Environmental friendly And Safety Advocate: LETS STOP AND THINK FOR A MOMENT THE ENVIRONMENTAL...

Environmental friendly And Safety Advocate: LETS STOP AND THINK FOR A MOMENT THE ENVIRONMENTAL...:  I will love with this little article to share my view on what many have been over looking or can i say a "near miss", the crash has been a...

Environmental friendly And Safety Advocate: LETS STOP AND THINK FOR A MOMENT THE ENVIRONMENTAL...

Environmental friendly And Safety Advocate: LETS STOP AND THINK FOR A MOMENT THE ENVIRONMENTAL...:  I will love with this little article to share my view on what many have been over looking or can i say a "near miss", the crash has been a...

LETS STOP AND THINK FOR A MOMENT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF DANA PLANE CRASH

 I will love with this little article to share my view on what many have been over looking or can i say a "near miss", the crash has been a great loss to nation economically and otherwise but lest not forget the impact of this crash on the Nigeria environment as a nation and the world at large.
We all know that Airplane or Air traveling is the major course of air pollution and the highest releases of CFC (chlorofluorocarbons).And this means increase in carbon emission and increase in global warming and climate change.
Pollution of the ground water which are non-point source, the debris from the clash can sip into the aquifer via wash off from rain and this can have adverse effect on the people of that particular environment because that is the major source of water supply for them.and you know aquifer or underground water are difficult to treat thereby leading to more death.what should be done, proper cleaning of that particular environment and proper disposer and ventilation of that area.http://oyakihlome.blogspot.com

Nigeria's agony dwarfs the Gulf oil spill. The US and Europe ignore it

The Deepwater Horizon disaster caused headlines around the world, yet the people who live in the Niger delta have had to live with environmental catastrophes for decades

http://bit.ly/KaB5Bz

A ruptured pipeline burns in a Lagos suburb after an explosion in 2008 which killed at least 100 people. Photograph: George Esiri/Reuters

