Johnwschoen. (2019, November 9). Warming climate, population sprawl threaten California’s future with more destructive wildfires. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/09/why-californias-wildfires-are-going-to-get-worse.html

A recent spike in California wildfires are causing billions in property damage, the loss of hundreds of thousands of acres of land, and the displacement of thousands of people. Wildfires have gotten more common and destructive, with 10 of California’s most deadly wildfires in the last decade. Dry summers lead to wet winters, but the time between the two seasons becomes the prime climate for wildfires. A growing population is placing people and nature more at risk of being burned. “Population growth is making (wildfires) more deadly but it’s also making them more likely… The more people on the landscape means more opportunity for a fire during one of these wind events” says Jon Keeley, a research scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey. Scientists have tried to mitigate the risks that wildfires pose with prescribed burns, but not everybody is on board with that.

Living in California I know first hand the degree to which we experience wildfires and the damage it causes. We have had smoke days, in which school is canceled because the air is so polluted from the smoke of a fire that is hundreds of miles away. Many fingers can be pointed at why we are experiencing wildfires at this rate, of course, wildfires are natural but the ones we experience are more times than not man-made. Wildfires relate to population growth because as communities pop up in forest areas that are usually isolated, the chances for a fire increase. The developments also create a good fuel for the fires to burn. Population growth can also be seen as an enhancer of climate change, which is an obvious cause of forest fires. Forest fires will surely become more common as the population grows and the planet gets drier.  

Guzzardi, J. (2020, January 1). Calif. Population Hits Nearly 40 Million. Retrieved from https://patch.com/district-columbia/washingtondc/calif-population-hits-nearly-40-million

California just announced that they were 40,000 people away from hitting a historic 40 million mark, which will only increase to a projected 50 million by 2050. This number is only speculation and can still increase, but experts don’t know if the state is ready for this type of growth. The state is already crowded, prompting more people to actually leave the state than immigrate in. California is usually praised for its environmental sustainability and innovation, yet the growing population is making maintaining environmentally sound conditions impossible. The biggest culprit for the spike in greenhouse cases is cars, which is directly related to the increasing population. There are solutions to the transportation problem like railway services, but no steps have been taken yet.

The fact that people are leaving California because of overcrowdedness is ironic since the state is usually praised for its high living conditions. Overpopulation is driving both economic and environmental problems. Environmentally, ecosystems are being damaged due to an increasing need for resources and greenhouse gas usage is at a high. In fact, 40% of the state’s greenhouse gas comes from cars. This is only going to get worse as the population grows and more people have to be on the road. One solution for this was attempted by former governor Jerry Brown through a state bullet train, which was eventually scrapped due to years of delay and a staggering number of lawsuits. There must be another solution to the problem of transportation, or at least the problem of overpopulation.

Hines, Brody. (2019, December 2). Population Density of California. Retrieved from https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/252b65cbe331420389c61453c61ea221

The rapid population growth in California has had irreversible impacts on the environment. In the early 1940’s, the California population boomed and put a lot of stress on cities and their surrounding environments. As the population grew, the need for resources did as well which permanently impacted the surrounding environment. One major way the increasing population has indefinitely changed the environment is the use of dams and aqueducts, which puts tremendous stress on the natural bodies of water by having to channel it many different ways. Dams have also altered the landscape, destroying ecosystems and wildlife by flooding certain areas or displacing animals. 

This article, unlike the other ones, focuses primarily on the environmental impacts of overpopulation rather than the human impact. The article presents the direct consequences of population growth; like air pollution, and the steps taken to support a larger population; like the use of aqueducts and dams. More specifically on water use, we aren’t just consuming an absurd amount through personal use and agriculture, we are redirecting it in ways that were never intended. This puts a strain on the water sources and damages the surrounding ecosystems, and since all ecosystems are connected even the human ecosystem is affected. That isn’t the issue though, the issue is the wildlife that is suffering due to our inability to live sustainably. Anyway, the article brought up a lot of good points on our impact on the native lands.

Stabilization, C. for P. (2019, December 26). Good News: California’s population growth has slowed. Bad News: Overpopulation and its effects force people to flee. Retrieved from https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/good-news-californias-population-growth-has-slowed-bad-news-overpopulation-and-its-effects-force-people-to-flee-300979473.html

According to California’s department of finance, the state grew by “only” 141,300 people last year which is a growth rate of .35 percent. Which was the lowest growth since 1900, however; it was attributed to the exodus of 200,000 inhabitants. California’s Population Stabilization Executive Director Ric Oberlink responded, “It’s good news that California’s growth rate is slowing…California is already overpopulated; it is why we’re seeing Californians leave the state in record numbers.”, he went on to say that overpopulation leads to a lower quality of life. For a state that prides itself on a high quality of life is lowering the bar due to increasing populations, but this slow growth might offset that.

