Frosty Vs. Bjorn -- Frosty Wins!

Note: When Frosty Wooldridge sent us this article and his response, we did a fact check on Lomborg's statement that "organic farming leaves a larger footprint than its conventional cousin" -- which struck us as absurd.

Mr. Lomborg's personal assistant wrote us back and said the "source" for this statement was a wikipedia page devoted to ecological footprinting. The sentence Lomborg based his statement on is a hypothetical postulation meant to uliminate possible shortcomings of ecological accounting -- yet Lomborg, aided by whomever is asleep at the Denver Post's editorial desk, turned this into a pronouncement of fact on the ecological footprint of organic farming!

To wit:

The method seems to reward the replacement of original ecosystems with high-productivity agricultural monocultures by assigning a higher biocapacity to such regions. For example, replacing ancient woodlands or tropical forests with monoculture forests or plantations may improve the ecological footprint. Similarly, if organic farming yields were lower than those of conventional methods, this could result in the former being "penalized" with a larger ecological footprint.^[23] Of course, this insight, while valid, stems from the idea of using the footprint as one's only metric. If the use of ecological footprints are complemented with other indicators, such as one for biodiversity, the problem could maybe be solved.

As Frosty points out in his reponse, this ridiculous statement on organic farming pretty much sums up Lomborgs whole article.

LOMBORG’S UTTER BALDERDASH AND LACK OF RESPONSIBITY TOWARD HUMANITY

By Frosty Wooldridge

http://neighbors.denverpost.com/blog.php/2009/04/20/lomborgs-utter-balderdash-and-lack-of-responsibility-toward-humanity/

Re: “Despite predictions of doom, Earth is enough” Bjorn Lomborg, Denver Post, 4/19/09

The highly educated academic from Denmark, Bjorn Lomborg, in an op-ed piece in the Denver Post on Sunday told his audience that human overpopulation wasn’t a problem: “That our profligate consumption requires five planets is a catchy story, but it is wrong. The planet we have is more than enough.”

Professor Lomborg, please tell that to the tens of thousands of species already ensnared by human population hyper-growth that suffered extinction in the last century. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of species facing extinction in this century. Tell that to the 100 million sharks that have been killed annually for the past 20 years that they have enough oceans to survive the onslaught of humanity.

“Upwards of two hundred species, mostly of the large, slow-breeding variety are becoming extinct here every day because more and more of the earth's carrying capacity is systematically being converted into human carrying capacity. These species are being burnt out, starved out, and squeezed out of existence thanks to technologies that most people, I'm afraid, think of as technologies of peace. I hope it will not be too long before the technologies that support our population explosion begin to be perceived as no less hazardous to the future of life on this planet than the endless production of radioactive wastes.” Daniel Quinn

Quinn refers to the Sixth Extinction Session rampaging across the planet whereby the largest die-off of species continues at the hand, not of nature or natural catastrophes, but by sheer human hyper-population growth.

I invite Lomborg to pull his head out of his academic ivory tower by addressing the harsh realities outside his college window. For him to make such absurd statements in the 21^st century, shows reprehensible misconduct unbecoming a scientist. His counterpart, the late economist Julian Simon, spouted the same crock of delusion that the planet could carry unlimited population.

The artist Shim Shimmel upon completing his work in Antarctica said, “Antarctica has come to symbolize the last of the wild places. But no place is sacred in Man’s eyes. In this pristine wilderness, greed would still find a haven for devastating industry. For God’s sake, with a planet full of beings such as ourselves, even the stars aren’t safe.”

With thinking and actions like Lomborg’s, humanity will not survive with any dignity or sustainable civilizations in the 21^st century. O.E. Wilson said that humanity has become the most dangerous animal on the planet while it threatens all other creatures on the globe.

H.R.H. Ghazi Bin Muhummad said, “Robert Kaplan's seminal article The Coming Anarchy … uses the image of a luxury car driving one way on a highway and a stream of destitute refugees walking the other way to suggest that whilst one part of the world is moving comfortably and prosperously forward, much of the rest of the world is suffering horribly, and disintegrating due to poverty, disease, crime, conflict, tribalism, overpopulation and pollution.”

With an annual worldwide human starvation death rate of 18 million human beings that die from exceeding their carrying capacity, how do people like Lomborg enjoy center stage in the Denver Post? How can such denial and delusion trump reality? Why didn’t the Denver Post allow a more reality based scientist such as Dr. Albert Bartlett, Dr. Diana Hull, Governor Richard D. Lamm, David Paxson, Charles C. Hartman and others a counter article?

