I've wondered for a long time if Darwinian Evolution cancels out birth
control efforts. In relation to Malthus Darwin wrote, "In October 1838,
that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I
happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well
prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes
on from long- continued observation of the habits of animals and
plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable
variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be
destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species.
Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work".
Charles Darwin, from his autobiography. (1876) Apparently Darwin was
amused by Malthus belief in the divine but saw validity for his theory
of natural selection in Malthus observation that in nature plants and
animals can produce far more offspring than can survive, and that Man
is capable of overproducing if left unchecked. It's unknown, as far as
I can tell, whether Darwin shared Malthus' view that poverty and famine
were natural outcomes of population growth and food supply but it seems
to fit with his theory of natural selection. It has been stated
Malthus' view that poverty and famine were natural outcomes of
population growth and food supply were not popular among social
reformers who believed that with proper social structures, all ills of
man could be eradicated. So I wondered what current birth control
organizations thought. Certainly it is not stopping international
efforts at birth control but there are constraints even upon these
bodies.

Biologist Guy Hoelzer has stated he regards human overpopulation as
mankind's most formidable challenge. I've compiled a few articles on
projected human population growth and the future is not promising in
this regard. Is the theory of natural selection as seen through
Darwin's reading of Malthus an impediment to birth control measures and
population reduction? It has been stated the developed nations i.e.
U.S., Europe, etc. will experience a reduction in population. This may
be true although the U.S. has recently increased in population but that
leaves much of the rest of the underdeveloped world surging in
population growth. What are the chances man will finally be able to
reign in human population growth or will a cataclysm or series of them
result in "natural selection" or will it be a combination of various
factors? I'm personally hedging my bets on the latter although I may
not be around to assess the aftermath. I hope all of us can regard the
nuclear or biological warfare exterminations of human populations as
not examples of natural selection yet the mechanism underlying these
possible and likely catastrophic events *is* natural selection. There
is also the possibility of accidents manmade or otherwise which could
cause catastrophes.
As Stephen Hawking mentioned (I'm paraphrasing) he wants to see human
overpopulation addressed and he doesn't want to see it result in a
catastrophe.

Darwin comments on the struggle for existence which exists everywhere
and natural selection definitely entails misery and pain. Hopefully, by
becoming a self designing species this can be gradually eliminated. For
the forseeable future, however, I don't see great strides being made in
curbing human overpopulation. The funding isn't nearly enough and many
governments, including the U.S. have policies against useful birth
control measures.

Michael Ragland

Viewpoint
Human Population: The Next Half Century
Joel E. Cohen
By 2050, the human population will probably be larger by 2 to 4 billion
people, more slowly growing (declining in the more developed regions),
more urban, especially in less developed regions, and older than in the
20th century. Two major demographic uncertainties in the next 50 years
concern international migration and the structure of families.
Economies, nonhuman environments, and cultures (including values,
religions, and politics) strongly influence demographic changes. Hence,
human choices, individual and collective, will have demographic
effects, intentional or otherwise.

Rockefeller University and Columbia University, 1230 New York Avenue,
Box20, New York, NY 10021, USA.

PUTTING THE BITE ON PLANET EARTH:
Rapid Human Population Growth is Devouring Global Natural Resources
By Don Hinrichson

The United Nations International Conference on Population and
Development (ICPD) convenes in Cairo, Egypt, this September, gathering
political readers from around the globe to explore how human population
growth is likely to affect society and the environment, among other
topics. One of the policy issues participants will discuss is the links
between human population, sustainable development and the environment.
In anticipation of the event, International Wildlife turned to Don
Hinrichson, a UN consultant on environment and population issues, for
this special report on the connections between human expansion and
natural resources:

Each year, about 90 million new people join the human race. This is
roughly equivalent to adding three Canadas or another Mexico to the
world annually, a rate of growth that will swell human numbers from
today's 5.6 billion to about 8.5 billion by 2025.

