world population

RUN-DOWN housing, unsanitary conditions, scarcity of food and clean water, disease, malnutrition—these and numerous other hardships are a day-to-day reality in the lives of a major part of the world’s population. Yet, as we have seen, most people living under those conditions somehow manage to cope with them and carry on with their daily life.
What, though, of the future? Will people have to go on enduring such harsh realities of life indefinitely? To complicate matters, what about the doom and gloom that environmental scientists and others are forecasting as a result of the continued population growth? They tell us that we are fouling our own nest by polluting the air, water, and soil we depend on. They also point to the greenhouse effect—emission of gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (refrigerants and foaming agents), that will result in warming of the atmosphere and changes in the global weather pattern, with dire consequences. Will this finally bring about the demise of civilization as we know it? Let us examine more closely a few of the key factors.
Are There Too Many People?
First of all, will the world’s population go on expanding indefinitely? Is there any indication as to how far it will go? It is, of course, a fact that the world population is growing in spite of efforts at family planning. The annual increase is now about 90 million (equivalent to another Mexico every year). It appears that there is no immediate prospect of halting it. Looking ahead, however, most demographers agree that the population will eventually level off. The question in their mind is at what level and when.
According to projections of the UN Population Fund, world population may reach 14 billion before leveling off. Others, however, estimate that it may peak at between 10 billion and 11 billion. Whatever the case, the crucial questions are: Will there be too many people? Can the earth accommodate from two to three times the present population?
From a statistical point of view, 14 billion people worldwide would average out to 269 persons per square mile [104 . . . sq km]. As we have seen, Hong Kong’s population density is 14,483 persons per square mile [5,592 . . . sq km]. Currently, the Netherlands’ population density is 1,140 [430], while Japan’s is 848 [327], and these are countries that enjoy above-average living standards. Clearly, even if the world population should grow to the extent predicted, the number of people is not the problem.



Will There Be Enough Food?

What, then, about the food supply? Can the earth produce enough to feed 10 billion or 14 billion people? Obviously, the world’s present food production is not enough to care for such a population. In fact, we often hear about famines, malnutrition, and starvation. Does this mean we are not producing enough food to take care of the population now, let alone two or three times more?
That is a difficult question to answer because it depends on what is meant by "enough." While hundreds of millions of people in the world’s poorest nations cannot get enough food to maintain even a minimum, healthful diet, people in the rich, industrialized nations are suffering from the consequences of an overly rich diet—strokes, some types of cancer, heart disease, and so on. How does this affect the food picture? By one calculation, it takes five pounds [5 kg] of grain to produce one pound [1 kg] of beefsteak. As a result, the meat-eating quarter of the world’s inhabitants consumes almost half of the world’s grain production.
As far as the total quantity of food produced is concerned, note what the book Bread for the World says: "If present world food production were evenly divided among all the world’s people, with minimal waste, everyone would have enough. Barely enough, perhaps, but enough." That statement was made in 1975, over 15 years ago. What is the situation today? According to the World Resources Institute, "over the past two decades, total world food output expanded, outpacing demand. As a result, in recent years, prices of major food staples in international markets declined in real terms." Other studies show that the prices for staples like rice, corn, soybeans, and other grains dropped by half or more over that period.
What all of this boils down to is that the problem of food lies not so much in the quantity produced as in the level and the habits of consumption. New genetic technology has found ways to produce varieties of rice, wheat, and other grains that can double the present output. However, much of the expertise in this area is concentrated on cash crops, such as tobacco and tomatoes, to satisfy the appetite of the rich rather than to fill the stomachs of the poor.
What About the Environment?
More and more, those who are keeping a close eye on the subject are coming to realize that population growth is only one of the factors posing a threat to mankind’s future welfare. For example, in their book The Population Explosion, Paul and Anne Ehrlich propose that the impact of human activity on our environment can be expressed by this simple equation: Impact = population × level of affluence × prevailing technologies’ effect on the environment.
By this standard, the authors argue that countries like the United States are overpopulated, not because they have too many people, but because their level of affluence depends on a high rate of consumption of natural resources and technologies that exact a heavy toll on the environment.
Other studies seem to bear this out. The New York Times quotes economist Daniel Hamermesh as saying that ‘greenhouse emissions are more closely related to the level of economic activity than the numbers of emitters. The average American generates 19 times as much carbon dioxide as the average Indian. And it is entirely possible that, say, an economically vibrant Brazil with slow population growth would burn down its tropical forests more rapidly than an impoverished Brazil with rapid population growth.’
Making basically the same point, Alan Durning of the Worldwatch Institute observes: "The richest billion people in the world have created a form of civilization so acquisitive and profligate that the planet is in danger. The lifestyle of this top echelon—the car drivers, beef eaters, soda drinkers, and throwaway consumers—constitutes an ecological threat unmatched in severity by anything but perhaps population growth." He points out that this "wealthiest fifth" of mankind produces nearly nine tenths of the chlorofluorocarbons and over half of the other greenhouse gases that are threatening the environment.
The Real Issue
From the above discussion, it becomes apparent that blaming population growth alone for the woes facing mankind today is missing the real point. The issue facing us is not that we are running out of living space or that the earth is incapable of producing enough food for a healthful diet for everyone or that all the natural resources will be used up anytime soon. These are merely the symptoms. The real issue is that more and more people are aspiring to a higher and higher level of material consumption without considering the consequence of their actions. This insatiable desire for more is taking such a heavy toll on our environment that the earth’s carrying capacity is fast being exceeded. In other words, the basic problem lies not so much in the number as in the nature of humanity.
Writer Alan Durning puts it this way: "In a fragile biosphere, the ultimate fate of humanity may depend on whether we can cultivate a deeper sense of self-restraint, founded on a widespread ethic of limiting consumption and finding non-material enrichment." The point is well-taken, but the question must be asked, Is it likely that people everywhere will voluntarily cultivate self-restraint, limit consumption, and pursue nonmaterial enrichment? Hardly. Judging by the self-indulgent and hedonistic life-style so prevalent today, the opposite is more likely to occur. Most people today seem to live by the motto: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die"

