else that is not going to happen: We're not going to get more wild western land.

Has anyone been to Yosemite or Zion National Park, or the Grand Canyon recently? God isn't making any more places like those. In Yosemite and Zion and the Grand Canyon we already have to park our cars and ride buses to see the natural wonders.

In National Parks and National Forests across the country we ALREADY have to reserve camping spots parks on line -- as if we were going to a rock concert.

What will it be like with 125 million more people?

How about birds? The birds in the Rocky Mountain west are in pretty good shape because there are still so many large blocks of unbroken forest. If we add 125 million more people to the U.S., however, we can expect to see increasing forest fragmentation due to roads, fires, and private developments. The relationship between forest fragmentation and bird loss is clear. If you fragment the forests you WILL have dramatic declines in many of the songbird species so many of us know and love. Is that OK? And what if some bird species - like the sage grouse - go extinct all together. Is that OK?

And how about fire? This is a hot topic right now - no pun intended. We're spending hundreds of millions of dollars right now to put out fires we might once have let burn. But we can't let them burn now, because there are million dollar homes up there on those timbered ridgelines. We have to suppress the fire to save the real estate. And the more real estate development there is, the more fire suppression we will have to do, and the bigger the fuels accumulation in the woods. Is that an expensive and unnatural cycle that we can live with? (Note: we can log, but the Federal Government LOSES a huge amount of money on logging every year. The more logging, the more money lost).

Anyone here hunt or fish?

Across vast sections of the American West the Mule Deer population is in rapid decline due to increased roading of once wild lands. At the same time our best trout and salmon streams are not only getting fished harder by more anglers, they are suffering from increased siltation due to more roads.

Anyone here believe that adding 125 million more people to the population of the U.S. will help either situation?

In fact, does anyone here believe that adding 100 or 200 million more people to the population of the U.S. will help improve ANY environmental issue we face today?

It's a Socratic question - a rhetorical question.

* * * * *



Now, you may have noticed I have not told you WHAT to think.

I have NOT told you that America will keel over with 100 million more people -- or even 200 million more people.

In fact, I think the PEOPLE will do fine.

I'm not so sure about the wildlife, however.

I'm not so sure about our last great wild places.

I have given you the Census Bureau's possible population scenarios - I have not made them up, I have only spelled them out.

I have NOT told you which one to pick ... only to think about the choices that each scenario may force us into -- as land managers, as environmentalists, as citizens, and as mother and fathers interested in passing on the essence of the American West to our children and grandchildren to come.

I have asked you, in short, to choose your future.

I do not live in the Western part of the U.S., and I am not going to tell you what choices to make. Different people have different values and may have different answers.

I would like to close with the words of Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer, one of the founders of the "EnLibris" platform that seeks to have the western states decide their own future for themselves.

Governor Geringer's writes in his guidebook on conserving Wyoming's open
lands:

"Today, the primary human impact on Western land has shifted from resource development to urban development and subdivisions that can reduce and fragment agricultural land and open spaces.

"Fragmented lands may cause progressive irreversible deterioration to the wildlife, natural resources, economic diversity and culture that define the West.

"Without the scenic views, agricultural land and wildlife habitat that open spaces provide, quality of life in Wyoming will decline.

"Rapid growth has created housing booms in the Rocky Mountain states,diminishing our neighbors' most fertile agricultural land, wildlife habitat and open lands. Strip malls destroy grain fields; housing subdivisions replace meadows. It's like paving the pastures of paradise ..."


* * * *



"It's like paving the pastures of paradise. "

I leave it to each and every one of you to decide if that is a good thing, or not.

43


.

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

From the web site of The Candies Foundation:


In June 2001, Candie’s launched The Candie’s Foundation, with the mission to educate America's youth about the devastating consequences of teenage pregnancy. The Foundation fuels a celebrity-driven public service announcement campaign that dramatically exposes the devastating consequences of teenage pregnancy, while educating and challenging America’s youth to make healthy decisions about sex.

From the front page of the same web site:


Bristol Palin has been named as an "ambassador" for The Candie's Foundation.


Right.

In other news, Captain Ahab will be heading Greenpeace's "Save the Whales campaign... Charles Manson will be leading the Family Values Coalition .... John Travolta will be heading the National Prayer Breakast... Rush Limbaugh will be heading Americans for a Drug-Free Tomorrow... and Michael Vick will be a spokesperson for PETA.

UPDATE: Bristol Palin says she is pushing what failed for her: abstinence. She says this is a "realistic" idea. Of course, there's two sides to every coin (fantasy and reality in this case) and "Baby Daddy" Levi Johnston says abstinence is unrealistic, and he really, really, really wishes he had worn two condoms that night with Bristol.
.
.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Will Swine Flu Be an Economic Tipping Point?



Pandemics have been with us for a long time, are ongoing, and have never gone away.

Anyone heard of malaria, HIV, cholera, or tuberculosis?

All are huge killers, with millions dying every year across the globe, and no one blinks.

Regular-old influenza is a seasonal pandemic we have already normalized.

Consider this: in the average year, 30,000 to 50,000 people die in the U.S. from the flu, and across the globe the death toll is about 20 to 30 times that.

Ho hum. Let us bury the dead, stay calm and carry on.

