Six Billion, or Fifteen Billion People? A Discussion With Environmental Scientist Leon Kolankiewicz

By Michael Tobias
May 3, 2013
Forbes

Leon Kolankiewicz is an environmental scientist, wildlife ecologist, and natural resources planner whose career spans almost 30 years, multiple states, and three countries, having worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, the Universities of Washington and New Mexico, among others. He has been the Vice President of the Washington, D.C.-based Carrying Capacity Network and, as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Honduras, promoted the conservation of tropical rainforests and wildlife. He serves as a Senior Writing Fellow and Member of the Board of Advisors of Californians for Population Stabilization, has authored two books, scores of articles, and managed and edited a number of environmental impact statements for federal agencies and dozens of management plans for national wildlife refuges on behalf of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

A Demographic Mount Everest

Michael Tobias (MT): With a global total fertility rate average of 2.4 children per couple, as highlighted in last year’s “2012 World Population Data Sheet” of the Population Reference Bureau a range of assumptions and projections can be ascertained. These figures – known and, as yet, unknown – are likely to impact nearly every aspect of life for humans, as well as most animals and plants across every global biome. In the area of sheer quantifiable numbers of humans what specific trends give you some measure of confidence that global population is stabilizing; what data sounds an alarm and inflicts serious speculative pause?

Leon Kolankiewicz (LK):  What gives me some measure of confidence that the global population may be on its way to stabilization is that worldwide Total Fertility Rates have dropped by about half in the last half-century or so. In countries as diverse as Iran and Brazil, populations are now virtually at or even below “replacement level fertility,” that is, about 2.1 live births per female.  Moreover, women the world over, when and if provided with educational and economic opportunities, and when given a real choice in their reproductive decisions, tend to choose quality over quantity.

MT: But population growth continues? This is the ineluctable promise of a built-in momentum of couples at their reproductive heights, the somewhat baffling reality of what I have elsewhere termed, “a demographic Mount Everest” in my book, World War III: Population & The Biosphere at the End of the Millennium.

LK: Yes. But while still rapid and unsustainable, it is no longer exponential, because the annual percentage rate of increase is decreasing ever so slowly, having peaked, of course, at about 2% several decades ago. It’s been gradually dropping since.

MT: A rationale for demographic complacency?

LK: Definitely not. The rate of decline is too slow. In 2004, the respected Population Reference Bureau (PRB) estimated the annual growth rate at 1.3%; eight years later, in 2012, PRB estimated the rate at 1.2%, a mere 0.1% decrease.

And because this smaller rate is applied to a larger population base, the annual increment of population increase has not really declined at all.  Indeed, PRB has estimated that in 2004 global population grew by about 83 million, while in 2012 it grew by about 84 million.

Moreover, there has been an emerging backlash in the more developed countries among many economists, politicians, pundits and business advocates to the decades-long prevalence of lower birth rates.  This manifests itself with cries of alarm over an alleged “birth dearth” or “baby bust,” coupled with at least partially legitimate concern about a growing dependency ratio with the retirement en masse of the baby boomers (and not enough workers from subsequent generations to support them).  Of course, since people are living longer, the dependency ratio issue could be dealt with by people having to work a bit longer. But these fears lead to calls for a number of measures to increase fertility by improving the “family friendliness” of society.  The record of these measures in achieving their aim tends to be marginal at best, if Europe is any guide.  It remains to be seen whether the call of Iranian President Ahmadinejad for Persian women to get back to the bedroom and fulfill their patriotic duty to produce more Iranians will be heeded.

MT: What a notion! So, in sum, taking into account all the positive and negative trends, by the year 2100, what do you see?

LK: Michael, with relatively modest changes in year to year demographic factors (birth and death rates, longevity, etc.) the Earth could well see a global human population ranging from a low of about 6 billion or less to a high of 15 billion or more.

MT: Six billion versus fifteen billion. That’s a world of difference. At more than double the current human population, the fifteen billion, I have serious concerns about the world’s biological well-being, not to mention that of Homo sapiens.

LK: Absolutely. The quality of life for 15 billion is entirely uncertain and there are likely to be huge and socially unstable variations among regions, countries, and individuals.

The Biological Bottom-Line

MT: The biological bottom-line; the entire biosphere.

LK: Precisely. The life support system for this global human enterprise – the potential for fifteen billion – is, tragically, likely to be even more compromised than at present, though this is not a given. It is also not a given what will be the decisive factor in ultimately stopping human population growth: rising death rates, or preferably, declining birth rates where they continue well above the replacement rate.

