Newsgroups: bit.listserv.xcult-l
Date:         Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:00:25 EST
From:         oliver@DHVX20.CSUDH.EDU
Subject: Re: Environmental problem

I completely agree with Lance.  The environment is likely to
continue to be THE problem of the 21st century.  I would add that
there is often the tendency to relate uncontrolled population
growth anywhere to global environmental impact.  I would offer that
depending on the region of the world, the first may or may not be
related to the second.

When one compares the energy use (predominately that of fossil
fuels) by people in the U.S. with that of people in the third world
a different pattern develops.

Here is a table showing total energy consumed and energy consumed
per capita for various countries.  These data come from
"Information Please Almanac, 1992" (1987 figures).

The table is sorted in descending order on "Energy consumed per
capita".

Country             Population         Tot. energy               Energy consumed
                    (millions)         consumed                  per capita
                                       (million tonnes           (kg coal
                                       coal equiv)               equiv)

U.S.                243.5              2323                      9542
U.S.S.R.            281.4              1867                      6634
Germany             79.6               473                       5940
Japan               122                456                       3741
Mexico              83.1               141                       1697
Brazil              142                109                       767
China               1070               800.8                     749
India               802                220.5                     275
Indonesia           170                47                        274
Pakistan            110                28                        250
Nigeria             102                17                        166
Bangladesh          110                7                         64

Here are some of my own observations from the data in this table:

(1)  The U.S. consumes more total energy and energy per capita than
any other country.  If energy use is directly related to global
environmental impact then our "population problem" is the greatest
in the world.

(2) Though India has more than three times the population of the
U.S., its total energy consumed is less than 1/10 that of ours.

(3) An imaginary U.S. "population" extrapolated from an India-based
per capita energy use to the total consumption of energy is 8.4
billion; extrapolated from a China-based per capita energy use, it
is 3.1 billion.

(4) An imaginary U.S. "population" in which the per capita
consumption of energy remains the same, but our total energy use
equals that of India is 23 million.

(5) Every newborn baby in the U.S. in terms of its expected global
environmental impact as measured by energy consumption (and
subsequent emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere) carries
a "global environmental impact burden" of 35 Indian, 57 Nigerian or
149 Bangladeshi babies.

(6) Overpopulation and inadequate food production in a country such
as Somalia can lead to grotesque social and cultural consequences.
But the global environmental impact in terms of stratospheric ozone
reduction, global warming, extermination of endangered species and
the like may not correlate with those consequences.

In my preachier moments in my class Science and Technology, I end
this unit "Energy Resources of the Earth" with:

Once upon a time Nature dictated the means of population control:
disease and famine.  That today we have humane choices to control
the size of our families behooves us to do some broad thinking
about how many people we think there ought to be, starting with the
country that won't or can't stop squandering non-renewable
resources.  Why not suggest a taxation scheme during the next 100
years to target the U.S. population to some small fraction of what
it is now, say, 1/10 or 1/100 (assuming that there is some positive
correlation between affluence and energy use)?  I'm willing to
stand on the side that says such a scheme is more humane than
nature's way.  Is such a proposal futurist or merely crackpot?

Oliver
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU