Population Archives

courtesy Indur Goklany

In an article in today's New York Times titled, "In Niger, Trees and Crops Turn Back the Desert," Lydia Pollgren notes how property rights to trees growing on farmers' land have contributed to both economic growth, agricultural productivity and conservation in Niger at virtually no cost. She notes that :

In this dust-choked region, long seen as an increasingly barren wasteland decaying into desert, millions of trees are flourishing, thanks in part to poor farmers whose simple methods cost little or nothing at all...
[D]etailed satellite images and on-the-ground inventories of trees, have found that Niger, a place of persistent hunger and deprivation, has recently added millions of new trees and is now far greener than it was 30 years ago.
These gains, moreover, have come at a time when the population of Niger has exploded, confounding the conventional wisdom that population growth leads to the loss of trees and accelerates land degradation, scientists studying Niger say...
"The general picture of the Sahel is much less bleak than we tend to assume," said Chris P. Reij, a soil conservationist who has been working in the region for more than 30 years ... "Niger was for us an enormous surprise."

What contributed to the success? Apparently greater rainfall and property rights! As the article elaborates:

Read More »

The population of the United States passed the 300 million mark this morning, according to the Census Bureau. When the U.S. population reached the 200 million mark in 1967, it was widely celebrated. Today, of course, there is lots of handwringing from the usual suspects, as John Tierney notes in this column. (Registration required, unfortunately.)

Asked in the January/February issue of the Stanford alumni magazine, "What longtime belief have you changed your mind about?", Professor Paul Ehrlich answers:

In the 1960s, I believed that lowering human birthrates would be teh most difficult task facing those who wished to acheive a sustainable society--because having fewer children was basically going "against biology." In fact, lowering birthrates has proven easier than I expected, and substantial (but not enough) progress has been made since then. Reducing overconsumption has proven very much more difficult.

There's no doubt that most environmental activists tend to lean left on political issues across the board. This has even been confirmed in surveys of the leadership of environmentalist organizations. But I am nonetheless bemused by the constant effort to turn various liberal issues into "environmental" issues. We see this in the Sierra Club's embrace of campaign finance reform (unless, of course, it might limit their ability to promote or oppose a candidate), RFK Jr's call to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on the national media, and so on.

One of the most regular examples of this is the constant characterization of abortion as an "environmental" issue, as in this article from E magazine. Insofar as population is an enviromental issue in parts of the world, there is a plausible case that financial support for family planning and the like is a "green" concern. Population density, growth rates and the like clearly effect some environmental concerns in many parts of the world -- even if population numbers themselves are not the source of the problem. On the other hand, the copious data that economic growth and increased wealth reduces fertility rates might suggest that those who fret over whether federal tax dollars fund Planned Parenthood clinics overseas have misplaced priorities. In any event, this is a debatable point.

On the domestic front, however, it I find it implausible that abortion, as a domestic issue, is an intergral part of the environmental agenda, and (to use E's words) that a pro-life or "anti-choice agenda" comes at the "expense" of the environment. To the contrary, one could argue that insofar as domestic law or culture protects fetal life, there will be more support for environmental protections that address threats to fetal development. Setting aside the ultimate policy question of whether abortion should or should not be legal, constitutioally protected, regulated, encouraged, or whatever, it seems clear that many other normative questions are far more central to this issue than environmental protection. Thus, when I see E or other environmental outlets focus on abortion rights, I take it as more evidence that (too) much of the mainstream environmental agenda is simply traditional liberal politics with a green veneer.