If Lomborg’s specious conjecture that we enjoy ‘enough’ planet, how come our reefs worldwide die off at alarming rates? How come we suffer 27,000 square mile ‘dead zones’ at the mouths of our biggest rivers from so many chemicals spewed by humans into their waters? How come our oil reserves, that run our first world civilizations, descend into steeper curves as we pump the planet dry at 85 million barrels daily?

I could add a hundred more examples. It’s horrifically irresponsible to promote relentless human population growth via the Denver Post.

I invite the Denver Post to pull its ink pens out of the delusion of the benefits of population growth and publish top experts on how we might stabilize human population rather than encourage it like Lomborg.

This article illustrates how the patients are running the asylum!

Iain "Earth Man" Murray Day

I looked around the New York Times website this morning, but it was only after searching the site that I found Andy Revkin's quick blog entry. The Washington Post was reporting on Obama's Earth Day trip to some wind turbine manufacturer. The Boston Globe had a few token links.

Overall, however, its safe to say this day is not reminiscent at all of the surging, emotional environmental day of action of early 1970's. Instead of a fire-works rocket, we are left with a pop-gun dud. Instead of aurora borealis, we get a Windows XP screen saver. I was sort of sad about this...

Then I had the great misfortune of coming across an article by Iain Murray, director of projects and analysis and senior fellow in energy, science and technology at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington.

Ian has determined that Earth Day is not pro-Earth but "anti-human". You can read his infinite wisdom here, but I warn you he argues that banning DDT has been a net negative for the environment. So, there you go.

Iain does manage to make one good point in his otherwise soiled ideological gymnastics. He notes that, "when environmentalists talk about man's impact on the Earth... they always portray [it] as harmful."

On balance, this tendency is unfortunately true. That's probably because, on balance, man's impact on the ecological integrity of the Earth over the past 200 years has been catastrophic.

However, let's consider for a moment that humans do have the capacity to regenerate and nourish the Earth. We can plant trees, farm organically, try to help endangered species breed successfully -- you know, that sort of stuff. We did evolve from the Earth's ecological systems, after all. We can have a positive impact if we try. Let's not forget that. We could, if we massed our will power, turn our whole economic system into a Earth-nourishing enterprise whose joint objectives were to heal the planet and create wealth for humanity (which should be indistinguishable anyway).

I guess Iain must, in his own weird way, be trying to help out in such a cause. Its (very) hard to believe after-all, but he too is the culmination of eons of ecological evolution!

Let's all write Iain today and wish him well in his crusade?

imurray@cei.org

Tell him Rachel Carson sent you -- or something to that effect.

The Silence of the Lambs

You can see where it happens: the deep ecologist goes fruity and sabotages heavy equipment, frustrated patriots rage against people who have immigrated instead of unsustainable immigration policies, long time activists throw up their hands and hide away in the forests or mountains.

Unfortunately, in the context of a planet with 6.9 billion humans on its surface, the beautiful music of a peaceable, sustainable future becomes a siren song that drives many onto the rocks of ruin and despair. There is such a cacophony of worldviews, priorities, ideologies, and -- yes -- realities, that there comes a time when we realize there can be no future such as we desire.

There are too many idiots, malcontents, myopic fools and careless vagabonds running about, living their lives with unbridled abandon. We are, in large part, doomed to live out the skipping record of human history with war, pestilence and all other such scourges. Once this becomes so depressingly clear, we sit down -- humbled, frustrated, angry and agnostic.

We begin to see enemies everywhere: fisherman, loggers, conventional farmers, our neighbors, the banks, the WTO, the Federal Reserve, main-stream media, the telephone pole crew cutting overhanging trees back from the wires. The inertia of the complex-dynamic systems, embedded into each other layer after layer, begins to echo in our ears -- just like tinnitus.

Another several species extinctions, a few more collapsed fisheries, 50 football fields of Amazon downed in a few hours, another hideous McMansion development, some moron driving a Hummer, a military budget beyond any sort of human understanding, racism, wars of aggression, snowless mountain tops, drowning polar bears... on and on it goes.

Meanwhile, we are left to wave our raggedy flags of hope with an almost complete assurance of our complete and utter long-term failure. Think of a populationist who started their career back in the 1950's (and seen human population increase by 176%), or those who started warning about global warming in the 1970's (and subsequently watched emissions of 300 trillion pounds of carbon into the atmosphere).

