Too many people

According to the US Census Bureau as of 8.09 UTC on the 2nd of April 2010 the world's population reached six billion, eight hundred and twelve million, two-hundred thousand.

To put that in perspective, in 1950 the population was less than 3 billion, and by 2050 it is estimated rise to over 9 billion.

If something is going to make the hair rise on the back of your neck - that should.



Every single one of the Millennium Development Goals is fundamentally impacted by population levels. Access to food, water, sanitation, education, environmental sustainability - the more there are of us, the more stress it places on access to and distribution of resources.

Interestingly, the level of births has actually leveled out at 134 million per year since the 1990's, but the absolute number of people keeps going up because only around 54 million people per year die.

The major reason for this is because the world's population is aging. A report released by the US Census Bureau, An Ageing Population, predicts that within 10 years the number of people over 65 will surpass the number of children. Over the next thirty years the number of old people will double, from 506 million in 2008 to 1.3 billion.

Two main factors are behind this increase:

1) the delayed effect of higher fertility levels after WW2
2) improvements in health.

The first of these is now a mute point since fertility levels have now decreased. The second point however, poses some complex moral challenges. It is very clear that over-population poses one of the most serious and most complex challenges to global development. Yet how do you reduce the number of people on this planet without infringing on their human rights?

- enforce a world-wide one child policy?
- make people use contraception whether it's against their values or not?
- introduce sterilisation?
- stop providing life-saving medical care?
- let disease and famine do its work?
- stop aid and intervention after natural disasters?

Clearly, it's a fraught subject. On one hand we're trying to save lives through improved sanitation, health care, access to water and better food distribution. On the other, by intervening to prevent deaths we're adding to population increases which in turn complicate the provision of these same things.

Assessment of over-population, and an action plan for managing growth needs to be a central part of achieving the MDGs in both the short-term and long-term. Education of women, access to contraception, improved life-chances are all important to reducing family size, but with an aging population it goes far beyond reducing the number of births. As long as fewer people die than are born the world's population will inevitably increase - yet how are we ever going to justify a knowing increase in the number of deaths?

The Cost of Obesity

Obesity is big news in western media at the moment. “Fatness” has become endemic within developed countries, and the United Kingdom is no exception.

Approximately 50% of the British population are overweight, with 1 in 5 adults being categorised as obese.



Obesity does not simply pose a health risk to the individuals in question, it puts considerable strain on the government’s purse strings as a result of illness, death and time off work. In the UK related costs are estimated at around £7billion a year.



What is perhaps most disturbing about this issue is that the number of obese individuals now equals the number of underfed – about 1.1 billion. It is also on the increase. That so many people are dying for want of food while others are dying because of too much is unconscionable.

My purpose is not to point an accusatory finger at overweight people, but it is an issue that reflects a wider global problem. We live in a culture of excess and waste. Not only do we eat more than we need to in the United Kingdom, but between thirty and forty percent of all food is being thrown away. It’s a disgrace.

If we want to address issues of poverty and deprivation, we need to analyse our own actions and take greater responsibility for the imbalances that exist around us.

Victims of circumstance

Did you get the chance to watch the documentary "Zimbabwe's Forgotten Children"? It was a powerful movie, and if you have the chance to see it I would highly recommend doing so.

It follows the story of three Zimbabwean children (Esther, Grace and Obert) living under Mugabe’s dictatorship, and it cannot fail to move you. The film was produced and presented by Xoliswa Sithole, who herself grew up in Zimbabwe. After returning to the country of her childhood and witnessing the degradation of what had once been a thriving country she felt obliged to document was going on.

I want to bring this documentary to your attention because I watched in some weeks ago now, and I still cannot get my mind off those children. I have a daughter myself, and my heart (and conscience) writhed watching the suffering of those children. It wasn’t just about them of course, but about all the millions of children (and adults) in similarly desperate situations.

In watching this movie I saw victims, and before anyone says anything I know there are problems in portraying people as such. But what are these children if not victims of their circumstances?