We reached the edge of the oil spill near the Nigerian village of Otuegwe after a long hike through cassava plantations. Ahead of us lay swamp. We waded into the warm tropical water and began swimming, cameras and notebooks held above our heads. We could smell the oil long before we saw it – the stench of garage forecourts and rotting vegetation hanging thickly in the air.
The farther we travelled, the more nauseous it became. Soon we were swimming in pools of light Nigerian crude, the best-quality oil in the world. One of the many hundreds of 40-year-old pipelines that crisscross the Niger delta had corroded and spewed oil for several months.
Forest and farmland were now covered in a sheen of greasy oil. Drinking wells were polluted and people were distraught. No one knew how much oil had leaked. "We lost our nets, huts and fishing pots," said Chief Promise, village leader of Otuegwe and our guide. "This is where we fished and farmed. We have lost our forest. We told Shell of the spill within days, but they did nothing for six months."
That was the Niger delta a few years ago, where, according to Nigerian academics, writers and environment groups, oil companies have acted with such impunity and recklessness that much of the region has been devastated by leaks.
In fact, more oil is spilled from the delta's network of terminals, pipes, pumping stations and oil platforms every year than has been lost in the Gulf of Mexico, the site of a major ecological catastrophe caused by oil that has poured from a leak triggered by the explosion that wrecked BP's Deepwater Horizon rig last month.
That disaster, which claimed the lives of 11 rig workers, has made headlines round the world. By contrast, little information has emerged about the damage inflicted on the Niger delta. Yet the destruction there provides us with a far more accurate picture of the price we have to pay for drilling oil today.
On 1 May this year a ruptured ExxonMobil pipeline in the state of Akwa Ibom spilled more than a million gallons into the delta over seven days before the leak was stopped. Local people demonstrated against the company but say they were attacked by security guards. Community leaders are now demanding $1bn in compensation for the illness and loss of livelihood they suffered. Few expect they will succeed. In the meantime, thick balls of tar are being washed up along the coast.
Within days of the Ibeno spill, thousands of barrels of oil were spilled when the nearby Shell Trans Niger pipeline was attacked by rebels. A few days after that, a large oil slick was found floating on Lake Adibawa in Bayelsa state and another in Ogoniland. "We are faced with incessant oil spills from rusty pipes, some of which are 40 years old," said Bonny Otavie, a Bayelsa MP.
This point was backed by Williams Mkpa, a community leader in Ibeno: "Oil companies do not value our life; they want us to all die. In the past two years, we have experienced 10 oil spills and fishermen can no longer sustain their families. It is not tolerable."
With 606 oilfields, the Niger delta supplies 40% of all the crude the United States imports and is the world capital of oil pollution. Life expectancy in its rural communities, half of which have no access to clean water, has fallen to little more than 40 years over the past two generations. Locals blame the oil that pollutes their land and can scarcely believe the contrast with the steps taken by BP and the US government to try to stop the Gulf oil leak and to protect the Louisiana shoreline from pollution.
"If this Gulf accident had happened in Nigeria, neither the government nor the company would have paid much attention," said the writer Ben Ikari, a member of the Ogoni people. "This kind of spill happens all the time in the delta."
"The oil companies just ignore it. The lawmakers do not care and people must live with pollution daily. The situation is now worse than it was 30 years ago. Nothing is changing. When I see the efforts that are being made in the US I feel a great sense of sadness at the double standards. What they do in the US or in Europe is very different."
"We see frantic efforts being made to stop the spill in the US," said Nnimo Bassey, Nigerian head of Friends of the Earth International. "But in Nigeria, oil companies largely ignore their spills, cover them up and destroy people's livelihood and environments. The Gulf spill can be seen as a metaphor for what is happening daily in the oilfields of Nigeria and other parts of Africa.
"This has gone on for 50 years in Nigeria. People depend completely on the environment for their drinking water and farming and fishing. They are amazed that the president of the US can be making speeches daily, because in Nigeria people there would not hear a whimper," he said.
It is impossible to know how much oil is spilled in the Niger delta each year because the companies and the government keep that secret. However, two major independent investigations over the past four years suggest that as much is spilled at sea, in the swamps and on land every year as has been lost in the Gulf of Mexico so far.
One report, compiled by WWF UK, the World Conservation Union and representatives from the Nigerian federal government and the Nigerian Conservation Foundation, calculated in 2006 that up to 1.5m tons of oil – 50 times the pollution unleashed in the Exxon Valdez tanker disaster in Alaska – has been spilled in the delta over the past half century. Last year Amnesty calculated that the equivalent of at least 9m barrels of oil was spilled and accused the oil companies of a human rights outrage.
According to Nigerian federal government figures, there were more than 7,000 spills between 1970 and 2000, and there are 2,000 official major spillages sites, many going back decades, with thousands of smaller ones still waiting to be cleared up. More than 1,000 spill cases have been filed against Shell alone.
Last month Shell admitted to spilling 14,000 tonnes of oil in 2009. The majority, said the company, was lost through two incidents – one in which the company claims that thieves damaged a wellhead at its Odidi field and another where militants bombed the Trans Escravos pipeline.
Shell, which works in partnership with the Nigerian government in the delta, says that 98% of all its oil spills are caused by vandalism, theft or sabotage by militants and only a minimal amount by deteriorating infrastructure. "We had 132 spills last year, as against 175 on average. Safety valves were vandalised; one pipe had 300 illegal taps. We found five explosive devices on one. Sometimes communities do not give us access to clean up the pollution because they can make more money from compensation," said a spokesman.
"We have a full-time oil spill response team. Last year we replaced 197 miles of pipeline and are using every known way to clean up pollution, including microbes. We are committed to cleaning up any spill as fast as possible as soon as and for whatever reason they occur."
These claims are hotly disputed by communities and environmental watchdog groups. They mostly blame the companies' vast network of rusting pipes and storage tanks, corroding pipelines, semi-derelict pumping stations and old wellheads, as well as tankers and vessels cleaning out tanks.
The scale of the pollution is mind-boggling. The government's national oil spill detection and response agency (Nosdra) says that between 1976 and 1996 alone, more than 2.4m barrels contaminated the environment. "Oil spills and the dumping of oil into waterways has been extensive, often poisoning drinking water and destroying vegetation. These incidents have become common due to the lack of laws and enforcement measures within the existing political regime," said a spokesman for Nosdra.
The sense of outrage is widespread. "There are more than 300 spills, major and minor, a year," said Bassey. "It happens all the year round. The whole environment is devastated. The latest revelations highlight the massive difference in the response to oil spills. In Nigeria, both companies and government have come to treat an extraordinary level of oil spills as the norm."
A spokesman for the Stakeholder Democracy Network in Lagos, which works to empower those in communities affected by the oil companies' activities, said: "The response to the spill in the United States should serve as a stiff reminder as to how far spill management in Nigeria has drifted from standards across the world."
Other voices of protest point out that the world has overlooked the scale of the environmental impact. Activist Ben Amunwa, of the London-based oil watch group Platform, said: "Deepwater Horizon may have exceed Exxon Valdez, but within a few years in Nigeria offshore spills from four locations dwarfed the scale of the Exxon Valdez disaster many times over. Estimates put spill volumes in the Niger delta among the worst on the planet, but they do not include the crude oil from waste water and gas flares. Companies such as Shell continue to avoid independent monitoring and keep key data secret."
Worse may be to come. One industry insider, who asked not to be named, said: "Major spills are likely to increase in the coming years as the industry strives to extract oil from increasingly remote and difficult terrains. Future supplies will be offshore, deeper and harder to work. When things go wrong, it will be harder to respond."
Judith Kimerling, a professor of law and policy at the City University of New York and author of Amazon Crude, a book about oil development in Ecuador, said: "Spills, leaks and deliberate discharges are happening in oilfields all over the world and very few people seem to care."
There is an overwhelming sense that the big oil companies act as if they are beyond the law. Bassey said: "What we conclude from the Gulf of Mexico pollution incident is that the oil companies are out of control.
"It is clear that BP has been blocking progressive legislation, both in the US and here. In Nigeria, they have been living above the law. They are now clearly a danger to the planet. The dangers of this happening again and again are high. They must be taken to the international court of justice." PLEASE WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON THIS DO REPLY THANKS.oyakihlome.blogspot.com

