Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Consumption: The Root Cause of Climate Change
The environmental and social crisis that threatens us requires deeper solutions than new technology alone can provide
Technology is part of the solution to climate change. But only part. Techno-fixes like some of those in the Guardian's Manchester Report simply cannot deliver the carbon cuts science demands of us without being accompanied by drastic reductions in our consumption. That means radical economic and social transformation. Merely swapping technologies fails to address the root causes of climate change.
We need to choose the solutions that are the cheapest, the swiftest, the most effective and least likely to incur dire side effects. On all counts, there's a simple answer – stop burning the stuff in the first place. Consume less.
There is a certain level of resources we need to survive, and beyond that there is a level we need in order to have lives that are comfortable and meaningful. It is far below what we presently consume. Americans consume twice as much oil as Europeans. Are they twice as happy? Are Europeans half as free?
Economic growth itself is not a measure of human well-being, it only measures things with an assessed monetary value. It values wants at the same level as needs and, while it purports to bring prosperity to the masses, its tendency to concentrate profit in fewer and fewer hands leaves billions without the necessities of a decent life.
Techno-fixation masks the incompatibility of solving climate change with unlimited economic growth. Even if energy consumption can be reduced for an activity, ongoing economic growth eats up the improvement and overall energy consumption still rises. We continue destructive consumption in the expectation that new miracle technologies will come and save us.
The hope of a future techno-fix feeds into the pass-it-forward, do-nothing-now culture typified by targets for 2050. Tough targets for 2050 are not tough at all, they are a decoy. Where are the techno-fix plans for the peak in global emissions by 2015 that the IPCC says we need?
Even within the limited sphere of technology, we have to separate the solutions from the primacy of profit. We need to choose what's the most effective, not the most lucrative. Investors will want the maximum return for their money, and so the benefits of any climate technologies will, in all likelihood, be sold as carbon credits to the polluter industries and nations. It would not be done in tandem with emissions cuts but instead of them, making it not a tool of mitigation but of exacerbation.
Climate change is not the only crisis currently facing humanity. Peak oil is likely to become a major issue within the coming decade. Competition for land and water, soil fertility depletion and collapse of fisheries are already posing increasing problems for food supply and survival in many parts of the world.
Technological solutions to climate change fail to address most of these issues. Yet even without climate change, this systemic environmental and social crisis threatens society, and requires deeper solutions than new technology alone can provide. Around a fifth of emissions come from deforestation, more than for all transport emissions combined. There is no technological fix for that. We simply need to consume less of the forest, that is to say, less meat, less agrofuel and less wood.
Our level of consumption is inequitable. Making it universal is simply impossible. The scientist Jared Diamond calculates that if the whole world were to have our level of consumption, it would be the equivalent of having 72 billion people on earth.
With ravenous economic growth still prized as the main objective of society by all political leaders the world over, that 72 billion would be just the beginning. At 3% annual growth, 25 years later it would be the equivalent of 150 billion people. A century later it would be over a trillion. Something's got to give. And indeed, it already is. It's time for us to call it a crisis and respond with the proportionate radical action that is needed.
We need profound change – not only government measures and targets but financial systems, the operation of corporations, and people's own expectations of progress and success. Building a new economic democracy based on meeting human needs equitably and sustainably is at least as big a challenge as climate change itself, but if human society is to succeed the two are inseparable.
Instead of asking how to continue to grow the economy while attempting to cut carbon, we should be asking why economic growth is seen as more important than survival.
- Posted in
96 Comments so far
Show All"Instead of asking how to continue to grow the economy while attempting to cut carbon, we should be asking why economic growth is seen as more important than survival."
In the American business model, economic growth - meaning ever increasing levels of production and distribution based on permanent assumptions of rising consumption - is necessary for survival. The core principle of business investment is the expectation of continued growth instead of reliable returns. Wall Street wants capital gains, not dividends.
q
This is true. But even more fundamental than this, the system by which corporations operate is inherently designed to promote (or even require) this kind of business model. The credulity that modern economics has acquired is incredibly problematic. Somehow as a species we have managed to reify the concept of scarcity into a resource.
the problem is not consumption - the problem is too many humans. tech can be used to get to the root of the problem - and that is education. Stop breeding the poor to bleed and starve to maintain the status quo. Human females will chose to reduce birth rate if we teach them to read - it's as simple as that.
