Growth in the Chesapeake Bay

Recent articles in Politico and the Bay Journal have called attention to the significant environmental stress within the Chesapeake Bay area.  One article references “The war over Chesapeake Bay,” when discussing the controversial clean-up plan launched by the Obama administration several years ago.  In another, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Gina McCarthy highlights a “discouraging lack of progress” in some areas to protect the nation’s largest estuary.

Maryland_population_map

NPG has long warned of the dangers of population growth to environmental treasures such as this.  In 2013, NPG published the Forum paper Revisiting the Chesapeake Bay:  The Effect of Population Growth on America’s Largest EstuaryBay area expert Tom Horton gives his insight on how growth in the watershed area has contributed to its downfall. 

In an effort to engage our nation’s next generation of leaders and environmental activists – we also regularly publish educational materials for America’s classrooms, such as our highly-popular Chesapeake Bay Poster

Designed to foster greater understanding of overpopulation and its impact on the environment, these valuable resources remain FREE OF CHARGE thanks to the generous support of members like you.

Thank you again for your continued support of NPG! 

Your dedication keeps us moving forward

in the fight for America’s future!

donate-website

NPG

There is no remedy that can possibly avert disastrous Climate Change and Global Warming unless we first address the problem of world population size and growth, and its impact on the size of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.That means that we need to address the population size and growth of each nation, which together make up the world total.

World population, now over 7.3 billion, is predicted to rise to 9 billion by 2050, an increase of almost two billion, or 23%, in the short space of only 34 years from now.In the highly unlikely event that per capita greenhouse gas emissions could possibly be decreased by an equal percentage in such a short space of time (a blink of an eye) the total amount of worldwide emission would remain the same!

From this simple illustration it would appear that without drastically reducing the size of world population, there is no solution to the problem.None at all.So then why do our world leaders pretend that there is one?What is to be gained by pretending rather than by proposing a solution that would solve the problem – a reduction in the size of world population to not more than 1- 2 billion?

advert