Earth’s overpopulation exasperating (sic) climate change - by Norman A. Bishop

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

Every social and environmental issue is exacerbated by overpopulation. (Correction: Population. Humans, including Mr. Bishop, pollute by their very existence.)

Fifty years ago, there were 3.4 billion people living. Now that number is 7.6 billion. (That is a growth rate of  about 2% per year, not particularly alarming. And from around the mid 1960s the population growth rate has been steadily dropping to 1.17% in 2017.)

Human population has grown more in the last several decades than in the past three million years. (Well, duh. If you have 10 people and increase them by 10%, then next year you have 11 people. But if you have 100 people and increase them by 10%, the next year you have 110 people. The growth by one additional person is obviously less than the growth by 10 additional people, even though the rate is the same.)

We add 80 million mouths to feed every year. At that rate, world population will grow to 12 billion by 2050. (That growth rate is 1.81% per year. Something is wrong with Mr. Bishop's calculations.)

Five results from overpopulation are: 1) hunger and starvation; 2) squandering natural resources until we run out; 3) landscalping and the loss of land fertility; 4) cultural, economic, and political upheaval; and 5) harm to wild things.

In about 300 years, (When the population was 610 million, to the current 7.5 billion is a growth rate of 3.77%. The current population growth rate is less than half of what it was in 1717.) 

the acreage needed to feed humans has gone from less than 10 percent to nearly half of Earth’s land acres—more than a five-fold rise. (There are 37 billion acres of land in the world. So 3.7 billion acres fed 610 million people 300 years ago [6065 acres per person], and now 7.5 billion people are being fed by 18.5 billion acres [2.5 acres per person] We are beginning to doubt Mr. Bishop's numbers.)

Earth’s atmosphere, seas, and forests can’t soak up our industrial, transportation, and agricultural emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases.

Between 1990 and 2003, U.S. per capita greenhouse gas emissions went up by 3.2 percent. But overall U.S. emissions went up 20.2 percent! How can this be? Our population rose 16.1 percent. So, unless we get a handle on population, we’ll never succeed in reducing greenhouse gas production. (Maybe climate change is a good thing for Mr. Bishop. Something he should support. People are having fewer babies!)

Economist Edwin S. Rubenstein recently wrote “The impact of U.S. population growth on global climate change.” He concludes that, “Over the long run, U.S. population growth is the most important factor in CO2 emissions emanating from this country.” (Interesting that Mr. Bishop blames the US, with a population growth of .75% in the last 5 years, as compared to say, India, with a population growth of 1.26% over the same period. Or China, with a lower rate of .52%, but a much larger population that we have. 

Or what about sh*thole countries? 

Democratic Republic of the Congo: 3.17%

Iraq: 3.31%

Niger: 4.0%

Oman: 8.45%

Senegal: 3.1%

South Sudan: 4.09%

Uganda: 3.27%

These and other countries are the real problem, not the US.)

Experts writing in the Lancet say that “Prevention of unwanted births today by family planning might be one of the most cost-effective ways to preserve the planet’s environment for the future.” (These folks believe that the only hope for the planet is the total extinction of the human race. If Mr. Bishop really wants to solve the problem, he might want to get on board with VHEMT.)