NPG Essay Scholarship Contest Winners

Winners of the 2023 Essay Scholarship Contest

2023 Graduate Students Essay Scholarship Topic

Experts from the U.S. Census Bureau predict U.S. population may reach 404 million by 2060 unless we change course. That means we may be living with an additional 70 million people in less than 40 years. What aspects of your life will be most affected by this growth? In order to protect our environment and quality of life for future generations, should the US government encourage policies designed to reduce growth to a smaller, truly sustainable, level?

Click on each name to view the text of the winning essay.

Award	Winner Name	School
$5,000 - The Donald W. Mann Memorial Scholarship for Population Studies	Alex Blake	University of Nevada, Las Vegas
$2,500	Veronica Irwin	NYU Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute
$1,500	Leanne Deng	Georgetown University
$1,500	Ashlyn Puckett	Georgia State University College of Law
$1,000 - The Dr. Donald C. Spencer NPG Memorial Scholarship	Lorena Elizabeth Diaz	Strayer University
$1,000	Grace Katzmar	Columbia University, Teachers College
$1,000	Brian Lum	University of Arkansas (Fayetteville)
$1,000	Michael Soaries	Union Theological Seminary New York

2023 High School Seniors & Undergraduate Students Essay Scholarship Topic

Click on each name to view the text of the winning essay.

Award	Winner Name	School
$2,500	Peter Sloniewsky	Georgetown University
$2,000	Curtis Halpin	Penn State University
$2,000	Amanda Jorjorian-Furcho	Valencia College
$2,000	Morgan Pursley	University of Tennessee
$1,500	Sebastian Henson	Lake Forest College
$1,500	Connor Karpilovsky	St. Joseph's University
$1,000	Simran Bhogle	Irvine Valley College
$1,000	Madelyn Heckert	Portland State University
$1,000	Domnica Reutov	Portland State University

Winners of the 2022 Essay Scholarship Contest

2022 Topic:

The 2000 United States Census counted a total U.S. population of 281.4 million people. In 2020, just twenty years later, the U.S. population stood at more than 331.4 million people. That increase of 50 million is roughly the population of New York state and Texas combined. Is this growth good or bad for the United States? Give 5 reasons to explain your answer.

Click on each name to view the text of the winning essay.

Award	Winner Name	School
$5,000 - The Donald W. Mann Memorial Scholarship for Population Studies	Harrison Hall	Liberty University
$2,500	Jadon Lau	Northwestern University
$1,500	Aaron Chan	Elon University
$1,500	Conner Daehler	Valparaiso University
$1,500	Yihan Deng	Georgetown University
$1,500	Matthew Doty	University of Notre Dame
$1,500	Najya Gause	Harvard College
$1,500	Lily Ogburn	Northwestern University
$1,000 The Michael Hanauer NPG Scholarship	Taylor Gollhofer	The University of Northern Colorado
$1,000	Shamona Joseph	University of Central Florida
$1,000	Ethan Pellicane	California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
$1,000	Roniel Rivera-Garcia	Iowa State University
$1,000	Maryanne Thomas	North Carolina State University

Winners of the 2021 Essay Scholarship Contest

2021 Topic:

Write a letter to President Biden that highlights why overpopulation must be part of his administration’s discussions concerning our environment, including efforts to curb climate change.

Click on each name to view the text of the winning essay.

Award	Winner Name	School
$5,000 - The Donald W. Mann Memorial Scholarship for Population Studies	Matthew Joseph Doty	University of Notre Dame
$2,500 - The Marjorie Koldinger NPG Memorial Scholarship	Harrison Hall	Liberty University
$2,000	Jack Lee	New York University
$2,000	Angela Yu	Georgetown University
$1,500 - The Marjorie Koldinger NPG Memorial Scholarship	Nicole Giannetta	Ohio State University
$1,500 - The Overpopulation Insights.Com NPG Scholarship	Janathia Renee Henry	Savannah College of Art and Design
$1,500 - Ellen G. Wong NPG Memorial Scholarship	Attalia Harmony Rogers	University of California, San Diego
$1,000 - The Jim & Kay Baccus NPG Scholarship	Allison Laney Barnes	University of West Georgia
$1,000 - The Marjorie Koldinger NPG Memorial Scholarship	Landon Trey Crabtree	Tennessee Technological University
$1,000 - The Overpopulation Insights.Com NPG Scholarship	Akshitha Ginuga	University of Michigan
$1,000 - Ellen G. Wong NPG Memorial Scholarship	Marissa Loraine Kuechenmeister	Ohio University, Athens
$1,000	Eli Kurlander	Indiana University Bloomington
$1,000	Jadon Lau	Northwestern University
$1,000	Toheed Mahmood	Bunker Hill Community College
$1,000	Carly Meulenberg	Olivet Nazarene University
$1,000	Connor Stutz	Hillsdale College

Winners of the 2020 Essay Scholarship Contest

2020 Topic:

The 2020 U.S. Census will begin in April. In the past, our nation has grown by tens of millions of people each decade and experts predict our population will exceed 400 million by 2060. Is this good or bad for our country? What three aspects of your life do you think will be most affected by that growth?

Click on each name to read their winning essay.

Award	Winner Name	School
Grand Prize $2,500	Anelyse Regelbrugge	Lewis and Clark College
2nd Place $1,500	Jessica Wen	Rice University
$1,000	Solana Adedokun	University of Chicago
$1,000	Cavin Alderfer	Colorado State University
$1,000	Kaysan Frueh	Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
$1,000	Nicolas Genna	Oakland University
$1,000	Harrison Hall	Liberty University
$1,000	Makenzie Hrabina	Edgewood College
$1,000	Jesse Roy	Yale University
$1,000	Reece Sodano	Pennsylvania State University
$1,000	Manu Sundaresan	University of Chicago
$1,000	Brennan Thompson	United States Air Force Academy
$1,000	Zakkariyya Yandle	Wayne State University

Winners of the 2019 Essay Scholarship Contest

2019 Topic:

Write a letter to the 100 + new members of the 116^th Congress explaining why US population size and growth are serious problems for our nation. What do you expect them to do to help the situation?

Click on each name to read their winning essay.

Award	Winner Name	School
$2,500	Sara Pross	Clemson University Clemson, SC
$2,000	Jenna Leihgeber	Texas A&M University College Station, TX
$2,000	Nicolas Zampaglione	Keiser University West Palm Beach, FL
$1,500	Anna Heilman	University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI
$1,500	Drew Pedersen	University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI
$1,500	Zoe Wright	Clark University Worcester, MA
$1,000	Felix Herbst	Arizona State University Tempe, AZ
$750	Linnea Bakos	Kennesaw State University Kennesaw, GA
$750	Amy Simko	North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC
$750	Jasser Syed	George Mason University Fairfax, VA
$750	Yue Taira	University of Texas Austin, TX
$500	Ezra Ahmad	University of North Carolina at Asheville Asheville, NC
$500	Yasin Ali-Halane	University of Washington Seattle, WA
$500	Brennan George	Georgetown University Washington, DC
$500	Anthony Hayes	Montgomery County Community College Blue Bell, PA
$500	Abigail Knol	Lehigh Carbon Community College Schnecksville, PA
$500	Kiah Rivera	Montclair State University Montclair, NJ

Winners of the 2018 Essay Scholarship Contest

2018 Topic:

With America headed toward a population of approximately 400 million people by 2050 (up from the present 327 million), such huge numbers will surely intensify many of our country’s most critical environmental problems. Select ONE environmental issue from below, explain how it is made worse by population growth, and describe what measures you would recommend our nation’s leaders take to ensure we protect our fragile environment for generations to come.

Air Pollution
Availability of Clean Water
Climate Change
Destruction of Wildlife Habitat
Detrimental Effects of Coal, Oil and Natural Gas Extractions
Loss of American Farmland
Protection of Wetlands
Shrinking of Parks and Green Spaces
Urban Sprawl

Click on each name to read their winning essay.

Award	Winner Name	School
$2,000	Hannah Sackles	University of Florida Gainesville, FL
The John E. Brown NPG Scholarship $1,000	Grace Klein	Denison University Granville, OH
The Hugh McTavish NPG Scholarship $750	Abigail Snellgrove	University of South Carolina Columbia, SC
$750	Susan Leigh Thomassie	Loyola University of New Orleans New Orleans, LA
$750	Clarke Williams	Howard University Washington , DC
$750	Morgan Zenon	Lakeland University Plymouth, WI

Winners of the 2017 Essay Scholarship Contest

2017 Topic:

President Donald Trump and the more than 50 new Members of the 115th Congress should learn about the critical issue of U.S. population size and growth. Students are requested to provide NPG with a three- to five-point plan to educate these freshmen legislators about the sources of U.S. population growth, as well as policy suggestions to slow, halt, and eventually reverse our growth in order to preserve America’s environment, economy, natural resources, and quality of life.

Click on each name to read their winning essay.

Award	Winner Name	School
$2,000	Joseph Wagner	Gonzaga University Spokane, WA
NPG's Edith E. May Memorial Scholarship $1,000	Caitlin Stock	Brigham Young University Provo, UT
$1,000	Grant Kleiman	Southwest Minnesota State University Marshall, MN

Winners of the 2016 Written Advertisement Scholarship Contest

2016 Topic:

Create a Written Advertisement appropriate for a magazine or newspaper. Your ad should persuade the general public to support programs that are designed to slow, halt, and eventually reverse U.S. population growth. The key issue to be addressed in your ad is U.S. population size and growth, which may include topics such as fertility and immigration rates – the two factors which most influence our nation’s overall population numbers. You may also address the negative consequences of U.S. overpopulation, such as: environmental damage, natural resource depletion, deterioration of infrastructure, economic strain, etc

Click on each name to view the text of the winning ad.

Award	Winner Name	School
$2,000	Dustin Soutendijk	North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC
$1,500	Samantha Burkhart	University of Miami Coral Gables, FL
$1,000	Joseph Ayers	Boise State University Boise, ID
NPG’s Edith E. May Memorial Scholarship $1,000	Matthew Janz	Nevada State College Henderson, NV
$1,000	Madison Purdy	University of Colorado Boulder, CO

Winners of the 2015 Essay Scholarship Contest

2015 Topic:

Should the United States’ government pursue population policies to protect our quality of life for future generations?

Click on each name to read their winning essay.

Award	Winner Name	School
$2,500	Calvin Wilder	University of Chicago Chicago, IL
$1,500	Davis Negrete	California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA
$1,000	Megan Beach	Northwestern University Evanston, IL
$1,000	Kara Leonard	South Piedmont Community College Monroe, NC
$1,000	Hartland McDonald	Florida State University Tallahassee, FL
$1,000	Raegan Melfe	California Baptist University Riverside, CA
$1,000	Zachery Waitrovich	University of Wisconsin Madison, WI
$1,000	James Wang	University of Connecticut Storrs, CT

Winners of the 2014 Essay Scholarship Contest

2014 Essay Topic:

Explain why the average American citizen – particularly our youngest generation – should become active in the cause to slow, halt, and eventually reverse U.S. population growth.

Click on each name to read their winning essay.

Award	Winner Name	School
$1,000	Pierce Brooks	Wesley College Dover, DE
$1,000 Winner of the Richard C. Smith NPG Essay Scholarship	Ian T. Grey	Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Prescott, AZ
$1,000 Winner of the Foundation for Human Conservation NPG Essay Scholarship	Hartland McDonald	Florida State University Tallahassee, FL
$1,000	Gregory Ross	University of Chicago Chicago, IL
$1,000	Gemma Zahradka	University of Wisconsin - La Crosse La Crosse, WI

Winners of the 2013 Essay Scholarship

2013 Essay Topic:

Explain how population growth has negatively affected your community. What solutions do you propose to ensure a decent quality of life for your generation 30 years from now?

Click on each name to read their winning essay.

Award	Winner Name	School
$2,500	Wyatt Martinez	Univ. of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC
$1,000	Sarah Fine	University of Missouri Columbia, MO
$1,000	Hartland McDonald	Florida State University Tallahassee, FL
$1,000	Ryan Molton	University of ArizonaTucson, AZ
$1,000	Jayme Pruett	Hunter College of CUNY New York, NY

Winners of the 2012 Essay Scholarship

2012 Essay Topic:

Without critical changes, U.S. population is projected to reach 438 million people in less than 40 years. Explain how this projected growth will negatively affect the United States socially, economically, and environmentally.

Click on each name to read their winning essay.

Award	Winner Name	School
$2,500	Allison Tuch	Virginia Tech Blasksburg, VA
$1,000	Sarah Abohana	University of Washington Tacoma, WA
$1,000	Bailey Cassidy	DePaul University Chicago, IL
$1,000	William Davidson	Ozarks Technical Community College Springfield, MO
$1,000	Cheryl Gaul	Massachusetts Institution of Technology Cambridge, MA
$1,000	Corey Gier	Fort Hays State University Hays, KS

Winners of the 2011 Essay Scholarship

2011 Essay Topic:

The 112th Congress contains more than 100 new members who should learn about the critical issues of population growth and illegal immigration.

Students are requested to provide NPG with a three- to five-point plan to educate these freshmen legislators about what can be done to slow, halt and reverse today’s out-of-control population growth. Submissions must be between 500 and 750 words.

Award	Winner Name	School
$2,000	Tyler Vunk	The University of New England Biddeford, ME
$1,000	Anne Montalban	The University of New Orleans New Orleans, LA
$1,000	Aeisha Reese	Wayne State University Detroit, MI
$500	Erin Hanrahan	Loyola University Maryland Baltimore, MD
$500	Hannah Manning	Western Washington University Bellingham, WA
$500	Parker Powell	Boston University Boston, MA

Winners of the 2010 Essay Scholarship

2010 Essay Topic:

Create a Print Advertisement appropriate for a magazine or newspaper. Ads must be at least 100 words but not more than 200 words. Your ad should persuade the general public to support programs that are designed to slow, halt and eventually reverse population growth.

Award	Winner Name	School
$1,000	Kimberly Andresen	Cornell College Mount Vernon, Iowa
$1,000	Kseniya Kuprienko	Stevens Institute of Technology Hoboken, NJ
$500	Lauren Busch	Duke University Durham, NC
$500	Rona Ding	University of Washington Seattle, WA
$500	Udayan Gupta	New York University New York, NY
$500	Lindsey Hamilton	Salisbury University Salisbury, MD
$500	Camille Kirch	The Illinois Institute of Art Chicago, IL

Winners of the 2009 Essay Scholarship

2009 Essay Topic:

Write a letter to your Congressional Representative explaining that the United States simply has TOO MANY PEOPLE. Ask him/her to work to reverse this problem by helping to create a U.S. Commission on Population Growth. Cite specific areas you feel the Commission should evaluate, and give examples of what can be done to achieve the goal of reducing U.S. population.

Award	Winner Name	School
$2,000	Mark Azic	The College of New Jersey
$1,000	Hillary McMullin	University of Rochester
$500	Zachary Al-Nasser	Georgia Institute of Technology
$500	Christi Crump	Morehead State University
$500	Kristan Middleton	California Polytechnic State University
$500	Elizabeth Polster	Thomas Nelson Community College

Winners of the 2008 Essay Scholarship

2008 Essay Topic:

“Many people believe that our nation is already greatly overpopulated with regards to our limited natural resources and fragile environment. Do you agree that Congress should create a National Population Policy? If so, what would you recommend as its chief goals? If not, how do you propose we solve this problem?”

Award	Winner Name	School
$2,000	Adam Wright	The University of Wisconsin-Madison
$1,000	Molly Simmons	University of Tennessee - Chattanooga
$500	Christian Aulbach	John Jay College of Criminal Justice
$500	Helen Ho	Duke University
$500	Kristin Schultes	University of Michigan
$500	Michelle Ziperstein	University of Florida

Winners of the 2007 Essay Scholarship

2007 Essay Topic:

“300 Million Americans! In October 2006, the U.S. population reached 300 million. Is a population of this size sustainable in the long term? If not, what population size would be sustainable and why?”

Award	Winner Name	School
$1,000	Zhihan Chen	Harvard College
$500	Bryan Jackson	Northern Illinois University
$500	Nicholas Murray	California Polytechnic State University
$500	Carolyn Taylor	Indiana University

Winners of the 2006 Essay Scholarship

2006 Essay Topic:

“Should the United States’ government pursue population policies to protect our quality of life for future generations?”

Award	Winner Name	School
$2,000	Craig Huneke	National University
$1,000	Ashley Reynolds	Oklahoma State University
$500	Renee Wasser	Goucher College
$500	Vincent Harris	Baylor University
$500	Sareena Dalla	Harvard University

$5,000 – The Donald W. Mann Memorial Scholarship for Population Studies
Alex Blake
University of Nevada, Las Vegas

The world we inhabit contains finite resources that we depend on. As the population increases, the strain we place on both our limited resources and our infrastructure puts our livelihoods at risk. National policies should be implemented that aim to achieve an optimum population, sustain our finite resources, and improve the quality of life for our present and future generations.

Over the course of a century, the United States’ population has skyrocketed. The population grew from 111 million in 1923 to almost 340 million in 2023. As a result of advancements in medicine and accelerating migration, our carrying capacity – the maximum population size that can be sustained in an environment based on its available resources – has been exceeded. In his article, Way Too Many For Us, Hillel J. Hoffmann of Cornell University’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology projected the U.S. carrying capacity to be 200 million. If the U.S. population is predicted to reach 404 million by 2060, our government needs to take action. This growth will impact many aspects of our daily lives by amplifying existing issues such as traffic congestion, resource depletion, and a competitive workforce. With regard to our society’s urbanization, an additional 70 million people would drastically increase commute times in a city that relies heavily on vehicular transportation resulting in lower air quality. Severe supply chain issues would arise from the projected population growth due to a heavier demand for limited resources similar to the global supply chain crisis we witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The rise in automation and artificial intelligence has already impacted the workforce’s limited capacity. Finding good, secure jobs will become incredibly competitive with the increase in population. These issues merely scratch the surface of the impact our projected population growth will have without the proper policy implementation.

The United States has the highest immigrant population in the world with nearly 50 million as of 2020, which accounts for 15% of the population. The second largest immigrant population in the world is Germany with about 15 million. In 2020, the United States granted 707,362 people with lawful permanent resident status. This is a significant decrease from the typical average of over a million. According to Brookings, “the bulk of last year’s increase in population growth (about 86%) was due to a rise in immigration.” In an effort to achieve a sustainable growth in population, the rate of immigration should be limited to a drastically lower number.

As a democratic society, the United States government should not dictate the family planning of the general public. The decision-making needed to combat overpopulation will be driven largely by a general public that is well-informed. Ideally, the government’s role should be to inform people about the causes and effects of overpopulation and provide incentives to families that adhere to sizes suitable for offsetting population increase. Implementing such policies may not necessarily be a priority, however. U.S. census data indicates that fertility rates are at an all-time low with an average of 1.62 births per woman in 2020. Although the average family has reached a sustainable size, the sheer number of families is still a factor not to be overlooked. The policies the U.S. government should focus on are those that modernize our infrastructure by taking into account the population growth that has already taken place.

In order to protect our environment and quality of life, the foundation of our infrastructure needs to be restructured. Cities that solely rely on vehicular transportation are not sustainable for the growing population. Policies that fund public transportation and fixed-route transit services would benefit both the economy and the environment through their ability to serve the masses. According to the American Public Transportation Association, “an investment of $10 million in public transportation generates about $32 million in increased business sales” and creates tens of thousands of jobs. Public transportation can accommodate 90 to 100 times more people than individual automobiles which significantly reduces traffic congestion and air pollution. Policies that directly aim at removing air pollution would improve our quality of life and protect our environment for future generations. The U.S. government should prioritize our shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy such as wind and solar. Our reliance on non-renewable energy sources is detrimental as these limited sources of energy cannot sustain our growing population in the near nor distant future.

Reaching an optimum population will require a conscious effort from the general public and advocacy from the government through policy implementation. Responsible family planning as well as policies that limit immigration into the United States will aid in a gradual decline in our population growth. Having already exceeded our projected carrying capacity, it is crucial to also support policies that take into account our existing growth by addressing issues of infrastructure and sustainable energy. Quality of life is a notion that we should strive to improve upon for not only the present but more importantly the future.

$2,500
Veronica Irwin
NYU Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute

As a resident of San Francisco, I am acutely aware of the harm that population growth can inflict. San Francisco has been densely populated since its transition from a Gold Rush town in the late 1800s, and the constant influx of people in the time since has only exacerbated the issues we face as a small, coastal city. Every day, San Franciscans are reminded of the impacts of population growth on the local environment and cost of living, whether it be because of rising sea levels flooding the Embarcadero or crowds of homeless people filling the downtown core. Because of my experience living here, I have come to believe that proactive federal action is necessary to slow population growth to a sustainable level and save major American cities like my own.

One of the most significant problems that population growth has caused in San Francisco is the skyrocketing cost of living. As more people move to the city, the demand for housing increases, and landlords can charge exorbitant rents. San Francisco is constantly battling New York City for being the most unaffordable place to live in the country, leading to four decades of steadily increasing homelessness. Just between 2005 and 2022 homelessness increased 43.5% in San Francisco, according to the city’s official point-in-time counts. Many long-term residents are forced to leave the city in search of more affordable living arrangements. Meanwhile, those who remain put a strain on our public transportation system and housing supply, leading to overcrowding, transit delays, and rising crime that impact both residents and visitors.

Another major issue that population growth has created in San Francisco is environmental degradation. The city is already prone to natural disasters: earthquakes because of its proximity to major fault lines, fires because of a state-wide drought and the close proximity of buildings, and a shrinking coastline on all three exposed sides of the peninsula. But the construction of new buildings and infrastructure has destroyed green spaces the city is known for and native wildlife’s natural habitats, leading to a loss of biodiversity and increased pollution. The sheer number of people in the city has also put a strain on our water and energy resources, making it increasingly difficult to maintain a sustainable way of life. According to the New York Times, even San Francisco’s iconic fog is disappearing due to local climate changes.

Fortunately, there are solutions that the US government could implement to help mitigate the negative impacts of population growth on coastal cities like San Francisco. For one, metropolitan public transit systems could be provided with funding to extend further into city suburbs, making it easier for people to both work in the city and live in less densely populated areas. When the Bay Area Public Transit System (BART) was first designed, for example, it stretched deep into cities up to a 90-minute drive from San Francisco. If it had been developed as originally intended, and not had its plans shrunk due to lobbying from the automobile industry, many of the city’s workers could comfortably live in cities like Fremont, Santa Rafael, and Redwood City, nearly twice as far from the city center as the BART lines extend now. Tax breaks and other subsidies could also be used to further incentivize people to trade the commute for more space in the suburbs. The government could also invest in infrastructure and job creation in these areas to make them more attractive to potential residents.

Another solution would be to invest more in dense, affordable housing and transportation options in coastal cities like San Francisco. This would help alleviate some of the strain that population growth has put on our housing supply, reducing homelessness and the waste that comes with people living on the city streets. Additionally, dense housing has been shown to reduce households’ carbon footprint. A collaborative 2022 study from the New York Times and UC Berkeley, for example, showed that dense neighborhoods in Manhattan expended nearly 50 tons of CO2 less per household than more spread-out neighborhoods in the New Jersey suburbs. Additional investments in renewable energy and water conservation efforts, particularly via subsidies for more environmentally friendly systems in this dense housing, would improve this solution.

