Millennium3

Clearly two camps have developed one who believe that there is Global warming and it is caused by man's activity and another who doesn't.

I have held the view that it probably is the case otherwise Bush and other national leaders would not subscribe to the theory because, in last resort, action to prevent the phenomenon requires nation to restrict activities which are on one hand wealth creating and secondly displeasing to the populous.

The following report demonstrates that continuing on our present trends is likely to produce results which are likely to be just as devastating as GW, but for a different reason. whether MMGW is true or not it is imperative that we change our current religion of 'getting and spending' to one which is possible to sustain.


UK unable to sustain population, says study
By Joanna Corrigan
Last Updated: 11:41pm GMT 17/02/2008

The United Kingdom is drastically over-populated and could support only 17 million people if it had to provide for the current 60 million from its own resources, says a study published on Monday.

The UK has no hope of living sustainably unless every person's "ecological footprint" is reduced by more than 70 per cent, the study for the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) claims.

It predicts that if global population growth continues as expected, the world could be at war over resources in less than 50 years and calls on governments to advocate smaller families and increased use of contraception.

The Sustainability of Human Populations: How many people can live on Earth? also claims that Government targets to cut carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050 will have little impact on the UK's sustainability because of the rate of population growth.

The latest official figures show the number of people living in the UK is expected to hit 65 million within 10 years, and top 70 million by 2031.

Yet even if Britain was carbon neutral, it could only sustainably support 40 million people with the same standard of living, the study claims.

It says if the world consumed as much and generated the same waste as the UK, it would need three and a half planets to sustain the human race.

To live sustainably, British people would have to lead simpler lives, similar to people in China, Paraguay, Algeria and Botswana.

The world was living within its ecological means until the 1980s when populations began to grow rapidly.

By 2050, when the global population is expected to hit 9.2 billion, it will be using up the equivalent of nearly two Earths each year, according to the study.

Valerie Stevens, the chairman of the OPT, said the study showed the extent of the UK's overpopulation and the threat it poses to the environment and people's quality of life.

She added: "It also shows how desperately we need a national population policy."

UK unable to sustain population, says study - Telegraph

This coupled to the UN's declared goals:

The UN Millennium Development Goals

....promises a very bleak future!

g hall

As resources are being used at an exponotional rate as more and more countries wish to become more like the "Free West" i.e. consumer led, then the space race should be on.
We need to get off planet Earth, there is a whole universe out there ripe for picking, but still people complain about space research however without it ,unless the population is driven down, there will be less haves and more have nots and that can only lead to war

Can you hear me Major Tom !

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."

gimlet

This has been around for some time, see Optimum Population Trust.

Another good reason why we should stop immigration, repatriate the hangers on and look after our own first. With the passing of time I suspect it will be demanded that the population is serverly reduced.

Aardvark

I've been harping on about this for ages, but to no avail. The earth cannot support the present population at western levels; if we all lived as they do in the States we'd have used up all of the earth's resources within a very short period.

It's no longer worth bothering with exact figures. It is almost blindingly obvious. If we build 3 million more houses in this country, mainly in the SE, we have to also build roads, schools, hospitals, shops etc. There cannot be enough land to build another 2 Birminghams in the south east, especially as you can't use flood plains, land liable to erosion, certain hilly areas etc.

There is barely enough water in Oxfordshire today and the only solution is to stop much of the water from the Thames before it goes anywhere else and put it in a massive reservoir. If we take the water then Reading can't have it.

The country is full, has been for years and every new mouth requires half a ton of food per annum to be imported, together with every item of clothing the person uses, the car they drive and the timber frame to build the house they will live in. All energy for that person will have to be imported. We are not self-sustaining in anything these days. Virtually none of us lives without imported goods of some sort.

The world's population will either have to be cut by fair means (sterilisation etc) or foul (starvation on a world wild scale). There is not enough wheat for all of the world to eat bread this year and only 2 countries now export rice. If we have a bad harvest in the US or Canada then all bets are off. Some countries that are struggling will just disappear as their government's fail to cope. This year is possibly the time to say goodbye to Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Sudan, Chad and one or 2 others.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Britannist

Yes, we need to stop mass immigration and find a way of moving towards self-sufficiency in the UK.

It is not to the advantage of other countries in the world to have growing populations.

Millennium3

I had advanced the 'different approach' in the hope that those on the two sides of the GW debate might see a common goal in Britain's self-sufficiency which cannot be achieved whilst we are politically and economically tied to the EU.

Millennium3

I am sure/hope this is mankind's destiny, however, the technical hurdles to be overcome in finding another 'Earth Like' planet, travelling to it and settling there will take a long time to achieve. In the short-term, it would probably be more sensible to take good care of the planet we have.

Britannist

As I wrote in another thread some weeks ago - if we can move away from petrol-powered vehicles in the UK to those run by electricity (if that is possible) it would have many advantages including: it would reduce our dependence on liquid fuel imports (petrol or, in the future bio-fuel) and it would cut down drastically on carbon emissions from vehicles.

I think we should start preparing for the post-oil world now - and not leaving it until oil is hard to find and recover that it costs a great deal more than it does now.

Britannist

I agree M3 - and one way of doing that is for certain countries in other parts of the world high population growth to encourage (without using authoritarian measures) smaller families (thus reduce pressure on usage of global resources).

John Connor

And the first step to reducing the population is the complete removal of all government hand-outs. No dole, no child support, no family tax credits, no NHS. Etc., etc..

Somehow, I don't think Nu Labour's support for MMGW goes that far.

__________________
There are three types of people in this world: Libertarians, fascists and those who haven't been paying attention.

Users on ignore list: Akria, Besoeker, Clippo, david H, Ian C.