The problem IS consumption.
Enviromental degradation has happened in the past NOT because of "Too many Humans" but because of too FEW humans consuming too many resources.
The overuse of a resource can happen just as easily with a small population as one much larger. (See the example of Ancient Mesopotamia with the rise and fall of subsequent City States. The populations much smaller then today yet those people every bit as enviromentaly destructive)
How a given population distributes itself is also a contributing factor. The Southwestern USA is not ecologically supportive of a larger population yet sees a tremendous growth in the same. A population of 3 persons per square mile may be "Too many humans" for The Nothern Tundra but can certainly be supported in a place like the Netherlands.
Yup, the energy and carbon emission savings from depopulating and eventually amandoning the Phoenix, AZ area would be huge! Between it's car-driven sprawl and the AC use, it is an abomination.
Yup, that is why their politician friends changed the tax code so capital gains are taxed so low, while dividends are taxed the same as than wages.
"We need profound change – not only government measures and targets but financial systems, the operation of corporations, and people's own expectations of progress and success. " People have been talking change for the last 40 years. How much longer would change really happen? We have dug way to deep of a hole by using a false premise for a shovel that things would always be growing. Now we are going to pay for that mistake and it isn't going to be pretty. We have been in survival mode for some time. As someone said a couple of days ago. Paraphrasing this but they said so what let things crash then we could stop just surviving and start thriving.
Publishing this article in an American newspaper would be considered unpatriotic.
If we are to have any hope in hell of slowing climate change (and other forms of environmental degradation), in addition to cutting consumption, human population growth needs to be stabilized and eventually reversed. Otherwise any gain realized by cutting consumption will be negated by the increase in population.
Well call me a Malthusian Troll and you will be called one also but you are right on the mark. Fat chance for anything really being done about the population growth. Oh there will be those that swear up and down that population is under control or it will be nice to have billions more people around. They are wrong of course since the human population is replicating like plastic bags. And they are everywhere.
The growth rate is slowing, and in some countries they are experiencing population decline.
The root of the problem is two-fold: 1) the population rate in the poorest countries is skyrocketing, and 2) there is an obscene level of consumption in the U.S., and to a slightly lesser extent, in other First World countries.
This article is right on. But the author appears afraid to say the word - "socialism". That is what it'll take to get us off the consumption bandwagon. We need a new political-economic system that isn't dependent on constantly rising levels of consumption as is required under capitalism.
In the article above we find this sentence: "Competition for land and water, soil fertility depletion and collapse of fisheries are already posing problems for food supply and survival in many parts of the world." These are all problems directly resulting from massive population growth, yet many people who say that they are concerned about the destruction of the environment say that population growth is not a problem.
It is most likely the number one environmental problem, and it also it helps big business thrive. Population growth = consumption. Sure, Americans should consume less, and their economy is most definitely wasteful, but they need jobs, and the jobs are dependent on corporations, and the corporations own the government. Americans could very well become poorer through an economic/environmental catastrophe, but in the meantime they are not thinking about consuming less; they need to work, and they also have the right to reproduce as much as they want to.
Radical economic and social change might come in the form of a huge die-off resulting from war, famine, or epidemics in their peculiar interactions, but, "Change our lifestyle? Never!"
What a reactionary position! I'm sure that the word "Marx" in your handle certainly doesn't reference Karl Marx who totally opposed Malthusian economics.
In fairness to Marx, he was writing at a time when total world population was under a billion and natural resources were seemingly abundant. Were he around today he'd most certainly take into account that we live on a finite planet which we share with other living creatures and vegetation (which also have a right to exist).
Really, what's the endgame here? Just endless breeding and expansion until we crowd every other species out of existence (and ultimately make life uninhabitable for ourselves)? Sustainability needs to be the guiding principle underlying all policies going forward.