when our atmosphere is damaged

When Our Atmosphere Is Damaged
IN 1971, while en route to the moon aboard Apollo 14, Edgar Mitchell said upon viewing the earth: "It looks like a sparkling blue and white jewel." But what would a person from space see today?
If special spectacles permitted him a view of the invisible gases of earth’s atmosphere, he would see a very different picture. In the magazine India Today, Raj Chengappa wrote: "He would see giant punctures in the protective ozone shields over Antarctica and North America. Instead of a sparkling blue and white jewel he would see a dull, dirty earth filled with dark, swirling clouds of dioxides of carbon and sulphur."
What has punctured holes in our upper atmosphere’s protective shield of ozone? Is the increase of atmospheric pollutants really so dangerous?
How Ozone Is Being Destroyed
Over 60 years ago, scientists announced the discovery of a safe refrigerant that could replace others that were toxic and gave off a bad odor. The new chemical was composed of molecules having one carbon, two chlorine, and two fluorine atoms (CCl2F2). It and similar man-made chemicals are called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
By the early 1970’s, the production of CFCs had grown into a huge worldwide industry. They were being used not only in refrigerators but also in aerosol spray cans, in air conditioners, in cleaning agents, and in the manufacture of fast-food containers and other plastic-foam products.
However, in September 1974, two scientists, Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina, explained that CFCs gradually rise into the stratosphere where they eventually release their chlorine. Each chlorine atom, the scientists calculated, could destroy thousands of ozone molecules. But rather than ozone being destroyed evenly throughout the upper atmosphere, destruction of it has been much greater over the poles.
Every spring since 1979, large amounts of ozone have vanished then reappeared over the Antarctic. This seasonal drop in ozone is called the ozone hole. Moreover, in recent years the so-called hole has been getting bigger and lasting longer. In 1992, satellite measurements revealed an ozone hole of record size—larger than North America. And not much ozone was left in it. Balloon measurements revealed a drop of more than 60 percent—the lowest ever recorded.
Meanwhile, ozone levels have also been dropping in the upper atmosphere over other parts of the earth. "Latest measurements," reports the magazine New Scientist, "show that . . . there were unusually low values of ozone concentration in 1992 between latitudes 50° North and 60° North, covering Northern Europe, Russia and Canada. The ozone level was 12 per cent below normal, lower than at any time in the 35 years of continuous monitoring."
"Even the most dire predictions," states the journal Scientific American, "are now shown to have underestimated ozone loss caused by chlorofluorocarbons. . . . And yet at the time, powerful voices in government and industry strongly opposed regulations, on the grounds of incomplete scientific evidence."
An estimated 20 million tons of CFCs have already been released into the atmosphere. Since it takes years for CFCs to drift up to the stratosphere, millions of tons have not yet reached the upper atmosphere where they do their damage. However, CFCs are not the only source of ozone-destroying chlorine. "NASA estimates that about 75 tons of chlorine are deposited in the ozone layer each time a shuttle is launched," reports the magazine Popular Science.
What Consequences?
The consequences of less ozone in the upper atmosphere are not fully understood. One thing that seems certain, however, is that the amount of harmful UV (ultraviolet) radiation reaching the earth is increasing, resulting in a greater incidence of skin cancer. "During the last decade," reports the journal Earth, "the annual dose of harmful UV striking the northern hemisphere rose by about 5 percent."
Just a 1-percent rise in UV is estimated to cause a 2- to 3-percent rise in skin cancer. The African magazine Getaway states: "There are more than 8 000 new cases of skin cancer in South Africa every year . . . We have one of the lowest levels of ozone protection and one of the highest incidences of skin cancer (the connection is no coincidence)."
That the destruction of ozone in the upper atmosphere would cause an increase in skin cancer was predicted years ago by scientists Rowland and Molina. They recommended an immediate ban on the use of CFCs in aerosols in the United States. Recognizing the danger, many countries have agreed to stop production of CFCs by January 1996. In the meantime, however, the use of CFCs continues to pose a danger to life on earth.