If these statistics are actually accurate, I think this is a good trend because California is becoming too crowded which has both economic and environmental drawbacks. There were several quotes from the population stabilization director of California, in which he spoke on how overpopulation drove up housing prices and reduced quality of life, but he never spoke on how overpopulation destroys native wildlife and ecosystems. I think we, as a society, focus on the human impact more than the natural impact, when in reality the natural balance has a monumental impact on how we live. Even if population growth is slowing, the population is still too large; so we must figure out ways to lead a more sustainable lifestyle for the near future.

David.fejeran. (2020, February 27). California’s overpopulation crisis: Environment and economy, feature by student contributor Kayla Solis. Retrieved from http://summit.rocky.edu/californias-overpopulation-crisis-environment-and-economy-feature-by-student-contributor-kayla-solis/

California is known as the Golden State because of the glimmering shine from its grasslands, but it has lost 99 percent of its native grasslands. There are other similar trends such as a 95 percent loss in coastal redwoods. This is because of the high population that seems to keep increasing, in fact, it’s 40 million-plus residents have to compete for resources and many people suffer overcrowding. This hasn’t just impacted humans, it has taken a bigger toll on the plant and animal life of California. In fact, one-third of all birds in the state (139 to 391) were at risk of vanishing in because of ‘stressors.’” As California continues to increase in size due to overpopulation, more settlements will be established; which will take a toll on the wellbeing of both humans and wildlife.

I think that overpopulation is a problem that we should be looking at in order to find a solution to environmental impacts. However, I usually looked at overpopulation in less developed regions like Africa and India. Yet, the effects of overpopulation are starting to come out here in my own backyard. The article relates to environmental science as the impact on the land due to human development and pollution is heavily increased because of overpopulation; which puts the native animals and landscape at risk. It also provided some harrowing statistics, such as 99 percent of native grasslands and 80 percent of coastal wetlands being lost to development and other environmental impacts. Overpopulation isn’t the cause of these impacts, but it’s speeding up the rate of these impacts.  

Nugent, C. (2019, July 11). Climate Change-Vulnerable Countries Face Population Booms. Retrieved from https://time.com/5621885/climate-change-population-growth/.

The impacts of climate change usually hit less developed regions of the world harder than wealthier regions. A consequence of that is that those countries experiencing the most rapid population growth will also be on the front lines of climate change. According to the Climate Vulnerability Index, 9 out of 10 of the most environmentally vulnerable countries are in sub-saharan Africa, a region in which the population is expected to double by 2050. Although these countries feel the effects of climate change, they aren’t the root of the problem. As the average person living in sub-Saharan Africa produces around 0.8 metric tons of CO2 while the average American produces a whopping 16.5 metric tons.

I think it’s a sad reality that the countries that are already vulnerable are the ones experiencing the effects of climate change. There is already a problem, but as the population increases it’s only going to get worse. As disease, famine, and displacement will be a result of the impacts of climate change. In terms of sub-saharan Africa, western countries are the ones who created many of the pre-existing conflict in the region and now they will reap the downsides that these same western countries created by their environmental impact. However, these developing countries are inclined to speed economic growth at the cost of safe environmental practices. Which is contradictory to their situation, but they didn’t create those problems. For overpopulation, it should be combated in these developing countries through increased education and family planning, and of course the rest of the world should heavily dampen their impact.

Götmark, F., Crop, H., Kotak, P., Hettlingen, j. von, Lynge, M., & Kamath, P. (2019, September 10). The World and the UN Must Reduce Population Growth by Frank Götmark & Robin Maynard. Retrieved from https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/new-sdg-dampen-population-growth-by-frank-gotmark-and-robin-maynard-2019-09.

On September 24-25, world leaders will gather at the United Nations in New York to review progress toward the UN’s 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The SDGs, which aim “to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all,”. However, these goals fail to mention anything on overpopulation. Most of their goals would be undermined by the growing population, even though population growth is slowing it’s predicted to reach 11 billion by the turn of the century. When governments adopted the SDGs in 2015, many experts were surprised by the lack of attention to population growth. Countless scientists and citizens see overpopulation is a future problem, but the SDG’s fail to address it.