Environmental friendly And Safety Advocate: HYDROCARBON EXPLOITATION, ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATIO...

Environmental friendly And Safety Advocate: HYDROCARBON EXPLOITATION, ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATIO...: http://bit.ly/KaB5Bz 2.0 OIL RESOURCE EXPLOITATION IN THE NIGER DELTA. OIL RESOURCE EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION. oyakihlome.blogspot.com...

HYDROCARBON EXPLOITATION, ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION

http://bit.ly/KaB5Bz2.0 OIL RESOURCE EXPLOITATION IN THE NIGER DELTA.

1. OIL RESOURCE EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION.oyakihlome.blogspot.com

The effect of oil resource extraction on the environment of the Niger Delta has been very glaring in terms of its negative effect on the region. Eteng 1997, p 4 stated that "Oil exploration and exploitation has over the last four decades impacted disastrously on the socio-physical environment of the Niger Delta oil- bearing communities, massively threatening the subsistent peasant economy and the environment and hence the entire livelihood and basic survival of the people." Suffice it to note that, while oil extraction has caused negative socio-economic and environmental problems in the Niger Delta, the Nigerian State has benefited immensely from petroleum since it was discovered in commercial quantities in 1956. The Central Bank of Nigeria (C.B.N) 1981 annual report stated as follows,
"Oil which was first discovered in 1956 and first exported in 1958 accounted for more than 90% of Nigerian exports by value and about 80% of government revenue as at December 31, 1981….
The overall contribution of the oil sector to the national economy also grew from an insignificant 0.1% in 1959 to 87% in 1976."
There is no doubt that the Nigerian oil industry has affected the country in a variety of ways at the same time. On one hand, it has fashioned a remarkable economic landscape for the country, however on the negative side, petroleum exploration and production also have adverse effects on fishing and farming which are the traditional means of livelihood of the people of the oil producing communities in the Niger Delta, Nigeria.
If the oil industry is considered in view of its enormous contribution to foreign exchange earning, it has achieved a remarkable success. On the other scale, When considered in respect of it's negative impact on the socio-economic life and the environment of the immediate oil bearing local communities and its inhabitants, it has left a balance sheet of ecological and socio-physical disaster. This rightly provides a framework to evaluate the work of neo-classical economists whom argue that the development of primary resource materials for export in the periphery is the basis for development in the peripheral countries.
2.2 PRODUCING FOR EXPORT.
Nigeria like most other less developed countries in the early part of the 70's, were engaged in intensive natural resource exploitation as a way of stimulating economic growth. It was projected by several multilateral funding organisations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF)and the World Bank that export drive of primary resource materials will eventually lead to economic growth and subsequently a significant reduction in the level of poverty. The projection was that the long-term gain of such a process would set the stage for a sustained economic development.
As at 1976, about 10 years from the start of the oil export drive. Figures available from the Federal Office of Statistics stated that oil has come to account for about 14% of the nation's gross domestic product (GNP) of Nigeria. 95% of the total export and over 80% of government annual revenue. Total export peaked at two million barrels of crude oil per day with price range of $18-$22 per barrel. This created more opportunity for the development of new oil fields, increase granting of mining licenses and the intensive exploitation of oil mineral resources in the Niger Delta.
The multinational oil companies made huge investments in the oil sector, which was quite technological and capital intensive. New laws were made which includes the petroleum act of 1969 and the land use Decree/Act of 1978. This legislation regulated community access to communal or open access land and they were primarily promulgated to restrict access to such land, while at the same time making it possible for the Multinational investors to have unrestricted access to explore for oil unchallenged even on sacred land.
These changes have led to a series of social conflict between the community people and the State/Oil companies as will be discussed later.
2.3 PEASANT AGRICULTURE IN THE NIGER DELTA AREAS.
Agriculture forms the most dominant economic activity in the Niger Delta. Federal Office of Statistics (F.O.S) in 1985 stated that Crop farming and fishing activities account for about 90% of all forms of activities in the area. They also estimated that about 50%-68% of the active labour force are engaged in one form of agricultural activity or the other including fishing and farming. Agricultural technology has remained relatively unchanged over the years and over 90% of the farmers are subsistent farmers operating on traditional methods using basic tools. Azibolomari 1998, p 67 stated that
"Farming technique in the Niger Delta has still remained the use of land rotation or bush fallow system characterised by land and labour being the principal inputs of production."