The endgame for our maximum population could be defined as the number of humans genetically engineered to photosynthesize that could be supported by the total amount of sunlight reaching Earth. Under those conditions no other life would be able to exist except for certain forms of bacteria and viruses. A quick calculation of incident radiation and photosynthetic efficiency suggests that each human would require 2.5 sq. meters of sunlight for 12 hours each day. This would allow for a maximum population of about 200 trillion covering the entire planet, land and ocean packed like sardines with frequent starvation and death due to overcast days. We could achieve such a population with only 16 more doublings or about 800 years if we maintain the rate of the last 50 years. Such a stark view of our population bomb emphasizes our need to establish our communities living in harmony with the Earth.
Note that under this scenario we are not consuming resources other than those freely and sustainably arriving from the Sun.
You are speaking to the real cause of enviornmental problems, economic problems and war. And anyone that say's that it isn't is blinded by ideology. Example, if I add 4 million people over a short time span, to an area struggling with water problems, what do you believe the result will be?
Consumption can be controlled, but not by Fiat.
Some of us (like my family and I) have made radical reductions in our energy consumption. Others (like most people we know) consume fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow...
They drive here, and fly there. They drive 90 miles to work, drive 200 miles to a birthday party, drive 300 miles to a concert, drive 150 miles to go skiing, drive 75 miles to go fishing, fly 4000 miles to go to a wedding...
We try to set an example, and I know we have influenced some people, especially some of the younger folks. But the gas guzzling continues unabated for most. And (confession) we're really not much better, even though we really, really try.
I wonder what it's going to take to get people to change their ways. How can we get more people to cut back on their consumption of fossil fuels? I think I know the answer.
Dire predictions of global climate change? Nope. Scorching summer days? Nope. Melting glaciers? Nope. Imminent sea level rise? No again.
Bottom line: The price of gas. Period.
I still own a car (1994 toyota small pu) but it gets used so little anymore it just sort of rusting in-place. Against my protests, my wife bought a near-new Hyundai Elantra to replace the well-maintained and still reliable 87 Corolla. But it is seeing little use too. The electric scooters, with a energy-equivalent 400 miles per gallon, provide the local transportation. Fun to ride.
The central AC still has it's winter cover on it. Average summer high here is 83F, average low is 60F. Who needs it?
But is anyone else changing their habits - not here. You are correct, only high fuel (and electricity) prices will force people to change. The crash in oil prices late last year have been a disaster for the cause.
Hey, Moondoggy and pjd412...
Perhaps an enormous downturn in employment will curb appetites for fuel and electricity, and the toys that run on them? Money is still the root of all evil, and many of us will be seeing alot less of it in the near future, if my foresight is even close to the mark...the major problem, again, is lack of money results in eviction...what if it didn't?
this is where the issue of ownership of property comes in...
we're still murderous barbarians, we're just not very upfront about it...which leaves those that aren't comfortable being barbaric struggling with, and losing to, those that are...to move beyond requires those behaving barbarically be brought under control ~ physical control...until we do that, we're just voting, or wishing, or whatever...once control is regained, the next steps would be the development of peaceful, sustainable interaction with the mother planet...always with a wary eye toward those prepared to resume barbarism...fortunately, I believe with all of my being that the true barbarians are rather small in number, and that the true nature of most of us is not that way...we sure let them get away with alot, though...
Another beautiful July day here on the busy Puget Sound...!
Hey Dubet, hows it growing?
I just harvested my first red raspberries today. Strawberries and snap peas are still coming on strong. I'm going up into the local mountains tomorrow to go look for wild huckleberries, which are a Montana staple. We're harvesting daily now.
Job? What job? Harvesting is my job for the next 3 months! I'm earning my backcountry ski turns this coming winter, interacting with Mama Earth in the realm of snow crystals.
dubet, dubet, how gracefully you reflect the truth, "to move beyond requires those behaving barbarically to be brought under control~physical control..." "I believe with all my being that the true barbarians are rather small in number,"
yes, si, oui, the power mad attain it while artists, growers, creators of beauty live quietly but over time have been overcome by those few barbaric seekers of power.