Finally, the government could implement policies that encourage people to have fewer children. This could be achieved through more public education campaigns that promote family planning and birth control, as well as through tax incentives for families that choose to have fewer children. Investments in reproductive health care would also make it easier for people to make strong, informed decisions about their reproductive choices.

Since moving to the city in 2019, I have witnessed the firsthand harm that population growth has caused. In fact, I’ve seen it accelerate in just the four years I’ve been here, as cost of living spikes post-pandemic and people return to the re-awakening downtown. Personally, I am frightened — not only for our population, as a whole, but for my own future ability to afford to live and work in an urban area.

From the high cost of living to environmental degradation, population growth has created a host of problems that must be addressed if we want to create a sustainable future for our communities. By enabling and incentivizing people to move to less populated suburbs, investing in dense affordable housing options, and encouraging families to have fewer children, the US government can help to reduce population growth and create a better future for all of us. It is time for us to take actions and protect our cities and our planet from the harmful effects of population growth.

$1,500
Leanne Deng
Georgetown University

A Call to Manage Overpopulation in the United States

As an immigrant from China living in the United States and now a nurse working every day and caring for patients, I want to bring a different take to limiting population growth in the United States. Immigration for many people is life changing. It has personally given me the opportunity to move out of a tiny village in China, obtain my master’s degree in nursing, and now pursue a career as a nurse practitioner. It is hard for someone like me who was given the opportunities to be in favor of policies designed to reduce population in the United States because at least one of them would probably involve limiting immigration. However, based on the claims of experts from the U.S. Census Bureau that we will have a 70 million increase in population in less than 40 years, the United States will need to start incorporating policies to limit population growth in order for its residents to live quality lives.

I believe legalizing abortion and providing individuals with additional education on the use of contraceptives would be a step in the right direction to mitigate overpopulation in the United States. I am fully aware that abortion rights are a whole separate battle with many other factors and cannot limit population growth alone. However, having abortion as an option would help maintain our population numbers and decrease abandoned children. I had a patient come from Texas to my hospital in Oregon for an abortion because it was illegal in that state. If my patient did not have the financial ability to travel, she probably would’ve kept the child and contributed to unwanted population growth. In a study of population growth in 116 of the world’s largest countries, the use of contraception and abortion was able to keep the growth rate low. The results showed that abortion is necessary but not sufficient alone to lower the growth rate. Legalizing abortion and promoting education of contraceptive use in high school would be beneficial in reducing our growth rate.

I also agree that aspects of immigration should be limited such as stopping illegal immigration and prohibiting anchor babies. In 2016, about 250,000 babies were born to unauthorized immigrant parents in the United States making up 6% of the total birth that year. I strongly believe the United States should discourage unintentional fertility through high school education on the use of contraceptives and the high cost of raising children. The United States should also endorse families to limit their household to two children. I was born in China while the one child per household policy was in effect, and while it was harsh and radical, it did help China’s population become more sustainable. While I do not believe the United States should do something as harsh as China, I do believe the United States should provide more benefits for couples to have less children. This will help promote smaller families and help them financially.

Slowly but surely, everyone will be affected by the large population surge in the next 40 years. Working in surgery, I am able to see how fast technology is advancing and that life expectancy has been longer than ever before. In the 1960s, the average life expectancy of Americans was 69.77 years old and currently it is at 77.28 years old with a slight decrease due to the COVID-19 pandemic. What will most likely happen is that we will expand our cities and there will be an increase in deforestation resulting in an increase in carbon dioxide into our environment. From a nurse’s perspective, losing even more trees and natural reserves which are healing to the mind and body can lead to an increase in mental health problems more than ever before. In a worldwide ecological study, deforestation was shown to be strongly associated with poor mental health including higher suicide rates. Aside from mental health, we will most likely also be living in overcrowded cities allowing contagious diseases to spread quickly. Decreasing our growth rate will slow down deforestation to expand our cities.

I do believe the United States government needs to establish policies to prohibit illegal immigration and anchor babies while approving and supporting abortion rights for women and education on contraceptive use. The combination of these actions will help maintain our population, and from thereon we can promote proper education for families to prevent having more than two children per household, showing them health benefits. As an immigrant, I do support immigration through family reunification because I would never be the way I am without being raised in a nuclear family and having the support of both my parents. As a nurse, I believe population should be limited so we can slow expansion of cities and deforestation leading to mental health and stress with the loss of nature which can be healing for many. We need to look at the bigger picture and ahead for the future of our next generations and support limiting population growth.

$1,500
Ashlyn Puckett
Georgia State University College of Law

The rush of millions of minds crowds the streets in Houston, TX. Their metropolitan area boasts a population of over seven million and growing. Almost 1.7 million immigrants and refugees call Houston home, which accounts for roughly a quarter of their population. While these relocations have made Houston the diverse cultural center it is today, they have also threatened the wellbeing of the residents who live there. Without a strict immigration policy, areas like Houston will become overpopulated. To combat this, the United States should enforce a stricter immigration policy to prevent overpopulation, which would ultimately harm both the environment, and our citizens’ quality of life.

Although the fundamental idea of immigration is not a threat to the United States, the effects of it, should it continue in the proportions it is now, could lead to overpopulation. Immigration is “a major driver of population growth” in the United States, meaning that decreasing the number of immigrants who come in will lower the population growth dramatically. Especially because many of the immigrants who enter are illegal, improving security on the border could have great effects. Contrarily, “the number of babies born in the U.S. hit its lowest level in more than three decades last year.” This further proves that the most efficient way to limit the U.S. population growth is by decreasing incoming immigrants. If the number of babies born in the U.S. remains low, and immigration is slowed, then the U.S. will maintain a stagnant growth rate, allowing it to avoid many overpopulation related issues in the future.

Overpopulation both increases climate change and decreases one’s quality of life. Climate change is, in part, fueled by the amount of people on the planet. The industrial revolution occurred in the 19^th century, and sparked a wide culture of innovation, causing humans to use more of their natural resources. Despite the industrial revolution, “if we had invented steam engines and coal- powered electrical grids and automobiles but kept global population at 1800 levels – climate change would be much less of an issue” In the 19^th century, population levels were much lower than they are today, meaning that the scale of pollution was much smaller. With a reduced level of pollution, earth’s natural cycles could easily keep up with the waste created. However, this is not the case today, as the global population has skyrocketed, so has pollution. If the United States wants to remain, in terms of reference to other countries, one of the leaders in global environmentalism, keeping populations down is a necessity. Another large effect of overpopulation is the lowered quality of life that comes with population density. If the United States becomes too overcrowded, there will be a “rise [in] unemployment,” an increase of the cost of living, and “starvation, [will] become more likely.” Protecting the citizens of the U.S. from these occurrences can only be done through monitoring population growth. Without it, there will be a dramatic decrease in the quality of life in the U.S, and in the quality of the environment.

In order to protect the United States from the effects of overpopulation, the best policies to decrease illegal immigration include the use of E-Verify like systems, and the removal of dangerous foreign nationals. Previous administrations have enforced the use of E-Verify, which “checks the social security numbers of newly hired employees against Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security records to help ensure that they are genuinely eligible to work in the U.S.” By accounting for every employee’s eligibility to work in the U.S, employers help take a step to enforce documentation of immigrants. Those that make it into the U.S. undocumented will find it difficult to be there and will thereby be encouraged to go through the legal immigration process. Additionally, the U.S. should “arrest, detain, and remove criminals, fugitives, and other dangerous foreign nationals by leveraging federal information […] and working with the Department of Justice to ensure more timely hearing of immigration cases and appeals.” The U.S. immigration system has long been a part of its journey to one of the most powerful nations in the world. It is important to keep this essential factor well-oiled and polished, even if it means enforcing verification systems and removing those who are illegally in the country. By restricting illegal immigration, the U.S. will be able to lower growth rates and prevent overpopulation.

With the global population projected to reach eight billion this year, the earth is reaching its carrying capacity. With a limited number of resources, it is vital that measures are taken to decrease population growth rates, not just in the United States, but across the globe. However, as one of the most influential nations in the world, it is important that the United States takes this important step toward human survival.

$1,000
Lorena Elizabeth Diaz
Strayer University

The Threat

Albert Einstein once said, “Overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the well-being of many people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet of ours.” (1) I wholeheartedly agree with him. In the United States’ overpopulation has become one of the most serious threats to the environment’s health, natural resources, ecosystems, and quality of life. Many factors contribute to this serious threat, the most impactful are uncontrolled immigration and higher birth rates. The United States government must make decisions and policies aimed at reducing population growth to preserve our country’s resources and quality of life for future generations. Failure to do so could have a destructive effect, including environmental deterioration, starvation, stress, and even violence.

Overpopulation and Immigration Crisis

According to Merriam-Webster, the term overpopulation is defined as “the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash.” (2) I believe that overpopulation occurs when there are no longer sufficient natural resources to sustain the lives of all people inhabiting the earth and still leave behind a healthy planet for future generations. To put this definition into perspective and give it the credence it deserves, I present data from the United States Census Bureau. According to data provided by the Unites States Census Bureau, as of March 2023, the total estimated U.S. population will have reached 334,545,826 people. (3) Their data further shows that the estimated population continues to increase exponentially every year. The chart below shows population growth in the U.S. over the past four years.

Additionally, the data from the United States Census Bureau suggests that a leading cause to the threat of overpopulation is immigration. Data from the United States Census Bureau indicates that there is precisely one migrant to the U.S. every 22 seconds .(5) At present, there is an alarming inflow of undocumented immigrants coming through the U.S. southern borders. For example, in my home state of Florida, there have been at least 8,000 immigrants apprehended on the waters off the coast of Florida since August 2022. (6) There are also examples of numerous immigrants who reach the shores of Florida by boat every day. Many times, these boats are left on shore for local authorities to dispose of, creating an environmental hazard. (7).According to Migration Policy Institute, in 2021 Florida had the third most immigrants of any state, at approximately 4.6 million. (4) Regrettably, it is not feasible for Florida to continue to accept everyone who wants to come in without extreme repercussions to the state’s natural resources.

While immigration may have some positive impacts on our communities, such as providing skilled, documented immigrant workers who contribute to the health of the economy. Undocumented immigrants, on the other hand, bring more issues because they are not vetted and their ability to financially support themselves could be lacking. (6) This issue directly impacts our communities by way of unaffordable housing and overcrowded classrooms. Undocumented immigrants contribute to the issue of run-down neighborhoods, which in turn increases crime, pollution, and unsanitary living conditions. Not to mention, the tremendous strain on our local authorities and social services that do not have the resources to accommodate such a large influx of immigrants. (7) It is important for the health of our communities that the government take initiatives to make polices about reducing immigration on our shores.

Oh Baby

It is also imperative that we acknowledge that higher birth rates contribute to the threat of overpopulation .(5) According to the United States Census Bureau, there is one birth every 9 seconds. (5) Impoverished areas are experiencing higher birth rates due to lack of educational resources. It is the government’s responsibility to conduct research and identify areas of need and provide free contraception and education for boys and girls. Education among young women and teenage girls can have several positive effects, including delayed motherhood, and an increase in labor force contribution. (9) The government must increase Its efforts to share information about family planning and expose myths about contraception. This will surely help with the high birth rate in the U.S, which is currently a leading factor in the threat of overpopulation.

Conversations about population control present ethical challenges, especially when referring to the number of children a household should have. However, we should not be deterred from having these conversations. In the end, these conversations could prove to have an everlasting positive effect on the topic of overpopulation that threatens our small world. Pope Francis once said, “Some people think that — excuse my expression here — that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No. Parenthood is about being responsible. This is clear.” (8) I believe what the Pope was trying to say is that procreation should never be regarded as a requirement, and instead we must look outward and claim responsibility for choices in creating a family. Certainly, participating in responsible population growth is one of the most reliable and economic methods of helping our environment and securing a sustainable future.

In Summary

Overpopulation is the biggest threat we are currently facing, and it will become a more complex issue in the coming decades. This issue has a devastating impact on the Earth’s limited supply of natural resources, and leads to problems such as environmental degradation and adverse effects on our forests and oceans. The biggest contributors to U.S. overpopulation are illegal immigration and higher birth rates in impoverished areas. Overpopulation negatively impacts our communities in many ways, including increasing pollution and contributing to the lack of affordable housing, which leads to homelessness and overcrowded classrooms. Recognizing the issue is not sufficient. The United States Government must act immediately and incessantly adopt policies to solve the issue before it worsens.

$1,000
Grace Katzmar
Columbia University, Teachers College

With a projected increase of 70 million people by 2060, the United States is facing a population growth crisis which would lead to increased damage to the environment and put further pressure on the housing crisis and the economy. On a personal level, my life as a teacher would be greatly impacted by population growth, as the American education system is already breaking under the strain of too much need, and too few resources. The American Government has a responsibility to enact policies intended to limit further growth to protect the health of the environment and increase equity and sustainable living for Americans.

As a teacher in American public schools, I have experienced crowded classrooms, with abysmally low funding and little support. The education system is on the verge of a breaking point, and it’s hard to imagine the additional stress an increasing population would put on already overwhelmed teachers. Between housing insecurity, hunger, poverty, environmental change, community violence and infrastructural decline, schools feel the ripple effects of all societal crises. With an increased population, the cost of housing, healthcare, and food would likely skyrocket, leaving communities in need with even fewer resources, and schools would be taking on even more responsibility to pick up the slack. For my students in New York City, the price of housing is already a severe problem in many of their lives, an increased population would only create more demand for housing, and fewer resources from educational and social agencies to support an increased number of students experiencing houselessness. The National Center for Education Statistics predicts that the number of students enrolled in American schools could double by 2100. Such an increase would be untenable under the current education system without government intervention to curb population growth and support American schools.

Based on my experiences as a teacher, I feel that the U.S. Government has a responsibility to enact policies designed to limit population growth in ways that increase quality of life for American citizens through greater access to women’s healthcare and education. The ethical dilemma in population growth policies lies in creating more access and more equity without violating human rights. The primary way to limit population growth while upholding equity would be universal support of women’s healthcare including affordable and accessible birth control methods, and nation-wide abortion access. By inhibiting women’s access to birth control and abortion, American women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies, even in cases of rape and incest. With the power to make decisions about their own healthcare, even women without insurance could make the decision not to have children or have the agency to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Data from the University of Washington shows a significant link between the rise in contraceptive use and a decline in fertility rates in El Salvador, citing, “the country’s total fertility rate went from 5.44 births per woman in the mid-1970s — when 28% of women used birth control — to 2.72 births in the mid-2000s, when contraceptive prevalence had more than doubled”. The solution to make contraception more accessible and affordable empowers communities while also addressing population growth.

Furthermore, more access to educational programs would empower Americans to make informed decisions about having children. Many people who have more than the average amount of children do so due to lack of other options. Societies with higher levels of education also have lower population levels. The public forum cites research from the Population Council which shows, overall, educated women have significantly fewer children than women who have not received formal education, “We’ve seen some astonishing transitions, especially in the 1970s in what were then poor countries where fertility rates fell when levels of education went up” (Murray). There is a direct link between low birth rates and education around contraception and women’s health, but also when it comes to education in general.

When people are educated and have universal access to contraceptive methods, they can make more informed decisions about their fertility. Based on several studies on the link between contraception, education, and lower birth rates, I posit that creating educational programs surrounding women’s health and family planning, as well as offering universal and affordable contraception and access to abortion are positive first steps for the U.S. Government to take to address the threat of overpopulation.

$1,000
Brian Lum
University of Arkansas

It is predicted in the year 2060, the U.S. population may reach 404 million. This should be an alarming number for everyone. It does not matter your political affiliation, background, economic status, or location. Everyone will be drastically impacted. That includes me. I will be forced into the effects of overpopulation.

My entire life has been spent in the most rural areas of Iowa or Arkansas. My lifestyle is an evolution of living rural and remote. At 47 years old, I now reside in an unincorporated community with a population of 223. Our community has one gas station, which is only open Monday through Saturday for eight hours each day. I can only see one house from any point on our five-acre property. On any day, there are less than a hundred cars that pass the house. One of the big factors that contributed to me and my wife, Jenn, choosing this property was its lack of population and attractions to the area.

I am a technical trainer for a large thermoforming plastic company. At our facility, we produce food packaging made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Yes, the evil plastic is the means that provides my income.

Now that the picture is painted of my current position, we can begin to complicate it with projections from the rapid growth of population.

In the last couple of decades, Jenn and I have noticed the area between our small community and the larger metropolitan areas dwindling down. More and more farmlands are being turned into subdivisions. The forests are shrinking in size to accommodate for more businesses, housing, parking lots, and roadways. During late night drives, as we get closer to the city, the stars in the sky begin to disappear as the lights of the hustle and bustle take over the sky. At home, we can sleep with the windows open and only awakened by the sound of a cow, or one of our chickens, that has an apparent internal broken clock. When at a friend’s house in the city, there is the constant noise of a sleepless population.

Our meals are usually food provided by our farm or neighboring farms. With several farmers in the area selling fresh from the farm products, traveling to the grocery store is minimized. These farms have been in their families for many generations and have provided their livelihoods. As word runs rapid through our community when someone sells their farm to developers, conversations are started. Questions are asked about when it reaches us, what will happen. Will we sell? Will we be forced into buying our meat, vegetables, milk, and eggs from some big-name store that buys from big producers? Will we be the last generation of farmers in our family?

The company I work for has been growing at record rates in the last decade as the demand for food packaging has increased at a parallel rate as population. This might be the only positive impact population growth has for me. However, irresponsibility of recycling is a huge problem. A large part of our product is made with post-consumer recycled material. The unfortunate side, some of our customers require that their products be made with 100% virgin materials. The most common reason is for the appearance of the packaging. It saddens me to think the product we produce can be recycled repeatedly, making a small mark on our environment, but there is a huge part of the population that either does not care or do not have a means of recycling reusable products. Our product, when mishandled, will end up in a landfill for 500-700 years. This is outrageous and action need to be taken.

What is the approach to protect the night sky, farm to table foods, silence in the night, the trees, the animals, and the environment? Should the government intervene and make aggressive policies to push change? I am a “less government is better” kind of guy, but not in this case. I support policies to reduce growth to a smaller, truly sustainable level. I wish there were other avenues to consider and try, but I am convinced that most businesses and individuals are selfish in their approach to environmental conservation. As a teacher, I see how difficult it is to impress an idea on someone that is not affected immediately or directly and must resort to changing company policies and procedures to force team members to abide.

What will my life look like in 40 years? Well, I imagine my 87 year-old self will no longer be able to live the rural life I love and crave. I am sure I will have neighbors living in my backyard (in my front and side yards also). My diet will consist primarily of processed and packaged foods. I could see noise pollution will be unbearable. Crime, I do not even want to think about crime. Clean water problems will become the norm for our area. Resources will be depleted and scarce. It will be a different world entirely forced to change by overpopulation. It will not be the “good ole days” any longer.

$1,000
Michael Soaries
Union Theological Seminary New York

I moved into the community in which I now live approximately 25+ years ago. It was a mixed income community and a diverse population. While there were still the problems of race, gender, economics, I think the relative small size, coupled with a demographic who lived and engaged through the 1960s, allowed for a better working out of these issues. However, over time gentrification set in and the population increased as well as became less diverse. This has resulted in some issues that I believe correspond to the projected increase in world population.

A simple change has been more buildings needed to house more people. This means constant construction, closing of businesses for space, and increased rents and property values as well as noise and other pollutions. Then there is the increase in automobile traffic resulting in jams on the two main avenues at the going to work and coming home from work hours – as well as the school pick up and drop offs that result in congestion nightmares. More cars also mean more pollution which means more breathing and other related health problems that then contribute to an even larger flow into the emergency rooms for treatments. Health costs are enormous.

Add to that the after-pandemic affects of workforce changes, the struggling economy that is seeing tech companies dropping thousands of jobs and with a population increase that will only fuel potentials for fighting over already limited resources – we see this already playing out with immigration fights in the US and other countries.

Other qualities of life will definitely be impacted. We will need to manage resources much better. We’ve seen in the past in some African countries where the problem of hunger could have been alleviated much quicker had the obstacles to the needed resources getting in been dealt with. We already have an historic model for what can happen if we don’t become more aware, on an individual basis, of how we use and misuse resources. Hungry people eventually will not sit and wait for food. They will get up and go to where they think it is and not always peacefully. Can the US military withstand an onslaught of hungry people banging at the doors of the great wall? Maybe for a time but not forever. Especially when some of the hungry are within the wall itself. We already see the negative results of the political infighting, the racial divides, the gender gaps have on our way of life. Multiply that by 100 and add in unemployed anger, hungry children, the elderly, desperate people and it is a mess.

I’ve seen the stress growing up in low income black communities plagued with food deserts, a scarcity of jobs, over policing, overcrowded and underfunded schools – a mismanagement of resources in the sense that it generally was just a matter of time before a match was struck and somebody or group of bodies exploded in a rage that threatened to consume even the little that was there.

With advancements in technology I am not sure we would go back to that but I don’t know. Larger populations also mean a larger divide between the haves and the have-nots. Personally, I don’t believe in a war on the rich. However, as tempers get strained, as the competition for work gets greater and jobs harder to come by the have-nots will look to the haves and see them as the cause. And the haves will probably already put in place mechanisms of protection because psychologically it seems harder to give up money than to share.

We also have a model for population control already in place. China has been struggling with this for years. Their one child rule may have seemed like a good idea at the time to control growth but it has resulted in a deficit of people able to contribute to the economy and an increase in people aging out of the economy.
According to an article on Forbes.com:

“The key demographic in this regard is the relative size of the country’s working population. Because China’s one-child policy has over time come to limit the human resources available to support the country’s dependent population, largely China’s elderly, the nation will lose much of its ability to invest for future growth. The figures are stark. According to United Nations (UN) demographers, China’s workforce has already begun to shrink absolutely even as the country’s dependent elderly population has continued to grow rapidly. Of course, labor power is not the whole story. Technological advances and productivity increases will allow a more efficient use of China’s available human resources, but the demographic situation will nonetheless limit Beijing’s options, especially when it comes to the huge development projects that have awed so many around the world, including the so-called “Belt and Road,” as well as China’s military buildup.”

Here we can see that China has a problem. We also get a sense that they recognize it and have implemented some strategies of resource management that might prove a better solution than population control. By the way, China has increased the amount of children couples can have to three, a concession of sorts.

All that being said I do believe that governments, particularly the US government should continue to encourage policies that support slower/smaller more sustainable growth, with a heavy emphasis on educating individual members in regards to their impact and role in the process. I as an individual have had and continue to have to learn that my individuality is not endless. What I do impacts others here and in other countries. As what others do impacts me. Understanding what that means and then how to translate that into meaningful actions is where education and support might make the biggest difference.