These figures represent the fastest growth in human numbers ever
recorded and raise many vital economic and environmental questions. Is
our species reproducing so quickly that we are outpacing the Earth's
ability to house and feed us? Is our demand for natural resources
destroying the habitats that give us life? If 40 million acres of
tropical forest-an area equivalent to twice the size of Austria-are
being destroyed or grossly degraded every year, as satellite maps show,
how will that affect us? If 27,000 species become extinct yearly
because of human development, as some scientists believe, what will
that mean for us? If nearly 2 billion people already lack adequate
drinking water, a number likely to increase to 3.6 billion by the year
2000, how can all of us hope to survive?

The answers are hardly easy and go beyond simple demographics, since
population works in conjunction with other factors to determine our
total impact on resources. Modern technologies and improved efficiency
in the use of resources can help to stretch the availability of limited
resources. Consumption levels also exert considerable impact on our
resource base. Population pressures work in conjunction with these
other factors to determine, to a large extent, our total impact on
resources.

For example, although everyone contributes to resource waste, the
world's bottom-billion poorest and top-billion richest do most of the
environmental damage. Poverty compels the world's 1.2 billion
bottom-most poor to misuse their environment and ravage resources,
while lack of access to better technologies, credit, education, health
care and family-planning condemns them to subsistence patterns that
offer little chance for concern about their environment. This contrasts
with the richest 1.3 billion, who exploit and consume disproportionate
amounts of resources and generate disproportionate quantities of waste.

One example is energy consumption. Whereas the average Bangladeshi
consumes commercial energy equivalent to three barrels of oil yearly,
each American consumes an average of 55 barrels. Population growth in
Bangladesh, one of the poorest nations, increased energy use there in
1990 by the equivalent of 8.7 million barrels, while U.S. population
growth in the same year increased energy use by 110 million barrels. Of
course, the U.S. population of 250 million is more than twice the size
of the Bangladeshi population of 113 million, but even if the
consumption figures are adjusted for the difference in size, the slower
growing U.S. population still increases its energy consumption six or
seven times faster yearly than does the more rapidly growing
Bangladeshi population.

HUMAN NUMBERS: The crowd swells
Population density varies by region but is a deceptive factor.
Many nations, from Europe to Africa, expand their land bases by
importing food.
* Projected average yearly increase in human numbers for the next 40
years: 90 million
* Total world human population today: 5.6 billion
* Projected population in 2100 assuming reduced fertility: 11.2 billion

* Projected population in 2100 at current rate of fertility: 40 billion

* Percentage of total world population today living in developing
nations: 78

In the future, the effects of population growth on natural resources
will vary locally because growth occurs unevenly across the globe. Over
the course of the 1990s, the Third World's population is likely to
balloon by more than 900 million, while the population of the developed
world will add a mere 56 million. Asia, with 3.4 billion people today,
will have 3.7 billion by the turn of the century; Africa's population
will increase from 700 million to 867 million; and Latin America's from
470 million to 538 million. By the year 2000, the Third World's total
population is expected to be nearly 5 billion; only 1.3 billion people
will reside in industrialized countries.

The United Nations estimates that world population will near 11.2
billion by 2100. However, this figure is based on the assumption that
growth rates will drop. If present rates continue, world population
will stand at 10 billion by 2030 and 40 billion by 2110.

The United Nations Population Fund estimates that to achieve the 11.2
billion projection, the number of couples using family planning
services-such as modern contraceptives-in the developing world will
have to rise to 567 million by the year 2000 and to 1.2 billion by
2025. In sub-Saharan Africa this means a 10-fold increase by 2025 in
the number of people who use family planning. If these measures do not
succeed, human population growth could blast the 11.2 billion figure
clear out of the ball park.

Perhaps the most ominous aspect of today's unprecedented growth is its
persistence despite falling annual population growth rates everywhere
except in parts of Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. Annual
global population growth stands at 1.6 percent, down from 2 percent in
the early 1970s. Similarly, the total fertility rate (the average
number of children a woman is likely to have) has dropped from a global
average of six only three decades ago to slightly more than three
today.