Wonderful post, dubet, we shall overcome, maybe soon.
Revolution a la Marx.
quickstepper, nice lead off post if I may.
Moondoggy, how are our Elk?
I know you care for them with love, I want one to live with me.
azjoe, the elk won't come to live with you, you gotta go live with them.
Hey pjd412, I once read somewhere that it takes more energy to manufacture a new car than is consumed during the entire life of the car to drive and maintain it. So we never buy new cars. We still chug along in our 1990 Subaru and the 1987 Jeep is parked when it's not being used to get firewood.
Our winter temperatures here in NW Montana dip into the minus 20 and 30's and rarely get above the freezing mark, so we heat our log cabin with wood. So yeah, we're pumping out the carbon like the rest of us. Our woodstove gobbles up 4 or 5 large dead pine trees per year, so I'm under no illusion that we're contributing to the carbon problem.
I live in a forested area where they do a lot of "timber harvesting". I always try to rescue dead trees from burn piles leftover from nearby logging operations. With big bulldozers they make enormous piles of logs that are too gnarly for the mill, and just light them on fire about a year or two after they are done logging. Some burn piles are so huge they could supply us with 10 years worth of firewood!
In the fall they come along with napalm and set hundreds of these piles ablaze filling the valley with smoke. So in that light, I don't feel too bad about heating our humble abode with a relatively small amount of wood. I've seen forest fires that burn more wood in a half second than we would burn in several lifetimes.
Here are some things I'm thinking in regards to making consumption less.
1. Population control. I think that this can be greatly mitigated by education. I am not just referring to just sexual education either(but that would help). Demonstrating to people just how hard it is to have children. Giving them viable retirement options other than, "my kids will take care of me". Giving people a route to contribue to their society and future without having children. If people are educated not all of them will want the responsibility and sacrifice that is required to have children.
2. Alternatives to "Busy Work" Economics. As was pointed out, one of the big problems we have is more stuff is made and disposed of than we as a world really need. One of the reasons for this is that we have reached a state of technology where we don't everyone working to produce what we actually need. The problem is we still have an economic and social model where if you aren't working you don't get a lot of things that in many cases you need(food, etc.) We need to realistically adjust our economic and social system to the reality that we need far fewer people as active members of our work force than we used to, and it could even be said that many jobs actually produce a net drain on our resources.
Something to think about.
Lates
C23
I have thought a lot about what you said and I couldn't agree more. Probably, we need people working fewer hours rather than some working a lot and some not at all.
Aha! So eating is the cause of sewage!
Half of what I read these days feels like a retyping of 'The Limits to Growth' from The Club of Rome which I first read back in grade ten about thirty years ago.
www.clubofrome.org/docs/limits.rtf
It's distressing that knowing exactly what we need to do has no effect on our actions.
The ineffectual nature of the will is a major topic of critiques of early "modern" philosophy.
In a touch of irony, Tuberculosis (and other diseases) will be part of Nature's corrective.
Growth expectations are built into money itself. The application of an exponential concept, ie. interest, to money eventually drives growth to extremes on all frontiers, including population. As time moves on, the emphasis of ever-increasing growth becomes omnipresent, is quantified and institutionalized in the societal structure, encouraging over consumption, over development, and excessive expectations, pushing economic stress to its upper limit of expansion, eventually inciting conflict and spawning War to insure growth. Question interest as a valid economic concept, consume less, and the house of cards will fall.
I have some questions for all those who insist that population is THE problem that's causing climate change:
When you talk of population control, are you thinking of those people who are already here, or future growth?
Do you think that poverty might have something to do with overpopulation? Lack of education as a result of poverty, included.
And do you think globalized trade might have something to do with poverty? It might benefit some in the poorer countries, but does it benefit the majority?
Do you think religious teachings that discourage birth control (even condoms!) might have something to do with overpopulation?
If you are talking of future population growth, what would be an ideal size for a family? One child? Two? None?
When you think of population, is there a particular ethnic group or race that comes to your mind?