We are approaching an extraordinary moment in the history of life on Earth – the peaking of the population of the dominant vertebrate, after millennia of steady growth and two centuries of a population irruption with unparalleled impacts on the biosphere.  Hopefully – but with no guarantees – the end of this phase is swiftly approaching.

MT: We’ve heard much about planetary “ecological wounds” and the consequential intersections for both human and habitat health resulting from so many demographic moving parts. If we extrapolate to 2050 and beyond we verge upon cognitive dissonance and data laced with varying conceptual, cultural and methodological biases. But in this foreseeable decade, throughout this hands-on generation, what are the population flash points that most concern you?

LK: As a wildlife biologist and lover of wilderness and biodiversity, I am deeply disturbed by the unfolding biodiversity and extinction crises, threats more severe than any faced since the end of the Cretaceous, 65 million years ago. Seven billion humans are imperiling wild flora and fauna in any number of ways, from habitat destruction, fragmentation and degradation, to poaching, overhunting, overharvest, toxic contamination, and the deliberate or unwitting introduction of invasive species.

A Planet of Consumers

MT: And the differentiation between rich and poor impacts upon the Earth?

LK: All in all, richer people tend to have a greater per capita environmental impact than poorer people, due to their greater resource consumption and waste generation. But economically marginalized people can have a disproportionately negative impact on wildlife because of the fact they are often forced to move into and exploit frontier and marginal sites (like steep mountainsides, floodplains, or malaria-infested rainforests), often among those very inhospitable places within which remaining wildlife  perilously clings to survival. Wildlife is hunted without any controls or management so as to put cheap food on the plate; or is displaced by livestock. Unfortunately, many of the world’s so-called biodiversity hotspots – where the greatest numbers of species are found in relatively small areas –are in places being subjected to stresses from inordinate human population growth.

MT: So we are in an ecological double-bind?

LK: Yes, a sort of a “damned if we do, damned if we don’t” dilemma.  The ever-increasing burden on environmental resources posed by traditional economic growth needed to keep unemployment low and meet rising material aspirations for a growing population is absolutely unsustainable.  Yet, without such prosperity, and the social order it engenders, desperate people will destroy wildlife and wild places in order to survive.  In Africa elephants are being slaughtered for their tusks and rhinos for their horns.  When I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in war-torn Central America in the late eighties, I saw firsthand the wanton killing of monkeys and other wildlife by trigger-happy, bored, uneducated young soldiers with M-16s provided by U.S. taxpayers.  The social instability and widespread poverty one sees in the growing number of failed states is an unmitigated disaster for wildlife.

For the time being, we are able to persist in this inherently unsustainable condition only by drawing down natural capital such as fertile soils, productive forests, and concentrated mineral resources and fossil fuels, while overloading environmental “sinks” such as the atmosphere and oceans.  This game can’t go on forever, and will end badly unless we start to get our act together far more than we have to date.

MT: Examining the most recent U. S. Census Bureau summaries makes for enlightening reading. Some will argue it is bedtime reading, others pre-dawn wake-up calls. What are the most salient Census Bureau findings Americans should be most concerned about, good and bad.

LK: Even without substantially higher immigration rates – which are a distinct possibility given some of the proposals for amnesty and higher legal immigration levels being pushed by the Obama administration and certain members of Congress – our population is still projected to grow by over 100 million in the coming half century, and still be growing rapidly with no end in sight. The Census projects that the U.S. population will grow from about 315 million at present to 420 million in 2060.

MT: And if it should so happen?

LK: Such growth will thwart the pursuit of environmental sustainability in the United States.  It will also degrade the environment, hasten the depletion of non-renewable resources, contribute to the overuse of renewable natural resources, accelerate the loss of wildlife habitat, and last but not least, worsen our quality of life by exacerbating everything from traffic congestion to overcrowded, overused parks.

Immigration and Abortion

MT: Two areas of heated debate have long dominated most American deliberations regarding population: abortion and immigration. What are some key personal, community and ecological outcomes that you envision might well materialize should this nation fail to reach some tenable consensus on these divisive population concerns?

LK: These issues are both profoundly related to the population question, in that they touch upon exactly who and how many will be added to our ranks, to the American community.  While abortion and immigration are both intensely personal matters, they also present serious ramifications for the public.