$2,500
Peter Sloniewsky
Georgetown University

Among all of the other crises facing the members of my generation, few receive less attention than the impending reality of overpopulation. In the United States, a country defined by its existing inequalities, the consequences look dire for those unable to afford an escape. For myself, as an individual beginning my college education next year, the progressing tides look to threaten not only my potential for a secure livelihood but also that of my children.

The earth is groaning beneath our feet, and we must learn to walk more lightly upon it.

– John Muir, “My First Summer in the Sierra”

Overpopulation seeks to threaten the most existential threat faced by those in my generation: the effect of humanity on the Earth’s climate. People generate waste; more people will result in increased usage of goods and needs for energy, which will lead to increased pollution and depletion of our natural resources. Some have declared that the climate disaster is already here; we are already beginning to see unprecedented increases in the frequency and intensity of massive storms and extreme weather events, and overpopulation threatens to accelerate that environmental decline by a significant margin. It is a sincere possibility that more than four hundred million Americans, including myself, will live in a world, within forty years, both unrecognizable and significantly less habitable than the one we enjoy today.

We have lived our lives / in the shadow of towering buildings / Where the air is thick with the smell / of fear and despair.

– Langston Hughes, “The Dream Keeper and Other Poems”

As the population expands, the inequalities which divide America today have no clear future beyond expansion. A lack of effective social services, housing, and infrastructure lead to diaspora and widen the gap between rich and poor. Additionally, a significant expansion of population increases demand for jobs that may just not exist, as it is likely that job market growth will not be able to compete with rapid changes in population. As the gap between rich and poor widens as well, those in areas which cannot support their populations will crumble, exacerbated by climate change. The economic decline which grows from a trend of stressed industrial systems and local economies will undoubtedly come to affect me in a personal way, in part due to the economic vulnerability attached to this period wherein I am meant to be spent acquiring the wealth which will secure my future.

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere / The ceremony of innocence is drowned.

– W.B. Yeats, “The Second Coming”

Lastly, the strain of increased population will perhaps most prominently and decisively manifest itself within my life in social tension, namely through the spread of disease, increased crime, and an increase in competition for important natural resources. Correlations are clear between overpopulation and groups with a high tendency to spread disease not unlike the pandemic which so powerfully affected my upbringing. Increases in crime as cities begin to crowd even further are inevitable, which has the potential to fuel political fires and inflammatory rhetoric. Competition for natural resources, now depleted even further, will become rampant to serve to reinforce our socioeconomic divides and distinguish the rich from the poor even more distinctly from today.

It is easy to diminish the problem of overpopulation as alarmist, or simply not an issue of extreme concern in a period of time which seems plagued by an infinite list of catastrophes. However, this dilemma holds the potential to severely diminish the futures of myself and others my age as we grow up in an America which cannot give as much as we take.

$2,000
Curtis J. Halpin
Penn State University

Annihilation by Population

The time bomb is ticking with every heartbeat that is created. The predicted increase of 70 million people by 2060 in the United States will have a detrimental effect on not only our country, but the citizens that populate our borders. Life is defined by balance. Actions have their consequences. Over the next several years, balancing the demands of a growing population will put a strain on the limited resources of the United States. When the seesaw of the ecological balance is overthrown by the density of a growing population, harsh realities such as pollution, urbanization, and increased conflicts will begin to arise.

For the past 16 years, I have had a front row seat to the pyrotechnic display from the coal powered steam plant five miles from my house. Daily, I can watch the white plumes of pollutants released from the towering, cannon-like smokestacks. According to the EPA, these pollutants contribute to the decline of the ozone layer and numerous health issues. Not only are hazardous chemicals being released into the air, the chemicals found in coal ash are also imposing health and environmental problems. In the year 2014, the harms of coal ash became personal. A spill at a retired Eden, NC power plant carried between 50,000 tons and 82,000 tons of cancer-causing chemicals and hazardous pollutants to my doorstep. The effects of this accident and the tons of coal ash that are still stockpiled in the United States will continue to pose health issues, environmental hazards, and increased consumer electrical costs well into our future.

The density of a growing population has erupted through rural towns across the United States. Urbanization is spreading at an uncontrollable rate. It is predicted by 2040 that North Carolina will be ranked second in the United States for losing the most farmland to urbanization. Urbanization does not just result in the loss of land, but it creates a demand for infrastructure to support the growing neighborhoods. Our local high school enrollment exceeds the size of the building and has entire grade levels housed in trailers. The local communities are funding regional water studies to identify outside water supplies. Several areas of North Carolina experienced rolling blackouts in December because the local grid was not able to handle the power demand. As urbanization continues to spread, the chances of dark hours, crowded spaces, and increased water costs will haunt our future.

In addition to the infrastructure conflicts that are caused by population growth in our borders, vast worldwide conflicts are experienced on a global scale as we compete for more crude resources. Already, wars are being fought in the Middle East and other regions for these resources. The war in Ukraine is centered on acquiring more land and control of a nuclear power plant. The hunger for more, as the result of starvation and destruction, will come at the cost of lives being lost in conflicts and the annihilation of nations.

Power versus waste byproducts, urbanization versus farmland, conflicts versus resolutions – the predicted population growth by the year 2060 is the ticking time bomb threatening our ecological seesaw. Our actions, inventions, and technological advancements that have enabled our population to grow may ultimately seal our fate by 2060. If nothing is done now to counterbalance, our demands will continue to come at a cost that is higher than our earth can afford.

$2,000
Amanda Jorjorian-Furcho
Valencia College

The Effects of an Increased Population on Florida Beautiful

Earth, air, fire, and water. Four elements that are essential to life as we know it. As the world population increases, we are the puppeteers in the delicate balancing of the stresses placed on these elements. On a personal level, a population increase would negatively affect my life within earth, air, and water elements. Looking ahead nearly 40 years, the U.S. population is predicted to reach 404 million adding additional pressure on my home state’s natural resources and ultimate quality of life. The first element – water surrounds the state on three sides and is one of the most essential elements to life.

Of the 71 percent of water on the planet, only about 0.3 percent is usable. Florida relies on water primarily from the Floridan Aquifer. This aquifer – one of the world’s most productive – is stressed with the current addition of 900 residents a day and could join nearly half of America’s water basins in experiencing significant water supply shortages in the next 50 years. A bird’s eye view would suggest the acceptance of a future without green lawns, but a closer look would showcase a future without water to clean dishes, take showers, limited access to water to drink and particularly for agriculture. Population growth would therefore have a detrimental effect on daily life and importantly as well, food supply.

Another aspect of my life that would be affected by population growth is air quality. I will be in retirement by 2060. Poor air quality can cause health problems towards humans, plants, and wildlife and research suggests that older adults are “more susceptible to air pollution-induced health effects”. An increased population means an increase in cars on the road and reduction in natural land or open space which has negative effects on the vibrant ecology of Florida.

For example, without continued protection and investment towards a wildlife corridor and conservation of lands due to urbanization, I may see the extinction of animals, such as the Florida Panther in my lifetime due to a loss of habitat and biodiversity. To me, this is the earth element that is vital to my spirit, peace and ultimately my wellbeing.

Not only could a population increase see the loss of unique animals, place strain on the water supply and air quality but the natural beauty of Florida including its pristine springs, the Florida everglades, and miles of glorious beaches have the potential to be damaged by increased human activity. Couple this with climate change and sea level rise causing homes to be moved or built further inland, an increase in population in Florida will have unfavorable effects on my life quality, health, and wellbeing and not be sustainable in balancing the four elements to keep Florida Beautiful.

$2,000
Morgan Pursley
University of Tennessee Chattanooga

In 2060 I will be 56 years old. If the population continues to grow at the expected rate, I imagine a world where healthcare will be harder to obtain, my children and I will be paying an unreasonable amount of taxes to support an overburdened education system, and my family and I will be facing water and food shortages.

I work at an Assisted Living. During the pandemic, there was such a shortage of beds at hospitals that our Covid positive residents would get turned away at the hospital, have to come back to the Assisted Living, and would pass away. The hospital could not support the amount of care that was needed, and if the population rises at the expected rate, it is unlikely the hospitals can support the rate of population growth, even when there is no disease or health crisis currently happening. Since the majority of population growth is coming from immigration, and non-insured people, The United States medical systems cannot continue to provide free services and stay in business.

My great Aunts are retired teachers in West Texas. They have witnessed firsthand the unbalance in resource allocation that it takes to get immigrant children up to grade level. Texas schools get their funding from property taxes. Because most illegal immigrants don’t own property or pay taxes, these school systems are forced to provide an unrealistic amount of educational resources to Spanish speaking children without the increase in funding to hire more teachers or other staff. The school system is legally required to provide Spanish translators for the children, leaving less resources to hire other staff or purchase supplies. In the next 40 years I believe the school systems all across the US will be experiencing the same burden that West Texas has faced for so long. My children and grandchildren will likely be taught by teachers who have to choose whether to help them reach their potential or get the immigrant children up to grade level. It’s not fair to give these immigrants false hope. We can’t sustain the education that we’ve been providing with the same amount of tax money if we have to provide interpreters for 30+ languages.

My Grandmother lives on 10 acres near Austin, Texas. She has a well. I live in Chattanooga, Tennessee and we have city water. It is easy when the city provides water to think that it is unlimited, but it is not. When they build new neighborhoods in Texas near my grandmother’s place, the underground water table gets depleted and there’s not enough water for everyone to drink, much less flush their toilets, take showers, wash their clothes, etc. People need to understand that water is not unlimited and we cannot make more of it. As the population grows exponentially, and the water does not increase, it is very likely that within the next 40 years, my family and I will face dire water shortages. Without enough water to sustain agriculture, the United States will likely face severe shortages in our food supply as well.

In conclusion, by the time I am 56, The United States will hopefully have found a way to stop the current rates of overpopulation. I want my children and grandchildren to inherit the quality of life I have been fortunate to have in Chattanooga, Tennessee. I am grateful to NPG for bringing a voice to the concern of overpopulation in America. The process of writing this scholarship has opened my eyes on the problems we face from overpopulation. I hope to carry this message forward for the rest of my life.

$1,500
Sebastian Henson
Lake Forest College

How Will I Be Affected by Population Growth?

I don’t believe that any American can breathe fully without the touch of nature reminding us of our origins and gently guiding us on a path of calm, purpose, and joy. I certainly can’t—when I sit in my yard, take a breath of fresh air, and listen to the cardinals’ songs, I am reminded of my place in life. In these moments, we forget that nature may not always be our guiding light. As the U.S. population is expected to grow by 70 million people in the next forty years, I can only expect to see increased habitat destruction, and see my connection with nature, quality of life, and health decrease.

Living in an area with limited access to open space and nature preserves, I cherish every nature excursion or glimpse of it. Open forests give me room for contemplation, learning, and joy. But these havens may not be available forever. Population growth invariably means loss of land and loss of natural habitat, leading to the most irreversible loss, the extinction of species. From 2000 to 2017, the U.S. population increased by 37 million, resulting in almost 12,000 acres of land developed due to population related factors. With a population growth of 70 million, developed land could be calculated to increase by almost 23,000 acres. It’s hard to imagine the implications of losing a portion of open space the size of West Virginia. I fear the day when I tell children tales about times when nature was abundant, and our nation was rich with biodiversity.

I usually think of the United States as a country with copious agricultural resources, and a shelter from dangers present in other parts of the world. But with the projected population increase, even this may be challenged. As population increases, so does America’s carbon dioxide emissions, which intensifies global warming. This has a multitude of results. When temperatures rise, certain crops cannot grow as well, become more vulnerable to weeds, and can even lose their nutritional value. Increased development may also decrease available farmland. Both factors can decrease agricultural output, potentially making quality food less accessible for my family. Beyond food impacts, additional global warming will cause natural disasters that are far more frequent than now. This will put more homes, including mine, in danger of destruction from storms, tornadoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes, directly affecting my quality of life.

The increase will also affect our health. The COVID-19 pandemic put to light the dangers of a large population—heightened disease transmission and overcrowded medical facilities. As America’s cities become denser, we can only expect these problems to get worse. A population increase will also result in more pollution as there is a greater need for energy and consumer goods. This will result in lower air quality, which has been linked to numerous health conditions. Since I plan to become a physician, I anticipate that my career will be very different than those before me; there will be a greater focus on improving the health of a nation afflicted with overpopulation related illnesses.

All that said, there is always hope. With proper immigration, land use, and infrastructure legislation, as well as initiatives to educate on family-planning, it doesn’t have to come to this. Without intervention, however, we can expect to lose our connection with nature, safety and security, and health—all of which have been cornerstones of my life and pillars of our nation.

$1,500
Connor Karpilovsky
St. Joseph’s University – Long Island

My Future in a Growing Population

Twenty-one. Twenty, one. No, I am not talking about the legal drinking age in the United States nor am I referring to the 2008, critically panned film of the same name. Vespa et al. (2020) of the U.S. Census Bureau project that the United States’ population will reach roughly 404 million people by 2060, from a roughly 332 million population in 2020 (p. 4). The “twenty-one” I was referring to is the growth of about 21.6% in the U.S. population that would occur, which would certainly change the world as we know and see it today. By analyzing these projections, I can better understand how such an increase would affect my everyday life.

One aspect of my life that would be impacted with a drastic population increase would, in my view, be the housing market. Living on Long Island, I am no stranger to a housing market that is inconceivably expensive, but if you add in a 21.6% population increase then I believe that will be a recipe for disaster. More people means an increased demand for housing, and thus an amplified market. I believe that this projected population growth will only exacerbate the housing market crisis and make it even more difficult to purchase a home during my lifetime.

The food supply chain is another aspect of my life that would be impacted. We have seen shocks and constraints in the supply chain ever since the COVID-19 pandemic started back in 2020, so it is my assertion that a population increase of this magnitude would only create more shortages at local stores. Similar to the housing issue, additional people in the economy would equate to an increased demand for basic goods and if our supply chains are not improved upon in the next 40 years then that will pose a key problem. This would not only have a major impact on my own personal life, but it would have a wide-ranging effect on the entire country as people would start to struggle to find basic goods that we all consume.

Lastly, I believe the environmental impacts will be grave and dire with this population increase. Our country already has a tremendous number of issues with respecting our environment, ranging from pollution to worsening climate change to even just daily littering, all of which will continue to have negative environmental ramifications. This will affect me personally as it could mean the further destruction of parts of nature that I interact with and see daily. Spending time with my wife on Peconic Lake or traversing through the Pine Barrens could be ancient history if necessary actions are not taken to lessen the impact of a dramatic population increase.

A 21.6% increase in the population over the next 40 years would have a profound impact on a plethora of aspects of my life. If no changes are made in how we live our lives then there will be severe consequences for us all. It is my hope that we as a society can come together to ensure that such devastation does not happen for the betterment of, not only ourselves, but more importantly for future generations as well. We cannot keep pushing our problems to the side; we need to be the change that we want to see in the world.

$1,000
Simran Bhogle
Irvine Valley College

In its prime, population growth was the machine that revolutionized America’s power in the world. The country bled with newfound potential and scared the rest of the world into submission. The economy strengthened and culture found its muse through the arts. Yet, this benefactor slowly but surely turned to a disadvantage. The bustling transportation and manufacturing changed the climate, polluted the waterways, and contributed to social inequalities. Although population growth caused an influx in American wealth, it slowly destroys our success now. As I look around the world in the future, the three aspects of my life most affected by population growth will be climate, pollution, and social inequality.

Climate is an incredibly important aspect of life because it determines the availability of crops and other valuable resources, but human overpopulation changes these delicately-set functions. Population growth has been identified as an immediate cause of greenhouse emissions. These emissions are increased due to “increased material extraction, deforestation, industrial agriculture,” and many other forms of man-made production.[1] These acts take massive tolls on Earth’s resources because there is an influx of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the air. These acts would be necessary to support an overpopulated group of people, yet they would destroy nature’s balance with the resources and animals around it. This will affect my life along with others’ lives because we will face soul-blazing forest fires and unbearable weather conditions as long as overpopulation continues to harm Earth’s climate.

Along with greenhouse gasses released in the air due to overpopulation, there will also be added pollution. This will affect my life and others’ lives incredibly because pollution decimates the resources people can use for nutrition and recreation. As an example, “In 2004, 31 states had statewide fish consumption advisories in place because of toxic pollution.”[2] Since overpopulation leads to a lesser amount of fish, people would have to limit their consumption. In the future, this would not just apply to fish, but to a multitude of animals and plants that many people once enjoyed. Added pollution will be one of the largest effects of overpopulation in the future, which will affect my life greatly because there may be many shortages of goods once enjoyed around the world.

Along with climate change and pollution, social inequality would be a large aspect of the future due to overpopulation. When there is a lack of resources in the world, it becomes difficult “for low-income and lower-middle-income countries to commit sufficient resources to improving the health and education of their populations.”[3] This means that overpopulation would lead to a further imbalance in society in which people are limited in their ability to succeed. Without an equal playing field, people may lose hope in society and find a lack of joy in everyday life. This would be significant for my life and the lives of others because a life without hope of advancement would be unbearably bleak. If overpopulation continues at the rate predicted by the U.S. Census Bureau, a lack of social and economic equality would be incredibly apparent.

As I look around the world in the future, the three aspects of my life most affected by population growth will be climate, pollution, and social inequality. Life would be surrounded by disastrous natural events due to climate change, scarcities of precious animals and plants, and social imbalances in society. In order to ensure a bright future filled with pleasant climate, an abundance of natural resources, and greater life satisfaction, we must take action to slow the population growth.

$1,000
Madelyn Heckert
Portland State University

Not a Movie Title but Real Life: The Impending Crush of People in 2060

A few years ago, my dad’s company eliminated his job, and we moved in with my grandparents. The house was a decent size, but even so, my grandpa got really stressed out about the noise and the lack of privacy. There weren’t enough seats for everyone to sit at the kitchen table and there were never enough snacks. Eventually, my dad found a job, we moved out, and my grandparents got their quiet house back. Unfortunately, it’s not as easy to solve when it’s not a house that’s overcrowded, but the whole United States. This country is expected to grow from 334 million people in 2020 to 404 million by 2060. If we don’t make changes to stop this from happening, the repercussions will be significant. I will be impacted by the resulting climate change, the shortages of resources, and the psychological distress of being stuck in a clown car from which there is no escape.

We’re already seeing climate change. We’ve known for a long time that human activities that create greenhouse gases like CO2 cause climate change. Adding more people will accelerate climate change. The results would be a catastrophic chain of events, causing weather-related crises and widespread diseases, threatening our health/overall well-being. I would have to suffer through more pandemics and more natural disasters, while watching sadly as habitats disappear and animals go extinct.

Remember how there were never enough snacks for everyone in my grandma’s house? Well, if the United States population grows to 404 million, the problem will be more than just a snack shortage. Demand for food in general will increase and food shortages like the kind we experienced during COVID will be common. Food won’t be the only commodity affected. We’ll have to change the way we collect and/or use water as it would be impossible to meet the growing demand. Virtually, everything we consume would be affected. When more people compete for a limited amount of something, like housing, prices skyrocket. I will likely spend a lot of time worrying over how to afford the necessities.

Another effect of population growth will be psychological. Dense neighborhoods drive up noise and crime, negatively impacting psychological well-being. It will be like that terrible crush of holiday traffic at the beginning of a long weekend, but instead it will be all the time, all year round. Every time you leave home, it will be like what happens when you leave a sports game; you’ll be surrounded by people, everywhere you look. In addition to the stress of overcrowding, there’s also the stress of the other effects – having to deal with climate change and its terrible repercussions, combined with the endless economic struggle of sky high prices.

It sounds like a survivalist movie – too many people and not enough water or food or housing – but it will be the reality of this country if we don’t make changes. Just like there weren’t endless amounts of chairs around my grandma’s kitchen table, there aren’t endless spaces here in the United States. We need to be careful to not overpopulate our planet so that all of the people living in the future have the same opportunities for health and well-being that people living right now have. Let’s make changes now before it’s too late.

$1,000
Domnica Reutov
Portland State University

The U.S. Census Bureau predicts the U.S. population may reach 404 million by 2060. This increase in population creates a slew of problems, such as an increase in disease outbreaks, water insecurity, and an increase in emissions which contribute to climate change.

In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global pandemic. As cases of COVID-19 increased, weaknesses in the United States healthcare system began revealing themselves. This, mixed with citizens’ reluctance to follow guidelines and the lack of coordination from government offices, proved that action needs to be taken to prevent future pandemics. “However, infectious disease outbreaks have been increasing over the last decades. The exponential growth of the human population has led to increased urbanization which accelerates epidemics, as was the case with COVID-19 in Wuhan” (Spernovasilis at el.). Overpopulation and urbanization go hand in hand. Densely populated areas accelerate disease outbreaks. This was very apparent in New York City. New York is the largest city in the United States, which is a significant reason why the city consistently ranked highest for confirmed cases and deaths of COVID-19 (Bean). If actions against overpopulation are not taken, pandemics such as COVID-19 will become more frequent.

Fresh water is a fundamental human right. However, many people need to remember that it is a finite resource becoming less and less available. Humans rely on water to consume, cook, wash, and clean. It is estimated that in this year, 2023, “2.2 million people in the United States are without running water and basic indoor plumbing, and more than 44 million people have inadequate water systems” (Rees). Many Americans face water insecurity due to groundwater exhaustion, climate change conditions, and contamination, and with an increased population, these causes will only be exaggerated. Wells will dry out faster on account of increased use; climate change will worsen due to the rise in greenhouse gasses released due to a higher demand for products and services from the larger population, causing millions of Americans to be without water. Although America is a developed country, millions of its citizens face issues obtaining a fundamental human need: water. If this is already a problem, it will only intensify with a larger population.

Climate change creates long term-shifts in temperature and weather patterns, and since the 1800s, human activity has been the main driver of climate change (United Nations). Climate change can worsen our air and water quality, increase the spread of certain diseases and change the frequency and intensity of severe weather events (EPA). As greenhouse emissions increase, these issues will become more common. It is stated by Population Connection that:

Population growth and increasing consumption tend to increase emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gasses. Moreover, rapid population growth worsens the impacts of climate change by straining resources and exposing more people to climate-related risks—especially in low-resource regions (Population Connection).

Climate change affects everyone, and as the population grows, the intensity of climate change will grow with it.

It is clear that the United States has limited resources, and with those limitations, there is a limit on the number of people the country can support. An increase in exposure to disease outbreaks, water scarcity, and the effects of climate change don’t only affect an individual but the entire country. Because of this, action must be taken to prevent issues like these from progressing.

$5,000
Harrison Hall
Liberty University

Another hurricane wreaks havoc on the East coast. A haze fills the sky as multiple cities along the West coast reach an unhealthy air quality index. Twenty-three animals across nineteen states are declared extinct (Center). Disease spreads like wildfire and a staggering number of Americans die due to unavailable ICU beds. The signs of overpopulation across the United States are everywhere and choosing to ignore them now will result in a legacy of detrimental and potentially irreversible consequences. Advancement in medical technology, lack of family planning and immigration happening at a runaway pace are contributors to the skyrocketing population growth. In just twenty years (2000 to 2020), the US population increased by over 17%. In order to protect this nation from further harm, it is imperative that Americans turn the tide of the country’s increasing population.

