Then, under the Report’s next heading of "National Population Policies" we read that:
The long-term consequences of human population growth must be fully
grasped by all nations. They must rapidly formulate and implement
appropriate programs to cope with the inevitable increase in
population numbers. ( p. 45 )
The first sentence suggests that the writers of the Report are believers, because the writers indicate a recognition of the fact that there are serious "long-term consequences of human population growth." These consequences could have been set forth in simple, concrete, and illuminating detail, and yet the Report remains evasive, vague, and unspecific. The Report could have educated its readers about the "long-term consequences of continued population growth" and then could have identified for the readers the appropriate remedial courses of action which are necessary to achieve zero growth of population as rapidly as possible. But to negate it all, the Report refers to the "inevitable increase in population numbers." Thus the Report seems to say that nothing can be done. This is not far from the position of the non-believers who say that nothing needs to be done. This leads to the question, "If nothing can be done, why bother to educate people about the ‘long-term consequences of continued population growth’?"
The Report makes many references to sustainability, yet it artfully dodges the central issues relating to the meaning and implications of "sustainability."
The failure of the Report, and other similar reports, to address the population problem was underscored by Robert May ( May 1993 ). May, who is Royal Society Research Professor at the University of Oxford and Imperial College, London, was reviewing a new book on biological diversity. He observes that the book:
... says relatively little about the continuing growth of human
populations. But this is the engine that drives everything. Patterns of
accelerating resource use, and their variation among regions, are
important but secondary: problems of wasteful consumption can be
solved if population growth is halted, but such solutions are essentially
irrelevant if populations continue to proliferate. Every day the planet
sees a net increase ( births less deaths ) of about one quarter of a
million people. Such numbers defy intuitive appreciation. Yet many
religious leaders seem to welcome these trends, seemingly motivated
by calculations about their market share. And governments, most
notably that of the U.S., keep the issue off the international agenda;
witness the Earth Summit meeting in Rio de Janeiro. Until this
changes, I see little hope.
OTHER CAUSES: THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has done many constructive and beneficial things. The policies, actions, and leadership of the Agency are crucial to any hope for achieving a sustainable society. A recent report ( EPA 1993 ) is both encouraging and distressing. It is encouraging to read of all of the many activities of the Agency which help protect the environment. It is distressing to search in vain through the Report for a direct acknowledgment that population growth is the root cause of most of the problems the Agency is seeking to address. While the Brundtland Report asserts that population growth is not the central problem, the EPA report avoids making this allegation. But the EPA report makes only a very few minor references to the environmental problems that arise as a direct consequence of population growth, but in making these references, the Report seeks to divert the readers’ attention elsewhere.
For example, the EPA report speaks of an initiative to pursue sustainable development in the Central Valley of California:
... where many areas are experiencing rapid urban growth and
associated environmental problems ...
A stronger emphasis on sustainable agricultural practices will be a key
element in any long-term solutions to problems in the area.
Why does the Agency divert our attention away from the problem of rapid urban growth and suggest that the long-term solution lies in "A stronger emphasis on sustainable agricultural practices?" There is no way that "A stronger emphasis on sustainable agricultural practices" can stop the "rapid urban growth" that is destroying farmland! To solve the problems, one must stop the "rapid urban growth" which causes the problems. It is pointless to focus on the development of "sustainable agricultural practices" when agriculture will soon be displaced by the "rapid urban growth."
In speaking of the New Jersey Coastal Management Plan for the preservation of an environmentally sensitive tidal wetland, the EPA report says:
The project involves balancing the intense development pressures in
the area with wetlands wildlife protection, water quality, air quality,
waste management, and other environmental considerations.
The "intense development pressures" arise from population growth, but the Report diverts our attention away from "development pressures," by suggesting that the problems can be solved by "balancing." The wetlands can’t be saved if population growth continues. The wetlands can’t be solved by "balancing," whatever that is.
It needs to be recognized that, as used in the quotation above, "balancing" generally means "yielding to."
In the Pacific Northwest:
The EPA... is an active participant in these discussions, which focus
on sustaining high quality natural resources and marine ecosystems in
the face of rapid population and economic growth in the area.
Here the Report diverts our attention away from the "rapid population growth" that is destroying the natural resources and marine ecosystems, and it suggests instead that we focus our preservation efforts on the ecosystems and not on the agent that is destroying them. This is like trying to polish and maintain the beautiful woodwork in a home that is being destroyed by fire, or like trying to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
These quotations of minor sections of the EPA report make it clear that the EPA people have an understanding of the origin of environmental problems. This means that the Agency people are believers. However, political considerations seem to require that the EPA people divert attention away from the true causes of the problems they are charged with addressing. The EPA is thus engaged in the marginalization of the Malthusian message.
MORE EXAMPLES OF MARGINALIZATION
Here are more examples of major efforts to marginalize the use of numbers in addressing the population problems.
A ) ( Diversion ) For many years the mission statement of a national population organization was:
Zero Population Growth, Inc., is a national nonprofit membership
organization that works to achieve a sustainable balance of resources
and the environment - both in the United States and worldwide. ( ZPG
1996a )
In 1996 , without discussion with the membership, this clear and unambiguous mission statement was replaced by the following statement which is vague and internally contradictory:
Zero Population Growth, Inc., is a national nonprofit membership
organization working to slow population growth and achieve a
sustainable balance between the Earth’s people and its resources. (
ZPG 1996b )
Notice that the new statement contains two curious contradictions:
1 ) Zero Population Growth ( the organization’s name ) is quite different
from slow population growth ( the new stated goal of the organization ).
This internal contradiction would seem to violate standards of "truth in
advertising."