The drop in ozone over Antarctica, reports Our Living World, "has allowed ultraviolet radiation to penetrate deeper into the ocean than previously suspected. . . . This has caused sizeable reductions in the productivity of the single-cell organisms that form the base of the oceanic food chain." Experiments also show that an increase in UV reduces the yield of many crops, posing a threat to the global food supply.
Indeed, the use of CFCs is potentially catastrophic. Yet our atmosphere is being bombarded by many other pollutants. One is an atmospheric gas that in trace amounts is vital to life on earth.
Effect of Pollution
In the mid-19th century, humans began to burn ever larger amounts of coal, gas, and oil, adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. At that time the amount of this trace atmospheric gas was about 285 parts per million. But as a result of man’s increased use of fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide has reached over 350 parts per million. What has been the consequence of more of this heat-trapping gas being in the atmosphere?
Many believe that the increase of carbon dioxide levels is what has caused the rise in earth’s temperatures. Other researchers, however, say that global warming is due particularly to our sun’s variability—that the sun has been emitting greater energy in recent times.
Whatever the case, the decade of the 1980’s was the hottest since records started to be kept in the mid-19th century. "The trend continued into this decade," reports the South African newspaper The Star, "with 1990 the hottest year on record, 1991 the third warmest, and 1992 . . . the tenth warmest year in the 140-year record." The slight decrease over the past two years is attributed to dust ejected into the atmosphere when Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991.
The future effects of the increase of temperatures on earth are hotly debated. But one thing global warming evidently has done is to complicate the already difficult task of weather forecasting. New Scientist notes that wrong forecasts "may be increasingly likely as global warming changes the climate."
Many insurance companies fear that global warming will make their policies unprofitable. "Faced with [a] spate of misfortunes," admits The Economist, "some reinsurers are reducing their exposure to natural disasters. Others are talking of quitting the market altogether. . . . They are scared of uncertainty."
Significantly, in 1990, the warmest year on record, a large portion of the Arctic ice pack retreated to an unprecedented degree. This resulted in hundreds of polar bears being stranded on Wrangell Island for over a month. "With global warming," warns the magazine BBC Wildlife, "these conditions . . . might become a regular occurrence."
"Weather experts," reported an African newspaper in 1992, "are blaming global warming for a dramatic increase in the number of icebergs which are drifting north from Antarctica and presenting a hazard to ships in the south Atlantic." According to the January 1993 issue of Earth, the gradual rising of the sea level off the coast of southern California is due, in part, to a warming of the water.
Unfortunately, humans keep pumping a staggering amount of toxic gases into the atmosphere. "In the USA," states the book The Earth Report 3, "a 1989 report by the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that more than 900,000 tonnes of toxic chemicals are pumped into the air every year." This figure is considered an underestimate because it does not include exhaust fumes from millions of motor vehicles.
Shocking reports of air pollution also come from many other industrialized countries. Especially horrifying have been the recent revelations of uncontrolled air pollution in Eastern European lands during decades of Communist rule.
Earth’s trees, which absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen, are among the victims of toxic air. New Scientist reported: "Germany’s trees are growing increasingly unhealthy, according to . . . the minister of agriculture [who said] that air pollution continues to be one of the main reasons for the forest’s failing health."
The situation is similar in the Transvaal Highveld of South Africa. "The first signs of acid rain damage are now appearing in the Eastern Transvaal where pine needles are changing from a healthy dark green to a sickly mottled beige," reports James Clarke in his book Back to Earth.
Such reports come from around the world. No country is immune. With chimney stacks that reach high into the sky, industrialized countries export their pollution to neighboring lands. Man’s record of greedy industrial development does not inspire hope.
There is, however, basis for optimism. We can be confident that our precious atmosphere will be saved from ruin. Learn in the next article how this will be accomplished.
Destruction of ozone in the upper atmosphere has led to an increase of skin cancer
What are the consequences of such pollution?