Would you like the SAME family size for all countries? Or is the size limit just for the poor families? After all, in a globalized economy, we do consume stuff grown or produced in other parts of the world. Without a globalized economy, those resources could perhaps be used for the local population, not just the elite in those countries and those importing from these countries.
Have you looked at historical data on population? I haven't - but I do have anecdotal evidence that large families - like 6, 7, 8, or more children was not so uncommon even in Europe and wherever the Europeans "settled" - until perhaps the 20th century.
Do you think that colonization of North & South America, Australia (3 continents), and parts of Africa relieved some of the pressures on population density in Europe? Also, the people who were pushed out by the enclosure movement had some place to escape due to these colonizations?
Have you heard of "Ecological Footprint"? It's essentially the land area (actually includes ocean area, too - if you consume fish and other marine products) that's required to produce everything a person (or a nation) consumes and to absorb the waste that's generated - INCLUDING the forest area needed to absorb the CO2 that's produced by burning fossil fuels.
Do you feel that the per capita ecological footprint should be roughly (not exactly, but more or less) the same for all people?
Hypothetically, if the population of the world was, say 2 to 3 billion less than what it is, do you think the current level of consumption in western countries is sustainable? And wouldn't contribute to climate change?
(Disclaimer: I do believe that the current human population is perhaps too much and must go down - but naturally)
I look forward to seeing answers to these good questions.
I'll go you one further.
"And do you think globalized trade might have something to do with poverty? It might benefit some in the poorer countries, but does it benefit the majority?"
Globalization and trade agreements don't benefit poor countries. They exploit poor countries, allowing multinational companies to move jobs around to those desperate enough to accept the lowest wages, the worst working conditions and the fewest labor rights. As an example, companies like Motorola, RCA and Pepsi, among others, went to Mexico under NAFTA. When lower wages were accepted elsewhere in the world, they abandoned Mexico. Manufacturing in China provides a well behaved work force which belongs to a mandatory government union, which is for the purpose of keeping track of workers, since there are no rights to collectively bargain or to strike. "Opening up Latin America" means basically corporate colonization. You might think it would mean that a south american soft drink would make it into the US market, but what it usually means is that the south american beverage company will be bought for a song by the US multinational, the factory taken over or closed. As Walmart opens throughout the world, small family businesses and even larger foreign department stores begin losing money and closing.
I think your observations present a complex set of questions; but a few thoughts if you will allow me:
If mankind is affecting the climate (hard to believe it isn't) I think it is because of our chosen lifestyles rather than the sheer number of us. But it is also our kind of lifestyle (and the supportive ideologies) that allows for and/or encourages the ever-increasing number of us.
It may also be a no longer practicable 'survival mechanism' left over from earlier days when mankind's numbers were few and its mortality rate high. If so, we may have little or no control over this impulse - though there may be ways to mitigate its effects.
Historically 'over-population' was relieved/corrected by war, famine, disease, and/or emmigration to other places. But since most 'other places' are now populated (if habitable), this is no longer a viable response. LOL Perhaps we can ship them to Mars like some of the Star-Trek crowd suggest.
As for war, famine, and disease: most modern nations - save for the obvious exceptions - have at least momentarily refrained from internacine warfare. Medical technology has eliminated most large-scale diseases (so far) - though availability of treatment remains spotty and problematic - and more efficient agricultural methodology, political decisions leading to better distribution, and population 'sensibility' have taken care of the bulk of famines.
For more what is derogatorialy called 'third world' nations these principles don't apply as readily for various cultural or political reasons. And there, nature more obviously applies the limits in a far more obvious and impersonal way.
Resources are finite and the technological 'revolutions' that provided more efficient exploitation of available resources (the 'green' revolution in India for example) have a point of diminishing returns because the technology is usually meant as a 'fix' (of the previous 'technology') and not meant to be applied in a sustainable way. 'Sustainable technology' is seen as counter-productive under an ideology based on the drive for what is both 'new and improved' - and profitable. This non-sustainable methodology has already shown signs of failure - by design - and thousands of farmers commit suicide each year in India because they can no longer afford to feed themselves on their own farms.