I think that the SDG’s are great and a step in the right direction, and they plan to meet environmental issues head on. I’m disappointed that they didn’t mention anything on population growth, as overpopulation would limit the goal or actually prevent it. I can see talking about overpopulation can be as sensitive topic as it touches on human rights and sometimes overexertion of power. Even with that in mind, the issue still should have been mentioned, as a solution could be increased family planning. I think it’s even more detrimental by not mentioning it as it creates the idea of it not being a problem, as it is. If there is no effort to reduce aggressive population growth many of the issues targeted during the summit will get worse and lead to more problems.

Chapman, W. (2019, July 10). Africa’s Population Explosion Will Hurt Efforts to Fight Poverty. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2019-07-10/africa-to-lead-world-in-population-growth.

Africa is expected to lead the world in population growth by the end of the century, with Nigeria, D.R. Congo, and Tanzania projected to have the greatest growth. While the increase of population might help these countries’ economic growth, it might also lead to an increase of unemployment and lack of resources. “The effects that the projected population growth will have on African countries is uncertain” according toMark Hugo Lopez, director of Global Migration and Demography Research for Pew. With Africa’s heavy population increase, regions like Europe and Asia are shrinking. They also have to face the issue of an aging population, in which economies can’t sustain themselves with a smaller workforce while caring for the elderly. 

Growth in developing nations is expected as they’re in the period where health care is more accessible so the child mortality rate is higher, but they still have the custom of larger families. Africa and India are the best examples of this, this can be beneficial in the sense of economic growth. But there are many obvious downsides to this, especially in developing countries poverty and hunger is a problem. So with more people these problems will only get worse. Environmentally the same trend is seen, more people require more resources and food which has a negative impact on the environment. But from an environmental standpoint, the growth of western countries is much more of a concern. Since the average citizen of a western country has a much larger footprint than an average citizen of a developing country. So it makes you think which is worse, heavy increase in a developing country or gradual increase in a developed country?

Chow, D. (2019, June 17). World’s population could swell to 10.9 billion by 2100, U.N. report finds. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/world-s-population-could-swell-10-9-billion-2100-u-ncna1017791.

According to a new United Nations report, the global population could swell up to 10.9 billion by the end of the century. The previous report, from 2017, predicted a staggering 11.2 billion by the end of the century, but 10.9 is really no better. It’s true that the fertility rate is slowing down in most countries, but many other regions like Africa and India will continue to grow. In fact sub-saharan Africa is predicted to double in size in the next 30 years. However, they aren’t the worry as the United States is predicted to increase by more than 100 million by the end of the century and with more nations picking up a western lifestyle, consumption and global impact will be on the rise.

Of course the population boom in developing countries is still a problem, I believe the increase in western countries will take a larger toll. Not to say that we shouldn’t care for those developing countries, because sadly those countries experience more hunger and disease, and with a larger population those problems will only become greater. From an environmental standpoint, the growth of western countries like the United States is more of a threat since their footprint is exponentially larger. With more people adopting a western lifestyle, climate change and environmental damage will be one of the many outcomes. With climate change there will be disease and natural disaster, meaning more displaced, and more seeking refuge in western countries which increases consumption even more. This is one of the worst case scenario situations, but I feel like this is the trend that we’re on and we must meet population growth and consumption head on.

Pinsker, J. (2019, July 31). What Happens When the World’s Population Stops Growing? Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/07/world-population-stop-growing/595165/.

For the majority of human history, the world population has stayed relatively low. Even in 1800, the world population was below 1 billion. However, in the past two centuries with the increase of services like sanitation and medicine, the population has skyrocketed to almost 8 billion. We predicted this trend to continue, which would have brought unprecedented consequences. This isn’t the case, since the world population is predicted to level off in the coming decades, but it also doesn’t take away the problems that have already been created. Besides that, with a slower growing population there will be large population shifts as the median age will increase and there will be many more older people. 

Even though the population is leveling off, overpopulation is still a problem in my eyes on both a humanitarian and environmental standpoint. With the number of industrialized countries continuing to grow, less babies are being born so in turn the population grows slower. However in developing countries, they still practice traditional values of larger families because of a higher child mortality rate. Also in these countries, they’re hungrier for economic gain and are willing to take risks at the expense of their own people and the environment. This can be true in some circumstances, but most citizens of industrialized nations have an extremely large impact on the environment just by performing everyday activities. I can see logic on both arguments, either way even though population growth is slowing down, the problems created by it aren’t going away.