trouble

Each year worldwide, 49 million people die. About 75 percent of these deaths are premature, the cause being related to poor environment and life-style, according to a report by the World Health Organization (WHO). Consider some examples:
▪ Cancer kills five million each year. Much of this, WHO reports, "is directly attributable to the massive increase in cigarette smoking in the past 30 years."
▪ Diarrheal diseases, killing more than three million children annually, are often caused by contaminated food and water, as well as by a lack of proper sanitation.
▪ Tuberculosis, slayer of three million yearly, prospers in conditions of poverty and overcrowding, especially where there is poor sanitation.
▪ Respiratory infections, mainly pneumonia, kill three and a half million youngsters under five years of age each year. Many are city dwellers who are exposed to high levels of air pollution.
Aside from these fatalities, annually some two and a half billion—nearly half the world’s population—suffer from sicknesses that stem from insufficient or contaminated water and poor sanitation. Additionally, such current concerns as acid rain, the weakened ozone layer, and global warming are linked by WHO to the declining health of many. Overall, the WHO report noted, more than two billion persons live in life-threatening or health-threatening environments.
Dr. Hiroshi Nakajima, director general of WHO, warns: "If we do not act now, the crisis for the Earth and its inhabitants will become intolerably acute, with an environment that is no longer sustainable

energy do u save it or waste it ?

ENERGY worth an estimated $1 billion, enough to power a city the size of Chicago, is being wasted in the United States each year. How? Devices such as computers, fax machines, VCRs, televisions, CD players, and even coffeemakers are left in standby mode. This is done to run their clocks, maintain their memories, and display their settings—or simply so that they will be ready for instant use.
It is reckoned that in Britain the energy consumed annually by such idling devices creates half a million tons of greenhouse gases, through electric powerhouse production. These gases are poured into the atmosphere and may be adding to the effects of global warming. "However fashionable green ideology is among young consumers, few make the connection between the generation of electricity and the warming of the planet," says London’s newspaper The Times.
It is not generally realized that many electronic gadgets use almost as much energy on standby as they do when working at full capacity. A satellite TV system, for example, may use 15 watts when in use and only 1 watt less on standby. Bad design also plays a part. One CD player tested used 28 watts on standby, but another model with similar features used only 2 watts. But now a new computer chip has been designed that, it is claimed, can cut standby consumption from 10 watts to 1 watt or even to a mere 0.1 watt. It is hoped that in the continuing fight against pollution, manufacturers around the world will eventually use this chip, costing $2.50, as a standard component. Meantime, what can you do?
Britain’s environment minister observes: "The amounts of electricity for each gadget may seem quite small. But because there are 60 million of us in these islands [Britain] it adds up to quite a lot." Household items such as refrigerators quite obviously cannot be switched off. But it is good to get into the habit of switching off lights that are not needed and switching other appliances off rather than leaving them in standby mode. This will not only save you money but also help to save our planet from unnecessary pollution