The organic farming technique widely used in the Niger Delta is highly susceptible to environmental changes affecting the soil, water and or deforestation because it is not technologically inspired, but rather land and labour intensive. Oil extraction and production has led to adverse environmental impact on the soil, forest and water of the Niger Delta communities. This has ultimately affected peasant agriculture in a variety of ways, which ultimately have caused problems of environmental refugees. Some of the landless farmers migrate to other more fertile lands in other rural communities, putting pressure on scarce fertile lands. While some of the displaced farmers out-migrate to the urban areas in search of other means of livelihood.
Various harmful and toxic organic compounds when introduced into the natural environment during oil extraction such as during seismic work, oil spill, gas flares and several other forms of pollution, changes the geo-chemical composition of the soil, river and other components of the environment. This in turn affects agriculture and lead to a drastic decline in output in both fishing and farming activities. Staney 1990, pp 67-79 noted that
"7.7% of the 797 people interviewed on the socio-economic impact of oil in Nigeria identified farm land pollution as a major problem".
The peasants are very reactive to these changes because of the unavailability of modern farming and fishing techniques to meet the challenges of a declining soil and Marine resources. The drastic fall in output of the agricultural product, lead to intensive exploitation of other fertile land. The long run effect of this is land degradation and immigration to other rural and urban areas, where pressure is exerted on the often inadequate and dilapidated infrastructure, leading to increase poverty.
In addition, Ikporukpo 1981, pp 23-26 stated that
"Most farmers are concerned with problems of displacement without resettlement during oil spills". Gbadegesin 1997, p 9 further noted that
"Apart from loss of farms, oil spills have led to extensive deforestation with no adequate replanting practices…this in effect has shortened fallow periods, compounded land use degradation and led to a loss of soil fertility and consequently erosion of the top soil".
Elliot 1998, p 82 stated that
"The slash and burn agriculture traditionally practised by shifting cultivators-up to 10% of the world's population-is based on ecologically sound principles. It minimises threats to the forest by leaving land fallow over periods of time long enough for regeneration…. Landless peasants whom have been forced from their own lands, increases the number of people pursuing such a subsistence life style, this contributes to deforestation through further encroachment on forest lands and reductions in fallow times".
The out-migration of the rural displaced farmers in the Niger Delta as a result of environmental degradation caused by oil extraction in the region has led a significant percentage of the local inhabitants to remain in cyclical poverty and penury. This has meant greater environmental degradation as a result of the intensive exploitation of the few remaining fertile land in the region by the residents. It has also led to increasing urban blight in the urban areas in the Niger Delta as more and more displaced rural inhabitant flood the urban areas in search of non-existent jobs.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPLICATION OF INTENSIVE OIL RESOURCE EXPLOITATION IN THE NIGER DELTA.
4. In this section, the paper will look more specifically at various environmental and socio-economic problems that have been identified as a result of the intensive extraction of natural oil resources in the Niger Delta communities in Nigeria.
1. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS.

Nwankwo and Ifeadi 1988, pp 58-64 identified the following factors as some of the pollution problems associated with oil exploration and production in the Niger Delta.

• Contamination of Streams and River.

In the course of oil exploration and production in the Niger Delta, various materials are released into the environment. For example during exploration, drill cuttings, drill muds and fluids are used for stimulating production.

• The problem of Oil Spill.

Transportation and marketing, damage to oil pipelines and accidents involving road trucks and tankers generate oil spills and hydrocarbon emissions which according to Ikporukpo 1988, p 79 have a far more reaching effects, because the toxicity of the oil adversely affect the soil, plant, animal and water resources.

• Forest Destruction and Bio-diversity loss.

The major constituents of drill cuttings such as barytes and bentonite clays when dumped on the ground prevent plant growth until natural processes develop new topsoil. In water according to Nwankwo and Ifeadi (1988), these materials disperse and sink, killing marine animals.

• The Environmental Effect of Gas Flaring.

Flaring of natural gas has also been identified as having negative impact on surrounding vegetation. Isiche and Stanford 1976, pp 177-187.

Environmental friendly And Safety Advocate: Americans still support environmental protection, ...

Environmental friendly And Safety Advocate: Americans still support environmental protection, ...: Americans still support environmental protection, thank you http//www.oyakihlome.blogspot.com A versi...