So what's new about the swine flu pandemic that has everyone aflutter?

Well for one thing, the speed of transmission is pretty darn impressive.

A hat tip to the airlines and mass transit which have helped make that possible.

Another issue is that this stuff may be pretty virulent. We don't have a good denominator to work with yet, so we're not sure, but there's some small sign this strain of flu might be a bit stronger than the stuff we normally see. That, combined with the speed of transmission, gives epidemiologists a reason to worry.

The good news is that we are not living in the world of 1918.

We have better communications, better monitoring abilities, and more health care interventions than we did back then.

The bad news is that today's flu is being spread much faster, and our vaccine-producing technologies are still very old-fashioned, very slow, and very labor-intensive.

The bottom line here is that there is no way to make enough vaccine to stop a pandemic once it begins to really roar down the track.

We will just have to ride it out.

Another bit of bad news is that our crowded world has become a particularly flu-friendly place, and we are likely to see more of this kind of thing in the future.

As a 2005 article entitled "Preparing for the Next Pandemic, put it:


It is sobering to realize that in 1968, when the most recent influenza pandemic occurred, the virus emerged in a China that had a human population of 790 million, a pig population of 5.2 million, and a poultry population of 12.3 million; today, these populations number 1.3 billion, 508 million, and 13 billion, respectively. Similar changes have occurred in the human and animal populations of other Asian countries, creating an incredible mixing vessel for viruses.

Another bad sign
is that the current flu epidemic appears to be striking a disproportionately high number of healthy people between the ages of 18 and 40 years, which suggests a virus-induced "cytokine storm" may be occurring inside today's swine flu victims.

In a cytokine storm, the human immune system is pushed over the edge, and an auto-immune "do-loop" leads to acute respiratory distress syndrome, and that can lead to the kind of death knell numbers we saw back in 1918. As Michael Osterholm noted back in 2005:

If we translate the rate of death associated with the 1918 influenza virus to that in the current population, there could be 1.7 million deaths in the United States and 180 million to 360 million deaths globally.

So should we all be freaking out?

  • No.


  • Yes.

Paradoxically, both answers can be true at the same time.


The chance of any one individual actually dying from swine flu, even under a worst-case scenario, is not very high.

That's the good news.

Relax.

The bad news is that a real pandemic could lead to schools and offices shutting down, restrictions on airplane travel, and a shuttering of subway and train lines.

Add to that economic catastrophe, a further drop in productivity due to people getting sick, and well people being forced to stop work in order to take care of family members who are sick, and the undertow of an economic vortex could be set in motion.

Panic!


What if the next pandemic were to start tonight? If it were determined that several cities in Vietnam had major outbreaks of H5N1 infection associated with high mortality, there would be a scramble to stop the virus from entering other countries by greatly reducing or even prohibiting foreign travel and trade. The global economy would come to a halt, and since we could not expect appropriate vaccines to be available for many months and we have very limited stockpiles of antiviral drugs, we would be facing a 1918-like scenario.

.... we could vaccinate fewer than 500 million people — approximately 14 percent of the world's population. And owing to our global "just-in-time delivery" economy, we would have no surge capacity for health care, food supplies, and many other products and services. For example, in the United States today, we have only 105,000 mechanical ventilators, 75,000 to 80,000 of which are in use at any given time for everyday medical care; during a garden-variety influenza season, more than 100,000 are required. In a pandemic, most patients with influenza who needed ventilation would not have access to it.

We have no detailed plans for staffing the temporary hospitals that would have to be set up in high-school gymnasiums and community centers — and that might need to remain in operation for one or two years. Health care workers would become ill and die at rates similar to, or even higher than, those in the general public. Judging by our experience with the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), some health care workers would not show up for duty. How would communities train and use volunteers? If the pandemic wave were spreading slowly enough, could immune survivors of an early wave, particularly health care workers, become the primary response corps?

Health care delivery systems and managed-care organizations have done little planning for such a scenario

Bottom line: An already weakened global economy could be pushed into a very serious free fall.

... Or not.

After all, as I noted at the beginning of this post, the world is being assailed by "pandemics" all the time, and yet we, as a species, continue to roll forward without too much of a hitch in our giddy up.

Death? That old thing?

Who cares about AIDS, or cholera, or malaria?

Let's talk about something interesting, like Mel Gibson's divorce.

Of course, that will change quickly if over-educated white people start dying by the train full. Then it really will be time to panic!

That said, I seriously doubt that swine flue will be the Last Waltz.

Let us remind ourselves, however, that unless we change the way we do business, there will be a Last Waltz some day, and disease will be part of that.

As Issac Asimov noted in a speech entitled "The Future of Humanity,"


"There is no need to decide whether to stop the population increase or not.

There is no need to decide whether the population will be lowered or not.

It will, it will!

The only thing mankind has to decide is whether to let it be done in the old inhumane method that nature has always used, or to invent a new humane method of our own [i.e. family planning and birth control].

That is the only choice that faces us; whether to lower the population catastrophically by a raised death rate, or to lower it humanely by a lowered birth rate.

And we all make the choice."

Right.

Or as I like to put it: "If we continue to breed like rats, then one day we are sure to die like flies."

In the interim, however, please pass the bacon.

.