Category: Population

Be Thankful 1-2010
© Richard Grossman MD, 2010

“Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I was riding in a taxi in New York City. The radio was tuned to music on a Spanish language radio station.
“Your accent doesn’t seem to be Spanish,” I remarked. “Are you Hispanic?”
“No, I’m from Haiti. But I like Spanish music.”
My driver had come north many years before, he explained. He had been an accountant in Haiti and had earned good money there, he said, by Haitian standards. “But I like it better here.”
The tragic earthquake of January 12th struck at the heart of Port au Prince, capital of Haiti. Badly constructed buildings crumbled with the terrible shaking, trapping many thousands of people.
Almost three quarters of the people in Haiti live on two dollars or less a day. This unbelievable poverty makes it the poorest country in the western hemisphere, and among the poorest in the world. Building codes are not part of such poverty. Migration to cities is common all over the world, including Haiti. It is ironic to realize that many people who were injured or killed in Port au Prince might have been safe if they still lived in traditional wood homes rather than modern concrete structures.
This devastated city has become the focus of the media, with minute-by-minute reports of horror. A few minutes watching CNN displays graphic accounts of private tragedies—bodies unceremoniously being spilled from a dump truck into a common grave, a beautiful eleven-year-old girl caught in a splintered building who was freed but died of injuries, people breathing through cloth to mask the smell of death.
We are privileged to live in an amazing age. We can see and hear immediately such personal stories of devastation. Highly skilled teams of helpers started to arrive within days with sophisticated equipment and trained dogs to free trapped people. Internet is used to send and receive word of friends and relatives in the affected area.
Those of us who live in a rich country (such as the USA) at this time in history often don’t appreciate how lucky we are. We have grown up with expectation of comparatively easy, relatively safe lives. Most people of the world do not share our good fortune, although the worldwide media make the disparity between rich and poor obvious.
The contrast between rich and poor was brought home to me by one of Durango’s expert doctors. He told me that he is sad that he cannot get to Haiti to help. I don’t think that he fully understands what would await him: scores of injured people and no organization, no laboratory tests, no x-ray machines, no medications, no casts for broken bones. Many people are dying alone, surrounded by collapsed concrete and the stench of death.
In addition to not being able to practice in any way that he is accustomed to, he would be using precious food and water that is needed by the Haitians.
Tragedy visited people in the past, too. In rich countries our expectations and ability to respond has changed immensely.
The explosion of the Indonesian volcano Krakatau in 1883 is an example of a catastrophe. Lava and superheated gases killed nearby people instantly. Tsunamis triggered remote devastation. The short-term death toll was over 100,000 people. In the long term the climate was two degrees Fahrenheit colder for five years because clouds of gas and ash shot into the stratosphere.
How has the world changed in the century and a quarter from Krakatoa to Haiti? Most of the world is financially much better off than a century and a quarter ago (although Haiti lags behind). What I perceive as the biggest change, however, is our acceptance of risk.
People died young in the nineteenth century. If you were involved in an accident, it was perceived as an act of God, not someone else’s fault. Accident prevention (including building codes) was undeveloped or didn’t exist at all. Medical care was rudimentary—just as it is in Haiti now.
One of the reasons that Haiti is so poor a country is that many of its most industrious people leave—such as my taxi driver. Another reason for poverty is the high fertility rate. The average woman will bear four children during her lifetime. The percentage of couples using contraception is low.
A tragedy such as hit Haiti is a horrendous way to reduce population. Acceding to people’s wishes to limit their fertility by providing modern contraception is much more humane.

This article may be copied or published but must remain intact, with attribution to the author. I also request that the words “First published in the Durango Herald” accompany any publication. For more information, please write the author at: richard@population-matters.org.

Copenhagen 2–11-2009
© Richard Grossman MD, 2009

“I refuse to believe that it is too late, and that we cannot do anything about [global climate change]. Copenhagen is our date with destiny.”
Mohamed Nasheed, President of Maldives

Good news! We in the United States can decrease carbon emissions! In just two years we have cut our greenhouse gas (GHG) generation by nine percent.
Last month’s column outlined the goals of the UN Climate Change Conference to be held in Copenhagen next month. We are pinning our hopes on Copenhagen for a treaty to limit carbon emissions and thus control climate change. Hopenhagen.org offers a platform to urge international leaders to reach an agreement on emissions.
Perhaps the greatest problem to be faced in Copenhagen is the great economic disparities between countries. Some are extraordinarily wealthy, while people in others live on just a dollar or two a day. In the rich USA we don’t want to give up any of our prosperity, while those in developing areas want to use fossil fuels to improve their standard of living.
Prosperity in the United States was built on the backs of slaves, as well as pillage of the rich, sparsely populated land we appropriated from indigenous people. Slavery was not rejected just for ethical reasons in the 1860s; we had learned how to harness fossil fuels. They are the primary reason for our opulence since then.
Global climate change threatens poorer areas in many different ways. Many countries in Africa are already suffering from desertification. With climate change they will become even less able to support their populations. Recent climate modeling supports the prediction made years ago that hundreds of millions people will starve to death this century.
River flows will decrease from the Hindu Kush as the climate heats up and glaciers melt. This will cause crowded southern Asia to suffer from dwindling grain harvests. Many people in Bangladesh live just a few feet above sea level, and already suffer when hit by cyclones. This will worsen as the oceans rise.
The quote at the beginning of this article is from an exceptional speech delivered this month at the Climate Vulnerable Forum. Scientists predict that the island nation of Maldives will be inundated within a century by rising sea level. Its citizens have no high ground to move to. President Nasheed convened an underwater cabinet meeting to make the point—the ministers donned scuba gear and met under 20 feet of water! The Forum, consisting of eleven developing countries that are most threatened by climate change, met for the first time earlier this month—above water. Read Nasheed’s entire speech at: policyinnovations.org.
What can be done to decrease the human impact on the natural world, including almost eliminating carbon emissions, and still be fair to developing nations?
An obvious way to decrease carbon emissions is to decrease the number of people who cause emissions. Although not popular, investing in family planning has been shown to be the least expensive way to lower GHG production. Remember: 200 million women worldwide want to limit their family size but don’t have access to modern contraception! The impact of limiting family size is greatest in the USA, where each child averted has been estimated to save almost 10,000 tons of CO2 from being emitted.
Another method of decreasing emissions will especially benefit developing countries. One of the tragedies of our era is that rainforests are being destroyed at an alarming rate. Most rainforests are in poorer countries, where people sell the wood to raise their standard of living. Farmers also burn trees to prepare fields for planting. Not only does burning remove a huge sink for GHG, the flames are responsible for a fifth of all CO2 emissions.
Since rainforests are so valuable, why not pay to preserve them? This has proven to be a very successful strategy. One of the first times it was used was to preserve the forest in northern Mexico where one of the last remaining flocks of endangered thickbilled parrots (Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha) nest.
Although some of the recent decrease in carbon emissions was due to the economic downturn, some is because people are making conscious decisions to consume less fossil fuel. Locally, LPEA’s Green Power and 4CORE conservation programs are excellent examples of effective conservation programs.
For the sake of our progeny we need to stop global climate change. For humanitarian reasons it needs to be stopped with economic justice for our poorer neighbors. The Copenhagen meeting is key; let us hope that it is successful.

This article may be copied or published but must remain intact, with attribution to the author. I also request that the words “First published in the Durango Herald” accompany any publication. For more information, please write the author at: richard@population-matters.org.