Americans still support environmental protection, thank you

http//www.oyakihlome.blogspot.com

A version of this post was originally published by the Center for American Progress.
Given today’s economic problems, you’d think the public would be in a surly mood about environmental protection, seeing it as a secondary and perhaps conflicting priority to jobs and economic growth. That’s certainly what conservatives are hoping as they continue to push their environment-wrecking agenda.
Turns out, though, the public didn’t get the memo. In the recently released poll from Yale University’s and George Mason University’s climate change communication programs, 58 percent of poll respondents said that protecting the environment improves economic growth and creates new jobs. Just 17 percent thought environmental protection hurts growth and jobs, and 25 percent thought there was no effect.

In the same poll, when asked to choose directly which was more important — environmental protection or economic growth — the public decisively favored protecting the environment, 62 percent to 38 percent, when there is a conflict between the two goals.
http://bit.ly/KaB5Bz
So no, the bad economy has not turned the public off to environmental protection. Conservatives, if they are wise, will factor that into their political calculations.

Environmental friendly And Safety Advocate: Most people including me fail to understand the co...

Environmental friendly And Safety Advocate: Most people including me fail to understand the co...: Safety is been in health and been free from injury of any sort.lets ask our self what is a "near miss " is a narrow escape, a miss that is ...

Most people including me fail to understand the concept of safety in our everyday life

Safety is been in health and been free from injury of any sort.lets ask our self what is a "near miss " is a narrow escape, a miss that is almost a hit or a near accident experience. No one want to experience accident and they say experience is the best teacher, why  no one want to experience accident? because it is a bad experience.
Why do we over look a "NEAR MISS"

http://bit.ly/JX87Gu

The habit of over looking  "Near miss" is due to the lack of safety consciousness and awareness. Few people realize that the safety and preservation of this beautiful planet earth which God in His infinite Wisdom and Love has granted man the privilege of inhabiting and enjoying is everyone's duty. We collectively owe this duty to future generation.

Effect of over looking a NEAR MISS
In order to highlight the effects of a "near miss", let us briefly review a real life experience in July 1984, a staff arrived an office she shared with two others and placed her wet umbrella behind the door . Not long, thereafter, another member of staff arrived. He stepped on a small pool of water on the floor, slipped and nearly tripped over! 

http://bit.ly/JX9LIa

He draw the attention of his colleague to the water on the floor, but she merely laughed and said the that there was no cause for alarm since the air conditioner would soon dry the umbrella and the water on the floor.This near fall experience is a "near miss". Both staff however quickly forgot the matter and continue with work. 
Thirty minutes later, one of the staff rose with documents in her hands. she was going to another office , close to the door, she step on the pool of water, slipped and fell flat. She receive multiple bruises on her arm and twisted a toe, with the documents scattered on the wet floor!
We all need to be safety conscious and avoid all possibility of a "near miss"http://cmsaffiliatecash.com/buy-product/msdm_0392/epuis2 

Environmental friendly And Safety Advocate: Government can do more to reduce CO2

Environmental friendly And Safety Advocate: Government can do more to reduce CO2 www.amazon.com

Government can do more to reduce CO2

Top Commentators http://www.johnchow.comI am not one of those that think global warming and green house effect is cause by over population, technology has really been a source of joy and at the same time a source of worry.

The industrialize nation are the one the produce 75% of the world green houses gases,The third world or under develop nations as it is called, does not have up to 20 % technology that will produce green house gas and there causing global warming, though the nations are refer to f5 nations they can still do more to help reduce the effect of anthropogenic activities of man in their nations; How, by reducing importation of fairlie used car, those that the develop nations know will affect their environment and can not be driven over there will be ship here! why; because of poverty and  ignorance of the effect of the CO2 that will be produce by that car.

How can this CO2 that is causing so much pain be reduce 
1) By driving less and flying less! this is where it is going to be difficult is like you touch the lions tail how can you tell the rich not to fly when he has his money but this is the way we can collectively reduce the effect of CO2
2) By planting trees! tree has been one of the main absolver of CO2 but these days they are no more because of the activity of man cutting them down and not replanting any. let stop the cuttinghttp://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/
http:///www.newscientist.com http:// envirocivil.com down of trees and deforestation.

Government can do more on cutting down CO2

I am not one of those that think global warming and green house effect is cause by over population, technology has really been a source of joy and at the same time a source of worry.

The industrialize nation are the one the produce 75% of the world green houses gases,The third world or under develop nations as it is called, does not have up to 20 % technology that will produce green house gas and there causing global warming, though the nations are refer to f5 nations they can still do more to help reduce the effect of anthropogenic activities of man in their nations; How, by reducing importation of fairlie used car, those that the develop nations know will affect their environment and can not be driven over there will be ship here! why; because of poverty and  ignorance of the effect of the CO2 that will be produce by that car.