Past performance may not be a guarantee of future results, but come on -- our future is not bright folks. Not all of it anyway. We are going to see plenty of idiocy, lethargy and misguided thinking in our future: then we'll have to put away the toothbrush, clean off the mirror and head out the door to work.

Vain and pompous we can not afford to be. Our tasks are too real, our urgency too authentic. Our hopes too precious to renege.

Because, in the end, even though we know our chances are infinitesimally small, no matter how many times we do the calculations -- or look out at a group of playing seals, watch the circling hawk, see a child smile -- the answer keeps coming up the same:

Do it. Get up. Hold onto that vision. That feeling. That emotion. That inner goodness that you want to hand to the star-fields above you, the companion by your side and the future unfolding around you.

The scrum is going to continue, for better or worse. Like Bugs Bunny liked to say, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em". In our case, it's probably more like, "We can't probably beat 'em, but we'll dang sure try something." That light inside you is the conscious of the Earth, no more or no less authentic than the next gal's or the next bloke's.

And the final value of that gift is yours to determine -- because you are, in every sense, the final arbiter of our collective future. You really are the steward of the planet's spirit and health. Without your own Earth-bound efforts to tell the world what's inside you, the truth you see, the hopes you have -- well then, the future is incomplete. Incoherent. And ultimately impoverished.

So, go about your work even in the face of all obstacles. Stay focused and do not let unavoidable failures divide your attention, do not let unavoidable resistances make you hide. Your struggle is a currency most authentic -- one that proves its worth both in its circulation and in its accumulation as a cherished reserve for others struggling with their own labors of hope and love.

The lambs will chew their cud, contemplating the horizon, and they will need no words. The whales will breach and blow, and fold back into the ocean. Your light was born and it will flicker and eventually fade, joining other lights along the way. Who can say what is to be and what is not?

Only you.

Only you.

Only you.

Welcome, NECSP Newsletter Readers

Thanks to all the readers of The Nourished Earth who are visiting our blog for the first time.

In order for a real discourse of sustainable population to reach a significant portion of the New England populace -- and to thereby influence elected representatives to enact laws that will promote the interests of sustainable population activists -- our number one task must be to build community amongst ourselves.

To help this process out, you can keep up with our postings and engage in the conversation by subscribing with an RSS feed (found in the right margin). Then, when we post something you think deserves a comment, it will just be a matter of a few clicks and you will have contributed to the conversation. (You can also access news feeds on important key words, like "population" and "sustainable" by scrolling down a little ways).

There are very few active blogs that deal with sustainable population issues and that's something we want to change. Be part of our efforts from the get go!

Also, don't forget to financially support our operations and keep abreast of our upcoming activities by regularly visiting our homepage. Both of these things will help us a great deal.

And, if you haven't signed up for our monthly newsletter and occasional action alerts just yet, all you have to do is click here.

Thanks for visiting, we hope to hear from you soon -- and have a sustainable day!

Population is part of the problem, but apparently not the solution.

Let's say you had a problem (we're sure you have several handy examples); but this particular problem happened to involve your house-plants growing, out of control, through the roof of your home, thereby causing your house to flood every time it rained -- tough plants, obviously, but that's not the point.

Your Zen-master neighbor teeters by with his cane, and stops. He says, "You must repair your roof and keep your plants cut back." Then he vanishes in thin air. Cool neighbor, but again -- not the point.

The point is, to keep the problem from happening, you need to do a couple of things. Just repairing your roof isn't good enough, because by next week the plants will have busted through it again. Just keep your plants cut back, however, and you still have a hole in your roof.

Isn't it a mystery then -- one that probably not even your Zen-master neighbor could explain -- that when the Asia Society releases a report citing population growth as one major driver of an impending water shortage in Asia... that they don't say a thing about stabilizing the population as part of the solution?!

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Asia may see more conflicts over scarce water resources in the coming years as climate change and population growth threaten access to the most basic natural resource, a report warned on Friday.

Water problems in Asia are already severe, with one in five people, or 700 million, not having access to safe drinking water and half the region's population lacking access to basic sanitation, according to the report produced by the Asia Society, a New York-based think tank.

Population growth, rapid urbanization and climate change are expected to worsen the situation, according to the report, "Asia's Next Challenge: Securing the Region's Water Future."

