Sometime in the early 1970s, three environmentalists were deep in debate about how to measure the impact humans have on the planet. One of the three, Barry Commoner, argued that the impact was purely a result of technological innovation following WWII. The other two, Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren, argued that the most important aspects of our impact were population growth and our increasing affluence. As all good environmentalists would they created an equation with which to codify this debate. The result was the IPAT equation. For the uninitiated, IPAT is an accounting equation (I = P x A x T) which states that human impact (I) is a product of our population (P) multiplied by our affluence (A) multiplied by our technology (T). Affluence represents our consumption and technology represents how resource intensive our affluence is to produce. I admit that I'm over-simplifying here. For a much more detailed analysis of the equation, its many adaptations, and its limitations, simply google "IPAT equation."
Just a few months ago this was nothing more than a theoretical concept to me. At the time, I argued that the most important factor fueling our impact was population. If you have fewer people, then OF COURSE! you will have a lower impact. My time in India has only cemented that idea. Despite our technological innovations and growing affluence, I believe more than ever that our main problem is population. For example, the city where I'm living this summer (Bangalore) has grown 200% in the past decade compared to the 3% growth rate of New York over the same time period. As I wrote in my last blog post, this growth has led to a number of problems: traffic, air and water pollution, low power quality, decaying infrastructure, homelessness, etc., etc. all of which has had a negative impact on the environment. Ehrlich and Holdren were right! It's population!
Or is it? What do you think? How has your WDI experience informed your perspective on this issue? If it is population, how do we deal with it? If it's not population, then what is it? And how do we deal with it?
Just a few months ago this was nothing more than a theoretical concept to me. At the time, I argued that the most important factor fueling our impact was population. If you have fewer people, then OF COURSE! you will have a lower impact. My time in India has only cemented that idea. Despite our technological innovations and growing affluence, I believe more than ever that our main problem is population. For example, the city where I'm living this summer (Bangalore) has grown 200% in the past decade compared to the 3% growth rate of New York over the same time period. As I wrote in my last blog post, this growth has led to a number of problems: traffic, air and water pollution, low power quality, decaying infrastructure, homelessness, etc., etc. all of which has had a negative impact on the environment. Ehrlich and Holdren were right! It's population!
Or is it? What do you think? How has your WDI experience informed your perspective on this issue? If it is population, how do we deal with it? If it's not population, then what is it? And how do we deal with it?