Population growth negatively impacts the United States because it is a primary cause of:

Disease spread and lack of available medical care
Climate change
Air pollution
Biodiversity loss
Loss of green space

Overpopulation is deadly, as seen in recent history in the US. In over-populated areas communicable diseases spread more quickly. Such was the case in the early days of the coronavirus in New York City. Governor Andrew Cuomo, stated, “New York’s density makes it especially vulnerable to a respiratory disease pandemic (Rogers).” Subsequently, medical resources were not sufficient to serve the numbers of critically ill, resulting in avoidable deaths, a fact reported in a recent Yale study. This study showed a significant association between the number of hospital beds available in the first weeks of the COVID pandemic and the mortality rate (“Lack”).

Population growth increases harmful gasses from agriculture, industries and vehicles resulting in climate change and decreased air quality. Energy-saving technology has reduced per capita CO2 emissions, but emissions continue to rise due to population growth in our country and even more so due to immigrants entering the country. A staggering number of immigrants, often illegal, come to America from countries with very low per capita CO2. They enter the United States, one of the highest per capita carbon producing nations in the world. As such, once in the United States, they themselves greatly increase the amount of carbon they produce. The decline in air quality, relative to the increase in population, continues as cities grow without regulation (“Air”).

In addition to unclean air, the destruction of forests to make room for swarms of people hastens the vanishing of green spaces and of biodiversity loss. With it, Americans’ mental health suffers. According to a study by the National Academy of Sciences, citizens who grew up with the least green space had as much as 55% increased risk of psychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety and substance abuse in later years (“Green”). As human activity continues to encroach on the natural environment, animal and plant species are pushed to extinction. The World Wildlife Fund’s Living Planet Report indicates that 68% of all vertebrate wildlife populations have been lost since 1970 (“Living”) and in that time the human population has more than doubled.

There are potential solutions to the issue of overpopulation and the problems it creates. Educating youth about family planning, focusing on limiting climate change and use of renewable energy are a start. However, none of these will be effective enough without a massive reduction in immigration. If we are to begin solving these problems, the rise in the number of people in the US must be critically addressed. Population growth must come to a halt so that this country can continue to be great for centuries to come.

$2,500
Jadon Lau
Northwestern University

A Bright, Sustainable Future

While a thriving country often has a growing population to match it, excessive growth has detrimental impacts to various facets of American life. Currently, the U.S is on track to reach over 400 million people in the next forty years (Statistia). This will put unprecedented strain on America’s economy, transportation systems, environment, infrastructure, and people.

From supersized soda sizes to yearly iPhone releases, America’s economy is built on the idea “More is Better”; however, the recent population increase is doing more harm than good. A population that exceeds the necessary workforce leaves many unemployed and underpaid. This, in turn, strains the economy as the government is pushed to give handouts rather than using that money for progressive causes. Many states are already facing the harsh realities of an uncontrolled population. California, for example, has the highest state GDP but sustains the greatest homeless population at over 150,000 people (World Population Review). The U.S owes it to its citizens to give them a life worth living opposed to a life in musty tents on littered streets.

The growing population also impacts the daily commute of Americans. State and federal governments are already spending half or more of their budget on road infrastructure, yet commute times still rob many people of many crucial hours that can be spent away from the wheel (U.S. Pirg). According to the U.S Census Bureau, the average one way commute time to work is 28 minutes, with longer times in major metro areas (U.S Census Bureau). An hour taken from every working citizen results in a huge loss of productivity. Clearly, the solution does not exist in increased spending towards road expansion, but rather in solutions to negate the uncontrolled population growth.

Supporting an exponentially growing population with finite resources is economically infeasible, and research has shown that the U.S can only support around 150 million people–less than half its current amount. This puts much strain on America’s agricultural institutions. Deforestation for farms destroys the habitats of indigenous animals. Excrement from animals releases harmful pollutants into the soil, water, and atmosphere (Footprint). Americans are already the second-highest meat consumers in the world, and with an increasing population, the demand for meat will only rise (Sentient Media). This further exacerbates the pressing environmental issues that will cause irreversible damage in the long run.

America’s infrastructure is also struggling to accommodate the massive population. Much of the current infrastructure was built in the 1960s, when the U.S population was half of its current size. With the current population, congestion is causing billions of dollars in economic waste. For example, air traffic congestion is estimated to cause $120 billion per year, and other infrastructure continues to provide suboptimal conditions for the large population (CFR).

Finally, as a result of the growing population, it is the very citizens that go through the most difficulty. With something as recent as the COVID-19 pandemic, our oversized population flooded hospitals to the point where many people had to wait hours to days to get a bed. There are simply not enough resources to accommodate the needs of every individual, leading to decreased satisfaction. Indeed, according to the World Population Review, the U.S ranks nineteenth in overall happiness (World Population Review). To add, in 2022, only 38% of Americans were satisfied with the state of the country–an all time low (Gallup). Controlling America’s population may appear to be taking steps backwards, but really, it is the only ethical way forwards. We owe it to the next generation to create a sustainable environment worth living in.

$1,500
Aaron Chan
Elon University

Saving America The Beautiful

“O beautiful for spacious skies,

For amber waves of grain,

For purple mountain majesties

Above the fruited plain!

America! America!

God shed His grace on thee

And crown thy good with brotherhood

From sea to shining sea!”

~Katherine Lee Bates

The idea of America as a land of inexhaustible bounty has long been part of its national identity. An immeasurably rich continent, stretching “from sea to shining sea,” how could it ever be depleted?

However, a look at reality quickly shatters this beautiful dream. In order for a nation to be ecologically sustainable, its biocapacity, or total natural productive capacity, must not fall below its ecological footprint. The United States crossed that line in 2015 (“State of the States”), and the situation has not improved since.

This crisis can be attributed to steep population growth increasing demands on natural resources. Since 2000, the population of the U.S. has lurched upward by 50 million. This growth strains the resources of an already-strained continent, and exacerbates a host of other problems.

Take for example, the increase in pollution. Despite 40 years of innovation improving the efficiency of all technology, making car engines 20% more efficient (Nally), and light sources save 90% more energy (“10 Advantages”), U.S. CO2 emissions and energy consumption still rose by 11% and 19% respectively since 1980 (“Air Quality-National Summary”). This increase is due to America’s burgeoning population growing total demands for energy, not just erasing, but reversing emissions savings made by technology. In an era of climate crisis, growing America’s population hinders our efforts to save the planet.

Population growth also encroaches on natural habitats, turning up extinctionary pressure on species across the continent. Scientists estimate that a third of all U.S. species risk extinction, amounting to more than 8,500 plant and animal species (Tolmè). Halting humanity’s rapid growth and expansion into their habitats would give many endangered species a chance to survive, presenting a chance to save America’s rich biodiversity.

Additionally, an increasing population also exacerbates a stinky problem—the problem of overflowing landfills for our waste. On average across the U.S., a mere 14 years of landfill capacity remain (“Time is Running Out”). To accommodate demand, governments will have to set aside enormous new tracts of land to deposit trash, displacing wildlife, taking away space from housing or agriculture, and further covering our beautiful nation in mountains of garbage. Reducing American population growth would reduce the amount of waste generated, making the issue easier to deal with.

Most ominously of all, population growth could beget even more population growth. The 18th century English economist Thomas Malthus noted that population does not grow in a straight line, but has the potential to increase geometrically (2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, etc), becoming overwhelmingly large in just a few generations (“15.2 Population”). If growth is already straining the resources and ecology of the U.S. today, without decisive action to reverse it, we could face an exponentially larger problem in the near future.

Fortunately, Malthus’ predictions have not come true in America so far. Fertility rates have decreased year by year, dropping the U.S. annual population growth to a historic low of 0.1% last year (Rogers). While this averts the dire consequences of runaway growth, we should not take this respite for granted. The historic first of an almost static U.S. population gives us a golden opportunity to reverse all the damage growth has wrought, a chance to decrease strain on natural resources through sustainable habits, to cut emissions with more efficient technology, to bring back our disappearing biodiversity, and tackle the problem of overflowing landfills. The road ahead is long and difficult, but with rising national awareness of the issues, cooperation, effort, and a little luck, America the Beautiful will remain for future generations to live in and love.

$1,500
Conner Daehler
Valparaiso University

As war continues to rage on in Europe, the stark reminder of savagery and brutality is shown across millions of televisions throughout the nation. Yet it’s not just on the television that reminders of this war are felt. Every day, Americans turn to the gas pumps and see prices sit at record highs. Grocery stores see prices slowly creep upwards. And on top of this, record inflation continues in our nation. While these effects are painful, they are dulled by thousands of miles of land and ocean. The population crisis, however, is occurring right in our own backyard. We will not experience the same luxury of distance dulling its pain. From rising prices of goods and services, to the depletion of our natural resources, the population crisis in America will have consequences that cannot be ignored.

With our limited natural resources being used at startling rates, population growth is only increasing the difficulty we face in preserving our most strategic resources. Every day in the US, nearly 19.78 million barrels, 1.31 million tons of coal, and 85 billion cubic feet of gas are consumed (EIA). The University of Stanford has calculated that at these current rates, US oil reserves will run out by 2052, gas reserves by 2060, and coal reserves by 2090. And an increasing population will only hasten this pace. Resources so vital to our nation must be protected and preserved for generations to come.

Additionally, our environment continues to feel the pain of population growth. A 1% increase in population results in a 1.28% increase in global pollution (IUSSP). With the US population expected to grow to 404 million (nearly 20%) by 2060, the environmental impact would be devastating. Following the UN model of climate change, to avoid the most devastating impact of climate change, net-zero emissions must be reached by 2050. Yet just from population growth, emissions are projected to grow by 30%. While President Joe Biden creates ambitious plans to uphold the UN pledge, population growth fights him every step of the way.

And it’s not just catastrophic climate change that we need to worry about. Even simply feeding people is a growing concern. Farmland with a quality deemed “Superior” by the Department of Agriculture in the US has decreased by over 11 million acres Dempsey). With 11.8% of Americans already at threat of food insecurity, this number is only likely to grow (FRAC). Especially in a first world country, this is a startling reality. America may have enough food now, but with farmable land decreasing and population increasing, we are at threat. Action must be taken.

One basic human right at threat should already be enough to quickly act, yet nutrition is not the only right at threat. Increased urbanization threatens our most basic need of shelter. Average house prices for rural homes hovered near 170k, while in suburban and urban areas it was nearly 40% higher at 270k. This problem gets even worse in the most urbanized areas of the US, where for example in San Francisco housing prices were over 900k and average rent was nearly 4,000 a month (Zillow). With a 20% increase in housing prices in just the last year, and urbanization only accelerating with our increasing population, the American dream of owning a house is quickly becoming a fantasy.

The population in the US has ballooned by millions in just the past few decades. And with this trend projected to continue, we must find a way to preserve the quality of life we have in this great nation.

$1,500
Yihan Deng
Georgetown University

The United States’ demand for resources is second to none. In hectares of productive natural land used annually per capita, Americans’ consumption outstrips most developed countries by up to seventy percent. Therefore, increases in the U.S. population pose a greater risk to sustainable development than any other sizable nation in the world. Considering the dramatic expansion of the American population over the past two decades – from 281.4 million in 2000 to 331.4 million in 2020 – the need to limit further population growth is more urgent than ever.

Every birth in the United States adds twenty times more carbon dioxide to a parent’s carbon footprint than a lifetime of automobile and fossil fuel use. Births since 2000 represent twelve percent of annual American emissions, exacerbating the global effects of climate change and contributing directly to climate stress in the United States.

For instance, rising temperatures in the American Southwest have produced the region’s worst megadrought in over a thousand years, evaporating critical freshwater reserves such as the Colorado River and Lake Mead. However, Southwestern states also have some of the fastest-growing populations in the country (Henderson). The increasing demand places an impossible burden on water supplies, costing agriculture, electricity, and other water-intensive sectors up to 1.3 billion dollars annually. Researchers predict nearly half of freshwater basins across the country will fail to meet demand by 2071, so with the population projected to reach 500 million by 2100, shrinking water supplies will only be spread thinner.

A similar phenomenon holds true for waste production. Americans burned 34.6 million tons of waste in 2018 and sent 146.1 million more to landfills, contaminating ecosystems, producing greenhouse gases, and causing serious health issues in surrounding communities. Meanwhile, the annual volume of waste produced in the U.S. increased from 243.5 million tons in 2000 to 292.4 million tons in 2018 despite the per capita rate of production remaining constant. Due to population growth, toxic waste pollution will continue to worsen.

Moreover, population growth has forced an unsustainable rate of housing construction. Since 2000, over 21 million homes have been built to accommodate new residents. Worryingly, urban sprawl has destroyed 24 million acres of natural habitat and 11 million acres of farmland since 2000. It also encourages wasteful automobile use, increases energy consumption, and worsens health outcomes through air and water pollution. As cities expand, overpopulation threatens to entirely undermine green housing.

Most alarmingly, the worst consequence of population growth has already come to pass: the rapid spread of diseases such as COVID-19. With Americans flocking to cities, the United States’ average population density has increased from 79.7 people per square mile in 2000 to 93.8 in 2020. Because population density is the best natural predictor of COVID transmission, it is unsurprising that the Omicron strain of coronavirus has resurged most violently in New York City and New Jersey, among the most densely populated places in the country. As the growing population continues to urbanize, the spread of infectious diseases will only accelerate.

While the COVID-19 pandemic has forced the nation to confront the immediate difficulties of population growth, overpopulation endangers ecology, human health, and economic well-being now and far into the future. At the current rate of growth, the population crisis will continue to worsen. The United States can only provide a safe, secure, and sustainable future for so many before it becomes lost for all.

$1,500
Matthew Doty
University of Notre Dame

Growth is commonly considered a good thing. Yet, ever-increasing size does not always result in desirable outcomes. For example, algae are critical to maintaining the ecological balance of marine life in bays, lakes, and coastal waters. However, when algal growth is unrestricted, their exponential growth suffocates and destroys marine ecosystems. Similarly, population growth strains the supply of resources necessary for quality human life and creates conditions that risk societal unrest.

Over the past 20 years, the United States population increased by over 50 million people. Those persons require access to potable water. However, the amount of freshwater on Earth is finite and diminishing worldwide. The increased US population over the past 20 years requires an additional 50 million gallons, or the equivalent of draining 2.5 average size freshwater lakes, each day. Some might argue that a sufficient supply remains even with these increased demands; however, a 2014 study found that 40 states anticipate freshwater shortages in the next decade. While water recycles, it does not necessarily return in the same condition or to the same place. Consequently, increased population accelerates the competition for this already diminishing yet necessary resource.

The increased population likewise requires food. Recent studies show that between 1 to 3 acres of arable land are needed to feed a person for one year. However, there are only 1.2 acres of arable land per person in the US, and due to desertification and urban sprawl, that ratio is decreasing. These data indicate that the US is on the brink of no longer being food self-sufficient. Worse, so is the world. Critics might suggest that food production could become more efficient; however, present-day methods of increasing efficiencies require more fossil fuels and more water, both of which are in diminishing supply. Thus, the increased population again accelerates the competition for a resource needed for survival.

More people require more energy, generate more waste, and produce more pollution. Energy production, whether renewable or not, uses finite resources. The extraction processes of the needed raw materials contribute to pollution and habitat loss. Air pollution resulting from energy demand is directly linked to respiratory diseases, heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer, diminishing public health. Moreover, land waste generated by individuals gathers in waterways and streams. The accumulated waste hinders access to and affects the potability of water. Plastic debris found in US fisheries jeopardizes access to marine food sources, 80% of which originate from land waste. In this way, population growth leads to greater energy demands and more pollution, which threaten the health and quality of life for all people.

On average, the carbon footprint for US citizens in 2016 was 15.2 tons of CO2 per year. Scientists largely agree that to avoid climate-driven catastrophic effects on water supply, food supply, and public health, the average carbon emissions from the world’s population must be less than 2.3 tons of CO2 per year by 2030. The task of reducing the US carbon footprint is formidable. Each additional person makes it that much more difficult. The concomitant increase in carbon footprint with a growing population accelerates the potential of desertification, famine, and disease.

Water, food, health, and a livable environment are basic human needs. When needs are poorly met, quality of life decreases. When needs are not met, civil unrest is the typical outcome. Continued population growth will threaten our quality of life, will threaten fundamental needs, and is likely to eventually lead to conflict as people compete in a struggle for survival. The real possibility of these outcomes of population growth overshadows any hypothetical economic benefit.

$1,500
Najya Gause
Harvard College

The population of the United States has grown by 50 million people in 20 years. Population growth of this size was once unimaginable, but today, is steadily increasing. That is 50 million more mouths to feed, jobs to find, and ecological footprints being created. 50 million too many! In this essay, I will argue that the population growth experienced in the US in the last two decades has had a negative impact on its environment, economy, and the overall quality of life of the American people.

The first negative effect of population growth is the degradation of the environment. A growing population means that more food supply is needed, and the solutions to this problem are often harmful. For example, more intense farming requires “mechanization, pesticides and chemical fertilizers” all of which can cause soil erosion (LeBlanc). The agricultural runoff from excess fertilizers lead to eutrophication, causing dead zones in bodies of water such as the Gulf of Mexico (Callihan).

Next, the depletion of natural resources. A once infinite world is now becoming finite. Resources are being depleted at a higher rate than they can be replenished. Although 71% of the Earth is water, only 0.3% of that water is potable (Mullen). That 0.3% is becoming depleted, as evidenced in the water shortages in the summer of 2021 where many national governments had to enforce water consumption policies. Lake Mead, the largest water reservoir in the US, reached a record low at 200 feet below normal (Burlig). If humans continue to drink more water than available to us, one day, it will run out.

Thirdly, the negative impact on the US economy. More people in the country means that the government has to spend more money on infrastructure, education, and health care – systems that arguably do not currently operate effectively (Doyle). For a country that is already over $30 billion dollars in debt, this proves difficult (“U.S. National Debt”). This growing debt will have detrimental impacts on future generations. Population growth also leads to growth in the labor force. The US does not have enough jobs to account for this growth, supported by the 5.6% increase in unemployment between 2000 and 2010 (“U.S.: Annual Unemployment”).

Additionally, an increase in American poverty. When the economy is in decline and the population is growing, more people are pushed into poverty. Living in poverty is defined as being unable to “meet basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter”, and is something no American should ever have to experience (“Absolute Poverty”). Typically, poverty breeds more poverty due to a greater number of children in impoverished homes and the effects of the poverty cycle. This is evidenced by the 2.8% increase in poverty in the US between the years of 2000 and 2010 (“U.S. Poverty Rate”).

Finally, an increase in disasters such as pandemics. The combination of population growth and the aforementioned increase in poverty unavoidably leads to dense, unhygienic populations with little to no health care. This becomes a breeding ground for new infectious diseases, as well as the emergence of pandemics and epidemics (Rinkesh). The recent COVID-19 pandemic is a perfect example. As of April 7th, 2022, the US has suffered almost one million COVID related deaths (CDC).

50 million people is a big number and population size of some countries – but the negative impacts of that population growth on the United States is even bigger. The world is, effectively, dying from environmental and economic crises. Our primary focus should be bringing it back to life rather than increasing the burden that is humanity. Future generations deserve to live in a world as beautiful as the one we were born into without exceptional population growth.

$1,500
Lily Ogburn
Northwestern University

In 1969, President Richard Nixon warned that population growth would be “one of the most serious challenges to human destiny.” His message fell on deaf ears. Now, over 50 years later, America stands at a population of more than 331 million people: a massive increase from 1970’s 205.1 million. Population growth has become a threat to both the environment and the economic well-being of the American people.

As the U.S. population increases, the environment is pressured to sustain that expansion. U.S. farms are strained; an increasing demand for food, both crops and livestock, requires land. This need for space has decided the fate of ecosystems across the country; thousands of habitats are destroyed to create farmlands. In 2020, the United States lost 1.59 million hectares of its natural forests, due in great part to agricultural expansion. Population growth has become one of the greatest contributors to the loss of natural environments in the U.S.

The growing population has also contributed to America’s rampant pollution problem. From consuming electricity to driving a car, carbon dioxide is released in various ways at alarming rates in the U.S. In 2020 alone, the U.S. produced about 68 million tons of pollution. These high rates of contamination are caused by more than the over-usage of fossil fuels; the increase in population has dramatically contributed to this problem. The average carbon footprint of a person in the United States is about 16 tons, and as the number of people living in the United States grows, so does the country’s overall carbon output.

The strain on the agricultural sector and pollution contribute to another problem: the loss of biodiversity in the U.S. As pollutants seep into America’s few remaining natural environments, habitats are destroyed and species are lost. Humans have named fewer than 1.4 million of the estimated 5 to 30 million species in the world; but as mankind pollutes and destroys habitats and ecosystems, it forces both known and unknown species to extinction. Deforestation and waste pollution have negatively affected America’s biodiversity, caused mainly by the increased use of resources required by a growing population.

Beyond environmental detriment, the population boom within the past 20 years has given rise to more poverty in the United States. Poverty has accelerated quickly over the last 20 years; from 2000 to 2012, the poverty rate jumped from 12.2% to 15.9%. As population dramatically expands, especially in urban areas, the lack of land and resources to sustain the community results in homelessness and poverty. As prices for housing increase due to population expansion, millions of Americans are forced onto the streets. Population growth contributes to the already dire poverty situation in America.

Population increases often result in a divided society because resources are not unlimited. In the United States, despite the fact that per capita income growth is increasing, the number of people living in poverty has increased from 31.1 million people in 2000 to 37.2 million people in 2020. From 1979 to 2019, the middle class decreased from 61% to 51% of the population, showing that as the number of U.S. habitants has grown, the wealth gap has widened and the middle class has shrunken. Poverty has boomed, just as the U.S. population has; as a result, the country has become more economically divided than ever.

The population boom within the United States negatively affects our environment and significantly contributes to poverty. These consequences will only become more severe as time goes on and growth continues. Action must be taken to stabilize population growth to protect the well-being of both the environment and the inhabitants of the U.S.

$1,000
Taylor Gollhofer
The University of Northern Colorado

I used to believe population growth was a good thing. More people meant more brains for ideas, more people engaged socially, and more hands to work. In high school I began to learn about Earth; more specifically about the problems created by rapid population growth. The 2000 United States Census showed a total U.S. population of 281.4 million people. In 2020, the U.S. population shot up to 331.4 million people. This rapid growth rate has led to five issues; Farming pressure, Eutrophication, Deforestation, Freshwater scarcity, and Global Warming.

The most obvious and easily understood impact of rapid population growth is the added pressure on food production. More people to feed does not mean more land to farm or raise livestock on. Therefore, the population has relied on technological advances to increase food production. In the article “The Environmental Impacts of Overpopulation” it states, “The yield of existing farmland can be increased through intensive farming to feed our rapidly growing population. This approach is characterized by reliance on mechanization, pesticides and chemical fertilizers.” (LeBlanc, 2021). Even with the ability to keep pace with the increase in population via technology, the negative impacts outweigh it.

