Money: Pigs On The Wing

Continuing from my previous entry, I wish to look at Huesemann and Huesemann's book "Techno-fix: why technology won't save us or the environment", and also the work of Angus and Butler "Too Many People? Population, Immigration, and the Environmental Crisis", in the book review by Brock Ternes (requires institutional access or subscription to view). Following the techno-optimist view of our planet's capacity and human-ingenuity from Robert Zubrin (my friend Bob), these two "alternative" perspectives on environmentalism show two contrasting sides of the ecological-front. 

Techno-fix make the distinct point that the remarkable faith and reliance on technological progress are not sufficient, though still essential, to resolving anthropogenic-climate change. Despite the capabilities of technology they have not resulted in reduced pollution and consumption levels (there is a Marxist critique on neoliberal agenda perpetuating fossil-fuel reliance), and that the techno-fetishism (Angus and Butler) reinforces capitalist values: the prioritisation of growth is the driver of environmental problems. Technology alone acts as a dressing rather than challenging the heart of the issue.

             "Economic advance is not the same thing as human progress" ~ John Clapham

Angus and Butler come from a more radical perspective than Huesemann and Huesemann, along the lines of Marxism and eco-socialism. Challenging conventional environmentalism, they dismiss the conservative critique of Populationism, which Butler fervently discredits. It is a way for neoliberalism to accept the environmental crisis, but draw attention to the fear of "too many people" to avoid the necessary social and economic changes to deal with climate change, in particular replacing fossil fuels with clean energy. 

The simple misconception that more people equals more emissions is a myth to prevent the capitalist classes, who are in fact responsible for staggering levels of pollution from ever-increased emissions at the very least, from reducing their consumption (Angus and Butler); "the rich world’s unsustainable consumption 'today is a far bigger threat to the environment than a rising head count'" (Butler). Populationist thought was captured and twisted by racist development agendas to maintain their hyper-consumption. Globally the average birth rate has plummeted to 2.6 per woman, the remaining (majority) population growth is mostly in the poor world, who are responsible for 7% of emissions (Fred Pearce, in Butler).

Figure 1 - Past and Predicted trends of Population Growth from the 
US Census Bureau (in Butler)  

                   

 

 Figure 2 – Population growth from 1960 to 2010 (World Bank)

There remains contention over the rates of population growth; Fig.1 shows a steep-reduction in growth rate since the 1960s. Fig. 2, from the World Bank 2011 World Development report, shows a 1bn addition on a near-decadal scale (doubling under 40 years by 1990), with little indication of reducing. Angus and Butler maintain the idea that populations grow exponentially is a fallacy; in the Western Hemisphere, the rate of population growth has reduced, stagnated, and even declined in many countries with development, and this trend is emerging in developing nations too. 

Population growth does not have to be halted by restricting the reproductive rights of those in the developing world, when a more accurate interpretation of the global environmental crisis is that it is driven by economic, not reproductive, activity.