Could all of our efforts to become green — our rehabbing of buildings, spurning of plastic bags and buying  of new hybrids — turn out to be mere tinkerings in the tool shed as the whole grand project collapses around us?

That seems to be the point up for consideration these days. That this whole Save-the-Earth thing might be bigger than a green fashion trend or an overhaul of the auto industry. It might require more drastic action than turning down our newly installed programmable thermostats.

Recently, the New York Times ran a blog item about a  study showing that having babies is one of the non-greenest things you can do, especially if you’re a Westerner and your baby is destined to be a giant among world consumers. This is sort of a “duh”. But the University of Oregon scientists quantified the impact, concluding that an American child would have seven times the impact of a Chinese-born kiddo.

We are hearing more and more discussions about the population explosion, something that’s still pretty un-PC. Except for a few voices — like World Watch Institute analysts who regularly report on population stresses — thought-leaders have been tiptoeing around the issue much like they do Al Gore’s meat-eating habits.

No one wants to point fingers at people’s personal choices, their ability to procreate and their right to fill their plate. These are sacred matters. Or are they? Perhaps we all have a weak flank — a gas guzzler in the driveway, an overly large house, a guilt love of over-air conditioned spaces — and we’re just not sure how personal we want to get in this discussion.

We certainly don’t want to talk about air travel, dining out, overbuilding, eating copious amounts of meat — and a panoply of other matters that could stand review. Who is raising their hand to trade in their well-earned trip to Acapulco for a stay-cation next year? In America, the paradigm is still, if you can afford it, then so be it.

These are slippery slopes, and we’re understandably reluctant to get off the bunny hill. (And I’m not getting off my soap box either, at least for today.)

Take consumerism. We’re fine with making products more eco-friendly. But buying less, that’s scary.

We have a story this week about shoes. They play a role in the depletion of the Amazon rainforest. That’s a discussion we must have. The rainforest is just too vital. Some companies (Nike and others) are willing. They’re getting stricter in how they obtain their leather, to try to disentangle their business from any cattle ranches that have destroyed forests in South America. Might we next want to look at our own collection and consider a vegan shoe? It sounds radical; some will think it sounds ridiculous. They will laugh.

The New Scientist took look at our voracious appetite for stuff in a recent article Consumerism is Eating the Future. Author Andy Coghlan reports on an address to the Ecological Society of America, meeting in Albuquerque this month. The premise of the speaker: Our destruction of the earth is a natural outgrowth of human (or animal) nature. We are driven to fill up the available space and conquer territory, eventually we will overrun the Petri dish, spill out and die.

It’s not a new idea. Remember Darwin? However, one New Scientist reader, pointed out a key difference between humans and other territorial animals (or bacteria): We know what we’re doing.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

If and when the subject of overpopulation crosses their minds, most Americans think of places in Africa and Asia that already have enough people to stretch the limits of natural resources. But few seem to worry about it happening in our own back yard.

At a conference in Las Vegas last week, though, a Virginia Tech researcher argued that America’s population could grow to

an extent few people imagine — possibly tripling within the lifetimes of today’s infants. Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, a professor of urban affairs & planning and the director of Virginia Tech’s Metropolitan Institute, addressed an audience of planning professionals to predict that the population of the United States would hit one billion between the years of 2100 and 2120.

Considering that the nation’s infrastructure is having dramatic difficulties at our current population of just over 300 million, this is a troubling prospect. Moreover, Dr. Nelson’s projections assume no increase in current fertility rates; he believes the gain will come from increases in average lifespan and rising immigration, meaning that strains on infrastructure will be compounded by the challenge of tending to a growing community of the elderly.

While the time frame of Nelson’s prediction (which is disputed by many of his peers) may seem too distant to inspire alarm, large populations require the very things — subways and water supplies, for instance — that take decades to build. Nelson thinks the challenge is manageable. He points out that China and India handle billion-plus populations in areas smaller than the US, and imagines reconfiguring our cities in ways that would both house more humans and cut down on cars: If urban areas had public transportation so effective that people gave up their cars, he told USA Today, “we could accommodate half or more of the new population” on parking lots.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media