It noted water disputes between hostile neighbors India and Pakistan and the complex relations governing the vast Mekong River, which is shared by China and its southern neighbors, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam.

The report said while water issues have more often generated cooperation than conflict between nations in the past, demographic pressures and water scarcity would be unprecedented in the coming decades.

"The potential for conflicts sparked by the direct and indirect impacts of an increasingly volatile water supply should not be underestimated, particularly in the light of rising concerns about climate change," it said.

"No matter how we approach water resources -- whether it is on the basis of quality and quantity, or as the most potent manifestation of extreme climatic events -- hydropolitics is likely to be a growing force in Asian security," it said.

While Asia is home to more than half the world's population, it has less fresh water per person than any other populated continent, the report said. Asia's population is expected to rise by nearly 500 million within 10 years.

-- By Claudia Parsons

Erosion

After working in the sustainable population advocacy field, one can't but help at times wonder, "Will the emotional polarity that this issue brings up in people ever be able to be overcome?"

There is a nasty tendency for this issue to register in people's worldview as either the most important, fundamental issue blocking the way to sustainable living scenarios for all scales of human civilization -- or -- as the most insignificant waste-of-time issue imaginable. That's quite a chasm, yet I don't think I am mistaken to say very few people occupy middle ground between these two great extremes.

It's with great struggle and heretofore unknown results that NECSP has been trying to populate (excuse the pun) that middle ground -- to correctly frame population issues as core considerations that any responsible sustainability advocate must make in struggling for an improved future for planet and people.

Not the only considerations one must make (wouldn't that be nice), but certainly one of them.

Is this really so controversial?

No, not really. But the problem is that in the great din and cacophony of each side shouting at each other, moderate voices are imperceptible -- and the balance of our position renders it useless to the partisans, because it undercuts both of their set-in-concrete ideological positions. Who wants to take the time to leave the high perch of your certainty and come down to the middle ground and start motioning for people to lower their voices? To start problem solving like adults?

No matter how narrow of a ledge you must stand on to occupy it, it's much easier to claim the moral high ground (itself conveniently self-defined) than it is to make peace.

The dynamic replicates itself over and over -- global warming vs. global hoax; growth economy vs. steady state; and, yes, Red Sox vs. Yankees. People tend to make decisions based on emotion, and very few issues cut so close to the human experience as the issues of reproduction, progeny and community.

And, in a relative sense, those of us down here on the middle ground looking up at the warring parties are just as convinced of our position as the extremists. We beleive that like a bell curve, there will always be outliers at either end arguing that, "Population is not a problem at all" vs. "Population is the only problem".

Our task then -- at least philosophically -- is to operate on the conviction that though the outlying, highly opinionated folks at the ends of the bell curve may have loud voices, that some critical mass of of our 6.9 billion co-inhabitants of the actually Earth fall within the "reasonable" zone; and, it's our job to find them, empower them, amplify their voices, organize their efforts when neccessary and eventually watch those cliffs of extremism collapse into the sea.

Sir David Attenborough Joins OPT

The broadcaster Sir David Attenborough has become a patron of a group seeking to cut the growth in human population.

On joining the Optimum Population Trust, Sir David said growth in human numbers was "frightening".

Sir David has been increasingly vocal about the need to reduce the number of people on Earth to protect wildlife. The Trust, which accuses governments and green groups of observing a taboo on the topic, say they are delighted to have Sir David as a patron.

Sir David, one of the BBC's longest-standing presenters, has been making documentaries on the natural world and conservation for more than half a century. In a statement issued by the Optimum Population Trust he is quoted as saying: "I've never seen a problem that wouldn't be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more."

The Trust, which was founded in 1991, campaigns for the UK population to decrease voluntarily by not less than 0.25% a year. It has launched a "Stop at Two" online pledge to encourage couples to limit their family's size. Other patrons include Jonathan Porritt, chairman of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, and Dame Jane Goodall, founder of the Jane Goodall institute.

BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin said population was a fraught area of debate, with libertarians and some religious groups vehemently opposing measures by governments to influence individual fertility.

In turn, the Trust accuses policy makers and environmentalists of conspiring in a "silent lie" that human numbers can grow forever with no ill-effects. In January 2009, Sir David revealed that he had received hate mail from viewers for not crediting God in his nature programmes. His most recent documentary focused on how Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and why it remained important.

Visit NECSP.ORG to learn more about population issues and take action!