Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist (68 page)

In addition, DDT has a special exemption for use in controlling mosquitoes that carry malaria. Seventeen countries, mostly in Africa but also including China and India, have filed notice they intend to continue using DDT for this purpose.

I would certainly not argue in favor of toxic chemicals if there is no use for them or if suitable, less toxic, substitutes were available. But even then we should not just forget about them. As the cases of DDT and thalidomide demonstrate, certain uses of the chemicals may prove so valuable they should not be subjected to an outright ban.

A few generalities follow from the above discussion:

All material things are made of elements and chemicals (molecules, compounds).

No chemical is inherently evil.

Some chemicals are extremely dangerous under certain circumstances.

Many chemicals have both negative and positive attributes.

In general, bans should be placed on the way a chemical is used, rather than on the chemical itself.

If an otherwise toxic chemical has uses where the benefits far outweigh negative impacts, it should be used.

There is no end to learning—continual advances in knowledge must be the goal of science and technology.

It is not possible to provide an exhaustive review of chemicals in a single chapter. But I hope these examples and principles have provided some new perspectives on the vast array of substances, both natural and synthetic, that make up ourselves and our world.

[1]
. “PVC Alternatives Database,” Greenpeace Int., http://archive.greenpeace.org/toxics/pvcdatabase/bad.html

[2]
. “Periodic Table (large version),” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table_(large_version)

[3]
. “Estimated Deaths and DALYs [Disability Adjusted Life Years]Attributable to Selected Environmental Risk Factors.” World Health Organization, January 2007, http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/countryprofilesebd.xls

[4]
. “The Inventory of Sources and Environmental Releases of Dioxin-Like Compounds in the United States: The Year 2000 Update,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 2005, http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/dioxin/2k-update/pdfs/Dioxin_Frontmatter.pdf

[5]
. Rick Smith and Bruce Laurie,
Slow Death by Rubber Duck: How the Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Life Affects Our Health
, (Berkeley, Counterpoint, 2009).

[6]
. “Go PVC-Free,” Greenpeace International, http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/toxics/go-pvc-free

[7]
. “Polyvinyl Chloride,” Greenpeace International, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/polyvinyl-chloride

[8]
. “EU Risk Assessment,” DINP Information Centre, http://www.dinp-facts.com/RA

[9]
. Kara Altshuler et al., “Assessment of a Technical Basis for a PVC-Related Materials Credit in LEED,” TSAC PVC Task Group, US Green Building Council, December 17, 2004, p. 10, https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=1287

[10]
. “Hospital Infection Control Saves Lives, Cuts Costs,”
Medical News Today
, March 11, 2007, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/64886.php

[11]
. Margaret Wente, “Does BPA Give You the Willies? It Shouldn’t,”
Globe and Mail
, November 9, 2009, http://www.beattystreetpublishing.com/confessions/references/does-bpa-give-you-the-willies

[12]
. “Plastics Industry Reassures on the Safety of Bisphenol-A (BPA),” British Plastics Federation, December 1, 2009, http://www.bpf.co.uk/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=97b49741-856b-4e4e-82c7-62f27ef2eb65

[13]
. Steve Conner, “Scientists Declare War Over BPA,”
Independent
, April 13, 2010, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-declare-war-over-bpa-1943087.html

[14]
. Ibid.

[15]
. “Clusterfuck,” Wikipedia, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clusterfuck

[16]
. “Thalidomide,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

[17]
. “Multiple Myeloma,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_myeloma

[18]
. “Thalidomide” http://bi.adisinsight.com/rdi/viewdocument.aspx?render=view&mode=remote&adnm=800004827&PushValidation=121745

Chapter 19 -
Population Is Us

Population is a very tricky subject. Many people believe we have a right, even a moral obligation, to go forth and multiply. Others complain there are far too many of us already and it would be a good thing if some calamity befell us, thinning the human herd. These opposing views are strongly linked to religious convictions on the one hand, and extreme antihuman sentiments on the other. It is a somewhat typical right versus left dichotomy. What can a sensible environmentalist make of this chasm in philosophical outlook?

On the World Day of Peace in December 2008, Pope Benedict XVI pointed out poverty has been reduced as a percentage of the human population in recent years. “In other words, population is proving to be an asset, not a factor that contributes to poverty,” the pope affirmed.
[1]
The only form of birth control tolerated by the Catholic Church is the very unreliable rhythm method. Modern contrivances such as condoms and birth control pills need not apply. Yet many Catholics, especially in the industrialized countries, choose to defy this edict and actively limit the size of their families, using modern birth control techniques.