Due to having to produce crops faster, “the agricultural runoff of excess fertilizers is one of the main causes of eutrophication” (LeBlanc, 2021). Eutrophication is an excess of nutrients in a body of water (often from farmland runoff) that leads to rapid and dense growth of plant life and death of animal life. Eutrophication is killing a food source in marine animal life and producing bottom-dwelling plant life that doesn’t provide any benefit.

More farming leads to eutrophication, but it also is “responsible for nearly 80% of global deforestation” (LeBlanc, 2021). Due to the high demand to produce food, there needs to be more land for crops to grow and livestock to live. Therefore, deforestation has increased. The process uses machinery to clear the land which creates even more greenhouse gases leading to greater global warming.

Fresh water is also a necessity. Considering most of the planet is covered in water, one would assume we have enough. However, “Only 2.5 percent of water resources are fresh water, and just a small fraction of that is available as unpolluted drinking water.” (LeBlanc, 2021). As the population grows, a greater amount of fresh water is needed. Current sources will not be able to handle the higher demand. Until we can efficiently desalinate saltwater, freshwater will be scarce.

Global warming is the biggest reason rapid population growth is bad. A larger population needs higher energy production. The greatest fuels for energy production are fossil fuels; oil, coal and natural gas. Use of these fossil fuels creates greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases encircle the globe and trap in the heat from the sun, thus causing global warming. Higher population leads to greater fossil fuel usage and higher global warming. Even though there is a larger concentration on renewable energy sources, our dependency on fossil fuels is still too great.

When talking about the growth of population in the United States, we have to look at true, destructive effects. On a day-to-day basis, we may not feel the effects, but when viewed on a global scale, they become more obvious. The added pressure on providing for more people has put too much pressure on food production leading to eutrophication and mass deforestation. In addition, it leads to a greater scarcity of freshwater and faster global warming. It must be recognized that the pace of population growth is creating a much more dire future.

$1,000
Shamona Joseph
University of Central Florida

What would the average American write if you asked them to list the top ten issues facing the country? Some common answers would be income inequality, the cost of healthcare, or the national debt. Overpopulation would probably not make the list. Most Americans mistakenly think overpopulation is not an issue because the United States is the world’s biggest economy and can supply everything they need. However, the United States does not have infinite resources to sustain our current growth and consumption. As a member of Generation Z, our country’s future deeply worries me. Ultimately, we’ll be the ones to endure the damage caused by overpopulation. According to Census.gov, in 2000, the U.S. had 281.4 million people. By 2020, that figure rose to 331.4 million, an increase of 50 million! Economists advocate the economic benefits of this boom for the nation, but they overlook the realities. This rapid growth is not good for this country for five reasons: increased greenhouse gases, rising living costs, increased waste, degradation of the environment, and the scarcity of water.

First, a booming populace releases large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These gases contribute to the warming of our planet by trapping heat. This results in rising temperatures that worsen climate change. Carbon Dioxide constitutes a majority of these gases. Currently, our country is the second-largest emitter of CO2 overall and ranked 13th per capita (world). Our CO2 levels have risen over the past 20 years and reached a peak in 2007 (Statista). The energy and transportation sectors are the two largest sources of emissions. In the U.S., energy consumption peaked in 2018 after steadily increasing since 2000. As more people are born and families expand, the greater the demand for energy and transportation. Moreover, the number of registered vehicles in the U.S. in 2020 was 275 million (Statista) and 88% of Americans owned a car in 2015 (Bloomberg).

Furthermore, the cost-of-living increases as society expands. With more mouths to feed, the demand for food and other necessities increases. The greater the demand, the smaller the supply, and simple economics predicts prices will rise. Food prices have been hiked since 2017, but the pandemic has sent prices soaring (trading). Despite record home prices, wages have stagnated for years, and people are paying more for less. I live in Polk County, which is the fastest-growing county in Florida. It ranked 7th nationally in terms of growth. With an influx of people, comes a shortage of houses. The median price of a home here trended up 30.7% annually.

Our nation produces the most Municipal Solid Waste in the world, but we think little about where it goes. Most Americans take the “out of sight, out of mind” approach to waste. In 2018, our total MSW output reached a high of 292 million tons, with 69 million recycled.

America is a beautiful country, but our growth threatens the environment. Smog is choking our cities, our water is tainted, and air quality is deteriorating. We’ve lost 36 million trees in the U.S. from 2009 to 2014 from deforestation. Additionally, 1,600 of the 200,000 species of wildlife that call our country home receive government protection.

Lastly, due to overpopulation, our lakes are shrinking. America’s west is drying up; Lake Mead and Lake Powell are shrinking, so there is a shortage of desperately needed water. The Great Salt Lake is inches away from a 58-year low.

In conclusion, the U.S. must slow down and think about how to reverse course on our explosive growth. Our local and national leaders must heed these consequences to ensure a brighter future for generations.

$1,000
Ethan Pellicane
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

The unprecedented and explosive population growth of the United States has had decidedly negative effects upon our nation. This growth has caused a massive development of natural land, increased the cost of living, and has put unsustainable strains on agriculture, natural energy sources, and even our water. For these reasons, our population growth threatens both the lives of the millions of Americans living today, but also those of future generations to come.

First, rapid population expansion has caused widespread development of natural land.

According to Glen Colton of Treasure Coast Newspapers, since the early 1980s “developers have paved 40 million acres of forests and fields – an area the size of New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey combined.” The result? The destruction of agricultural land, natural habitats and entire ecosystems.

Additionally, population growth has caused increased cost of living. One example of this is America’s housing market. Population growth has caused unprecedented demand for housing, which in turn has created a historically expensive market. While there are large fluctuations, the trend for the cost of housing has been strongly positive, even when other causes such as inflation are taken into account. This phenomena of increased demand due to a larger population can be linked to similar cost increases in several other sectors. Simply put, an increased population has made it harder and more expensive for Americans to live.

Third, the rapidly growing population strains American agriculture. This trend is caused by two things: the need to feed the growing population, as well as the destruction of agricultural lands, as mentioned earlier. As the American population continues to grow, the country needs to produce more and more food from less and less land. Doing this would be unsustainable, as farmers would be forced to rely heavily on polluting pesticides and fertilizers in order to obtain sufficient crop yields. More likely, however, this task of feeding America may prove to be impossible.

Furthermore, population growth has caused an unsustainable level of exploitation of natural energy. The United States’ total energy consumption has nearly tripled since the year 1950, and the vast majority of that energy (79%) comes from fossil fuels. These sources of energy are non-renewable, and it is becoming clear that at current levels of consumption, America as well as the world at large may run dry very soon. Indeed, coal is projected to run out in 70 years, natural gas in 40, and oil in just 30 years.

Lastly, the population growth in America threatens perhaps the most vital of all resources: water. A study conducted in early 2019 found that because of the growing population as well as climate change, America may face “serious challenges” in its water supply in less than 50 years. According to the researchers, “as population growth plus the changing climate alter water yield and demand, shortages are projected to increase substantially.” If these shortages would come to pass, it could threaten the very lives of millions of Americans.

America’s population growth has had tragic implications for the nation’s present and future state. The growing population has destroyed millions of acres of nature, increased the cost of living, and threatened our food, energy, and water supply. In the status quo and looking into the future, a rising population has threatened Americans’ basic necessities. If the problems caused by this are not addressed, they may come to define the future of our nation.

$1,000
Roniel Rivera-Garcia
Iowa State University

When are we going to stop?

We have repeatedly heard this phrase in the last few years: “This is the first time this has happened since…”. More than ever, now we are living events that bring us problems for which we have no solutions. Our lives are changing; we need more energy, more food, more resources, and more space every day. Unfortunately, those are not infinite, and we will run out of them at some point, even more so when the demand for them is greater because we are more every day.

The number of people born each day is twice the number of people who die, representing an increase of 0.000022% to the Mundial population each day. This population growth means a risk to our country and our planet. The first reason it is bad for the United States and the world is global warming. Global warming affects many areas in our lives, and now we are seeing more extreme natural catastrophes than ever. We have seen powerful hurricanes, strong earthquakes, big fires, melting of the poles (rising sea levels), etc. Global warming is an extensive term, but in short, due to global warming (caused by population growth), we are experiencing a series of natural events that are seriously affecting us.

The second reason is the waste produced by humans. It was a miracle when we could use our resources to create products for our use for the first time, and it was a technological advance that helped us continue to develop as a civilization. However, we have reached the point that we do not know what to do with our garbage, and our planet is no longer enough. An example of this is the Great Pacific garbage patch, an “island” made entirely of garbage.

The third reason is the non-renewable resources. Our country has become dependent on non-renewable resources. Although there are projects to develop energy and products based on renewable materials, still most of the products and fuels we use come from non-renewable sources. The problem with them is that they are finite; we cannot have more when they run out. We have always needed the energy to survive, but nowadays, we are dependent on energy due to technological advances. Each average home uses twice as much electricity as home did 20 or 30 years ago, and our consumption is expected to increase. How will we produce so much energy if our resources are running out?

The fourth reason is the food, and the fifth reason is the water. Food and water are our “fuel” as humans, and without them, we cannot live. In the past, the mechanization of agriculture gives a pass to population growth, but now population growth is a challenge for agriculture. Traditional agriculture can no longer satisfy the food demand of all inhabitants. Agriculture has had to develop to produce more efficiently, on larger scales, and under more climatic conditions. However, we are getting to the point that even if we plant all the agricultural lands, we still could not meet the demand for food. The best example is the US territory, Puerto Rico, where it could only feed 70% of its population even if it planted all its agricultural land. Lastly, water is an essential factor in our lives, and due to industrialization, global warming, human waste, non-renewable resources extraction, and bad agricultural practices, potable water is in danger. The more people there are on earth, the more contamination we will have, and unfortunately, that contamination ends up in the water. Despite these problems, we have not shown any sign of stopping. When are we going to stop?

$1,000
Maryanne Thomas
North Carolina State University

Around the turn of the 19th century, Thomas Malthus challenged the common idea of philosophers of that time: the notion that mankind was bound to succeed, and the world would evolve into a perfect utopia. In his lifetime, he wrote countless works centering on population growth. Instead of our world evolving into perfection, he countered that it would suffer from the effects of overpopulation. Although not correct in all of his prognostications, the idea that rapid population increase produces negative side effects is not far from the truth (Kagan). In the United States, the population has grown by 176 million since 1950––and although often overlooked, this increasing growth has negatively impacted housing, education, medical care, traffic congestion, and habitat destruction (“U.S. Population Growth”).

The first main issue with population growth in the United States is the affect that it has on housing. As people move into urban centers, housing demand rises. In North Carolina, housing has increased 8.8% in the past decade. Population has increased 9.5%, which has created a housing shortage, resulting in higher housing prices (Constantine). Even this slight outpace of growth has created issues, causing a scarcity of affordable housing.

Next, population growth has negatively impacted education. Schools have become severely overcrowded, which has created a myriad of problems such as student safety during school drop off and pick up, difficulty fitting the students in the classrooms, and higher student-teacher ratios. The 2011 Brookings Institute found that twenty four states are in desperate need of class size reduction; however, it costs around twelve billion dollars per year in teachers’ salaries to lower the national class average by even one student (“Preventing Overcrowding”).

Medical care spending in America has also been significantly affected by rapid population growth. A statistic reveals that “increases in the US population size were associated with a 23.1% or a 269.5 billion spending increase” (Masterson). Not only does increasing population cause greater spread of disease, it also results in a higher need of general medical care that strains the health system. In Texas, for example, it has been estimated that the population will grow to 45 million by 2040, and unless something changes, the ratio between citizens and medical care workers will not be adequate (Brown).

Rapid population growth in the United States has additionally affected traffic congestion, which negatively impacts personal stress and the environment. A study conducted in Massachusetts in 2017 shows that the average worker in Boston spends eighty hours a year stuck in traffic compared to 31 hours of traffic annually in 1982 (Beaudet). With population surging, this is bound to increase even more.

Another negative consequence that has arisen is habitat destruction. In the United States, over forty million acres of fields and forests have been paved into roads, sidewalks, and structural foundations (Colten). Uprooting habitats results in a decrease of species and biodiversity, negatively impacting the necessary interactions between organisms required for a healthy ecosystem (“Population Growth”). Once bountiful, thriving habitats for plants and animals, they are now being converted from lush forests to concrete to fulfill the “American Dream.”

President Richard Nixon once said “One of the most serious challenges to human destiny…will be the growth of the population…Whether man’s last response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today” (Chamie). Nixon’s words are a perfect summary of the attitude that we must hold: We as citizens must work hard together to solve these issues now, or we risk living in a dystopian future that could have likely been avoided.

$5,000
Matthew Joseph Doty
University of Notre Dame

Dear President Biden,

With heartfelt gratitude, I write to thank you for recognizing the global emergency and national security threat embodied by the climate change crisis. The April 22nd announcement that the United States will achieve “a 50-52 percent reduction from 2005 levels in net greenhouse gas pollution in 2030” reveals that climate truly is the center of US foreign policy. The wisdom in recognizing that our nation’s economic stability is inextricably dependent on mitigating the anthropogenic rise in global temperatures is commendable. However, while American financial independence is crucial for any successful climate mitigation plan, and your plan to develop new markets for clean technology as an industrial incentive is prudent, these mitigations will not alleviate the most significant contributor to carbon emissions which is human population growth.

When analyzing the effects of climate change, the increased carbon emissions attributable to having one additional person in the world are ignored, as is the fact that neither lifestyle changes nor technological efficiencies can balance this increase. In 2009, Paul Murtaugh and his colleagues demonstrated that “just one child can produce 20 times more greenhouse gas than a person will save” by reducing, reusing, and recycling. Similarly, Seth Wynes and Kimberly Nicholas reported in 2017 that the single most significant means for lowering one’s carbon footprint is to have one fewer child. Reducing the size of a family by one is equivalent to an average savings of 58.6 tonnes of equivalent CO2 emission. This savings is 25 times greater than the carbon emission savings realized by living car-free! It seems reasonable that any serious plan to perpetuate the hope and opportunity of the American lifestyle for future generations must incorporate strategies for population stabilization and reversal, also known as negative population growth.

The multiple negative impacts of population growth include the destruction of farmlands, the decimation of natural habitats, and pollution of freshwater sources. Among the most critical to the concern of climate change is the impact on feeding people. The growth in the US population results in 5,400 new people (beyond replacement) per day, which is approximately 2 million people per year. For each new person, one acre of natural habitat or farmland is lost, which means that there are more mouths to feed with less land to grow that food. This exponential increase requires fertilizers to enrich the soil and increase production. However, fertilizers are made from fossil fuels which are among the primary sources of CO2 emissions. This cycle needs to be broken, but the only way to do so is to reduce the population to a sustainable size.

Negative population growth can be achieved by many methods, some more effective than others. For example, history has shown that draconian programs, such as China’s one-child policy, are impractical in sustainably reducing the population and almost certainly would not be tolerated in the United States. However, there are other alternatives. For example, repeated studies have shown that more highly educated women reproduce less frequently. Therefore, it seems sensible to develop programming and policies that support the education of women and incentivizes women to pursue educational goals. I believe such an initiative would be well received and would simultaneously address two critical national concerns.

In summary, negative population growth is critical to a successful plan to combat climate change. As a member of the generation that will be most affected by these changes, I thank you for considering these ideas and implore you to consider ways to stabilize and decrease our national population so that we have a chance of leaving an even better country for our children.

Respectfully,

Matthew J. Doty

$2,500
Harrison Hall
Liberty University

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing first to applaud you for your attention to the much-needed protection of the environment and establishment of climate considerations as an essential element of foreign policy. Maintaining a healthy environment and halting climate change are issues which affect citizens of the United States, as well as every inhabitant of the planet. However, I believe the root cause of these problems is being overlooked and has gone unmentioned in recently proposed executive action – that is overpopulation.

According to the Population Reference Bureau, the world population is projected to reach 9.9 billion by 2050, an increase of more than 25% from the 2020 population of 7.8 billion. Oxfam has predicted that by this time, the earth will be unable to sustain food production to support the growing world population. Environmental issues caused by overpopulation in the United States include disappearing wildlife as well as depletion of natural resources, including water. However, the most significant consequence of overpopulation in the United States is the release of harmful gases from agriculture, industries and vehicles leading to climate change.

To best address these environmental problems, the focus must be in curbing population growth in the United States and around the world. I would like to offer the following suggestions to do so:

Create a commission dedicated to decreasing population growth.
Educate regarding family planning and provide assistance to do so in other countries.
Provide free access to contraceptives in the United States and abroad.
Provide monetary incentive for families to have fewer children.
Reduce immigration into the United States.

In order for a problem to be solved, dedicated people must accept the task. A commission must be established to work towards stabilizing our nation as well as the world’s population to effectively control climate change. Statistics show that in poorer nations, populations are predicted to rise at a greater pace. Because our climate is shared, this issue must be addressed at a global level.

Providing education on the social and health consequences of bearing many children is key. People in all parts of the world must be made aware of and have free and easy access to contraceptives. Additionally, we must educate students by implementing sex education programs in schools as well as funding such programs overseas.

Today in the United States families are given incentive to have more children in the form of tax credits. I propose the child tax credit be limited to two children and greater tax incentives be allotted to families with one or no children.

Lastly, in an effort to curb global warming, the negative effects of immigration into the United States must be acknowledged and addressed. Energy saving technology has reduced per capita CO2 emissions, but emissions continue to rise due to population growth in our country and even more so due to immigrants entering the country. A staggering number of immigrants, often illegal, come to America from countries with very low per capita CO2. They enter the United States, one of the highest per capita carbon producing nations in the world. As such, once in the United States, they themselves greatly increase the amount of carbon they produce.

Overpopulation must be addressed in order to save our beautiful planet for future generations. I implore you, Mr. President, as a world leader, to implement measures in America, along with assisting abroad, in matters concerning population control.

Thank you for your time and your consideration of my proposals.

Sincerely,

Harrison Hall

$2,000
Jack Lee
New York University

Dear President Biden:

I am writing to you today to request you add a concern to your policy discussions on the environment. As a citizen living on the East Coast, watching first-hand as hurricanes transition from occasional events to annual occurrences and being under threat of my hometown being washed away by rising coastal tides, taking care of the environment has long been a priority of mine. That being said, I’d like to start by showing my appreciation of your administration’s active recognition of climate change as a real problem. Undoubtedly, your actions on environmental policy will be a game-changer for the health of our planet. However, I would like to highlight a concern of mine that you don’t seem to talk much about in your environmental plan—overpopulation.

Overpopulation plays a role in the environment in two key ways:

Consuming limited resources like land, nutrients, fossil fuels, and minerals
Releasing waste products including pollutants and greenhouse gases

It’s pretty intuitive—the more people there are on the planet, the more resources will be used—more mouths to feed and more machines to be powered in order to facilitate our lives. This both takes away from the finite pool of resources our limited planet provides and adds to the already overwhelming pollution present in our atmosphere. This can cause strife for many people across the globe. What’s more, the truth is that Americans consume more resources and create more waste than the average global citizen. According to Washington State University, the United States composes only 5% of the global population, yet uses 23% of its energy. The average American also:

Consumes 159 gallons of water per day, while half the world lives on 25 gallons
Generates 52 tons of garbage by age 75
Has the highest carbon footprint at 16 tons, compared to the global average of 4 tons

These numbers are nothing to sneeze at. We as Americans are largely responsible for the changing climate of our planet. As we consume resources and release waste disproportionately more than the rest of the world, we have a heftier duty on our shoulders to serve the globe.

While there are many ways to lower the footprint of the United States, controlling overpopulation can play a pivotal role in limiting our impact on the environment. In 2011, about 45% of the 6.1 million pregnancies in the U.S. were unintended, according to the Guttmacher Institute. This is significantly higher than many other developed countries. This means nearly 3 million extra mouths to feed in an already crowded world. What’s more, these unintended births can be easily prevented by providing easier access to sex education and contraceptives. On another front, over one million immigrants come to the United States each year, according to the Pew Research Center, where they use significantly more resources than they would have in their home countries. Combining both these sources of population growth, America is one of the fastest growing more developed countries, according to the Population Reference Bureau.

Both these factors in population growth are preventable. President Biden, I hope you take these concerns to heart and add them to your discussions on the environment. We all want a brighter future, if not for ourselves then for our children. It is about time America limits the luxury it enjoys at the expense of the rest of the world.

Sincerely,

Jack Lee

$2,000
Angela Yu
Georgetown University

Dear President Biden,

In the midst of your public response to the COVID-19 pandemic and gun violence attacks, overpopulation has been pushed to the bottom of the national agenda. While it may seem counterproductive to address population growth at a time of somber death counts, the issue has an urgent time limit. The complexity of overpopulation has largely been simplified by politicians and the news media as the sinister perpetrator of housing and job shortages. However, the true impact of an unsustainable population manifests itself in every policy issue, especially in the area of environmental preservation. The increased demand for natural resources from fossil fuels to lumber has only accelerated the progress of climate change and resulted in the loss of countless species.

The world population has grown at a staggering rate in the twentieth century; in 2010, it reached 7 billion and is projected to hit 9 billion by 2045. In the United States, new immigration policy proposed by your administration would lead the way for further population growth. Other factors such as the culture of overconsumption and lack of family planning education contribute to the urgent issue as well. The result is an extreme degradation in quality of life, especially for underprivileged families; limited natural resources has made fulfilling basic human rights such as access to clean water and adequate shelter an increasingly impossible task.

At its root, overpopulation is an environmental crisis that has been in the making since the global industrial revolution. Unsustainable population growth and climate change are closely intertwined issues that fuel each other. In short, a greater population creates an increased demand for automobiles, electricity, and other goods produced with fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide emissions from human activity accelerate global warming, leading to increased intensity of flooding and droughts. Frequent natural disasters coupled with poor farming practices have led to the erosion of valuable farm soil. From 1982 to 2015, the area of USDA defined prime farmland shrank by 25.8 million acres. The lack of healthy soil leaves the land more vulnerable to floods and droughts, which in turn worsen erosion. This vicious cycle has made feeding the growing population an extremely unsustainable process.

As a teenager growing up in the United States, I have witnessed the impacts of overpopulation in my community. I volunteer for my county’s Department of Environmental Protection where we work to address the negative consequences of increased population density. Despite the department’s best efforts to host stream cleanups and promote recycling habits, our waterways have grown more polluted, causing vital organisms to slowly die off. While we clean up litter from parks, massive condos are built across the street, bringing more waste production from its residents. I’ve faced the realization that I might spend the rest of my life watching the environment decay around me in order to accommodate human inhabitants.

For the sake of future generations, I urge you to address overpopulation as part of the United States’ efforts to combat climate change. Population control must be integrated into all domestic and international policies regarding environmental protection. Measures to curb population growth should be written into global warming treaties. In addition, promotional campaigns must be developed to educate Americans on the devastating consequences of the current population trend. Research surrounding overpopulation has already been progressed by groups such as Negative Population Growth. All that’s left to do is listen to the data and take governmental action to tackle the issue head on.