Population continues to grow because of tremendous demographic
momentum. China's annual growth rate, for example, is only 1.2 percent.
However, the country's huge population base-1.2 billion
people-translates this relatively small rate of growth into a net
increase in China's population of around 15 million yearly. Clearly,
any attempt to slow population growth is a decades-long process
affected by advances in medicine, extended life spans and reduced
infant, child and maternal mortality.

The following pages survey the effects of human population growth on a
wide range of natural resources.

Plants and Animals: The Shrinking Ark
Biologists have catalogued 1.7 million species and cannot even estimate
how many species remain to be documented. The total could be 5 million,
30 million or even more. Yet, we are driving thousands of species
yearly to extinction through thoughtless destruction of habitat.

A survey conducted recently in Australia, Asia and the Americas by the
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources-The World Conservation Union (IUCN) found that loss of
living space affected 76 percent of all mammal species. Expansion of
settlements threatened 56 percent of mammal species, while expansion of
ranching affected 33 percent. Logging and plantations affected 26
percent.

IUCN has declared human population growth the number one cause of
extinctions. The 10 nations with the worst habitat destruction house an
average of 189 people per square kilometer (250 acres), while the 10
that retain the most original habitat stand at only 29 people per
square kilometer.

Future population growth poses a serious threat to wildlife habitat.
Every new person needs space for housing, food, travel, work and other
needs. Human needs vary widely from place to place, but a US survey
found that the average person requires about 0.056 hectares (a hectare
is a standard unit of land measurement equal to about 2.47 acres) of
nonfarm land for daily living. To this must be added land for food
production. This varies with land quality and available technologies,
but each newborn person probably will need at least 0.2 hectare of
cropland unless food production per acre increases in the years ahead.
This will require the conversion of more and more wildland into
cropland. In East Asia, for example, the amount of irrigated,
high-yield cropland per person is already near the 0.2 hectare limit.

UN consultant and author Paul Harrison estimates, very conservatively,
that each new person will need at least a quarter of a hectare. Thus,
every billion people that we add to the planet in the years ahead will
require 250 million hectares more of agricultural land. Most of this
land will have to come from what is currently wildlife habitat. The
UN's projected population of 11.2 billion by 2100 would require
creation of roughly 20 million square kilometers (8 million sq. ml.) of
new cropland-equivalent to more than 80 percent of all forest and
woodland in developing countries today.

PLANTS AND ANIMALS: What we protect
Using this tree as a symbol of the Earth's land shows that the
4.8 percent of the globe that lies in protected areas is a mere stump
of the whole.
* Percentage of existing parks and reserves subject to agricultural
encroachment and other human disruptions: 33
* Percentage of all species likely to become extinct within the next 30
years: 25
* Number of lives saved yearly in the United States by plant-derived
anticancer drugs: 30,000
* Number of plant species used by Southeast Asian herbalists for
medicinal purposes: 6,500
* Number of edible fruit species found in rainforests: 2,450

Conversion of natural habitat for human use can even reduce the value
of remaining wild areas for wildlife. When development chops wild lands
into fragments, native species often decline simply because the small
remnants do not meet their biological needs. For example, studies of
U.S. forest birds indicate that species that prefer to nest in forest
interiors are more subject to predation and lay fewer eggs when habitat
fragmentation forces them to nest along forest edges. A study in
southern California indicated that most canyons lose about half of
native bird species dependent on chaparral habitat within 20 to 40
years after the canyons become isolated by development, even though the
chaparral brush remains. Biologist William Newmark's 1987 study of 14
Canadian and U.S. national parks showed that 13 of the parks had lost
some of their mammal species, at least in part because the animals
could not adapt to confinement within parks surrounded by developed
land.

