Posted on 08/31/2006 7:03:11 AM PDT by A. Pole
WASHINGTON -- The United States, now at nearly 300 million people, is the only industrialized country that has experienced strong population growth in the last decade, creating concerns that the boom and Americans' huge appetites for food, water, and land will sharply erode the nation's natural resources in coming years, according to a report released yesterday.
The Northeast remains by far the most densely populated region of the nation, but it also had the slowest population growth in the country during the 1990s
[...]
In contrast, the South and the West were booming, creating new pressure on fragile environments and water sources.
For the first time, the report compared national and regional population trends with environmental indicators, highlighting stresses that growing populations are placing on nature, according to the report and outside analysts.
While some researchers focus on alarming fertility rates in poor countries, which grew by 16.3 percent from 1995 to 2005, the US population grew by 10.6 percent in that period, or 29 million people, the report noted. Europe during that time grew by 504,000 people, or less than 1 percent.
[...]
Americans consume like no other nation -- using three times the amount of water per capita than the world average and nearly 25 percent of the world's energy, despite having 5 percent of the global population; and producing five times more daily waste than the average in poor countries.
[...]
But the booming South and West regions show some of the most dramatic environmental stresses, according to the report. For example, the four fastest-growing states -- Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah -- all have areas of acute water shortages.
[...]
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I've been sounding this alarm for years. No one cares.
I am convinced that we need a population approaching 500 million by 2050 if we hope to remain the global economic superpower given the expected growth of China and India. I'm also convinced we will reach that mark through a mix of our higher fertility rates (vis-a-vis Europe) and, like it or not, immigration.
Since we now have nearly 20 million illegals in the US it's more like 2/3rds.......
Sure there are a few small areas that are densely populated, but as a country we are sparsely populated. Just look at our population per mile compared to a lot of other areas in the world.
A friend of mine moved to Atlanta 6 or 7 years ago when they had 2.5 million people. Now they have 4+ million. A 50 percent gain over 7 years makes a big mess, but it is a localilzed mess, not a national situation.
In most of the country everyone from the food growers to the grocery store managers would be orgasmic about the idea of 10 percent more food sales.
Actually, as I recall, 20 years ago the US still had only 5-percent of the world's population, but was consuming more than 30% of the world's energy. So, we're making some progress in energy use.
I think this is a made up story, but then it appears in "The Boston Globe." A newspaper not known for its affection for America.
I am so glad that I left Massachusetts 28 years ago. It's chock full of whiners and moaners and crooks and tax raisers.
For you Freepers still residing in the Commonwealth, I admire your pluck and you have my sympathy.
It ain't due to legal citizens births I'm sure.
DH the farmer would say "They all gotta eat ..." :-)
That reminds me, I have to take my car to the car wash.
In contrast, the South and the West were booming
Huh?
There ARE things that are worth keeping and not selling.
Perhaps we will have China's pollution riots too.
Exactly. The leftists always point out that we use such-and-such percent of the global fill-in-the-blank supply, while conveniently neglecting to mention how much of the world's GNP we produce using that oil, water, etc. Of course telling the whole truth makes Americans look efficient, not eeeevil. Can't have that.
>That's about where the fertility rate is for U.S. women - 2.17 children on average in 2005.<
That's not an accident. Back in the late 60's/early 70's, there was a concerted effort to modify behavior, to "save" the world from overpopulation. Students were told it was their responsibility, in order to save the planet, to have only 2 children. Many, many people bought into this. Coupled with birth control, the American family norm ratcheted down to 2.17.
Have you ever noticed the bias society has against people with large families? There is a not-so-subtle pressure to have the perfect family size.
Women today have less time for child raising, because it's very difficult to survive on only one breadwinner. This also factors into why fertility is at a low.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.