On the other extreme, Paul Watson, the early Greenpeace activist who is now head of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, believes, “We need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.” He warns, “Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach.”
[2]
A little genocide anyone? It’s only a virus. The pope looks pretty good by comparison.

In December 2009, the prominent Canadian journalist Diane Francis wrote an editorial in the
National Post
calling on the world to adopt China’s “one-child policy.” This policy punishes parents and their children if a mother has more than one child. It is credited for reducing population by 250 million during the past 30 years, but this is questioned, and can’t be proven either way. The editorial received almost universal condemnation, clearly indicating that people in Canada and the U.S. do not believe in such intrusive state policies in matters of family planning.

By 2020 there will be 30 million more men than women in China. That’s 30 million men with no chance of finding a partner of the opposite sex. This is largely due to the fact the Chinese prefer boys to girls, resulting in forced abortions and girl infanticide. In addition, many girl babies are adopted out illegally so that couples can avoid punishment for going over the one-child limit.
[3]
The United States government has stated this policy contravenes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Amnesty International has also condemned the one-child policy.
[4]

Too often, discussions about human population degenerate into political debates about race, class, gender, and left-right dogma. Fortunately there is a middle ground between unbridled procreation and a collective death wish. The trick is to get beyond knee-jerk discrimination and to objectively analyze what is going on in the real world. Let’s forget about whether humans are good or bad for a moment and take a look at the current trends.

The Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs projects a global population of between 8 billion and 10.5 billion by 2050, up from the present population of nearly 7 billion.
[5]
Without exception, all the growth will occur in the developing countries while the developed countries will experience negative internal growth rates, only growing in population due to immigration from the developing countries. It is clear from this that wealth results in reduced population growth. Why is this the case when wealthier people can afford more children?

It turns out that one of the most important factors in determining average family size is the number of people employed in agriculture. In 1870 between 70 to 80 percent of the workforce in the United States was employed in agriculture. Today, due entirely to mechanization and intensive farming practices, only 2 to 3 percent of workers are required to grow food. And even with so few people involved, the United States has a surplus of food exports over imports of nearly $35 billion annually. Today, 70 percent of the workforce in India and 65 percent in China are engaged in food production. Imagine how many millions of people would be able to pursue productive careers in other sectors if only 2 to 3 percent were required for agriculture. The implications for population growth are also staggering.

People who live by subsistence farming tend to have large families because children are an asset when unskilled labor is required to work the land. When agriculture becomes mechanized, far fewer people are required to work on farms. In China alone, 300 million people will move from the country into cities in the next 10 years, largely due to mechanization. This will represent the largest migration of humans in history. And it will result in a dramatic decline in birth rates because families that move into urban areas tend to have fewer children. Children are a liability in cities, and their mothers become better educated, politically empowered, and more in control of their reproductive future, unlike their counterparts in subsistence farming, who are barefoot and pregnant most of their lives.

It is therefore of paramount importance that the mechanization of agriculture, employing all the advances in technology, chemistry and genetics, be encouraged throughout the developing world. In combination with improved education and literacy, electrification, refrigeration, health care, and clean water, the adoption of modern farming techniques will lead to a better life for billions of people who are now trapped in poverty. At the same time, it will result in reduced birth rates in the same way this has already occurred in the developed countries.

I can thank Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue and an elder of mine in the environmental movement, for helping to inform me on this subject. His latest book,
Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto
, elaborates on these and other issues.
[6]

As mentioned previously, there is great hope in the initiatives of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, with support from Warren Buffet and others. Their approach is to increase the professionalism of international aid efforts and to use the best science in health, agriculture, sanitation, and technology in general.

There is not a lot more that needs to be said on the subject of population; putting these principles into action is the real challenge. It is clear that a sensible environmentalist would support the mechanization of agriculture and development of the necessary energy, technological, and biological resources to support it. There is no need to politicize the issue of population growth and there is no need for draconian measures such as China’s punitive one-child policy. It is abundantly clear that population will sort itself out if we can only help developing nations to lift themselves out of poverty.

[1]
. John-Henry Westen and Kathleen Gilbert, “Pope Against Population Control,” Catholic Online, December 13, 2008, http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=31054