Habitat loss in North America and in Latin American tropics has caused
declines in many bird species that migrate between those regions. The
Breeding Bird Survey, a volunteer group that tabulates nesting birds
each June, found that 70 percent of neotropical migrant species
monitored in the eastern United States declined from 1978 to 1987. So
did 69 percent of monitored neotropical migrants that nest in prairie
regions. Declining species include such familiar songbirds as veeries,
wood thrushes, blackpoll warblers and rose-breasted grosbeaks. As human
population growth continues to push development into wild areas,
fragmentation will increase and its effects on wildlife survival will
intensify.

Land Loss: A Food Crisis
Land degradation, a global problem, is becoming acute in much of the
developing world. Population pressures and inappropriate farming
practices contribute to soil impoverishment and erosion, rampant
deforestation, overgrazing of common lands and misuse of agrochemicals.

Worldwide, an estimated 1.2 billion hectares, an area about the size of
China and India combined, have lost much of their agricultural
productivity since 1945. Every year, farmers abandon about 70,000
square kilometers (27,000 sq. ml.) of farmland because soils are too
degraded for crops.

Drylands, including grasslands that provide rich pastures for
livestock, have been hardest hit. Although not as extensive as once
thought, desertification-the ecological destruction that turns
productive land into deserts-still threatens the Middle East and
parts of Africa and Asia.

Because of land degradation, large portions of the Sahel, including
Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Senegal, can no longer
feed their people. Although annual fluctuations in rainfall may
interrupt the trend of cropland loss, the Sahel could suffer
agricultural collapse within a decade. Sahelian croplands, as presently
farmed, can support a maximum of 36 million people. In 1990 the rural
population stood at an estimated 32 million and will exceed 40 million
by the end of the decade even if annual population growth slows from
the current 3 percent to 2 percent.

LAND: Farmland diminishes
Though human numbers are growing, the amount of land suitable
for agriculture is finite, and so hunger can grow faster than crops.
* Number of nations experiencing a decline in food production per
capita during the 1980s: 75
* Number of farmers worldwide with too little land to meet subsistence
needs for food and fuel: 200 million
* Number of people in those farmers' families: 1 billion
* Number of children who died in 1993 from nutritionrelated diseases:
10 million
* Current annual increase in human population in Sahelian Africa: 3
percent
* Estimated current annual increase in food production in Sahelian
Africa: 2 percent

Since 1961, food production has matched world population growth in all
developing regions except sub-Saharan Africa. In the early 1980s, the
UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) predicted that more than
half of all developing nations examined in its study of carrying
capacity (62 out of 115) may be unable to feed their projected
populations by 2000 using current farming technology. Most of the 62
countries probably will be able to feed less than half of their
projected population without expensive food imports.

As a direct result of population growth, especially in developing
nations, the average amount of cropland per person is projected to
decline from 0.28 hectares in 1990 to 0.17 by 2025.

Three factors will determine whether food production can equal
population growth:

1. New Croplands. Currently, the amount of new land put into production
each year may equal the amount taken out of production for various
reasons, such as erosion, salt deposits and waterlogging. Thus, the net
annual gain in arable land, despite wide-spread habitat destruction to
create it, may be zero.

2. New Water Sources. Agricultural demand for water is expected to
double between 1970 and 2000. Already more than 70 percent of water
withdrawals from rivers, underground reservoirs and other sources go to
crop irrigation.

3. Agrochemical Use. Pesticides and fertilizers are boosting crop
yields. However, in many areas agrochemicals are too expensive to use,
while in other areas they are overused to prop up falling yields.
Agrochemicals can pose health hazards, creating another expense for
developing nations.

Forest: The Vanishing World
The quest for more crop and grazing land has sealed the fate of much of
the world's tropical forests. Between 1971

and 1986, arable land expanded by 59 million hectares, while forests
shrank by at least 125 million hectares. However, consultant Harrison
estimates that during the same period, land used for settlements,
roads, industries, office buildings and other development expanded by
more than 50 million hectares as a result of growth in urban centers,
reducing the amount of arable land in surrounding areas. Consequently,
the amount of natural habitat wiped out to produce the
59-million-hectare net in arable land may have exceeded 100 million
hectares.