Let me be clear however, I didn’t think they were weak, incapable or inferior. In fact, all I could feel was that had they been born to a different family, in a different country they could have been capable of anything.

The reality is that simply by virtue of birth some people are automatically afforded wealth, well-being, education and security. Others are relegated to a life of poverty, disease, illiteracy and suffering.No matter how hard they work, or strive, the vast majority will not be able to lift themselves out of this situation.

So yes, to me, they are victims of circumstance. Of historical failings, of corrupt leadership, of unfair trade regimes and an imbalanced global system.

Unless individuals are forced to look at these victims, to empathise with their situation, and to understand that it is not something that they have “brought on themselves” how can we hope to achieve this illusive “political will” we all keep talking about?

If interested in finding out more about this film, or want to buy the DVD you can do so at http://zimbabweschildren.org/

Taking Responsibility

In her opening speach at the Th!nk3 kick-off Marina Ponti, Director of Europe for the Millennium Campaign delivered two key messages.

1) "We are the first generation that can end poverty".

2) "The main obstacle is not lack of resources, or lack of technology. It's the lack of political will".

To me, these messages were in equal parts optimistic and depressing.

On one had, it's encouraging to think that we have it in our reach to eradicate extreme poverty in our lifetime; or at least to put into motion the events that will lead to its eradication. I, for one, don't doubt her assertion that there is enough food, enough technology, enough knowledge, enough energy to rectify the major imbalances in economic and social power that exist in the world today.

On the other hand, I also don't doubt the fact that without sufficient political will it remains entirely unachievable. As Marina commented, "We need to ask government to neglect their primary survival to focus on development". My optimism wanes.

Of course, it isn't simply our political leaders who bear the burden of responsibility. It's us as well. The voters, the citizens, the individuals who comprise developed societies. Political will is to all intents and purposes a mirror of our own will. If 80% of the population voted in direct relation to a party's stance on development then you can guarantee it would top the agenda.

In the UK we are gearing up to a national election. With the financial crisis on the tip of everyone's tongues you can be sure that the primary concern for most British people is the UK economy - not the ongoing misfortunes of developing countries.

In fact I haven't heard mention of anything related to development. Why? Because that's simply not what the electorate is worried about.

Marina was right. We have the resources. We have the technology. We have everything we need to eradicate extreme poverty except the will to do so. Yet, if we want things to change it's not our leaders who need to take responsiblity - it's us.

Is personal cap-and-trade the answer?

In May of this year the  Environmental Audit Committee recommended that the government introduce a personal carbon trading scheme in Britain. As with cap-and-trade at the national level individuals would be provided with a personal carbon quota, and each time they bought goods, petrol or the like they would have to pay an allowance. Like the industry equivalent, if a person ran short of credit they would have the option of purchasing more from someone who hadn't used their quota. The idea being that a personal ration of carbon would force individuals to be actively conscious of their CO2 expenditure, and thus limit their usage. The fact that individuals could make money from selling on unused credits would also add a financial incentive to curbing usage.

At present however, the government is balking at the idea. This is largely because it would cost billions of pounds to implement (and we're in a financial crisis dontyaknow) but also because it lacks widespread support among the population. Nevertheless, the groundwork is being laid and there are suggestions that a scheme could be in place by 2020.

As someone trying to get a handle on my carbon footprint I would welcome such an initiative. It would help me understand where I'm unnecessarily burning credit (grapes flown in from Greece perhaps) and allow me to make informed decisions about what I do use it for. That said, I'm not sure I'm representative of the general population. How eagerly will the majority of people welcome enforced limits on the goods they can buy and the travel they can do? What government would be brave enough to introduce such a politically volatile scheme? And would such a scheme simply see the less well-off funding the carbon extravagances of the rich?

The road to neutrality is a bumpy one!

A couple of weeks into my efforts to reduce my carbon footprint I have come to a number of conclusions.

1) there are some pretty simple changes that you can integrate into your life without having to drastically alter your habits...