antartica is in trouble

Antarctica—A Continent in Trouble
WHEN astronauts view the earth from space, says the book Antarctica: The Last Continent, the most distinctive feature of our planet is the ice sheet of Antarctica. It "radiates light like a great white lantern across the bottom of the world," the astronauts reported.
Containing some seven million cubic miles [30,000,000 cu km] of ice, Antarctica is an ice-manufacturing machine of continental proportions. Snow falls on the continent and packs down to form ice. Gravity forces the ice to flow slowly toward the coast, and there it slips into the sea to form massive ice shelves.—See the box on page 18.
Receding Ice Shelves
In recent years, however, accelerated melting has reduced the size of a number of ice shelves, and some have disappeared altogether. In 1995 a 500-square-mile [1,000 sq km] section of the 620-mile-long [1,000 km] Larsen Ice Shelf collapsed and broke up into thousands of icebergs, according to one report.
The area that has been affected so far by receding ice is the Antarctic Peninsula. A continuation of the Andes mountain range of South America, this S-shaped peninsula has seen a 4.5-degree-Fahrenheit [2.5 Celsius] rise in temperature over the past 50 years. As a result, James Ross Island, once enclosed by ice, can now be circumnavigated. Receding ice has also brought about a sharp increase in vegetation.
Because significant melting has occurred only in the region of the Antarctic Peninsula, some scientists are not convinced that it is an indication of global warming. However, according to a Norwegian study, Arctic ice is also in retreat. (Because the North Pole is not situated on a landmass, much Arctic ice is sea ice.) All these changes, according to the study, fit the pattern predicted to occur with global warming.
But Antarctica does more than respond to temperature changes. The continent has been described as "the vital engine which drives much of our global climate." If that is so, then future weather patterns may be affected if the continent continues to undergo changes.
In the meantime, high above Antarctica a hole twice the size of Europe has formed in the atmosphere’s ozone layer. Ozone, a form of oxygen, shields the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation that damages eyes and causes skin cancers. Because of the increase in radiation, researchers in Antarctica must protect their skin from the sun and don goggles or sunglasses with special reflective coatings to protect their eyes. Only time will tell to what extent Antarctica’s seasonal wildlife is affected.
Delicate Continent—Tread Lightly
The above heading might be a fitting welcome for visitors to Antarctica. Why so? For several reasons, according to the Australian Antarctic Division. First, because of Antarctica’s simple ecological relationships, the environment is highly sensitive to disturbances. Second, plants grow so slowly that a footprint in a moss bed may still be visible ten years later. Damaged or weakened plants are at the mercy of Antarctica’s high winds, which can destroy whole plant communities. Third, extreme cold means that waste products can take decades to decompose. Fourth, people may inadvertently bring in microscopic life-forms alien to this isolated, and hence vulnerable, continent. Finally, the places tourists and scientists tend to frequent are the coastal fringes—the areas that are also most favorable for wildlife and vegetation. Because these areas comprise only about 2 percent of the landmass, it is easy to see why Antarctica could soon become overcrowded. That raises the question, Who polices this huge continent?
Who Rules Antarctica?
Although seven countries claim portions of Antarctica, the continent as a whole has the unique distinction of having neither a sovereign nor a citizenry. "Antarctica is the only continent on earth to be completely governed by an international agreement," reports the Australian Antarctic Division.
Called the Antarctic Treaty, the agreement was signed by 12 governments and entered into force on June 23, 1961. Since then, the number of participating nations has grown to over 40. The treaty’s objective is "to ensure, in the interest of all mankind, that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord."
In January 1998 the Environmental Protection Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty came into force. This protocol bans all mining and mineral exploitation in Antarctica for a minimum of 50 years. It also designates the continent and its dependent marine ecosystems as a "natural reserve devoted to peace and science." Military activities, weapons testing, and the disposal of nuclear wastes are prohibited. Even sled dogs are banned.
The Antarctic Treaty has been hailed as "an unprecedented example of international cooperation." However, there are still many problems to be resolved, including sovereignty. Who, for instance, will enforce the treaty, and how? And how will the member nations deal with the rapid growth of tourism—a potential threat to Antarctica’s delicate ecology? In recent years over 7,000 ship-borne tourists have visited Antarctica annually, and this figure is expected to double before long.
Other challenges may arise in the future. For instance, what if scientists find valuable mineral or oil deposits? Will the treaty prevent commercial exploitation and the pollution that often follows? Treaties can be changed, and the Antarctic Treaty is no exception. In fact, Article 12 makes provision for the treaty to be "modified or amended at any time by unanimous agreement of the Contracting Parties."
Of course, no treaty is capable of shielding Antarctica from the effluents of the modern, industrialized world. What a pity if the beautiful "white lantern" at the bottom of the globe were to be sullied by the far-reaching effects of human greed and ignorance! To hurt Antarctica is to injure humankind. If Antarctica teaches us anything, it is that the whole earth—like the human body—is an interrelated system, perfectly coordinated by the Creator both to sustain life and to give us enjoyment.
WHAT IS AN ICE SHELF?
High in Antarctica’s interior, streams of ice formed by falling snow work their way down toward the coast—some flowing as much as half a mile a year, according to recent satellite radar images. Many of these ice streams merge like tributaries, forming huge rivers of ice. When they reach the sea, these frozen rivers float on the water to form ice shelves, the largest being the Ross Ice Shelf (shown here). Fed by no less than seven ice streams or glaciers, it is the size of France and up to half a mile thick in places.
Under normal circumstances, ice shelves do not retreat. As the glaciers feed more ice into the shelf, the outer extremity of the shelf is pushed farther out to sea, like toothpaste being squeezed from a tube. There huge chunks eventually break off (a process called calving), and these chunks become icebergs. Some icebergs are "as huge as 5,000 square miles [13,000 sq km]," says The World Book Encyclopedia. In recent years, though, calving has accelerated and ice shelves have retreated, some even disappearing altogether. Even so, this does not raise sea levels. Why not? Because ice shelves are already afloat, displacing their weight in water. But if the ice on the Antarctic mainland were to melt, it would be like emptying a seven-million-cubic-mile [30,000,000 cu km] reservoir into the sea! Sea levels would rise some 200 feet [65 m]!