FORESTS: ending forests into fuel
Wood accounts for a high percentage of total energy use in many
nations.
Every year, more than a billion people use wood faster than trees can
grow.
* Number of people worldwide who depend on fulewood as primary energy
source: more than 2 billion
* Percentage of original primary forest remaining in Haiti: 0
* Amount of remaining Ecuadorian forest to be cut by 2000: half
* Percentage of original tropical forest already destroyed in
Bangladesh: 95
...in India and Sri Lanka: almost 100
... in Philippines: 80
* Percentage of all plant species found in tropical forests: 45

If current trends continue, most tropical forests will soon be
destroyed or damaged beyond recovery. Of the 76 countries that
presently encompass tropical forests, only four-Brazil, Guyana, Papua
New Guinea and Zaire-are likely to retain major undamaged tracts by
2010, less than a generation away.

Population pressure contributes to deforestation not only because of
increased demand for croplandand living space but also because of
increased demand for fuelwood, on which half of the world's people
depend for heating and cooking. The majority of sub-Saharan Africa's
population is dependent on fuelwood: 82 percent of all Nigerians, 70
percent of Kenyans, 80 percent of all Malagasies, 74 percent of
Ghanaians, 93 percent of Ethiopians, 90 percent of Somalians and 81
percent of Sudanese.

By 1990, 100 million Third World residents lacked sufficient fuelwood
to meet minimum daily energy requirements, and close to 1.3 billion
were consuming wood faster than forest growth could replenish it. On
average, consumption outpaces supply by 30 percent in sub-Saharan
Africa as a whole, by 70 percent in the Sudan and India, by 150 percent
in Ethiopia and by 200 percent in Niger. If present trends continue,
FAO predicts, another 1 billion people will be faced with critical
fuelwood shortages by the end of the decade. Already, growing rings of
desolation-land denuded for fuelwood or building materials-surround
many African cities, such as Ouagadougou in Burkina Faso, Niamey in
Niger and Dakar in Senegal. By 2000, the World Bank estimates, half to
three-quarters of all West Africa's fuelwood consumption will be burned
in towns and cities.

According to the World Bank, remedying the fuelwood shortage will
require planting 55 million hectares-an area nearly twice the size of
Italy-with fast-growing trees at a rate of 2.7 million hectares a
year, five times the present annual rate of 555,000 hectares.

Troubled Oceans: Disappearing Resources
Population and development pressures have been mounting in coastal
areas worldwide for the past 30 years, triggering widespread resource
degradation. Coastal fisheries are overexploited in much of Asia,
Africa and parts of Latin America. In some cases-as in the
Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Japan, India, the west coast
of South America, the Mediterranean and the Caribbean economically
important fisheries have collapsed or are in severe decline. "Nearly
all Asian waters within 15 kilometers of land are considered
overfished," says Ed Gomez, director of the Marine Science Institute at
the University of the Philippines in Manila.

Overfishing is not the sole cause of these declines. Mangroves and
coral reefs- critical nurseries for many marine species and among the
most productive of all ecosystems-are being plundered in the name of
development.

In 1990, a UN advisory panel, the Group of Experts on the Scientific
Aspects of Marine Pollution (GESAMP), reported that coastal pollution
worldwide had grown worse over the decade of the 1980s. Experts pointed
to an overload of nutrients-mainly nitrogen and phosphorus from
untreated or partially treated sewage, agricultural runoff and
erosion-as the most serious coastal pollution problem. Human
activities may be responsible for as much as 35 million metric tons of
nitrogen and up to 3.75 million metric tons of phosphorus flowing into
coastal waters every year. Even such huge amounts could be dissolved in
the open ocean, but most of the pollution stays in shallow coastal
waters where it causes massive algal blooms and depletes oxygen levels,
harming marine life near the shores.

