Wednesday
Feb202008
Discussion on Population Growth and Climate Change Effects
Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 1:10PM
At the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Environmental Change and Security Program presentation on Population and Climate Change: Relationships, Research, and Responses, Brian O’Neill, Scientist and Director of the Population and Climate Change Program, said some examples of human impact on the environment are forests dwindling, fisheries collapsing, cropland shrinking, large water shortages, and global warming.
The United States, he said, is the world’s largest greenhouse emitter. However, the Population Reference Bureau 2007 World Population Data Sheet forecasts that Africa will grow by 107% by 2050. Lack of access to and use of family planning, he said, is an important cause of population growth in Africa and other areas of the world.
From health surveys, it seems that there is an unmet demand for contraceptive use. Unintended pregnancy, O’Neill said, is the factor in continued population growth that is "the most amenable to program and policy intervention." Worldwide, 80 million pregnancies (38% of all pregnancies) are unintended.
O’Neill said that the cost of inaction will be high, because if today’s birth rates remain unchanged, world population will grow from 6.7 billion to 11.9 billion by 2050, which would undermine efforts to preserve the natural environment.
Joseph Speidel, Adjunct Professor, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, said slowing population growth would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and although not noticeable immediately, by the middle of the century there would be significant results. Population-related policies can be considered "win-win" in respect to climate change, he said. With a lower population size, CO2 emissions would be lower as well.
Recent analysis of historical data, Speidel said, supports a "roughly proportional direct effect of population size on emissions." Scenarios of future emissions have not explicitly investigated the implications of slower population growth, but that preliminary work indicates that effects of aging and urbanization may significantly affect the outlook for future emissions. How much less costly, he asked, would long term climate change goals be if we could assume a lower population in the future?
The United States, he said, is the world’s largest greenhouse emitter. However, the Population Reference Bureau 2007 World Population Data Sheet forecasts that Africa will grow by 107% by 2050. Lack of access to and use of family planning, he said, is an important cause of population growth in Africa and other areas of the world.
From health surveys, it seems that there is an unmet demand for contraceptive use. Unintended pregnancy, O’Neill said, is the factor in continued population growth that is "the most amenable to program and policy intervention." Worldwide, 80 million pregnancies (38% of all pregnancies) are unintended.
O’Neill said that the cost of inaction will be high, because if today’s birth rates remain unchanged, world population will grow from 6.7 billion to 11.9 billion by 2050, which would undermine efforts to preserve the natural environment.
Joseph Speidel, Adjunct Professor, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, said slowing population growth would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and although not noticeable immediately, by the middle of the century there would be significant results. Population-related policies can be considered "win-win" in respect to climate change, he said. With a lower population size, CO2 emissions would be lower as well.
Recent analysis of historical data, Speidel said, supports a "roughly proportional direct effect of population size on emissions." Scenarios of future emissions have not explicitly investigated the implications of slower population growth, but that preliminary work indicates that effects of aging and urbanization may significantly affect the outlook for future emissions. How much less costly, he asked, would long term climate change goals be if we could assume a lower population in the future?
Vilsack Sets Out Top Priorities for USDA
In a conference call today, Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack set out the key areas the American people can expect the USDA to focus on, under the new Obama administration.
The top priorities he identified included promoting a sustainable, safe, sufficient and nutritious food supply for all Americans and people around the world. He further stated that combating childhood obesity, enhanced healthy nutrition, and supporting research in the health care debate would be a key focus. Vilsack also announced that the USDA will work on achieving Obama's target to eliminate child hunger by 2015.
Vilsack identified that another key area the USDA will be working on under the new administration would be research development in additional bio-fuels. The USDA will support the survival of the bio-fuel industry whilst promoting policies that will speed up the development of second and third generation feedstocks for these bio-fuels and in turn increase the potential to secure America's energy security and independence. He will lead the USDA in it's efforts to adopt management practices that promote and provide clean air, clean water and wildlife habitat. The USDA aim to support the profitability of farmers and ranchers, developing markets that reward them for carbon sequestration and eliminating greenhouse gases.
Vilsack concluded by stating that: "We have some serious challenges and many opportunities to pursue here at the USDA. I am looking forward to working with the dedicated employees of the USDA and all the departments to fulfill President Obama's desire of effecting change, promoting a stronger, more vibrant and more economically viable royal America".