Ice shelves are not to be confused with pack ice. Pack ice begins as ice floes that form on the sea during winter when the water surface freezes. These floes then merge to form pack ice. The reverse occurs during summer. Icebergs do not form from pack ice but, rather, from ice shelves.

Massive blocks of ice calve off the Ross Ice Shelf. The ice shelf here rises about 200 feet above

forest provided services

Forest-Provided Services—How Valuable?
FORESTS cover nearly one third of the earth’s land area, but that figure keeps dropping. Choices—The Human Development Magazine, published by the United Nations Development Programme, said in 1998 that in the developing world alone, "as many as 4 million hectares [10 million acres] of land—an area the size of Switzerland—are deforested each year."
Why Deforestation Is a Paradox
Ongoing deforestation, say some experts, is a paradox. This is because the burning and logging of forests continues for economic reasons. Yet, as one authority says, forests "are worth far more standing than they are cut or burned down." How so?
Dr. Philip M. Fearnside and Dr. Flávio J. Luizão, researchers with the National Institute for Research in the Amazon, in Manaus, Brazil, told Awake! that the standing rain forests provide, as they put it, "services to the world." These services include absorbing and storing carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas), preventing soil loss and flooding, recycling nutrients, regulating rainfall, and providing a home for endangered animals and a shelter for wild crop plants. Forests also provide fascinating scenery and a place for recreation. All such environmental services, say the researchers, have economic value.
As an example, consider a forest’s ability to store carbon. When the forest is cut down, carbon released by trees after they are felled ends up as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and contributes to global warming. Thus, the economic value of this forest-provided "service to the world," that is, storing carbon, can be estimated by determining what it costs to reduce carbon emission by man-made means.
According to Marc J. Dourojeanni, an environment adviser at the Brazilian office of the Inter-American Development Bank, such calculations show that "the value of forests as carbon sinks [storage places] is much greater than the value they generate from timber and as agricultural land." Still, ever more forests are leveled. Why?
An Incentive to Preserve
Think of this comparison: A group of people own an electric power plant. The plant transmits electricity to the surrounding towns, but the consumers do not pay one cent in compensation. After some time the owners reason, ‘Shutting down the plant, stripping it of all equipment, and selling the inventory for a profit makes more economic sense than preserving a plant that makes no money.’ Some officials in forest-rich countries seem to think similarly. Since the forest-provided services are not paid for by the world’s consumers, it makes more economic sense to cut down the forests (strip the power plant, so to speak) and sell the trees (sell the inventory) in order to make a quick and fat profit—or so the argument goes.
The only way to reverse this trend, says Dourojeanni, is to make it economically appealing to preserve a forest. One idea, proposed by Professor Dr. José Goldemberg, a Brazilian nuclear physicist and former chancellor of the University of São Paulo, is to levy a "worldwide carbon tax" on users of what are often called fossil fuels.
As proponents see it, the amount of tax levied would depend on the amount of fuel a country or state used, as well as on the volume of greenhouse gases they produced. For example, the United States, which represents about 5 percent of the world’s population, emits nearly 24 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases. Some policymakers reason that the tax money paid by such a country would then be used to compensate the nations that forgo quick logging profits to preserve their forests instead. In this way, it is suggested, the consumers would, in effect, pay their ‘electricity bill’ and the so-called owners would have an economic incentive to preserve their ‘power plant.’
Who, though, would set the prices for environmental services? And who would collect and distribute the fees?
Changes in Behavior Needed
"These issues," says Dourojeanni, "could best be addressed at a worldwide forest convention." Such a convention could determine the price tags for the environmental services provided by forests. Then, "a world forest organization could be set up to manage this international endeavour."
Although using an international institution to regulate an international problem may seem to make sense, Dourojeanni admits: "A proliferation of institutions and commissions set up to deal with forestry issues has not helped matters." What is really needed, he adds, are "drastic changes in social and economic behaviour." Indeed, forest preservation requires more than a change of law—it requires a change of heart.
Will such problems ever be solved?