OCEANS: Rushing to the sea
The 4 billion people who live near coasts today will jump to
6.4 billion by 2025, increasing ocean pollution and other marine
problems.
* Number of people worldwide living on coasts in 1990: 3.6 billion
* Projected number of people worldwide who will live on coasts in 2025:
6.4 billion
* Percentage of original coastal mangrove swamps, important
to the breeding of commercial fish and shellfish, that remain
worldwide: 50
* Number of the world's 17 major fishing areas that have reached or
exceeded natural limits: 17
* Percentage decline in coral reefs worldwide since World War II: 50

Although the world still possesses an estimated 240,000 square
kilometers (93,000 sq. mi.) of mangrove swamps-coastal forests that
serve as breeding grounds and nurseries for many commercially important
fish and shell-fish species-this represents only about half the
original amount. Clear-cutting for timber, fuelwood and wood chips;
conversion to fish and shellfish ponds; and expansion of urban areas
and croplands have claimed millions of hectares globally. For example,
of the Philippine's original mangrove area-estimated at 500,000 to1
million hectares-only100,000 hectares remain: 80 to 90 percent are
gone.

Some 600,000 square kilometers (230,000 sq. milt) of coral reefs
survive in the world's tropical seas. Unfortunately, these species-rich
ecosystems are suffering widespread decline. Clive Wilkinson, a coral
reef specialist working at the Australian Institute of Marine Science,
estimates that fully 10 percent of the world's reefs have already been
degraded "beyond recognition." Thirty percent are in critical condition
and will be lost completely in 10 to 20 years, while another 30 percent
are threatened in and will be lost in 20 to 40 years. Only 30 percent,
located away from human development or otherwise too remote to be
exploited, are in stable condition.

Throughout much of the world, coastal zones are overdeveloped,
overcrowded and overexploited. Already nearly two-thirds of the world's
population-some 3.6 billion people-live along coasts or within 150
kilometers (100 ml.) of one. Within three decades, 75 percent, or 6.4
billion, will reside in coastal areas-nearly a billion more people
than the current global population.

In the United States, 54 percent of all Americans live in 772 coastal
counties adjacent to marine coasts or the Great Lakes. Between 1960 and
1990, coastal population density increased from 275 to nearly 400
people per square kilometer. By 2025, nearly 75 percent of all
Americans will live in coastal counties, with population density
doubling in areas such as southern California and Florida.

Similarly, nearly 780 million of China's 1.2 billion people-almost 67
percent-live in 14 southeast and coastal provinces and two coastal
municipalities, Shanghai and Tianjin. Along much of China's coastline,
population densities average more than 600 per square kilometer. In
Shanghai they exceed 2,000 per square kilometer. During the past few
years, as many as 100 million Chinese have moved from poorer provinces
in central and western regions to coastal areas in search of better
economic opportunities. More ominously, population growth is expected
to accelerate in the nation's 14 newly created economic free zones and
five special economic zones, all of them coastal.

Water: Distribution Woes
Nearly 75 percent of the world's fresh water is locked in glaciers and
icecaps, with virtually all the rest underground. Only about 0.01
percent of the world's total water is easily available for human use.
Even this tiny amount would be suff~cient to meet all the world's needs
if it were distributed evenly. However, the world is divided into water
"haves" and "have note." In the Middle East, north Asia, northwestern
Mexico, most of Africa, much of the western United States, parts of
Chile and Argentina and nearly all of Australia, people need more water
than can be sustainably supplied.

WATER: The thirst grows
Water availability per person is dropping, Already, some
2 billion people live with water constraints each year.
* Percentage of the world's water that is freshwater: 3
* Percentage of the world's freshwater that is easily accessible as
surface water: 1
* Percentage of easily accessible freshwater that comes from rivers and
marshes: 13
* Percentage of easily accessible freshwater that comes from lakes: 87
* Number of nations whose water use exceeds 100 percent of their
renewable supplies: 9
* Percentage of its renewable water supplies that Libya uses yearly:
374
* Years required for Libya to double it s population: 20.4

As the world's human population increases, the amount of water per
person decreases. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) estimates that the amount of fresh water
available per person has shrunk from more than 33,000 cubic meters (1.2
million cu. ft.) per year in 1850 to only 8,500 cubic meters (300,000
cu. ft.) today. Of course, this is a crude, general figure. But because
of population growth alone, water demand in more than half the world's
countries by 2000 is likely to be twice what it was as recently as
1971.