2 ) The organization is seeking "slow population growth" and
"sustainability." These two goals are completely contradictory. The new
statement violates the First Law of Sustainability. ( Bartlett 1994, 1998 )
The new statement also suggests a major change in emphasis:
The new statement does not contain the earlier reference to the
population problem in the United States. ( them: not us )
The diversion of the acknowledged focus away from the population problem of the United States is disturbing, especially when the case can be made that the world’s worst population problem is in the United States. ( Bartlett, 1997 ) This is all the more curious because much of the good work of ZPG is devoted to reducing population growth rates in the United States.
Even more curious is the fact that the Executive Director ( of ZPG ):
... outlined some of the actions necessary to stabilize U.S. population.
He called for doubling expenditures for family planning programs,
requiring insurance plans that provide prescription drug coverage to
include all contraceptive services. ( Audubon 1998 )
Two things are apparent:
1) The things called for by the Executive Director are necessary, but
clearly are not sufficient to stabilize U.S. population, because:
2) Immigration contributes roughly half of the growth of U.S.
population, and it has been shown that it is impossible to stabilize U.S.
population without having major reductions in the levels of immigration
into the U.S. ( Beck, 1998, Bartlett & Lytwak 1995, and many others )
The refusal to include immigration in the discussion of the stabilization of U.S. population represents a major effort to divert attention away from the source of approximately half of the population growth in the U.S.
B ) ( Non-belief ) The Sierra Club has an outstanding record of successes in the endless battles to preserve the environment, and for years the Club recognized that stopping population growth in the U.S. was essential to saving the environment. Recently the Club’s leaders decided that stopping population growth in the U.S. was no longer necessary for saving the environment. In particular that the Club’s leaders said the Club would not take a stand on the difficult question of immigration, which is responsible for about half of the population growth in the U.S. This is a case of innumerate non-belief. Some members of the Club ( believers ) have petitioned to have the membership vote on the question of going back to the earlier policy of recognizing that we can’t save the environment and have continued population growth.
C ) ( Diversion ) The conflict within the Sierra Club led the Club’s establishment to put on the 1998 ballot a diversionary alternative to the straightforward question put by petition of members. The alternative statement of the Club’s establishment contains this sentence:
The Sierra Club will continue to address the root causes of migration
by encouraging sustainablity, economic security, human rights, and
environmentally responsible consumption. ( FAIR 1997 )
In a similar major policy statement, ZPG says:
It is ZPG’s view that immigration pressures on the U.S. population are
best relieved by addressing factors which compel people to leave their
homes and families and emigrate to the United States. ( ZPG 1998 )
The implications of these two statements are high minded and staggering. A major root cause of migration is the global inequality of economic opportunity. The sentences quoted above would commit ZPG and the Sierra Club to programs of foreign aid and international involvement aimed at leveling the economic opportunity among all of the countries of the world! This would commit the two organizations to the task of raising the level of economic opportunity in the underdeveloped countries and possibly lowering it in the United States until economic opportunity was everywhere the same. That would remove this root cause of migration! These statements sound good; they sound humanitarian, but most of all, they sound correct.
Beyond lobbying the Congress for increased family planning assistance in the foreign aid programs of the U.S., these two organizations do not have the resources needed to become involved in any meaningful way in addressing the root causes of international migration. Therefore these two statements are essentially devoid of substantive meaning, and are offered only to divert attention away from the challenging task of addressing the issue of immigration which is responsible for about half of the population growth in the United States.
Note: In the spring of 1998, a major campaign by the Club’s establishment was successful in defeating the numerate initiative of some Club members, and this defeat leaves the Sierra Club on record as believing that population growth and saving the environment are compatible. This position needs to be compared to the observation that,
Each increment of population growth and
Each increment of added affluence
Invariably cause the destruction of an increment of the remaining environment.
D) ( Diversion ) With the best of intentions, religious groups often justify their opposition to the reduction of immigration into the U.S. by using this same argument ( diversion ) of saying that we should not address immigration as such, but rather should work to remove the root causes of immigration.
E ) ( Diversion ) The President’s Council on Sustainable Development ( PCSD, President William J. Clinton ) had task forces that worked to develop background information in several areas. The report of the Council’s Task Force on Population and Consumption ( Task Force 1995 ) was clear and unambiguous:
The Task Force believes that the two most important steps the United
States must take toward sustainability are:
1) To stabilize U.S. population promptly; and
2) To move toward greater material and energy efficiency in all
production and use of goods and services.
The Council’s report ( President’s Council 1996 ) was based on its own analyses and on the reports of its task forces. The Council’s report makes almost no editorial statement about the problem of population growth in the U.S. but it does indicate concern about global population growth: ( them: not us )
The United States should have policies and programs that contribute to
stabilizing global human population: this objective is critical if we
hope to have the resources needed to ensure a high quality of life for
future generations.
Although it probably was not meant this way, this sentence could be interpreted to mean that they must stop their population growth so that we can continue to enjoy our high quality of life. The Report notes that:
What Americans do affects the lives of people in every nation, and
changes in their lives eventually affect Americans.
Then, in its list of "National Goals Toward Sustainable Development," the President’s Council on Sustainable Development places the goal: "Move toward stabilization of U.S. population" as the eighth goal out of ten. ( diversion ) What is clearly and unambiguously the most necessary goal for achieving sustainability, is diverted from the top priority to a place near the bottom of the list.
The section of the PCSD report, "Designing Sustainable Communities" ( pgs. 92-95 ) deals with creative ways to accomodate growth: ( non-belief )
While some growth is necessary, it is the nature of that growth that
makes the difference.