oil is it a curse

TO WHAT extent do industrialized nations depend on oil and its products? Oil—and natural gas—are essential to them, and this has created, as Daniel Yergin states in his book The Prize, a "Hydrocarbon Society." Just think of heating oil, greases, waxes, asphalts, and the items made from petrochemicals—aircraft, automobiles, boats, adhesives, paint, polyester clothes, sneakers, toys, dyes, aspirin, deodorant, makeup, recording discs, computers, TVs, telephones. Every day many people use a number of the over 4,000 oil-derived products or items that shape modern life. But what about the harm to the fabric of life that has characterized the history of oil since its beginning?
A King That "Does Not Rule Benevolently"
By the end of 1940, when war between Romania and Hungary seemed imminent, Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was quick to act as arbitrator. A gesture of goodwill? What Hitler really wanted to prevent was having Romanian oil wells fall under the control of the Soviet Union. Oil was also a major factor in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the inclusion of other nations in the counteroffensive. By no means are these isolated events. So many times the determination to control oil has been the cause of conflict and suffering.
Not only is oil essential to modern life but it is also deeply rooted in the very heart of politics and the special interests of a few powerful people. As the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) recently stated, oil is not an ordinary product but "a strategic asset." Oil has been used between nations for political leverage, through embargoes and sanctions. In addition, oil wells, refineries, and tankers have been the target of terrorist attacks—often causing terrible damage to the environment.
The oil industry has been accused of adding to the damage done to the environment by carbon dioxide emissions, which may contribute to global climate change. According to a report from PEMEX (Mexican Petroleums), one of the world’s biggest oil enterprises, contaminants are emitted during various phases of petroleum processing. Although gasolines are cleaner now—nearly six years after the Kyoto Protocol, when 161 nations met to take steps to reduce the threat of global climate warming—many feel that little has changed. On the other hand, OPEC says that "oil is the creator of the wealth and prosperity enjoyed today" by many countries. But is this always the case?
Some would point to damage that has resulted from the drilling of oil wells and the construction of pipelines. Others might point to the increasing number of unemployed in Saudi Arabia, the country richest in oil deposits. Alí Rodríguez Araque, president of OPEC, says: "The governments of the industrialized nations are taking enormous advantage of the sacrifices which they demand of producers, refiners and consumers."
CorpWatch, an organization that works to hold corporations accountable on issues such as environmental justice, states: "Oil is still King. But it does not rule benevolently."
What will be the future for oil?

what happened to weather?

IS SOMETHING really wrong with the weather? Many fear that there is. Meteorologist Dr. Peter Werner from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research says: “When we observe global weather—the extremes in precipitation, floods, droughts, storms—and note its development, we can rightly say that these extremes have quadrupled over the last 50 years.”

Many feel that the unusual weather patterns are evidence of global warming—the so-called greenhouse effect run amok. Explains the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: “The greenhouse effect is the rise in temperature that the Earth experiences because certain gases in the atmosphere (water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane, for example) trap energy from the sun. Without these gases, heat would escape back into space and Earth’s average temperature would be about 60°F [33°C] colder.”

Many charge, however, that man has unwittingly tampered with this natural process. Says an article in Earth Observatory, an on-line publication of the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration: “For decades human factories and cars have spewed billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere . . . Many scientists fear that the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases have prevented additional thermal radiation from leaving the Earth. In essence, these gases are trapping excess heat in the Earth’s atmosphere in much the same way that a windshield traps solar energy that enters a car.”

Skeptics point out that only a small percentage of greenhouse gas emissions are man-made. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a research group that is sponsored by both the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, reports: “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”

Climatologist Pieter Tans of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says: “If I had to put a figure on it, I would say that it is 60 percent our fault . . . The remaining 40 percent is due to natural causes.”