Already some 2 billion people in 80 countries must live with water
constraints for all or part of the year. By the end of the 1990s, Egypt
will have only two-thirds as much water for each of its inhabitants as
it has today, and Kenya only half as much. By then, six of East
Africa's seven nations and all five nations on the south rim of the
Mediterranean will face severe shortages. In 1990, 20 nations suffered
water scarcity, with less than 1,000 cubic meters (35,000 cu. ft.) of
water per person, according to a study by Population Action
International. Another eight experienced occasional water stress. The
28 nations represent 335 million people. By 2025, some 48 nations will
suffer shortages, involving some 3 billion residents, according to the
study.

China-although not listed as water short because of the heavy amount
of rain that falls in its southern region-has, nevertheless, exceeded
its sustainable water resources. According to Qu Geping, China's
Environment Minister, the country can supply water sustainably to only
650 million people, not the current population of 1.2 billion. In other
words, China is supporting twice as many people as its water resources
can reasonably sustain without drawing down groundwater supplies and
overusing surface waters.

Fossil Fuels: Energy Breakdown
Human society runs on energy, principally fossil fuels such as oil, gas
and coal. These three account for 90 percent of global commercial
energy production. Nuclear power, hydro-electricity and other
sustainable resources provide the rest.

The industrialized nations, with less than a quarter of the world's
people, burn about 70 percent of all fossil fuels. The United States
alone consumes about a quarter of the world's commercial energy, and
the former Soviet Union about a fifth. In terms of per capita
consumption patterns, Canada burns more fuel than any other nation-in
1987 the equivalent of 9 metric tons of oil per person-followed by
Norway at 8.9 metric tons of oil per person and the United States at
7.3. By contrast, developing nations on average use the equivalent of
only about half a metric ton of oil per person yearly.

Known oil reserves should meet current levels of consumption for
another 41 years, up from an estimated 31 years in 1970 thanks to
better energy efficiency and conservation measures, along with new oil
fields brought into production. Natural gas reserves should meet
current demand for 60 more years, up from 38 years in 1970. Coal
reserves should be good for another 200 years.

But our addiction to fossil fuels has resulted in chronic, sometimes
catastrophic, pollution of the atmosphere, in some cases far beyond
what natural systems or man-made structures can tolerate. A noxious
atmospheric cocktail of chemical pollutants is primarily responsible
for the death and decline of thousands of hectares of European forests.
Acid rain- caused by a combination of nitrogen and sulfur dioxides
released from fossil-fuel combustion-has eaten away at priceless
monuments and buildings throughout Europe and North America, causing
billions of dollars in damage.

FOSSIL FUELS: Who's doing what with oil?
* Percentage of the world's population that resides in industrialized
nations: 25
* Percentage of annual global fossil-fuel production used by
industrialized nations: 70
* Nation with the highest per capita consumption of fuels: Canada
* Average amount of fuels used per Canadian, expressed in metric tons
of oil: 9
* Average amount of fossil fuels used yearly per person
in the developing nations, expressed in metric tons of oil: 0.5

Urban air contains a hazardous mix of pollutants everything from sulfur
dioxide and reactive hydrocarbons to heavy metals and organic
compounds. Smog alerts are now commonplace in many cities with heavy
traffic. In Mexico City, for example, smog levels exceeded World Health
Organization standards on all but 11 days in 1991. Breathing the city's
air is said to be as damaging as smoking two packs of cigarettes a day,
and half the city's children are born with enough lead in their blood
to hinder their development.

