Earth Day 2019: Since moon landing, global population has doubled
By Joe Guzzardi
Fifty years ago, in 1969 when astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first person to walk on the moon, the world’s population was 3.6 billion; in 2019, it’s 7.7 billion. A half a century ago, the U.S. population stood at 208 million; today, it’s 329 million and growing at the unsustainable rate of one net person every 17 seconds, a total calculated by the sum of births minus deaths, plus net migration.
April 22, 2019, marks the 49th anniversary and 50th observance of Earth Day intended to raise awareness and appreciation for the earth’s natural environment. A massive oil spill off the Santa Barbara, California, coast that generated a slick large enough to encompass Chicago provided the catalyst for the first-ever Earth Day, celebrated in 1970, and currently recognized in 193 countries.
At the time, there was an understanding of the impacts of polluting and overpopulating our planet. While the former continues to be the driving element for environmentalists and climate change activists, such is not the case for overpopulation. But the challenges to achieve U.S. population stabilization remain, and they are daunting, even if unmentionable and not addressed.
To the exclusion of a sustainable country, the U.S. government is committed to endless growth, a policy that congressional leaders have embraced for decades, and is perhaps the most significant roadblock to population stabilization. Nobel laureate Steven Chu of the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute said at a recent forum that “the world needs a new model of how to generate a rising standard of living that’s not dependent on a pyramid scheme,” a reference to increasing immigration.
The former Secretary of Energy under President Obama also referred to the idea of replacing aging persons with younger immigrants as an ecological Ponzi scheme that leaves future generations to deal with the life-altering consequences. Young immigrants will eventually grow old, and true to a Ponzi scheme’s formula, another immigrant wave will be needed to replace the aging migrants, etc. ad infinitum.
An inconvenient truth in the effort to achieve sustainability is that immigration policy is the leading single factor in the destruction of open space. Each year, the U.S. admits more than 1 million legal immigrants who, over time, petition an average 3.5 of their family members to join them. The blame lies not with the immigrants, but with Congress for refusing to defend the natural environment of America. Logically, immigrants, just like most Americans, want and need more urban development for housing, schools, health care, governmental services, streets, parking, waste handling, workplaces, shopping, arts, recreation and worship.
In a 2001 interview with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Earth Day founder Sen. Gaylord Nelson said that the larger the population, the more serious problems become. From crime and health care shortages to infrastructure issues, no problem is helped by adding ever-more people. To no avail, Sen. Nelson during his lifetime urged Congress to responsibly address the population issue.
Americans will have to wage the fight for environmental stability on their own. Congress is determined to raise immigration levels, and the President seems to be plotting to join them in the name of economic growth. Environmental groups long ago abandoned reducing immigration as the first step toward ecological constancy. Journalists also refuse to connect the dots between immigration-driven overpopulation and the loss of key, irreplaceable natural resources in a discouraging failure from the Fourth Estate.
The nation’s battle should begin with cutting carbon emissions which have reached record highs. The International Energy Agency reported that U.S. oil demand grew at its fastest pace in a decade while China and India burned more coal. The “spectacular growth” of the U.S. economy is, according to the IEA, the main culprit in the carbon emissions spike.
Since population stabilization is crucial to America’s future, and will determine how residents live, a thoughtful conversation that includes immigration as a crucial variable must take place soon. Refusing to engage intelligently means the status quo will continue, as will the loss of America’s precious land and resources.
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
Mr. Guzzardi makes important points to which we all need to pay attention as we consider what we are leaving to posterity. We need to be skeptical of the Ponzi demography currently being pushed by economists who want us to believe the only way forward is ever increasing population to support endless economic growth requiring constant extraction of nonrenewable natural resources. Are endless growth and wealth as important as sustainability and beauty? Will future generations applaud us for a constantly rising GDP or for Earth’s resources and beauty left for them to enjoy and be inspired by?
Linda Huhn, lover of Utah
Minneapolis, MN