The green myth

A green myth is on the march. It wants to blame the world's overbreeding poor people for the planet's peril. It stinks. And on World Population Day, I encourage fellow environmentalists not to be seduced. That is how noted author and journalist Fred Pearce puts it in a recent write-up.

Citing how the number of children per woman has come down by half in 40 years, Pearce notes that the ‘big story is that rich or poor, socialist or capitalist, Muslim or Catholic, secular or devout, with tough government birth-control policies or none, most countries tell the same story: Small families are the new norm. Rising consumption today is a far bigger threat to the environment than a rising head count. And most of that extra consumption is still happening in rich countries that have long since given up growing their populations.’

Virtually all of the remaining population growth is in the poor world, and the poor half of the planet is only responsible for 7 percent of carbon emissions.

The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians. ‘How dare rich-world greens blame the poor world for the planet's perils?’

'The population bomb is being defused right now -- by the world's poor women. Sadly, the consumption bomb is still primed and ever more dangerous. Now that would be a proper target for environmentalists.'

One can't but agree wih Pearce. But that is not to say that population issue can be forgotten as being over. However, it is the rising consumption, both in rich and poor nations, as also the rising waste, that is the real problem. In sub-Saharan Africa, at least 265 million people are hungry, heightening the travesty of the food waste problem. More than a quarter of the food produced in Africa spoils before it is eaten. In the US, about 4-10% of food purchases become waste in restaurants before ever reaching the customer. Volunteers visiting farms after a harvest to glean, or pick up, the perfectly good produce left behind could save and distribute 15.7 million pounds of produce in 2009!

As to controlling consumption, not many takers will be found given how consumption is linked to growth in our capitalist society. Right?