2) if you really want to cut down on CO2 usage then you have to be prepared to make some pretty big sacrifices.

My inital steps - turning appliances off standby, not buying bottled water, notching the heating down a few degrees, recycling, being conscious of what I am buying and throwing away - were pretty simple and they've stuck. I've found that once the idea of reducing your CO2 usage is implanted in your mind you find yourself automatically making more carbon friendly decisions. It's kind of like Weight Watchers - when you know everything you do adds up you are a bit more careful about what your consuming. Taking it to the next level however, is proving a little more difficult. Those changes that would make the biggest difference - like reducing international travel, using my car less, or improving the energy rating of my house - mean real committment. Financial and personal. Take using my car for example. I have a two year old daughter who accompanies me pretty much everywhere. Popping her on the back of a bicycle in the pouring rain is not really an option. Dragging her (physically) onto public transport to go to the shops and then lugging everything back home is just not something I feel keen on. So I find myself taking short car journeys, all the time plagued by the knowledge I'm running up my CO2 account. It leads me to question my committment. Clearly, if the option is there for me to integrate a change without huge personal sacrifice I'll do it. If it means significant inconvenience, or financial outlay I'm less eager. Presumably this is the case with most people. The question is, how much should an individual be expected to change their lifestyle to cut their carbon footprint?

Achieving a mandate for action in Copenhagen.

For those actively interested and involved in climate change issues it is sometimes easy to forget that the majority of individuals are decidedly less animated by the subject. A  poll conducted by Ipsos Mori in June 2007 for instance, found that 56% of those interviewed believed scientists were still questioning climate change, and that the problem was exaggerated to make money. It also found that "terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess" were all of more concern than global warming. (BBC). Two years on one gets the sense that little has changed. Certainly, people are aware of the climate change debate on an abstract level, but if the vast majority were asked what was happening in Copenhagen in December only a small percentage would be able to tell you. The problem is that while there is broad consensus among the scientific and international community, the general public remain detached from the issue.

Why?
In my view, it is less a matter of apathy than it is of ignorance about the severity of the threat. The degree of urgency expressed by scientists, politicians and environmentalists at the global level is failing to translate down to the man on the street. This, it appears, is in part a conscious decision. At a conference I attended on Climate Change in June the common view was that "scaring the public" would only lead to a paralysis of fear. As such, reforms are being brought in that produce carbon reductions without the individual necessarily having any understanding of (or interest in) the issue of climate change. On one hand this is positive, in that people are integrating carbon friendly changes into their lives without a major sacrifice. On the other hand, unless someone actively chooses to educate themselves on the topic, they are likely to be ill-informed and inactive.


This is problematic for several reasons, not least because as long as the electorate and consumer remain lukewarm on the subject of climate change so too will political and business leaders. Until decision makers believe they have a mandate to act they won't. Not with any conviction anyway. Based on this can we realistically expect a robust outcome from Copenhagen when the majority of the population are unaware that the conference is taking place, and have little (if any) interest in its outcomes? Probably not. If however, there was strong, and widespread support among individuals it would be difficult for the leadership not to seek a solid framework. 

For this reason, rather than simply debating among ourselves, those of us who view a comprehensive deal in December as critical must try to get the word out. We can do this by getting involved in campaigns, speaking with our friends and neighbours, writing letters to our MPs, and launching petitions. We can also lead by example, and make changes in our own lives. Rather than maintaining climate change as an intellectual debate we need to ensure that information on the topic is more widely disseminated, and that people understand (really understand) why it's important for them to get involved. Even more importantly we have to make sure that our politicians and businesses have a clear mandate to take action on our behalf.


Want to get actively involved? Here are some useful links:

Campaigns

Campaign against Climate Change 
Friends of the Earth 
Greenpeace  
Global Climate Campaign 

Check your footprint
ACT ON CO2 (UK specific)

Carbon Footprint Calculator


Make a change in your own life...

10:10
My Carbon Savings