It has been postulated that following closely on the heels of the Great European Plagues of the 14th and 15th centuries the available resources were spread around to fewer individuals who then, and often for the first time, had the spare change to buy things, support essentialy 'non-productive' enterprises like art, music, literature, and philosophy, build and improve infrastructure, found banks, pursue 'science', create businesses, etc. - leading to the Renaissance.
Historically, nature has set the limit of a species' population growth. We have been able to push that limit out a bit because of technology. But the technologies have used in the past is not sustainable and sooner or later nature will enforce the limits on us and...well I'll let you decide what happens then.
Personally, I would like to see the population of the world reduced to a sustainable level, but I have no idea what that level is nor any interest in compelling such a reduction by law or force.
Let's build a colonizing ship for all the rich, the powerful, the important, and launch it. And leave a window open on it.
>> nor any interest in compelling such a reduction by law or force.
If we are so irresponsible as to allow the "law and force" of nature to solve our problems, we will wish we had taken an interest in some sort of compulsory action...
Perhaps so, but either way I think nature as the court of last resort will render the verdict.
Personally, for all its 'glories', I think mankind is incapable of learning this lesson and is doomed to extinction or irrelevance.
"Hypothetically, if the population of the world was, say 2 to 3 billion less than what it is, do you think the current level of consumption in western countries is sustainable? And wouldn't contribute to climate change?"
Just a guess, since the human population has clearly overshot the carrying capacity of the Earth, but I suspect a population of about 1 billion could enjoy a Western style lifestyle.
Since the carbon cycle is out of whack and the effects of the already altered atmosphere will persist for centuries such a population should use solar or wind energy.
Using petrochemicals as fuel is wasteful and the only use for these archeological bio-products should be for petrochemical derivatives (e.g. plastics) until they are replaced by currently growing biological products.
However alternative lifestyles could be extremely satisfying. Consider dispersed farming communities of about 100-200 people that were prevalent in historic times. Such local communities, tied together by modern telecommunications, would have the advantage of raising children within a natural environment that they would be inclined to preserve.
We're in overshoot already. The majority of the world's people should expect to die well before the 70 year mark that is about average in resource-rich environments.
The majority of the calories produced by industrial agriculture require an equal or greater input of calories from oil and natural gas in the form of fuel, fertilizers and pesticides to exist. In the inevitable contraction of oil supplies and depletion of gas fields the resources to produce food cheaply simply will not exist.
The majority of food calories comes from a very small number of strains of corn, rice, wheat and soybeans. Due to genetic bottlenecks these crops WILL suffer viral, fungal and bacterial attack that will decimate the production of at least one crop for several years. World grain consumption has exceeded production for the majority of the last ten years and reserve stocks are dwindling.
Climate change is real, is happening now and is decaying the ability to produce crops as we speak. This process will accelerate without intervention until human extinction is a real possibility. Google: 'methane release, siberian, permafrost' if you don't believe me.
It really doesn't matter how many children you have; how many do you want to see die early? Have that many children.
Malthus was an optimist. He had no way of knowing that humans could destroy the atmosphere and the oceans.
Pangolin, as someone who thinks and reads about "ecological footprint", I am only too aware of "overshoot". I also mark the "Overshoot Day" for the last couple of years. I completely agree with your point about what it takes to produce food. On climate change? I'm already part of the "choir" - so, no preaching needed :) I have known about the methane under the permafrost and the potential danger of runaway climate change if that were to be released, for some years now.
The reason I raised those questions about population is because of my conviction that whatever resources are there today need to be shared equitably, while working on climate stabilization and actively promoting a reduction in population (but by natural means, over a couple of generations). I also believe (I have to be hopeful if I have to carry on with my life) that with an understanding of "ecological footprint" and a conscious choice of a simpler lifestyle and a smaller footprint, we just might avert catastrophe. It would all depend on what the current population does. If the 'system' (economic, global trade, etc.) needs to be changed to avert danger, I am all for it. Where I disagree with some people is in blaming the population alone, without regard to our own consumption levels. I also disagree with those who think a majority of the population can eat meat regularly, on a sustainable basis - grass-fed or not, - while blaming overpopulation elsewhere.
