1. Why is population growth an ecological problem? What other problems are associated with population growth? If the US does not have anywhere near the world’s largest population, why might it still bear a disproportionate amount of responsibility for ecological degradation? What, besides sheer numbers, is important to think about with respect to population, consumption and ecological issues?
As of now, the total world population is well over 7 billion. This means that the planet, with its combined variety of renewable and non-renewable resources essential to support life, has to take in all the load and be exploited by 7 billion people and counting whose needs are complex and practically unsatiable. According to environmental theorists, the planet can only hold so much people and by the time the planet’s total population increases by another five billion, that would be it, the planet’s resources would not be able to hold and support the needs of any more people. Overpopulation is an ecological problem because as the population of man in the planet increases, other less dominant life forms such as the plants and animals, both of which contribute to the biodiversity and ecological balance in the planet—which is basically a giant ecosystem, would be compromised. There are a lot of problems that may be associated with population growth. Over-farming and water, air, and noise pollution are probably some of the most popular. Because of the huge demand for food, the agricultural industry becomes forced to create more food than what they can actually handle—a scenario which clearly sets the stage for over-farming. Over-farming has its own set of repercussions. A soil that has been sucked up for minerals and farmed to an extent more than what it could handle would slowly deteriorate and turn into sand. This is actually how deserts are formed. The same principle is true for pollution. The more people there are, the more polluted the planet can be.
The United States is the world’s biggest economy and one of the top polluters in the world and so it only makes sense for other countries to rely on the richest and most powerful country in the world when it comes to taking responsibility for ecological degradation. Besides numbers, it would also be more important to look at the actual contributions of countries that benefit the most from polluting and populating the planet such as China, Russia, and other world superpowers .
2. Why does climate change lead to migration, through what kinds of events/processes? What is, in US military language, a ‘threat multiplier’? Why do many in the military see climate change as a national security threat?
What usually happens in climate change is the hot regions become hotter and the colder regions become even more cold; and hurricanes and storms become more powerful—because of the rising sea temperatures, and they strike in the most irregular times of the year. Because of this, people, guided by their survival instincts, would normally migrate to regions that even after the effects of climate change, would still be very suitable to support life .
The term threat multiplier associated to climate change has been used by the U.S. National Security Council because it actually perceives climate change as a serious threat to America’s national security despite being an environmental problem .
A lot of countries, with U.S. being one of them, believe that climate change is a national security threat because it can spark instability in some of the most volatile regions in the country and even in relatively stable ones; and that it can further aggravate the existing problems of the U.S. and other countries.
3. How convincing, as a long-term position, do you find the response, “We won’t do anything that harms our economy” as a reason for inaction on climate change? Considering whom the world’s per capita greatest polluters are, and who in the world is likely to first feel the effects of ecological degradation, where do you think responsibility lies for action to be taken on the part of which countries, which groups, which individuals? Why? The response “We won’t do anything that harms our economy” is not convincing at all. In fact, that is a selfish and inhumane response. The world’s superpowers and top polluters well know that climate change poses a lot of threats that could greatly affect developing countries. Even the big players know the extent of what climate change can lead to. Yet, they are not doing anything to address it because they know doing so would lead to drawbacks in their economy.
The question who among the world’s largest economies would first feel the effects of ecological degradation cannot be answered by arranging the countries by the size of their economies or how polluting they have been over the years. It would be more of a question of geography . For example, if climate change continues, stronger hurricanes and storms would appear and the first ones that would be affected would be the countries that are close to the seas and have no big landmasses to slow the storms and hurricanes down. These countries are not necessarily the most polluting countries or the ones with the biggest economies. The biggest responsibility should rest on the shoulders of the biggest economies—the ones which probably gained the most out of their environmentally polluting economic activities, and the most polluting countries regardless whether they are the primary and frequent ones being affected. This is because climate change and its effects is the entire world’s problem and those with the greatest contribution to the outcome that is climate change should also have the greatest contribution in solving it.
References
Brown, C., Fulton, E., Hobday, A., Matear, R., Possingham, H., Bulman, C., et al. (2010). Effects of Climate Driven Primary Production Change on Marine Food Webs: Implications on Fisheries and Conservation. Journal of Global Change Biology, 1194-1212.
Huntington, T. (2006). Evidence for Intensification of the Global Water Cycle: Review and Synthesis - U.S.Geological Survey. Journal of Hydrology, 83-95.
Smith, P. (2013). National Security and the Threat of Climate Change. CNA's Center for Naval Analyses.
Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K., et al. (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers. Cambridge University Press.