The only way to stretch fossil fuel reserves and reduce pollution
levels is to conserve energy and use it much more efficiently than we
do now. Some progress has been made, but the benefits of energy
conservation have been realized in only a few industrialized countries.

Recent history has shown what can happen. In the decade following the
first oil shock, per capita energy consumption fell by 5 percent in the
member states of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD)-consisting of the industrialized countries of
Western Europe and North America, plus Japan, Australia and New
Zealand-while their per capita gross domestic product grew by a
third.

Buildings in the OECD countries use a quarter less energy now than they
did before 1973, while the energy efficiency of industry has improved
by a third. Worldwide, cars now get 25 percent more kilometers per
gallon than they did in 1973. In all, increased efficiency since 1973
has saved the industrialized nations $250 billion in energy costs.

Even more savings could be realized through concerted efforts to
conserve energy and improve efficiency. Three relatively simple, cost
effective measures could be introduced immediately: 1) making compact
fluorescent lamps generally available in homes and offices; 2)
tightening up building codes to require better insulation against cold
and heat; and 3) requiring lean-burn engines, which get up to 80
kilometers per gallon (50 mpg), in all new compact cars. These three
"technical fixes" could save billions of dollars in energy costs.

Policy: Building a Future
The main population issues-urbanization, rapid growth and uneven
distribution- when linked with issues of environmental decline, pose
multiple sets of problems for policymakers. The very nature of these
interrelated problems makes them virtually impossible to deal with in
balkanized bureaucracies accustomed to managing only one aspect of any
problem. Population and resource issues require integrated, strategic
management, an approach few countries are in a position to implement.

Sustainable-management strategies, designed to ensure that resources
are not destroyed by overexploitation, are complicated to initiate
because they require the cooperation of ministries or departments often
at odds over personnel, budgets and political clout. Most governments
lack institutional mechanisms that ensure a close working relationship
among competing ministries. Consequently, most sustainable-development
initiatives never get beyond words on paper. "We talk about integrated
resource management, but we don't do it," admits one Indian official in
Delhi. "Our ministries are like fiefdoms, they seldom cooperate on
anything."

Fragmented authority yields fragmented policies. Big development
ministries-such as industry and commerce, transportation,
agriculture, fisheries and forestry-rarely cooperate in solving
population and resource problems. Piecemeal solutions dominate, and
common resources continue to deteriorate.

POLICY: Fertility begins to decline
The world's fertility rate (the number of children born per woman)
is falling, but not enough to halt population growth.
* Goals of the United Nation's 20-year population plan:
1. Provide universal access to services for family planning and
reproductive health
2. Reduce infant, child and maternal mortality
3. Promote primary and, if possible, secondary education, particularly
for young girls
4. Ensure that all nations can meet minimum goals by 2015
* Reasons cited for Thailand's success in cutting its annual population
growth rate from 3 percent to
1.4 percent: high literacy among women, increasing economic role for
women and availability of family planning

The world's population and resource problems offer plenty of scope for
timely and incisive policy interventions that promise big returns for a
relatively small investment. As little as $17 billion a year could
provide contraceptives to every woman who wants them, permitting
families throughout the globe to reduce births voluntarily. This
approach might produce the same or better results than would
government-set population targets, according to one study. Moreover,
population specialists recognize that educating girls and women
provides a higher rate of return than most other investments. "In fact,
it may well be the single most influential investment that can be made
in the developing world," says Larry Summers, a former World Bank
economist.

But time is at a premium. The decision period for responding to the
crises posed by rapidly growing populations, increased consumption
levels and shrinking resources will be confined, for the most part, to
the next two decades. If human society does not succeed in checking
population growth, the future will bring widespread social and economic
dislocations as resource bases collapse. Unemployment and poverty will
increase, and migrations from poorer to richer nations will bring Third
World stresses to the developed world.

Copyright 1994 by the National Wildlife Federation. Reprinted with
permission from International Wildlife magazine's September/October
1994 issue.