My latest article was published in the Guardian.
Titled Return of the population timebomb, it aims to dismantle the argument that we can solve our environmental problems by reducing consumption while ignoring population. Ecological footprint data provide one way of demonstrating the large and dangerous error in that notion.
That wasn't my title by the way. (I suggested Living lightly is not enough.) But I like it. It pushes the subject of population out there with a certain audacity. We need more of that. The idea that we must be exceptionally careful or tentative about how we discuss population strikes me as an unnecessary caving in to the propaganda of activists who seek to squelch the discussion. For some, it may compete with their preferred causes. Others simply misunderstand the issue. But when we approach population humanely and logically it is typically only those activists we offend.
Anyone who talks about population with a clear misanthropic (or excessively anthropocentric) intent should simply be dismissed. Leave them out of the public discussion. For everyone else, facing and discussing population forthrightly is perhaps the most important humanitarian step we can take at this time in human history.
Feel free to contact me to let me know your thoughts on the argument in the Guardian article. I believe it's almost airtight. Perhaps the only way to gain any leverage to refute it is to challenge the validity of the ecological footprint data. But, as I mention in the article, it appears that if the data are off base it's because they are too conservative. And that only strengthens my argument.
John Feeney