Thank you for taking the time to hear from an American youth fighting for her generation’s future.

Sincerely,

Angela Yu

$1,500
Nicole Giannetta
Ohio State University

Dear President Biden,

The time to take action against overpopulation is right now! This impending and urgent issue in our country has been overlooked for far too long, and if action is not taken immediately, when will change ever be made? It is critical to put this issue at the forefront of your administration’s discussions regarding the environment, specifically climate change.

According to the United States Census Bureau, between the years 2017 to 2060 the United States population is expected to grow from 326 million to around 404 million people. This averages an increase of around 1.8 million people per year. Furthermore, there is a projected annual population growth of 0.7 percent in the U.S. during the 2020s. This number is substantially larger than other developed countries such as Japan, whose population is decreasing, and Eastern European countries, whose populations are also projected to decrease.

The United States only has a finite amount of land, and our population cannot continue to grow forever. It is important to stabilize our population to sustain our way of life and preserve the environment, because some of the most devastating effects of overpopulation have already begun to affect us. One of the largest consequences of overpopulation is increased water pollution and decreased access to clean water. Less than 1% of freshwater is readily accessible for use. However, according to the “Global Outlook for Water Resources to the Year 2025,” by 2025 around half of the world will be facing water-based vulnerability. Furthermore, we will soon be facing a global water crisis as fresh water is being consumed ten times faster than it is being replenished in several major countries, including the U.S. With a lack of fresh water also comes the threat of extinction for many species that inhabit freshwater ecosystems. According to the World Conservation Union, 34% of fish species are in danger of extinction. Most of these species live in freshwater.

Another major consequence of overpopulation is an increase in intensive farming, a practice that yields more output per unit of agricultural land. This technique poses a huge threat to the environment, killing plants and insects, negatively affecting marine life due to polluted runoff, decreasing biodiversity, and increasing deforestation.

Lastly, one of the most detrimental effects of overpopulation is the exhaustion and exploitation of natural resources. There is only a limited number of resources on the planet, and with the number of humans growing, the deficit of natural resources is also growing. The unrestrained use of natural resources has led to an increase in the emission of greenhouse gases, which has extensive effects. Not only does an increase in greenhouse gases result in mass extinction and deforestation, it also causes global warming. Climate change is one of the single biggest threats to our planet. The United States alone accounts for five percent of the world’s population, while contributing around one quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions, a harmful greenhouse gas. The Global Population and Environment Program at the Sierra Club said, “As developing countries’ contribution to global emissions grows, population size and growth rates will become significant factors in magnifying the impacts of global warming.” Despite the many individual choices that people make to reduce their carbon footprint, these efforts are being undermined by uncontrolled population growth.

Our planet is the most finite resource we have, and it has become increasingly clear that overpopulation is one of the greatest threats to the environment. I am urging you, President Biden, and your administration to take action starting today to combat this global crisis.

Sincerely,

Nicole Giannetta

$1,500
Janathia Renee Henry
Savannah College of Art & Design

Dear President Biden,

The population is out of control. So much so that not even two Earths would be enough to sustain everyone. The United States alone surpassed a tenable population years ago. If we continue to act as though the resources the planet has to offer are not limited, we will be in for a rude awakening. Deforestation, water pollution, and climate change are just a few issues to name that we are facing, which is why I am writing to urge you to consider overpopulation as one of the leading causes. Earth is a planet full of consumers, and yes, the Earth does give, but what happens when people take more than it can provide?

The population of the United States is expected to grow from 326 million (as of 2018) to 404 million by 2060. This influx of people will call for more land to be acquired, meaning clearing more trees to build over. As a result, the natural habitats of animals would be disrupted and destroyed. Not only will deforestation contribute to climate change, but it will also be a factor in other environmental problems such as soil erosion. Soil erosion will result in dry land, making it arduous to grow crops and feed an ever-increasing population. The dry land would also mean less space for farmlands and a decrease in water quality.

Unfortunately, this will create more trouble as our rivers, lakes, and oceans are already deteriorating in quality. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the average American produced 4.9 pounds of waste per day in 2018. Multiply this by 326 million and add on the millions of children born within the past two years, and you’ve got yourself yet another environmental issue caused by overpopulation. Many of these wastes find their way into our waterways, making removal difficult. The bigger the population, the bigger the consumption, the waste, and the pollution. This kind of pattern has also actively contributed to the threat of climate change. Nonrenewable energy sources are used to satisfy this excess population’s need for energy. As a result, carbon emissions and the burning of fossil fuels have increased, and the gases will most likely last thousands of years in the atmosphere. Due to this, the Earth is getting warmer and excessive industrialization and amplified greenhouse gasses are making it hotter!

Efforts to reduce population growth (in addition to developing sustainable technologies and encouraging sustainable lifestyles) would require you to implement new strategies. Provide free and universal access to sexual and reproductive health care, including contraception, to people of all socioeconomic backgrounds. Birth rates will decrease if education and family planning services are supported. At the same time, encourage adoption as an alternative, thus assisting thousands of children who are currently without a family. Push Americans to place a greater emphasis on the quality of life offered to children rather than the number of children brought into the world.

I believe it is best if these strategies are marketed in such a way that Americans do not feel forced to participate, but rather protected if they do. We must try to reduce the population to a sustainable level. A larger population would only result in more pollution and deforestation to the point of detriment. If we do not lower and ultimately reverse the population growth, we will only continue to use up the scarce resources we are already stretching out to depletion. I genuinely hope you incorporate a way to restrain overpopulation in your plans, not only for the sake of the planet but the human race.

Sincerely,

Janathia Henry

$1,500
Attalia Harmony Rogers
University of California – San Diego

Dear President Biden,

Overpopulation is a very important matter that must be included in your administration’s discussions concerning our environment. I am certain you are aware that when you took office, the population in the United States was over 330 million. And I use the word was, because that number has increased since the population in the United States grows over 1.6 million people each year. The bottom line is our renewable resources can only sustain a population of 150 million people. So what about the other 180 million who are impacting the environment? Something has to be done, Mr. President, because this is not a viable scenario when you take into account consumption levels due to overpopulation.

The population is consuming renewable resources at a rate that is twice as fast as can be regenerated. We have less land to grow food. Greater greenhouse gas emissions, as well as increasing land, water, and air pollution pose threats to the environment. And global warming is a dangerous byproduct. Overpopulation leads to less open land – not to mention the destruction of habitats and species loss. Contrary to what some say, climate change is real and we have to do something while we can. Your administration has to begin seriously discussing how to move forward to combat these ever-growing challenges.

Climate change is taking a toll on our environment, to say the least. Weather patterns are changing across every region in this country. Some of the most severe weather events have been occurring in recent years and continue to increase in severity. Across this nation, we have had more severe heatwaves, droughts, floods, and fires than seen in history. With climate change even the availability of our freshwater is declining. Many ecosystems are either being destroyed or becoming uninhabitable, which ultimately threatens food production. A couple of solutions include ending fossil fuel use and developing alternative energy – i.e., solar farms and electric vehicles. Even though your administration should discuss ways to reduce emissions, if we want to more permanently affect climate change, we are going to have to discuss ways to tackle overpopulation. We cannot take one step forward with regard to climate change and two steps back as it relates to overpopulation.

To reduce the number of people automatically means to reduce future emissions. We have to educate people about ways they can help the environment. One solution is to encourage people to have smaller families. If people had just one fewer child, scientists claim this would be the most effective and immediate way to combat climate change. Therefore, family planning services should be one aspect of the discussions. Reducing the family size and slowing the population growth gives everyone the best chance of limiting climate change and protecting Earth for the next generation.

Simply put, we have to take much better care of Earth so that there is even any Earth left for our children and grandchildren. Your administration’s discussions should center around accomplishing two things. One, we need to curb climate change, and two, we need to slow the population growth. If we can successfully accomplish these two overarching tasks, we stand a better chance of helping the environment and leaving more of a sustainable future for generations to come.

Sincerely,

Attalia H. Rogers

$1,000
Allison Laney Barnes
University of West Georgia

Dear President Biden:

Congratulations on your election to the office of President of the United States. It is my belief that two of the many reasons you were elected are your stance on climate change and human rights.

I am writing this letter to let you know about my concern for overpopulation and its effect on climate change and the environment. I believe that it is the fundamental human right of all children to have an equal start in life. However, I also believe that overpopulation around the globe will have an adverse effect on our environment and climate. There is a close link between population and climate change as every additional person increases the amount of carbon emissions. More people mean a greater demand for oil, gas, coal, and other fuels which only adds to the greenhouse gases.

Many of the negative changes to our climate and environment are caused by deforestation so that land can be converted to agricultural use in order to feed the growing population. Global warming is a current threat to us all as it changes weather patterns, causes heat waves, floods, and droughts. The shrinking of glaciers and ice caps is also caused by climate change and affects the amount of available fresh water, destroys aquatic ecosystems, contributes to the rise of sea levels, and causes the extinction of some species. Poor crop yields are usually the result of soil degradation, and this is especially critical for poorer populations.

Countries like America contribute greatly to all the problems listed above. Industrial development, population growth, and dangerous environmental problems tend to go hand in hand. We are looking at the possibility of global conflicts over safe drinking water and food production if conditions do not change. Therefore, I believe that you can be a leader of great change. Please consider the following actions as you develop your plan for moving forward:

Family planning should be made available to everyone. Currently, 40% of U.S. children live in poverty (Dillard, 2020). According to Dillard (2020), unequal opportunities become unequal lifelong outcomes.
Family planning could be used to educate the population about health issues as well as population growth. We need to be concerned with building for the future through more resilient generations.
Poor family planning hurts public health, creates overcrowding, contributes to environmental problems, and to the spread of diseases like Covid -19 (Dillard, 2020).
If each family would have one fewer child, population growth would decline. However, this does not mean reducing the birthrate in certain groups of people but reducing it through information and resources.
There is a need to improve the health of women and children and to develop full gender equity.

Working with both parties of Congress and with other world leaders can lead to a brighter tomorrow for our planet if we all concentrate on what is best for our world.

Thank you for your leadership and your consideration of my concerns about overpopulation, the environment, and climate change.

Sincerely,

Allison Laney Barnes

$1,000
Landon Trey Crabtree
Tennessee Technological University

Dear President Biden:

Firstly, I want to thank you for taking your time to read this letter. During your campaign trail, you promised a “clean energy revolution.” A revolution that would not only boost the U.S. energy sector and create jobs, but help both the United States and the world get off the current track of irreversible climate change as a result of the surplus of carbon dioxide being emitted into the air. Not only did you promise a clean energy revolution: you delivered with Executive Order 13990: “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis.” While I am extremely grateful to have a President who takes the future of our world and mankind into serious account, I am hesitant to believe that just a clean energy revolution will do justice for the future concern of our environment.

While climate change does play a fundamental role in the altering of our environment, it is not the only factor. This is the only Earth that we have, and we must preserve the resources on it. There is only so much we humans can do before decimating the Earth and leaving it bare and desolate. At our current rate, there have been: 32 billion tons of resources extracted, 15 billion tons of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, 273 billion tons of ice melted, and 146 million tons of hazardous waste thrown out — just this year alone. Not only this, but according to estimates there are 26 years left until the end of seafood and 78 years left until the end of rainforests. This means that within two to three generations, the world as we know it will be fundamentally changed. My children’s children, my grandchildren, will live in this world.

And this is all at our current rate. As of May 14, 2021, the Earth’s population is 7.76 billion people. There are four babies born every single second, 385,000 every day, and 140 million a year. Projections show the world population being 8 billion by 2023, 9 billion by 2037, and 10 billion by 2057. As the population continues to exponentially grow, so will the resource consumption and energy output. As more land is needed, deforestation will wipe out species across the globe. As fertilizers make their way into bodies of water, eutrophication will kill aquatic life. More and more humans will create more demand than there is supply, and exhaust Earth’s resources.

Because of this, I urge you to recognize the importance that our population plays on the environment and efforts to curb climate change. While I do believe that legislation such as EO 13990, The Paris Agreement, and The Green New Deal are a step in the right direction to mitigating the risks of permanently altering effects on the environment, I believe that they are missing a solution to one of the biggest causes of climate change: overpopulation. What is the point of preventing and resolving climate change if human life will cease to exist because of the detrimental impact humans are leaving on the environment? Who will be there to celebrate that we curbed climate change when the human species has gone extinct (or moved) because the Earth has become an uninhabitable wasteland?

In order to truly commit to the protection of public health, the environment, and the future sustainability of our planet, I believe that the Biden-Harris administration must consider overpopulation as a quintessential factor in the administration’s plans on environmental policy— not only for our nation, but the whole world.

Thank you for your time,

Landon Crabtree

$1,000
Akshitha Ginuga
University of Michigan

Dear President Biden,

My name is Akshitha Ginuga, and I am a recently naturalized citizen of the United States. I come from a place of vibrant culture but little space to grow said culture. In my home country, uncontrolled growth is facing adversity with few solutions. While I am aware that the United States is many shy of the nearly one billion people of my birth nation, overpopulation is always a risk.

Some make broad claims that overpopulation is a benefit to society. They may argue that the future will need more workers and bolster that large populations sustain strong economies. What this school of thought discounts is the enormous strain placed on the resources of the United States. Natural resources like land, water, and energy are already facing stress in many regions.

In our current state, our climate is in a state of catastrophe. As oceans acidify, air quality plummets, ice caps melt, and weather patterns grow erratic, we must remember the root cause: humans. We have created unsustainable lifestyles and continue to pass down these habits. As your administration orients around climate protections, overpopulation must be addressed.

I admire your administration’s dedication to creating a shift to renewable energy in recognition of the climate crisis. While the shift to renewable energy is certainly helpful, the amount of energy consumed is just as important to consider. In the United States, we account for just below 17% of the world’s energy usage. Those numbers are expected to continue to climb. Without intervention, a significant population increase will pose a threat. The reality is that the renewable effort will take time, and in the meantime, fossil fuel reliance will continue. The conversation regarding our environment needs to discuss population growth.

A growing trend in the United States is water and food insecurity. Environmental factors have created areas of the United States that do not have access to healthy food. These food deserts are areas with weak crop diversification and places where food is simply too expensive. Many rely on unhealthy food that has a long list of climate and health issues tied to it. Beyond that, scientists have identified that the water supply may decrease by a third in as little as fifty years. These shortages will likely affect more than just states with historic water shortages but will span across the United States. Increased demand for water caused by considerable population growth would exacerbate this issue. Unfortunately, the United States is not able to weather sizeable changes.

It is important to recognize the relevance of population growth created by migration and birth rates. Immigrants like myself provide the nation with diversity and unmatched skills just as citizens born here do. Instead, the issue lies in unchecked growth.

Mr. President, I ask as a citizen of the United States that you include overpopulation in discussions of environmental health. We are on the brink of environmental catastrophe. Encouraging significant growth is an unsustainable option, and economic strength cannot justify the sacrifice of the environment.

Our allies are battling with high populations while working against climate change. Many struggle to find a balance and legislate policies that are extensive enough to address root causes like the status of women and the lack of environmental protections. Unlike that, the United States is in a place to prevent extreme growth and protect our natural environment and resources.

I believe that the United States values human life, and we must protect this place we call home.

Best,

Akshitha Ginuga

$1,000
Marissa Loraine Kuechenmeister
Ohio University – Athens

Dear President Biden,

Your climate change plan is a monumental step in the right direction for this country. Reducing carbon emissions and fossil fuel usage will help ensure the prosperity of our beautiful country. That being said, we need to do more to fight our climate crisis. As of May 2021, the US population sits at roughly 332.7 million. The population has more than doubled within just 71 years. In 1950, it reached 152.3 million. Our renewable resources and waste absorption can only sustain 150 million, where we were in 1950. This is incredibly alarming news, as we are far beyond the threshold. As a country, we must work towards negative population growth.

As the population grows, so does the need for food. More must be produced at a faster rate, and more land is allocated for agriculture. This leads to over-farming: soil over-saturated with fertilizers, causing damage to the soil structure. More land requires more water, and according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 80 percent of water consumption is already used for agriculture. Irrigation is used to move this abundant amount of water to expansive stretches of land. Unfortunately, irrigated areas can become waterlogged, which kills crops. Irrigation also impacts surface air temperature and pressure, atmospheric conditions, rainfall patterns, erosion and deforestation.

As previously mentioned, agriculture also leads to deforestation. More trees are being removed than we can ever possibly replace. On the surface, animal habitats seem to be the most effected. Nevertheless, effects can be felt in the atmosphere as well. These trees help regulate the amount of carbon and water in the atmosphere. Deforested areas contain less water in the air to be returned to the soil. The soil then becomes arid, no longer supporting crops. Soil also becomes unanchored and can easily erode into nearby bodies of water. Erosion is just one more way we lose fertile soil.

A higher population requires higher energy usage. As of 2019, 80% of this energy came from fossil fuels. Obtaining coal, crude oil, and natural gas means more destroyed land and habitat loss. Coal mining specifically contributes to water pollution, as acid runoff and unwanted rock and soil are discarded into streams. Oil spills pollute drinking water and harm ecosystems. In direct relation to climate change, the burning of fossil fuels results in the production of carbon dioxide. These carbon emissions contain heat in the atmosphere, warming the earth.

It’s clear that if America remains on the same track the state of our environment will only decrease. We’re currently destroying the Earth as we attempt to sustain our current population. Researchers and scientists alike agree that an increasing population will only worsen the situation and eventually lead to downfall. To save our land, our trees, our animals, our atmosphere we need you. We need you to work towards negative population growth. America needs you to slow the population growth and help save our country.

Sincerely,

Marissa Kuechenmeister

$1,000
Eli Kurlander
Indiana University Bloomington

Dear President Biden,

During your presidential campaign, you made the fight against climate change a pillar of your platform. As you have repeatedly highlighted, climate change, which is an existential threat to humanity, has catastrophic consequences for the future of humans, wildlife, and our planet. Mitigating climate change and its disastrous effects requires creative and bold solutions; it is imperative that part of those solutions address overpopulation.

Overpopulation is undeniably a contributor to climate change, and discussions about climate change and its solutions are incomplete without discussions about overpopulation and its contribution to the climate crisis. Overpopulation is defined as having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash. Currently, the Earth’s population is 7.674 billion people and rapidly growing (LeBlanc). Since 1900, the planet’s population has increased by roughly 374.5%, and by 2100, the planet’s population is projected to reach approximately 11 billion people (LeBlanc). This rapid increase in the planet’s population has led to overpopulation, which is a phenomenon with dire repercussions for the environment and the fight against climate change.

The relationship between the environment and overpopulation is complex, with overpopulation contributing to various environmental problems. Firstly, overpopulation is associated with deforestation as more people equates to an increased need for wood products and additional land for agriculture. Deforestation resulting from overpopulation has a plethora of negative environmental consequences, including habitat loss and the release of planet-warming carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change (Baus). Furthermore, overpopulation contributes to increased meat consumption as more people means more meat is consumed. Meat consumption is a key contributor to climate change and various environmental problems as animals, such as cattle, release methane, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere (LeBlanc). Meat production also necessitates the destruction of habitats and deforestation to allow for additional pastures (LeBlanc). As previously mentioned, deforestation adds carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and leads to a reduced ability for the planet to capture greenhouse gases (Baus). Lastly, overpopulation means more people, and more people lead to more greenhouse gases that are released into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases, which are a major contributor to climate change, trap heat in the atmosphere and warm the planet (Marx). Rapid population growth has resulted in an increased demand for oil, coal, and other fossil fuels, and thus, has led to an increase in the release of potent greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (Marx). The evidence overwhelmingly holds that overpopulation directly contributes to innumerable environmental problems including deforestation, increased meat production and consumption, and most importantly, an increase in the emission of greenhouse gases. These environmental problems exacerbated by overpopulation are major contributors to climate change, and because of this, solutions to curb climate change and address environmental problems must address overpopulation as well.

Mr. President, it is incumbent upon your administration to address climate change and overpopulation. Fortunately, solutions including the implementation of comprehensive reproductive health care policies, such as improved family planning services, affordable maternal health care, and comprehensive education about overpopulation exist. Through the implementation of these and other necessary solutions, overpopulation, a key contributor to climate change and environmental destruction, can be addressed to ensure a safe and healthy planet for future generations.

With hope for a sustainable future,

Eli Kurlander

$1,000
Jadon Lau
Northwestern University

Dear President Biden:

This is my first time writing to a person of your stature, and I greatly appreciate the time you have taken to read this message throughout its entirety. I hope to bring light to an issue that I believe is paramount to the survival and quality of life for all Americans. While I understand many issues of great importance are constantly on your mind, I believe our rising population is one that is of immediate concern.

While a thriving country often has a growing population to match it, the excessive growth that has been plaguing the U.S. for decades has impacts that threaten the quality of life and economic sustainability of all Americans. Putting an end to our strong population growth may appear to be taking steps backwards, but really, it is the only ethical way forward. Despite the benefits that come with more workers strengthening America’s powerful manufacturing and economic might, too many citizens crowd out workers of the next generation and will wreak havoc on our environment and economic footprint.

You have stated in your Presidential Vision to “Tackle the Climate Emergency” and “Tackle Climate Change,” both of which are directly affected by the exponential increase in the American population. A strong economy cannot last without the resources required to make the very building blocks it is built on. Currently, there are around 330 million Americans. Studies have shown that with our current resources, America can support less than half of that, at just 150 million (World Population Balance). To add, in forty years, the U.S population is predicted to reach over 400 million people (Statista). In a survey taken by the USDA in 2019, close to 15 percent of all U.S. households either had insecure or low food security. This number is sure to increase as our population puts an ever-increasing burden on America’s agriculture and infrastructure systems. These effects will ripple throughout all of American society, having irreparable impacts on the very livelihood of many citizens. By 2060, we are on track to exceed the current physical limitations of the ground we live on by almost three times. What will happen when clean water and food shortages occur? When the cost-of-living increases to astronomical heights? When unclean air and congestion become normal life?

Is this the America you want?

Not for me. If we do not take action now, this future will soon become a reality. While the procedures taken to reduce our carbon footprint and finding novel renewable energy sources are small steps forward, there are more direct actions you can take now to secure America’s future.

One of the ways to effectively curb the population growth is to clamp down on immigration. Currently, there are more than 1 million immigrants who come to the U.S. every year (Pew Research). Moreover, too many illegal immigrants sneak through the borders, threatening not only our economic viability, but also the credibility of those whose aim is to protect American citizens. In order to achieve the goal of stopping the population growth, as president, you can push for legislation that will strengthen our borders and cut down on the majority of immigrants allowed in per year.

Another solution would be to encourage adults to have a maximum of two children. This can be achieved in various ways, including introducing education that would inform citizens of the benefits of smaller family sizes, cutting tax benefits for families with more than two children, and increasing the know-how and ability to access affordable birth control.

These solutions are just a few of many, and a plethora of others exist to support this cause. I am looking forward to the rest of your presidency and am sure you will make the best choices not only for the now, but also the future generations to come.