Possible Consequences of Global Warming

What, then, has been the apparent result of the buildup of man-made greenhouse gases? Most scientists now agree that the earth has indeed heated up. Just how dramatic has this temperature rise been? The 2001 IPCC report says: “Global surface temperatures have increased between 0.4 and 0.8°C since the late 19th century.” Many researchers believe that this small rise could account for the dramatic changes in our weather.

Admittedly, the earth’s weather system is astonishingly complex, and scientists cannot state with certainty what—if any—the effects of global warming are. However, many believe that as a result of global warming, there has been increased rainfall in the Northern Hemisphere, drought in Asia and Africa, and escalating El Niño events in the Pacific.

Needed—A Global Solution

Since many view this problem as man-made, cannot man solve the problem? A number of communities have already enacted laws to limit pollution emissions from cars and factories. However, such efforts—commendable as they are—have had little or no impact. Pollution is a global problem, so the solution would have to be global! In 1992 the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro was convened. Ten years later, in Johannesburg, South Africa, the World Summit on Sustainable Development was held. Some 40,000 delegates attended this meeting in 2002, including about 100 national leaders.

Such conferences have done much to bring about a general consensus among scientists. The German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel explains: “Whereas most scientists back then [in 1992] had their doubts about the greenhouse effect, it goes practically unquestioned today.” Even so, Germany’s environment minister, Jürgen Trittin, reminds us that the real solution to the problem has still not been found. “Johannesburg must therefore be not only a summit of words,” he stressed, “but also a summit of action.”

Can Environmental Damage Be Halted?

Global warming is just one of many environmental challenges facing mankind. Taking effective action may be far easier said than done. “Now that we have finally faced up to the terrible damage we have inflicted on our environment,” writes British ethologist Jane Goodall, “our ingenuity is working overtime to find technological solutions.” But she cautions: “Technology alone is not enough. We must engage with our hearts also.”

Consider again the problem of global warming. Antipollution measures are costly; often, poorer nations simply cannot afford them. Some experts thus fear that energy restrictions will send industries fleeing to poorer lands where they can operate more profitably. Even the best-intentioned leaders, therefore, find themselves caught in a bind. If they protect their nations’ economic interests, the environment suffers. If they push for environmental protection, they endanger the economy.

Severn Cullis-Suzuki, of the World Summit advisory panel, therefore argues that change must come through individual action, saying: “Real environmental change depends on us. We can’t wait for our leaders. We have to focus on what our own responsibilities are and how we can make the change happen.”

It is only reasonable to expect people to behave with respect for the environment. But getting people to make needed changes in their life-styles is not so easy. To illustrate: Most people agree that automobiles contribute to global warming. Hence, an individual may want to cut back on driving or do without an automobile completely. But doing so may not be so easy. As Wolfgang Sachs from the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, and Energy recently pointed out, “all the places that play a role in daily life (workplace, kindergarten, school, or shopping center) lie so far apart that you cannot manage without a car. . . . Whether I personally want a car or not has nothing to do with it. Most folks simply have no choice.”

Some scientists, such as Professor Robert Dickinson of the Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, fear that it might already be too late to spare earth from the consequences of global warming. Dickinson believes that even if pollution ceased today, the effects of past abuses to the atmosphere would still last for at least another 100 years!

Since neither governments nor individuals can solve the problems of the environment, who can? From ancient times, people have looked to the heavens for help in controlling the weather. As naive as such efforts were, they do reveal a basic truth: Mankind needs divine help to solve these problems.
“There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities”

“Is Global Warming Harmful to Health?”

An article in Scientific American raised this intriguing question. It predicted that global warming “will expand the incidence and distribution of many serious medical disorders.” For example, in some places “the number of deaths related to heat waves is projected to double by 2020.”

Less obvious is the role global warming could play in infectious disease. “Mosquito-borne disorders are projected to become increasingly prevalent,” since mosquitoes “proliferate faster and bite more as the air becomes warmer. . . . As whole areas heat up, then, mosquitoes could expand into formerly forbidden territories, bringing illness with them.”

Finally, there are the effects of flood and drought—both of which can result in polluted water supplies. Clearly, the threat of global warming must be taken seriously.

The greenhouse effect causes heat to build up in the atmosphere instead of escaping into space
Man has released billions of tons of pollutants into the air, accelerating the greenhouse effect