How can this CO2 that is causing so much pain be reduce 
1) By driving less and flying less! this is where it is going to be difficult is like you touch the lions tail how can you tell the rich not to fly when he has his money but this is the way we can collectively reduce the effect of CO2
2) By planting trees! tree has been one of the main absolver of CO2 but these days they are no more because of the activity of man cutting them down and not replanting any. let stop the cuttinghttp://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/
http:///www.newscientist.com http:// envirocivil.com down of trees and deforestation.

Who’s causing the environmental crisis: 7 billion or the 1%?

October 26, 2011 -- Grist via Climate and Capitalism, posted at Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal with permission -- Ironically, while populationist groups focus attention on the 7 billion, protesters in the worldwide Occupy movement have identified the real source of environmental destruction: not the 7 billion, but the 1%
This article, published today on the environmental website Grist, has provoked a vigorous discussion there. Many of the comments defend variations of the “consumer sovereignty” argument,  that corporations only destroy the environment in order to provide the products and services consumers demand. We encourage readers to join that conversation.

* * *

By Ian Angus and Simon Butler
The United Nations says that the world’s population will reach 7 billion people this month.
The approach of that milestone has produced a wave of articles and opinion pieces blaming the world’s environmental crises on overpopulation. In New York’s Times Square, a huge and expensive video declares that “human overpopulation is driving species extinct”. In London’s busiest Underground stations, electronic poster boards warn that 7 billion is ecologically unsustainable.
In 1968, Paul Ehrlich’s bestseller The Population Bomb declared that as a result of overpopulation, “the battle to feed humanity is over” and the 1970s would be a time of global famines and ever-rising death rates. His predictions were all wrong, but four decades later his successors still use Ehrlich’s phrase — too many people! — to explain environmental problems.
But most of the 7 billion are not endangering the Earth. The majority of the world’s people don’t destroy forests, don’t wipe out endangered species, don’t pollute rivers and oceans, and emit essentially no greenhouse gases.
Even in the rich countries of the global North, most environmental destruction is caused not by individuals or households, but by mines, factories and power plants run by corporations that care more about profit than about humanity’s survival.
No reduction in US population would have stopped BP from poisoning the Gulf of Mexico last year. Lower birthrates won’t shut down Canada’s tar sands, which Bill McKibben has justly called one of the most staggering crimes the world has ever seen.
Universal access to birth control should be a fundamental human right — but it would not have prevented Shell’s massive destruction of ecosystems in the Niger River delta, or the immeasurable damage that Chevron has caused to rainforests in Ecuador.
Ironically, while populationist groups focus attention on the 7 billion, protesters in the worldwide Occupy movement have identified the real source of environmental destruction: not the 7 billion, but the 1%, the handful of millionaires and billionaires who own more, consume more, control more and destroy more than all the rest of us put together.
In the United States, the richest 1% own a majority of all stocks and corporate equity, giving them absolute control of the corporations that are directly responsible for most environmental destruction.
A recent report prepared by the British consulting firm Trucost for the United Nations found that just 3000 corporations cause $2.15 trillion in environmental damage every year. Outrageous as that figure is — only six countries have a GDP greater than $2.15 trillion — it substantially understates the damage, because it excludes costs that would result from “potential high impact events such as fishery or ecosystem collapse”, and “external costs caused by product use and disposal, as well as companies’ use of other natural resources and release of further pollutants through their operations and suppliers”.
So in the case of oil companies, the figure covers “normal operations” but not deaths and destruction caused by global warming, not damage caused by worldwide use of its products and not the multi-billions of dollars in costs to clean up oil spills. The real damage those companies alone do is much greater than $2.15 trillion, every single year.
The 1% also control the governments that supposedly regulate those destructive corporations. The millionaires include 46 per cent of members of the US House of Representatives, 54 out of 100 senators and every president since Eisenhower.
Through the government, the 1% control the US military, the largest user of petroleum in the world, and thus one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Military operations produce more hazardous waste than the five largest chemical companies combined. More than 10 per cent of all Superfund hazardous waste sites in the United States are on military bases.
Those who believe that slowing population growth will stop or slow environmental destruction are ignoring these real and immediate threats to life on our planet. Corporations and armies aren’t polluting the world and destroying ecosystems because there are too many people, but because it is profitable to do so.
If the birthrate in Iraq or Afghanistan falls to zero, the US military will not use one less gallon of oil.
If every African country adopts a one-child policy, energy companies in the US, China and elsewhere will continue burning coal, bringing us ever closer to climate catastrophe.
Critics of the too many people argument are often accused of believing that there are no limits to growth. In our case, that simply isn’t true. What we do say is that in an ecologically rational and socially just world, where large families aren’t an economic necessity for hundreds of millions of people, population will stabilise. In Betsy Hartmann’s words, “The best population policy is to concentrate on improving human welfare in all its many facets. Take care of the population and population growth will go down.”
The world’s multiple environmental crises demand rapid and decisive action, but we can’t act effectively unless we understand why they are happening. If we misdiagnose the illness, at best we will waste precious time on ineffective cures; at worst, we will make the crises worse.
The too many people argument directs the attention and efforts of sincere activists to programs that will not have any substantial effect. At the same time, it weakens efforts to build an effective global movement against ecological destruction: It divides our forces, by blaming the principal victims of the crisis for problems they did not cause.
Above all, it ignores the massively destructive role of an irrational economic and social system that has gross waste and devastation built into its DNA. The capitalist system and the power of the 1%, not population size, are the root causes of today’s ecological crisis.
As pioneering ecologist Barry Commoner once said, “Pollution begins not in the family bedroom, but in the corporate boardroom.”
[Ian Angus and Simon Butler are the coauthors of Too Many People? Population, Immigration, and the Environmental Crisis.]