Unfortunately, the very contentiousness of these issues, and the political paralysis and polarization that characterizes them, has been a serious obstacle to rational consideration of a sustainable population policy for the United States.  Many people, environmentalists and environmental groups foremost among them, avoid the population issue altogether to avoid being attacked for whatever position they take, or alienating some of their membership base.  It is more expedient, and often more productive, to publicly oppose a new road or road expansion, or a new power plant or power line, or a new mine, or a new dam, or a new subdivision, than to oppose the underlying population growth that necessitates these projects.

The Population and Consumption Task Force of President Bill Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development wrote in 1996 that: “This is a sensitive issue, but reducing immigration levels is a necessary part of population stabilization and the drive toward sustainability.”  Environmental leaders and groups all but ignored this finding.  And today there are about 45 million more Americans than in 1996, most of them directly and indirectly a result of immigration that the environmental establishment avoids addressing so as to skirt the controversies attending immigration.

MT: Given the political stalemate on immigration, what are the current numbers?

LK: Well, for starters, more than a million immigrants settle in our country every year, most of them admitted legally. This will continue indefinitely, unless Americans decide to muster far more resolve to reduce immigration rates than they have shown to date, in recognition of immigration’s adverse impact on population growth and the environment, and decidedly not out of any enmity towards immigrants as individuals.

MT: And our deep-seated “nation of immigrants” concept?

LK: I am of the opinion that many Americans seem incapable of grasping the simple notion that there can simply be too much of a good thing.  It is certainly possible to honor our immigrant past and accept some role for immigration now and in the future, without falling for the fallacy that this means we can continue to accept immigration levels in excess of a million a year forever.

In the recent book, Life on the Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation (University of Georgia Press), former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm has an essay entitled “Confronting Finitude.” Lamm writes: “Americans now live in a cash-wage industrial society with no more virgin land,” and he adds that this new reality compels us to “no longer blindly assume that all immigrants benefit America.”  More generally, he urges Americans to reconsider their public policies, which mistakenly assume infinite resources in a finite world.

MT: And what about abortion, in this context?

LK: I’m not hopeful about any national resolution or consensus on the abortion issue within my lifetime.  I do think it unlikely that Roe v. Wade (1973) will be overturned anytime soon, and I hope never.

MT: In his recent address to Planned Parenthood, President Obama made clear that that organization can be assured it is here to say.

LK: Yes, but for the foreseeable future, greater and greater restrictions will be placed on access to abortion at the state and local levels, especially in more conservative parts of the country. Of far greater potential demographic-related import are possible restrictions on access to family planning, which some of the same anti-abortion groups also support.  This needs to be opposed vigorously.

Our Individual Choices

MT: What can individuals do? What are the most important steps individuals can take to make a tangible difference towards engendering more environmental stability at home, as well as globally?

LK: Individuals can make a difference in several ways, both in terms of the personal choices we make as parents and consumers and in how we affect broader political and economic policies.

First, we can choose to “walk the talk” and limit the size of our own families to one or two children at most.  Better yet, go childless.

Second, we can be advocates and educators on behalf of U.S. and global population stabilization.  Our personal decisions to limit our own demographic impact by having fewer or no children will make no difference at all unless large enough numbers of people think it is important enough to behave similarly.  I would recommend that individuals support advocacy non-profit groups such as the Population Media Center and the Population Institute, which focus on international population issues, and NumbersUSA and Californians for Population Stabilization, which focus on slowing and stopping U.S. population growth.

Third, we can conserve energy and resources in our own personal consumption choices and actions.  Drive less.  Ride bicycles, take public transit, and walk more.  Drive smaller, more fuel efficient cars.  Recycle. Reuse.  Replace incandescent lights with compact fluorescents.  Purchase energy star appliances.  Eat less meat or none at all.  (It takes 5-10 times the amount of water, energy, and land to produce the same number of calories or protein in meat as in plants and vegetables.) Turn the thermostat lower in winter and higher in summer.  Many of these tips save money as well as helping save the Earth.

Fourth, at a political level, we can support more rational, enlightened environmental policies and better stewardship of natural resources.  From my perspective as one who believes we need to learn to live within limits, Democratic politicians tend to be better in their support for the environment, family planning, and global population, and lousy on U.S. population stabilization and immigration.  Republicans are pretty much the reverse.  Most Americans support population stabilization nationally and globally, and they support environmental sustainability, at least in theory.  But we are overwhelmed by the power of vested interests who dominate American politics and politicians.

MT: Thanks, Leon.

LK: My pleasure, Michael.