Sincerely,

Jadon Lau

$1,000
Toheed Mahmood
Bunker Hill Community College

Dear President Biden:

Last year during the coronavirus pandemic, bodies of water such as the canals of Venice were crystal clear after decades, skylines of megacities across the world were visible for once, and animal populations of various species increased. However, these environmental benefits came at the catastrophic pain of millions of people in the form of societal changes, political upheavals, and economic pressures.

Today, I write to you about an issue which concerns the livelihood of not just every American, but of every human. Climate change as a result of global warming is a reality we already face in its various forms such as forest fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, natural resource depletion, degradation of environments, and extinction of species—with the worst yet to come. However, even with the drastic yet temporary transformations of society during the coronavirus pandemic, carbon dioxide emissions only fell 6.4% in comparison to the yearly 7.6% decrease needed to curtail only the worst impacts of climate change. The conclusion? The coronavirus pandemic is proof that even our best current efforts are insufficient to combat climate change: new approaches are necessary.

As with treating viruses, the goal to solving problems should be to treat the disease and not the symptoms. Fundamentally, climate change is a result of human activity. A guaranteed method of reducing climate change is to prevent overpopulation. This would have even more environmental benefits than what occurred during the pandemic without the immense costs to human life. Furthermore, this is in addition to the variety of other societal benefits through avoiding issues such as resource shortages of food or water, unhygienic living conditions, increased crime rates, and mass migrations. All of this is because of the fact that the best way to solve problems is to prevent them from occurring in the first place.

However, talking about problems can only get us so far; it is the solutions which create change. Hence, I urge that your administration consider the following actions:

Ensure that whatever solutions are partaken, that the United States uses its considerable resources and power to help other nations follow in our footsteps. For creating such change cannot be done alone; it is a collective effort put forth by each nation.
Implement and enforce stricter immigration policies. Because the unfortunate reality is that 1 million immigrants are added to the population each year and, at current rates, the Pew Research Center calculates that 82% of the U.S. population increase by 2050 will be due to immigrants.
Improve sex education, access to contraceptives, and access to family planning resources. For 44% of all pregnancies are unintended, only 61% of those end in abortion, and the annual cost of unintended pregnancies in the U.S. is $5 billion.
Provide incentives, implicit or explicit, for families with less children.

Enacting on overpopulation and climate change now is our best solution to prevent further existential harms. To this day, U.S. government policy has been one of accountability, and right now the U.S. still has a chance to take action in order to stay true to its principles. For the transgression of our principles would be an even greater loss.

Sincerely,

Toheed Mahmood

$1,000
Carly Meulenberg
Olivet Nazarene University

Dear President Biden,

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I appreciate your open-mindedness in hearing about the issues that impact our nation and our world, such as overpopulation. Just a decade ago, humanity’s population was viewed as a time bomb: humans only had a few hundred years before the earth was completely depleted. In recent years, the population rate has decreased, leading many to think that overpopulation is not a relevant or impactful issue; however, there is still strain on the environment from overpopulation and potential for tremendous catastrophe (Nierenberg).

Overpopulation has many negative effects on the environment. Humans destroy habitats, demolish forests, and encroach on the habitats of animals in search of farmland, space, and resources. In addition to a dwindling amount of farmland and food source, half of the world’s original forests are gone, destroyed and depleted to satisfy the needs of the monstrous human population (Nierenberg). Another necessary element that is decreasing at an alarming rate is water: the lifeblood that causes our earth to pulse and move. According to the environmental group The Sierra Club, more than 386 million people around the world face a scarcity of water, as overpopulation depletes reservoirs that will never be replenished (“Global Population Growth”). Overpopulation is exhausting necessary human resources and destroying the environment.

In addition to having disastrous effects on the environment, overpopulation directly correlates to the increase in climate change, as well as the catastrophic ramifications that come with it. Many people ignore the role overpopulation plays in climate change. The average amount of Carbon Dioxide produced around the world per person is 4.8 tonnes, but every person in the United States produces an average of 16.2 tonnes of C02 per year, which is over three times the global average (Roser, Hannah Ritchie, and Max). Multiply 16.2 by 330 million and you have an astonishing number that highlights the unbelievable amount that the United States contributes to climate change.

The climate change to which the United States is contributing wreaks havoc on our world: dwindling amounts of resources, destructive changing weather patterns, and declining habitats for animals. According to an IPCC report sent out in 2018, the world must take drastic action to combat climate change (“Climate Change”). This report pleaded to the world to take this issue seriously and to act before 2030, before irreversible damage is done to the world’s ecosystems (“Climate Change”).

Electric cars and solar panels are not sufficient munitions in the ferocious war against climate change; lawmakers must address the issue of overpopulation. As the earth’s population continues to grow, resources will be depleted and CO2 output will increase. The earth’s temperature will rise and ecosystems will continue to suffer. Crops will fail, forests will burn, sea levels will rise, and humanity will continue to travel in a frightening direction. Do not ignore the important role that the human population plays in the fight against climate change and in the fight to save our planet. Billions of expectant eyes from the United States and around the world are watching you and waiting expectantly to see how you will respond. It is crucial that your administration creates policies that will curb the alarming rate of population growth in our country, which will then be a sign to the rest of the world. It will be a sign that we as Americans care: we care about our country, we care about humanity, and we care about our world. President Biden, the time to act is now, before it is too late.

Sincerely,

Carly Meulenberg

$1,000
Connor Joseph Stutz
Hillsdale College

Dear President Biden,

Your plan to reach net zero carbon emissions as a nation by 2050 will certainly help drive the United States in a positive environmental direction. This goal can reduce the nation’s effect on global warming and will hopefully set an example for other countries to do the same. However, this is neither a permanent nor comprehensive solution to the planet’s well-being. To eradicate the negative effect that humans have on the environment, the solution must be derived from the problem’s underlying cause: population growth.

As one would intuit, the world population has grown rapidly in the past 100 years. As more countries industrialize, the technology and practices that increase life expectancy and decrease the child mortality rate become widely available. According to the estimation that Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones provided in 1978, the world population increased by roughly 1.5 billion people between 1 A.D. and 1900 but it increased by 4.7 billion from 1960 to 2020. This may be a form of positive progress, but this statistic is alarming with regards to resources. Just as populations of organisms have carrying capacities in their ecosystem, there is a limit to the number of humans that can live on Earth.

Our planet has a finite number of natural resources that will have to provide for an increasingly large number of people. As our population grows, we will find that the scarcity of our natural resources will follow the same trend. The agricultural industry is one example of how overpopulation depletes resources. To feed more people, the agriculture must have more farmland, or be more efficient with the land that they already have. Unfortunately, the industry’s solution to the former is deforestation. Approximately 80% of all deforestation can be linked to the agriculture industry. Not only does this destroy the habitats of countless organisms, but this negates the plans that you have made to eliminate carbon emissions. The photosynthetic plants that are being destroyed for the land they dwell on release the carbon dioxide that they have consumed. This accounts for about 12% of all greenhouse gas emissions. The second solution to the agricultural problem is to be more efficient with the existing farmland. The industry has developed ways to do this such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides, but unfortunately these have a negative effect on the environment, just as deforestation. Fertilizer runoff – along with clothing production and sewage disposal (more industries affected by overpopulation) – is one of the main causes of eutrophication. Eutrophication creates dense growths of oxygen consuming aquatic plants, effectively killing the animals that live there. As you can see, the agriculture industry has numerous effects on the environment, both direct and indirect. If overpopulation were not an issue, then the agricultural practices that destroy the planet would not be necessary.

Fresh water is another natural resource that humans are extremely reliant on. Roughly 2.5% of our water resources are fresh water, and only a small portion of that is drinkable. Due to overpopulation, one commentator projects that most of the world population will be living with water shortages by 2025. 2025 is four years from now.

Reducing carbon emissions as a country will play a role in the conservation of our environment, but we must find a solution to overpopulation if we are to truly eliminate the negative effects that humans have on our planet.

Sincerely,

Connor Stutz

Anelyse Regelbrugge
Lewis and Clark College
$2,500

Looking at the impacts of contemporary U.S population growth, one might reasonably recoil at the shady ethics involved in justifying the social and environmental grievances that almost inevitably ensue. Strangely, however, ethics are often absent in the American discussion about population growth; instead, economics dominate the conversation.

Unsurprisingly, many economists loudly proclaim the national benefits of population growth. A Forbes article contended that the increased demand generated by more people is fulfilled by a corresponding increase in laborers to bolster service and production sectors, which, the article maintains, facilitates economic prosperity (Ozimek). Wharton School went even further when, after considering that most future U.S population growth is predicted to stem from immigration, rather than native births, they stated that we should not only embrace growth, but strive to escalate it by inviting more working-age immigrants.

Despite this costs-benefits approach, I believe that such arguments reflect a myopic consideration of the variables, especially since they only tackle one of the three UN Pillars of Sustainable Development: economy, society, and environment (UN). Without addressing all three, I feel that any discussion about the ramifications of U.S population growth is ineffectual.

What about the last two pillars: environment and society? Economic arguments tend to base their predictions upon current resource availability statistics, but it is fallacious to assume that such values will remain constant in an era of environmental degradation and climate change. Already, we humans consume far more resources and exude far more waste than what Earth can support (Dimick). Adding people to our country means more resources needed, and, contrary to the assertions of economists, having a larger national working force won’t help us meet that demand if there are no natural resources left from which to draw upon.

Already, over 10 percent of U.S homes struggle with food insecurity (USDA). How will we conjure up enough agricultural yield to satisfy an additional 70+ million people by 2060 (US Census)? Freshwater, clean energy, and arable land – the building blocks of resource production – exist in insufficient quantities to meet such fantastic demands (Dimick).

Instead, we will be forced to rely increasingly on technologies to grow, harvest, process, and transport necessary commodities. If current trends continue, this means more pesticides, herbicides, genetically modified organisms, Co2 emissions, and energy expenditure, all of which will exacerbate our damaging national waste output (Dimick).

As we develop newer, more desperate ways to exploit nature, the environment is bound to suffer the consequences, and so, eventually, will society. Our veneer of national security is beginning to crack under the strain of the social injustices that increase the longer the American people remain complacent. Dwindling supplies of clean water and fresh air, and shortages of food and land will inevitably increase costs of living, proliferating issues of social inequity, as environmental goods and burdens become unequally distributed among a teeming populous.

By the time the U.S population hits 400 million, I will be 60 years old, but I’ll feel the impact well before then. Firstly, my future career will be affected, since my intended majors are environmental studies and environmental law. The kind of work I’ll be doing will directly respond to the many ethical and legal violations that arise as consequences of a bustling human population exhausting its environment.

American ecosystems will undoubtedly be changed during our climb to 400 million, as the spread of humans and the waste we generate causes diverse plant and animal species that existed in my childhood to be poisoned and crowded out of their habitats (Dimick). Climates and geographies will change in response to human actions, and the ecological U.S of 2060 will likely be very different from that of today (Dimick). Thus, my environment will be a second impacted area of my life.

As if these concerns weren’t enough, population growth will affect my future health, as well. Denser populations result in more severe air, water, and land pollution, not to mention the increased risk of contagion that accompanies overwhelming urban concentrations – demand for medical services will be higher than ever (“Urbanization Effects”).

Using the Three Pillars of Sustainable Development as a reference, increasing U.S populations can only be interpreted as a woeful omen for the future of our environment, society, and, yes, economy. In a future where there are more people vying for jobs, resources, space, and services than the amount of those things available, the opportunities, choices, and freedoms of Americans will be more limited than those of the past several generations. Population growth portends ill for those of us who will be among the 400 million U.S citizens in 2060.

Jessica Wen
Rice University
$1,500

As everyday Americans continue to shape the future of our country, we must also take a look at the potential consequences. Improved medical technologies, lack of family planning, and unchecked immigration are just a few of the contributors to the ever-increasing population of the United States. In just 40 years, experts predict that the U.S. population will increase by over 70 million. At this rate, natural resources will be rapidly depleted, the effectiveness of medical care will be compromised, and the overall quality of life will be drastically reduced. It is imperative that we start analyzing the effects of overpopulation now, before it is too late.

Already, we are exhausting the earth’s natural resources by consuming them at a rate faster than which they can be replenished. As the population increases, so too will the amount of food, water, and energy needed to sustain the population. The efforts put into obtaining these resources, such as farming and mining, will lead to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as well as damage to ecosystems and arable lands. Climate change, which is already a major environmental concern today, will worsen, as a larger population will require the burning of more fossil fuels. Food will become scarce, and freshwater sources will become even more difficult to access. Not to mention, the clearing of lands in order to accommodate urban sprawl will lead to deforestation and massive loss of biodiversity. These environmental consequences will have detrimental effects on one’s quality of life. Most Americans, including myself, will have to adapt to living in more polluted areas where resources are limited and difficult to obtain. This will ultimately force individuals to become aware of their environmental impact and encourage them to live much simpler lives.

Overpopulation may also have a significant impact on modern day healthcare. Advancements in the medical field, such as vaccines and treatments for serious illnesses, have increased the human lifespan over the last couple of decades. However, overpopulation will lead to negative effects on human health. For example, the pollution of air as a result of overpopulation will put Americans at a higher risk for developing asthma or other respiratory illnesses. Similarly, the pollution of water will increase the likelihood of contaminants entering our bodies and negatively affecting our health. Because resources are limited, we can also expect food and water shortages throughout the nation, which will lead to malnourishment and congenital birth defects. Perhaps the most pressing concern of overpopulation in regards to health is the spread of disease. The more humans there are, the closer they are together, and the easier it is for diseases such as tuberculosis, and COVID-19, to be transmitted. As an aspiring healthcare professional, I am deeply concerned about our country’s future. It is time for us to trust the science that supports the fact that overpopulation is unsustainable and dangerous. If population growth is left unchecked, I believe that other healthcare professionals and I will spend the majority of our careers addressing the consequences of overpopulation.

Lastly, overpopulation will have grave effects on our economy. In the past, population growth was a source of economic and industrial progress. New ideas, stronger workforces, and capable leaders came about as a result of a growing population. Now, we are in danger of suffering from the consequences of overpopulation. The number of jobs available will not increase quickly enough to accommodate the speed at which the American population is growing. As a result, unemployment rates and living costs will skyrocket. Many Americans will be thrown into poverty, and they will not have the resources they need to improve their living conditions. This is especially concerning for younger and future generations. We may be the ones to suffer through the consequences of an exponentially increasing population. It may be extremely difficult for us to find jobs and provide for our families.

The United States is on a dangerous path. The consequences of overpopulation can and will endanger the environmental, medical, and financial aspects of our lives. If the U.S. population does in fact exceed 400 million by 2060, we may be looking at massive habitat loss, strain on medical institutions, and a high unemployment rate, all of which will severely decrease the quality of life of Americans.

Solana Adedokun
University of Chicago
$1,000

Gently, I crack my eyes open and notice the soft beams of morning sunlight illuminate my room through the blinds of my window. I slowly turn my head to look at my digital clock: 7:45 AM on June 28th, 2060. I notice my breathing. Normally, it’s the shallow breaths of an athsmatic, like it has been for most of my life, but lately I can’t catch my breath at all, even with the help of my inhaler.

I rise out of the bed, stretch my arms high in the air, and start my morning routine to get ready for work. I take a shower, brush my teeth, and make my way downstairs to eat breakfast. As I’m munching on my cereal, I look over at the news on the TV: more violent demonstrations. “Too many Americans” the news anchor says while shaking his head, “and not enough resources”. I shake my head as well. The United States becoming overpopulated has done nothing positive for the country and has diminished my quality of life. My asthma has gotten worse not only because of the lower air quality from the increasingly high vehicle use in my city, but the surge in population has led to more smokers becoming prevalent in cities like mine, destroying any chance of me being able to properly manage my asthma.

I speed walk to the subway, feeling slightly lightheaded from the smog, but my pace is broken when I step in a hole on the road. I look down at my feet. The sidewalks are mangled from the wear and tear from protest after protest. They happen because the government is stuck in a deadlock of what to do about the massive increase in the population. The spirit of the congressional debates seem to permeate into the minds of my fellow passengers on my subway ride to work. Some believe the onus is on the families to manage the amount of children they have so they shouldn’t receive government benefits while others believe the key to solving the issue is to open up more family planning centers and set up more places for women to get aboritions. The few outspoken radical thinkers believe the country needs to implement a law similar to China’s one-child policy.

When I first heard these discussions when I was younger, I decided to seriously reconsider what I wanted my family to look like. So, early on, I decided that I would adopt one child instead of bringing more children into the world.

After the subway, I arrive at my job, settling in for the long day ahead. I just recently got this job and I still have imposter syndrome. After getting an undergrad degree then going for my masters and PhD, I thought I would never have to worry about not having a job, but in America it has been harder and harder to secure well-paying positions because of the population increase. I was laid off from my last job because my company was going bankrupt and I had to scramble to find a new job. It was already extremely hard to get into many colleges and programs when I was younger, now many undergraduate and graduate programs and jobs are nearly impossible to get into. My younger siblings have mentioned to me time and time again how hard it had been for them and their friends just to get into programs at colleges and universities that were once easy for me and others my age to get into. Even many job positions are cutthroat just to get an interview.

I shake my head and stare out the window. The sky is gray, but blocks away the lights from a massive protest are illuminating the sides of buildings. The demonstrators want to push Congress towards a solution to this issue. I wish too, that a solution could’ve been found earlier to prevent this catastrophe.

Cavin Alderfer
Colorado State University
$1,000

This April, the U.S. is conducting its 2020 Census. Population scientists and demographics experts predict that, in accordance with the trend we have seen in the past decades, the population of our nation will continue to increase at a considerably high rate. Such significant population growth will certainly be accompanied by both positive and negative side-effects. However, in my opinion, the negative consequences will far outweigh the positive benefits, both for our nation and my own life, as our alarmingly high rate of population will, if not addressed, lead to higher unemployment rates, extensive environmental devastation and increased depletion of natural resources, and a decline in social infrastructure and the standard of living.

The primary source of our significant population growth, for an extensive period of time, has been perpetually increasing immigration rates. According to a United Nations study, taken in 2015, the U.S. leads the world in immigration rate, and it’s unlikely this status will change anytime soon. While immigration should certainly not take on the full blame for our unsustainable population growth, if it combines fully with the steady growth of our native population, the effects on our economy will be devastating. As an incoming college freshman seeking to pursue an engineering career in the future, I am worried about the detrimental effects our population growth may have on my career field and others, particularly on the unemployment rate within these fields. The notion that economic growth and the creation of new jobs accompany population growth, though pleasant to consider, is undeniably unrealistic. With such unsustainable population growth, our nation will be unable to avoid higher unemployment rates and perhaps even economic stagnation, which I feel may impact my life, as well as our nation overall, in a negative way.

Perhaps above all else, it is the environment that will suffer most from our growing population. Habitat destruction and air and water pollution will accompany any and all attempts to make our nation suitable for population expansion. Even now, however, the U.S. is already among the top five in the world in hydrological and atmospheric pollution! As an aspiring environmental engineer, I am concerned that our nation’s population growth will create or intensify environmental issues that scientists will be unable to effectively address, and without proper government attention, these problems will only grow worse. Personally, I do not want to have to face a future world afflicted by global warming and habitat loss. Our nation’s current environmental state is already alarming enough! However, with our nation’s population growth rate continuing to increase, such concerns may soon become our reality, and materialize as issues I’ll have to encounter as an adult.

Finally, I believe that our nation’s unsustainable population growth will, for the reasons discussed in the previous two paragraphs, contribute to a decline in the quality of our nation’s social infrastructure and standard of living. With such a high rate of growth, our healthcare, education, and transportation systems will be unable to effectively address our nation’s needs in a quick and efficient manner. This will, in turn, result in a decline of our nation’s standard of living. Our country has always promised its citizens the best chance to achieve enjoyable living conditions through hard work. However, I fear that, as I progress through adulthood, our nation will be unable to meet the high standards it previously set for itself due to rising unemployment and declining social infrastructure and environmental integrity. The promise of the “American Dream” may no longer be one our nation can make.

At the moment, I do not place extensive blame on our nation or any other group for that matter for allowing such significant population growth to occur. However, I sincerely hope that efforts by our federal government will be made in the future to reduce this growth to a more sustainable level. If such efforts are not made, I’m confident that the effects on our nation’s citizens, our environment, and, if I may, on the future aspirations I have for my life, will be devastating.

Kaysan Frueh
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
$1,000

Since its founding, the United States’ population has grown exponentially. While the growth rate has been decreasing within the last few decades due to the decrease of immigration and the birth rate and death rate beginning to cancel each other out, the US is far from having an optimum, supportable population level (New York Times). Our country is reaching uncharted territory as we enter a fifth phase of demographic transition about which we can only hypothesize. While the last census may show hope for manageable population growth, our population growing by even the 0.5% rate gained last year is problematic as our country can only healthily sustain a finite number of people (US Census Bureau). Also, as population increases, the resources that the US has stays the same, and so do those of the entire Earth. There are only so many resources for the American people to share. Our ability to maintain a sustainable population is critical in shaping the future of all Americans. I see the impacts of U.S population growth affecting me most prevalently through decreased job opportunities, a potentially lower standard of living, and negative environmental impacts.

As a soon to be high school graduate, I look forward to continuing my education and landing the perfect job. However, our population growth and technological advancements are making non-technological jobs scarce and many professions highly competitive (MIT Technology Review). Since the US is a developed country that is viewed as a beacon of opportunity, I will be competing with Americans and people from all over the world for a job in the US. This could make a significant impact on my life through unemployment and other setbacks derived from intense job competition. Furthermore, an economist writing for the Economists Discussion webpage noted that “not only does increased competition for work make it tougher to find a job, employers can hire employees for a lower wage because there are more applicants than jobs to go around”. I may be faced with reduced job opportunities and competition, but population growth will add another dimension that could diminish compensation. I hope that I can be economically stable and have a reliable occupation, but with our population growth, I cannot be assured of this.

I live in Issaquah, Washington, a small town incorporated in 1892 with a population of 600, based on the mining industry (Downtown Issaquah). Since then, the town has been growing exponentially due to Boeing, Microsoft, and other industries expanding in the area. The population is now almost 40,000 people crowded into one small town of 13.2 square miles with a growth rate of 2.9% (World Population Review). Since I have lived in Issaquah, I have seen firsthand the effects of overpopulation, like the increasing amount of developed land, the pollution from crowding and traffic, even new invasive species inhabiting the area due to climate change. This backyard case study has made me realize that the future health of our environment will be determined by our ability to manage our population growth now. Our lifestyle pollutes and destroys valuable ecosystems, resources, and habitats that support plant and animal life as well as human life. Since we need a healthy, functioning environment to live, we must take action to protect it, or our future will be made extremely uncertain.

There is no question that Americans have a high standard of living. We want to eat well, own a big house with a yard and fill our garage with cheap products. A report by the Australian Science Foundation indicated that an “average middle-class American consumes 3.3 times the subsistence level of food and almost 250 times the subsistence level of clean water”. As a society, we are not aware of the destructiveness and unsustainability of our daily practices. If we continue living like this, magnified by increasing population, our future standard of living is in jeopardy. Our Earth does have substantial replenishable resources; the responsibility to organize and manage them sustainably falls on humanity. A study published by BBC news reported that “if everyone on the planet consumed as much as the average US citizen, four Earths would be needed to sustain them”.