Population, consumer sovereignty, and the importance of class

By Ian Angus
October 28, 2011 -- Climate and Capitalism -- This week, the environmental website site Grist published an article by Simon Butler and me, Is the environmental crisis caused by the 7 billion or the 1%? This was a departure for Grist, which frequently carries articles warning of an impending overpopulation apocalypse. Kudos to editor Lysa Hymas for commissioning and publishing an article I’m sure she doesn’t agree with, in order to promote discussion of this important issue.
The article was posted on October 26, and by October 28, 820 people had “liked” it on Facebook, making it one of the three most-liked articles in Grist‘s population section this year.
But judging by the comments it received, some readers are less than keen about any discussion that focuses on issues of class, power and inequality. One wrote:

What a piece of leftist drivel. I don’t need to say this because most of the other commentors already have, but this crap is another low point for Grist.

The most frequent criticism from Grist commenters accuses us of failing to understand that consumer desires drive the economy, that corporations are just responding to our demands, expressed through the market. The system isn’t at fault, “we” are.
Some examples:

“Billionaires aren’t mining and pillaging for their own enjoyment – almost all of us in developed nations use those resources every day.”
“The 1% may own the companies and wealth, but that wealth comes from selling us all stuff, and it is hypocritical to say that all of us have not invested something in the global economic system. ”
“Less consumers equals less demand equals less consumption equals less sprawl equals less congestion equals less garbage equals less need for fossil fuels. Grist is on the wrong side of this issue.”
“But BP could not have polluted the Gulf Coast if there was no demand for petroleum. The demands of those 7 billion are driving corporations to fulfill the demands of all the humans inhabiting this planet. After all, if we were at say 3 billion now BP would not have had to drill in the Gulf in the first place.”

I responded to these comments with a brief summary of arguments that Simon and I make in Chapter 12 of Too Many People?

That view, known to academic economists as “consumer sovereignty,” suffers from at least four fatal weaknesses.
First, it ignores the immense market power of the wealthiest consumers. In the U.S., the richest one percent have greater wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined. The poorest 50% collectively own just 2.5% of all U.S. wealth. Analysts at Citibank have used the term ‘plutonomy” to describe the economies of the U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, and others, which are dominated “rich consumers, few in number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take.”
Second, it ignores the fact that markets aren’t just unbalanced in favor of rich buyers, they are consciously manipulated by rich sellers. The 1% aren’t just richer, they have the power to engage in what John Kenneth Galbraith called “management of demand” – far from just responding to consumer demand, corporations actively create demand for the products they find most profitable to sell.
Third, it ignores the fact the range of choices available to buyers is determined not by what is environmentally friendly, but by what can be sold profitably. As a result, we get microchoices such as Ford vs Hyundai — but not real choices such as automobiles vs reliable and affordable public transit.
Fourth, it ignores the fact that buyers have little or no influence over how products are made or produced. BPs decision to ignore safe drilling practices in the Gulf, Shell’s decision to dump oil in the Niger –those decisions were made not by consumers but by corporate executives, to maximize the profits demanded by their shareholders. And remember – 1% of the population owns a majority of stocks.
In short, the 1%, not the 7 Billion, control what is sold and how it is produced.

The underlying problem with the discussion, I think, is that many Grist readers – certainly the ones that are unhappy with what we wrote – are blind to class. They know that the 1% do more environmental damage than the rest of us, but view it as just a matter of degree, not as a fundamental class divide.
In fact, to echo F. Scott Fitzgerald,  the very rich are different from you and me. As we wrote in Too Many People? they don’t just have more money:

At some point near the top of the income ladder, quantitative increases in income lead to qualitative changes in social power, exercised not through consumption but through ownership and control of profit-making institutions.