"Our level of consumption is inequitable. Making it universal is simply impossible. The scientist Jared Diamond calculates that if the whole world were to have our level of consumption, it would be the equivalent of having 72 billion people on earth."
Good article Merrick. But don't you mean "consumerism? "Consumption" is what they used to call TB here in the US.
Jared Diamond also ties consumerism with resource depletion and shows overpopulation to be a root cause.
Another root cause would be concentrating wealth and power. Them with the gold not only makes the rules, but consume more of everything.
con⋅sump⋅tion
–noun
1. the act of consuming, as by use, decay, or destruction.
2. the amount consumed: the high consumption of gasoline.
3. Economics: the using up of goods and services having an exchangeable value.
4. Pathology:
a. Older Use. tuberculosis of the lungs.
b. progressive wasting of the body.
It's the right word.
Thanks
Conservatives demonized Malthusians just as they demonized liberals, socialists, scientists and atheists and now we are afraid to call ourselves such brave and wondrous things.
Actually, most criticism of Malthusianism comes from the socialists and the left.
ezeflyer, as pjd412 pointed out, I too was surprised when you said conservatives "demonized Malthusians". You might be interested to read what Marx and Engels had to say about Malthus. I have seen conspiracy theorists (such as Alex Jones) lump Malthus, the eugenicists that followed, AND nature conservancy movements and even those who warn about climate change all together - which made no sense to me. Maybe that's a conservative ploy to confuse people? Malthus might have got some things right - such as the finite nature of resources (which is common sense, anyway), but he has been proven to be wrong on other counts - especially his postulation on affluence vs. population. Worst of all, his "theories" were apparently used as a justification for subsequent empire building, and I wonder if that mindset has ever stopped. "If resources are finite, then they had better be under our control" - isn't that part of the imperialistic mindset?
Malthus was not perfect. He was an Anglican clergyman as well as a British scholar. That former casts doubt on his scientific qualifications as well as his political views. But his "The Principle of Population" was lauded by such scientists as Rousseau, Darwin and Wallace. Much of his writing holds true today however and discarding all of it is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, playing into the hands of overpopulation deniers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus
ezeflyer, are there really any "overpopulation deniers", as you call them? I know of climate change deniers, and the nuanced variety that accepts climate change but denies human role. If you have been to developing countries, you can see that many of their governments - both at the federal and the state/local levels - have programs that try to educate and motivate people about a small family. We know that China does it aggressively, but other countries do it less aggressively. Their effectiveness could be improved - but it is a fact that many countries are already aware of overpopulation. By trying to improve the living standards and by providing education, they are in effect trying to stabilize (and hopefully reduce) their population. But many of the developing countries are also caught up in international debt, local wars and corruption - that it may look like they don't care about population size. Add to this mix, the role of religion(s) - because some of these developing countries have people that take religion a bit seriously. It's not their fault - that's how it's been. So when religious "leaders" actively discourage or preach against birth control (even preventive measures such as using condoms), what are they to do? Obviously they don't want to end up in hell - which they imagine to be a place worse than their own situation in this life.
But do we really need to invoke Malthus? That resources are finite is known. We also know more about the carbon cycle, and that there is a finite rate at which CO2 can be absorbed by the trees and the ocean (which they say is reaching its limits). I agree that the current human population is beyond the Earth's carrying capacity, and I've heard about it since I was little. But I like to challenge people to be more specific - about what exactly is to be done about overpopulation. It's not the fault of people that they were born. So, whatever reduction in population is required, it has to happen from now into the future. Except the religious nuts, I don't see anyone objecting to birth control or a small family. In the meantime, as a matter of fairness, I like to learn about and live, and possibly "convert" others towards a simpler life that leaves a smaller footprint. Reducing our ecological footprint has other potential benefits too - apart from tackling climate change, it could reduce or eliminate wars, make us healthier, and hopefully happier.