The Grist commenter who wrote that we all damage the environment, “the rich are just more destructive”, seems to be unaware of just how vast the gap exists between the very wealthy and the rest of us.
Perhaps this will clarify matters for greens who don’t trust what two leftists have to say. Last week, the decidedly non-socialist investment bank Credit Suisse issued its annual Global Wealth Report. Its main conclusion was reported by the decidedly non-socialist Wall Street Journal.

Here’s another stat that the Occupy Wall Streeters can hoist on their placards: The world’s millionaires and billionaires now control 38.5% of the world’s wealth. … the 29.7 million people in the world with household net worths of $1 million (representing less than 1% of the world’s population) control about $89 trillion of the world’s wealth.

This Credit Suisse graphic gives some idea of how unequally global wealth is distributed.

Economics professor David Ruccio  comments in the Real-World Economics Review blog:

the figures for mid-2011 indicate that 29.7 million adults, about 1/2 of one percent of the world’s population, own more than one third of global household wealth. Of this group, they estimate that 85,000 individuals are worth more than $50 million, 29,000 are worth more than $100 million, and 2,700 have assets above $500 million.
Compare this to the bottom of the pyramid: 3.054 billion people, 67.6 percent of the world’s population, with assets of less than $10,000, who own a mere 3.3 percent of the world’s wealth.
Add another billion people with assets between $10,000 and $100,000 and we have 91.2 percent of the world’s population that owns something on the order of 17.8 percent of total world wealth.

He could have added that most of the wealth held by the bottom 90% consists of family homes, while richest 1% own most corporate shares. The rich aren’t just richer — they own wealth that gives them control of our economic system, and they profit from environmental destruction.
Reducing human numbers might, over many decades, make a small difference to the global environment. Eliminating the wealth and power of the 1% is the only way to completely turn things around.

• capitalism
• debate
• environment
• Marxism & ecology
• Occupy Wall Street
• oil
• population

Comments

Thu, 11/03/2011 - 12:48 — normd

7 billion people. Should we panic?

Vanessa Baird’s new book, No-Nonsense Guide to World Population, is available from our online shop, or all good bookshops. This is the 28th title in our best-selling series. On 31 October, according to the UN, world population tops seven billion.
It’s only 13 years ago that we hit six billion. So is population exploding? It certainly sounds like it, judging by many media reports.
But take a look at these graphics and you may see another picture emerging. Let’s start with the projections:

The top line assumes a high total fertility rate, or number of children a woman will have on average during her lifetime. This takes us to around 11 billion people by 2050.
The middle one (which is most commonly used) assumes a medium or ‘replacement’ fertility rate and takes us up to around nine billion.
The lowest assumes a below replacement fertility rate and takes us to around eight billion.
So, a lot depends on the fertility rate and its impact on family size:

In around 76 countries in the world, the current population is not even replacing itself. But is some low income countries, especially those in sub-Saharan Africa, the fertility rate has remained high, with women having around five children on average.
Let’s look at what happens to those three projections beyond 2050:

In a low fertility scenario world population peaks by 2050 and starts to decline. By 2100 we are back where we were 1998, with six billion people. This is what some population experts, including the UNFPA’s Ralph Hakkert, think will happen.
In a medium fertility scenario, where people carry on replacing themselves, the rate of population growth slows down until we gradually reach 10 billion by 2100.
In a high fertility world we hit 16 billion by 2100.
As we have seen over the past 50 years, the global trend is quite definitely towards smaller families. Once that trend begins, with people having fewer children or none at all, it is hard or even impossible to reverse – as policy in makers have found in countries with shrinking populations like Japan or Korea or parts of Europe.
We know that one of the strongest factors in determining family size is women’s education and empowerment.
Just look at what happens to fertility rates when women become more literate.

Some people who are concerned about global warming are saying that the priority has to be bringing down fertility rates in the countries where they are high. Currently 18 per of the world’s population lives in such countries low-income countries.
But the areas where population is growing fastest are those that emit least CO2 while countries where population is growing slowly or shrinking emit the most.
Look at this:

Cutting fertility in low income countries is unlikely to make much impact on global warming at all.
So should the gas-guzzling, high-consuming, high-income citizens of the rich world abstain from having babies, then?
They might, but still this does not deliver the cuts in CO2 we need – 80 per cent by 2050. Researchers at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research at Boulder Colorado have found that a reduction of around one billion in world population would deliver a cut of only around 15 per cent.
So, what do we need to do? Get off fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy. Stop wasting so much energy and food (up to half the world’s food gets wasted). Ban the type of financial speculation on food that is driving up food prices. Foster sustainable farming methods.
But above all remember that population is about people – not just numbers. More important than how many we are, is how we use and how we share the earth’s resources.