Since the American way of life requires an extremely large amount of resources, I hypothesize that population growth will lower the American standard of living. If growth continues, critical shared resources like air, water, and the food supply will come under even greater stress, and the price for these basic resources could skyrocket. To elaborate on one example, the water supply is becoming stressed as demand is exceeding the finite supply of this resource. Scientist Rick LeBlanc hypothesized that “2/3rds of the world’s population [will] be living with water shortages by 2025” and with increased water pollution, the supply of clean water will decrease significantly. Day by day, the demand for basic resources is expanding, which can be directly attributed to population growth – it is a ticking time bomb. We have the data and the facts, it is up to us to change the outcome and ensure a prosperous future. If action is not taken in the US, I may find myself without a job, fighting for resources, and experiencing a markedly lower standard of living. We hold an immense responsibility to manage the Earth’s resources, and since population is a crucial, defining factor in this process, we must manage it to an optimal level. Individual, government, and global action must be taken.

Works Cited

Debasish. “14 Major Negative Effects of Population Explosion.” Economics Discussion, 11 Aug. 2019, www.economicsdiscussion.net/population-explosion/14-major-negative-effects-of-population-explosion/4461.

Dovers, Steven, and Colin Butler. “Population and Environment: a Global Challenge.” Australian Academy of Science, 7 Nov. 2019, www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/population-environment.

“Issaquah History.” Downtown Issaquah, 31 Dec. 2019, downtownissaquah.com/issaquah-history/.

“Issaquah, Washington Population 2020.” Issaquah, Washington Population 2020 (Demographics, Maps, Graphs), 2020, worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/issaquah-wa-population/.

LeBlanc, Rick. “The Environmental Impacts of Overpopulation.” The Balance Small Business, 31 Aug. 2018, www.thebalancesmb.com/how-overpopulation-impacts-the-environment-4172964.

McDonald, Charlotte. “How Many Earths Do We Need?” BBC News, BBC, 16 June 2015, www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712.

Rotman, David. “How Technology Is Destroying Jobs.” MIT Technology Review, MIT Technology Review, 12 June 2013, www.technologyreview.com/2013/06/12/178008/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/.

US Census Bureau. “Population Estimates Continue to Show the Nation’s Growth Is Slowing, Release Number CB19-198.” The United States Census Bureau, 30 Dec. 2019, www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/popest-nation.html.

Vigdor, Neil. “U.S. Population Makes Fewest Gains in Decades, Census Bureau Says.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 Dec. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/12/30/us/usa-population-growth-decline-census.html.

Nicolas Genna
Oakland University
$1,000

The United States continues to grow at exponential rates and if predictions are correct regarding our future population, this isn’t going to slow down. In fact, experts are predicting that our population will exceed 400 million by 2060. In my opinion this is bad for our country, but it isn’t just my opinion. There are many facts as to why this could be extremely harmful to our country. Experiencing over population in the United States can lead to problems that will affect the land, the economy, the government, energy consumption, and people directly. Our largely growing population is definitely doing more harm towards our country than good overall, and a multitude of research supports this.

Something that is very surprising is that our country’s population is actually considered by many to already be too large let alone growing to be even larger. It is estimated that the United States can only sustain a population of around 150 million regarding current consumption levels. Also, if everyone were living as an average American, it would take almost 4 planet Earths to produce renewable resources and absorb the wastes needed to support us. This is mainly because people living in the United States are using renewable resources twice as fast as they can be regenerated. When it comes to land the more people living in America means the more built land and highways that will be used by people which means less land available for growing food. Although this would be extreme circumstances, it is possible that we could run out of open land for food growth all together if our population continues to grow and take up space. Not only do people use up space, we also use up energy. The more the population in the United States grows, the more our energy consumption will grow, which isn’t necessarily just bad for our country, but is also potentially bad for the planet as a whole. An aspect of our country that might not seem like it would be affected by population is our government, but it absolutely is. When it comes to government, overpopulation affects representation in our democracy. The more people we have in our country, the more people each member in the House of Representatives has to represent which dilutes our citizens’ representation. Looking at a big picture perspective, our population growing at exceeding levels will inevitably lead to more greenhouse gas emissions, pollution of land water and air, less open land, overcrowding, species loss, and habitat destruction.

When it comes to my life personally, I definitely think I will be directly affected by the growth of the population in the United States. I believe the aspects in my life that will be most affected will be regarding food, land space, and renewable resources. Clearly, as an American I take up built land space in our country. The more people living here cuts into our space for growing food. So, either I will be affected by the drop in food availability that we no longer have room to grow, or my needed land space will be cut into personally. Also, if our population continues to grow exceedingly, so will our use of renewable resources, meaning we will be even slower in regenerating them, therefore leading to me and all other Americans potentially being deprived of these resources. At the end of the day, I do believe there is such thing as a population that is too large, and this could lead to problems for my personal well-being as long as for our entire country.

Harrison Hall
Liberty University
$1,000

The year is 2060. Peering out the window of my apartment, I spot a faint image of the sun fighting to pierce through the thick smog. The air quality index is in the purple, very unhealthy, again today. Before heading to the car, I strap on my mask which is essential for someone like me, now with severe asthma, to use when air quality is poor. It would be best to stay inside today, but I must hurry to the store, along with the droves of others in need of hurricane supplies. Once again, I fear for my life. I fear I could lose everything. This will be the fifth major storm this season to plow through the place where I have lived all my life — Kissimmee, Florida. I remember the days of my youth, playing soccer in a green grassy field where sweet-smelling orange trees lined the sidewalks. The field, however, was long ago replaced by brick and mortar to make way for the people, many from outside of the United States, who keep coming… and coming.

The population of the United States is expected to break the 400 million mark by 2058 (US). If this projection is realized, the lives of all Americans will be negatively impacted. Personally, I will be faced with increased health problems, financial insecurities, and a fragile mental health.

The decline in air quality, relative to the increase in population, continues as cities grow unregulated (Vidal). Soot and other pollutants from construction, transport and industry fill the air and the lungs of the people living in it. This in turn causes the development of more cancers and health complications and worsening asthma symptoms. Of concern to me is ozone, found in greater amounts in areas where there are more people and consequently more cars. Ozone, highly irritating to the lungs and airways, leads to intensified asthma attacks (AAFA). This is a frightful thought for one already experiencing bouts of gasping for breath.

Financial difficulty often follows natural disasters, which will occur much more frequently due to overpopulation. Increased human activity brings increased burning of fuels which raises the carbon dioxide levels in the air. This gas builds up in the atmosphere trapping extra heat, creating the greenhouse effect. This heat causes climate change which scientists warn “will lead to more intense hurricanes and storms, heavier and more frequent flooding, increased droughts and more severe wildfires” (“Air”). Natural disasters result in injury and enormous cost in personal property damage. Florida is already notorious for hurricanes. With a continued rise in such occurrences, I would constantly be faced with fears of impending disaster and financial ruin.

Social interaction and mental well-being will be negatively impacted due to lack of natural beauty to enjoy. In addition to unclean air outdoors, the plowing down of forests and clearing of lands to make room for swarms of humans leads to considerable shrinking of green spaces and loss of wildlife. This kind of aggressive development in the next fifty years may usher in the extinction of one third of the world’s animal species (Ewing). Studies have shown that experience with nature increases a person’s happiness, social interaction, and positive state of mind (“How”). Without the green grass, bright flowers, and a variety of wildlife to enjoy, my life will lose its color in more ways than one.

Decreased health, potential financial disaster and decreased social and mental health are but a few of the aspects of my life that will be affected by too many people in this country. Americans must open their eyes to these impending consequences and change this course. In response to an award bestowed upon him by Planned Parenthood, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, “Overpopulation is solvable by means we have discovered…what is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solutions but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of billions who are victims” (Planned). To alter this continued path of overpopulation, it is essential that the youths of my generation, victims of the population explosion, rise and fight for a change.

Makenzie Hrabina
Edgewood College
$1,000

Some might say “the more the merrier”, but maybe not in the case of our growing U.S. population. Have you ever considered what our lives will look like when our population is bursting at the seams? Experts believe the population will reach a staggering 400 million by the year 2060. I certainly consider a growing populations impact on my future now more than ever, especially as a health pandemic sweeps our nation. Will we have adequate water and food supplies, will pollution continue to get worse and how will it affect my future career?

I do believe a growing population has and will continue to affect our nation in many negative ways. One way I believe it will affect my life in the future is through food. Not the lack of it per say in the U.S. , but the unhealthy nature of it. I fear the mass quantities produced to feed a huge nation are subsequently ruined with pesticides, additives and other dangerous chemicals. Food filled with high fructose corn syrup, weed spray and GMO’s used to create higher yields of food in general are only helping the manufacturers. Unfortunately, leading to more health problems and disease that already exist today.

Secondly, I believe an obvious side effect of overpopulation is pollution. This will come in many forms and will overtime increase. I think pollution will ruin water supplies through industry pollution and run off from massive farms into fresh streams, rivers and other bodies of water. We will continue to pollute our air with vehicle emissions and with a booming population it can only get worse. We are a country that thrives on more and bigger and better everything, we waste unimaginable amounts of everyday items. Where are we putting all this trash and how will it effect our food, water and air in the future?

Lastly, I wonder how the growing population in this country will affect my future career. In some cases, I feel there will be an astounding amount of competition for certain jobs and a lack of skilled persons in others. Will we have enough trained professionals to deal with the growing health problems that exist? I ultimately plan on pursuing a career in special education. I worry that class sizes will continue to grow above and beyond what a single teacher can manage. Will there be enough space and money to provide more schools to meet the demand?

There are many reasons a growing population can have negative effects on a country. As a young person, I feel I am already seeing some of the effects firsthand. Living in a smaller community I witness the pollution of water in our lakes, rivers and streams. We had alerts all summer to “Stay Out” due to rising concerns of algae in our local swimming holes from farm runoff . We fear eating the fish because of water filled with toxins and trash. I’ve watched the crops being dumped full of pesticides from above and worry that is what my family will be eating. I witness our overflowing trash dumps from all that we waste and the sunsets at dusk producing beautiful colors enhanced from our local pollution in the air. The outbreak of COVID-19 definitely has me worried about over population in the United States, let alone the world. I hope our current situation will prepare us for the next disaster, as the booming population growth will only mean more to care for.

Jesse Roy
Yale University
$1,000

Unchecked development, water scarcity, environmental degradation, infectious disease—such threats may seem united only by their deleterious effect on our quality of life. Yet what contributes most to the gravity of these issues is that we, humans, lie at their root. Specifically, the overpopulation of the United States, as well as of the world at large, has left future generations vulnerable to an ominous environmental, economic, and epidemiological landscape. I fear that we are heading toward a perilous future ravaged by the unsustainable human population growth to which we have grown accustomed.

In ten, twenty, or thirty years, how will the overpopulation of America touch my life? To tackle this question, I will first consider overpopulation’s consequences on quality of life. Currently, I am fortunate to live in a peaceful environment where resources like water and natural produce are readily accessible. Minutes from my home, I can enjoy a walk through the park, unperturbed by the noise and air pollution of highways and construction sites. A short drive away, a local farmer sells fruits and vegetables fresh from his fields.

My neighbors and I need not look far, however, to comprehend the fragility of our environment’s future. As the population of my state and my country reach historic levels, the signs of overpopulation only become more apparent: residential complexes replace forests, agricultural lands and recreational spaces; deer, foxes, and raccoons, displaced by endless strips of suburbia, find their habitats compromised; and amid this growth, water tables run dry, depleted by too many users. A short, congested trip on I-95, a concrete symbol of America’s ever-bustling, ever-growing population, brings me to New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the country. Crossing the state’s border, I am welcomed by vast power plants, conscripted to fuel an energy grid that drains natural resources. If my region’s population continues its upward trend, the tranquil natural environment I have always known will soon perish, acre by acre.

Another way America’s growing population will impact my life is by intensifying the climate crisis. As the Center for Ecological Biodiversity states, in our fight against climate change “we not only need smaller footprints, but fewer feet.” ^[1] Given the average American’s outsized carbon footprint, especially in comparison to other developed and developing countries, reducing our population is imperative. If the US follows its projected upward population trends, as it has for decades, our energy demands will strain our supply, likely resulting in a further dependence on nonrenewable resources and heightened carbon emissions.

As a Delawarean, I fear that rising sea levels, a product of climate change, could one day swallow up my state’s coast, displacing thousands of residents and changing the face of my densely developed home state. Seaside summer camps I used to frequent as a child may too disappear. Globally, rising seas will engender throngs of climate refugees and thereby exacerbate the United States’ immigration boom. Already, the Pew Research Center projects that future immigrants and their descendants will constitute 88% of the nation’s population growth within the next 45 years.^[2]

One final consequence of America’s unbridled population growth perhaps stands out as the most timely: the heightened risk of pandemic. To date, the novel strain of the coronavirus has claimed tens of thousands of lives at home and abroad and devastated several fragile economies. Locally, thousands of residents in my small state have been infected, and one of my family members has tested positive. Life has changed for millions of Americans, and we can only hope an end is in sight.

A brief study of the coronavirus’ origin, as well as that of numerous other wildlife-borne infection diseases, from SARS to Lyme, reveals the striking relationship between population growth and viral outbreaks. At the root of the coronavirus crisis lie the population-fueled trends—residential and infrastructure development, and consequent ecological degradation—earlier acknowledged in this essay. As human population balloons, societies like ours intrude further into wildlife habitats, increasing the likelihood of the human-wildlife interactions at the crux of Covid-19, SARS, Ebola, and many other diseases. Moreover, as Americans cluster into dense cities, and greater numbers of people travel, our landscape becomes ever more vulnerable to pandemics.

As a young adult soon to join the American workforce, it is my hope that our nation recognizes the need to curb our growing population, the root cause of issues as grave as climate change, wildlife degradation, and viral outbreaks, so that my generation’s future will remain bright.

^[1]https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/

^[2]https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2015/09/28/chapter-2-immigrations-impact-on-past-and-future-u-s-population-change/

Reece Sodano
Pennsylvania State University
$1,000

As a 21 year old American woman, the prospect of Americans numbering in excess of 400 million is frightening. I am currently a sophomore in college for early childhood education, so the future of the country is important to me as it affects my future students, and my future family. The three aspects of my life that would be most affected by this growth would be the limited resources, the effect on the environment, and the education of American children.

One earth can only produce so many crops, clean oxygen and water. With a growing population, we will see more and more people losing accessibility to clean natural resources. We are already seeing the effects with our current population, let alone its expansion. “The Global Footprint Network, whose Earth Overshoot Day fell on the earliest-ever date of August 1st in 2018, has concluded we’re consuming the renewable resources of 1.7 Earths – a 70% overshoot” (Ware, Gardner). If we are already overshooting our use of renewable resources by a considerable amount with the current population, an increase can only lead to more soil depletion, and more waste. This affects not only my life, but the wellness of everyone’s life. This means less crops, less clean water, more polluted air, and more.

It is no secret that the world has not treated the health of our environment kindly. One of the biggest issues we are currently dealing with is a rise in carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide is produced from burning fossil fuels, which is used by industrial factories for energy. Carbon dioxide is a totally natural greenhouse gas- at the right amount. Humans have been overloading the environment with CO2 emissions for decades. The planet can usually regulate these emissions itself, but people have provided things such as deforestation where it cannot regulate the greenhouse gases itself. This is leading to erratic temperatures, melting polar ice caps, more frequent and more severe weather, and the list goes on. “The indicators present compelling evidence that many fundamental measures of climate in the United States are changing. Average temperatures across the contiguous 48 states have increased since 1901, with an increased rate of warming since the late 1970s”(EPA). Let me remind you that this is all with our current population, let alone a growing one. Not to mention the waste that people bring. “The average person produces 4.3 pounds of waste per day, with the United States alone accounting for 220 million tons per year” (Renewable Resources Coalition). This affects my life because it is only getting worse, and being a young woman, it is concerning for future health conditions that may arise from this, and the quality of life these drastic changes will bring to the United States.

As an early childhood education major with the aspiration to be an elementary school teacher, I know that public schools are zoning and rezoning their boundaries because they’re struggling to fit the number of kids as it is. Amanda Litvinov of the National Education Association reports a growing class size, and to make it worse, more budget cuts. The NEA tells a story of Melissa Hagen, a junior high science teacher. She lost two coworkers, and now her class sizes are around 38-41 kids per class, and that is assuming that all the other workers are there or a substitute came in. There was an experiment done in Tennessee on the effects that a class size has on a student, and the results spoke loudly. “An average student assigned to the smallest classes had a reading score nearly 8 percent higher than students in the medium-sized classes. The smaller-class students, on average, achieved 9 percent higher math scores” (Woods). Small meaning 13-17 kids and medium meaning 22-25. With a population growth, a bigger class sizes, teachers will not be able to do their job effectively, therefore leaving the incoming generations of American children without a proper education. This affects me deeply, as it is a dream of mine to be the best teacher that I can be, and to help children reach their full potential.

When I think about the future of Americans, I think about clear blue skies, and citizens not being worried about where they are going to find a clean water source, not being inundated by severe weather or extreme amounts of waste, and kids all over America being able to get the best public education that we can give them.

Works Cited

Co, About Renewable Resources. “Top 17 Environmental Problems.” Renewable Resources Coalition, 16 Jan. 2019, www.renewableresourcescoalition.org/top-environmental-problems/.

“Greenhouse Gases.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 19 Mar. 2020, www.epa.gov/report-environment/greenhouse-gases.

Litvinov, Amanda. “Budget Cuts+Teacher Layoffs=Larger Class Sizes.” NEA, www.nea.org/home/35617.htm.

Rinkesh. “Overpopulation: Causes, Effects and Solutions.” Conserve Energy Future, Amazon Services LLC Associates, 12 Apr. 2017, www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-effects-solutions-of-overpopulation.php.

Ware, Alan, and Dave Gardener. “Yes, (Over)Population IS a Problem!” MAHB, 15 Nov. 2018, mahb.stanford.edu/blog/yes-overpopulation-problem/.

Woods, Darian. “The Class Size Debate: What the Evidence Means for Education Policy”. The Class Size Debate: What the Evidence Means for Education Policy | Featured Research | Research | Goldman School of Public Policy | University of California, Berkeley, 23 Sept. 2015, gspp.berkeley.edu/research/featured/the-class-size-debate-what-the-evidence-means-for-education-policy.

Manu Sundaresan
University of Chicago
$1,000

Oracle of Multiply: My Future in an Overpopulated World

There is something peculiar and terrifying about the negative reciprocal function, . Perhaps it is in the way the gentle slope of the early negatives transforms into a sheer, ever increasing cliff as the graph approaches zero. What is perhaps more terrifying is its similarity to the population growth curve. But can this graph that approaches infinity be mirrored by our growth rate in a world defined by finitudes? Finite water, finite food, finite space, finite resources. Finite time to address the pressing ill that is American overpopulation.

As I write this, I enter the twentieth day of government-mandated stay-at-home orders as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response. Spending my days indoors, watching the death toll rise as demographers and epidemiologists estimate the impact of this crisis, a thought crosses my mind: would things have been different under lower population conditions? It isn’t a radical notion; fewer people interacting and serving as vectors of disease transmission leads to fewer cases of infection. But my overpopulated future may not allow for that. An almost prescient article from 2008 identified the susceptibility of emerging infectious diseases from animal origins and its relationship with population density. My dream is to enter the medical field in the future. Will I be forced to treat infectious disease in my patients? Will I have to inform someone of their grandmother’s passing? In a world with more than 400 million Americans, will epidemics like these become less the exception and more the rule? Modern epidemiology is a numbers game; the number we must focus on is that all-too-important population growth rate, and how we can bring it into the negatives our future demands.

In the face of war, climate change, and pandemics, it is difficult to emphasise the importance of our population growth on the economy. The Dow Jones’ bottom line doesn’t look too horrifying against the backdrop of hurricanes and plagues. But for the millions of Americans locked into our population growth system, economic hardship and overpopulation are familiar bedfellows. When I enter the increasingly competitive job market as an adult, I’ll be forced into jockeying for positions alongside innumerable peers. As we continue to expand our population growth, the number of available positions will continue its death march even as more people enter the job market.

British economist William Forster Lloyd wrote the seminal “Tragedy of the Commons” as a warning against an unchecked population growth rate. In the essay, he describes the inevitable burden on natural resources when an attempt to commandeer them is made by a large number of individuals. In modern usage, this tragedy has repeated itself across many spheres; the ecological, economic, and sociopolitical ramifications of an overpopulated society has repeated itself ad nauseam. In our day-to-day lives, we shall witness this play out in pollution and carbon emissions. As the national population grows, the development of mega-cities alongside continued urbanisation will contribute to massive reductions in air quality for urban centers. I had always seen myself living in a metropolitan environment in the future, with the job opportunities and lifestyle offered in cities. The effects of smog and urban pollution on public health have been well documented; from respiratory distress to carcinogenic ramifications, the United States of 400 million will be painfully infirm. But those ill effects are not restricted to cities. Across the country, the continued repercussions of climate change are producing irreversible damage to ecosystems, livelihoods, and living conditions. As oil production continues to remain in lockstep with population growth, we are in the midst of a global environmental crisis: disastrous weather events and receding coastlines are evidence enough. As these kinds of cataclysms become the norm, the working class, poor, and minorities will be disproportionately affected. Heat wave deaths already affect African-Americans at much higher rates than other ethnicities. As a person of color with respiratory health issues, these warnings serve as a stark reminder of what my future may hold. As consumption rises with our ever-growing population, global warming and climate change will result in consistent quality-of-life degradation.

This state has a simple solution; an end to population growth.

In the oft-quoted cliche, the flap of a butterfly’s wings in the Amazon can cause a tornado in Texas. In our lives today, population growth is that destructive butterfly. We can already see those currents traveling and expanding to our overpopulated future. It’s only a question of diligence, research, and action to keep us from the life-altering eye of that storm.

Bibliography

Infographic. USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/242/docs/National_Climate_GapFact_Sheet_FINAL.pdf.
Krzyzanowski, M., Apte, J.S., Bonjour, S.P. et al. Air Pollution in the Mega-cities. Curr Envir Health Rpt 1, 185–191 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-014-0019-7.
Hu H, Nigmatulina K, Eckhoff P. The scaling of contact rates with population density for the infectious disease models. Math Biosci. 2013;244(2):125-34. 10.1016/j.mbs.2013.04.013.
Jones, Kate E et al. “Global trends in emerging infectious diseases.” Nature vol. 451,7181 (2008): 990-3. doi:10.1038/nature06536.

Brennan Thompson
United States Air Force Academy
$1,000

The Negative Effects of Positive Growth

With projections showing a U.S. population exceeding 400 million by 2060, our country has a serious problem. As our population grows, the consumption of goods increases. Food, fossil fuels, land, and other vital materials are being used beyond a sustainable rate (“Sustainable Consumption and Production”). Simply put, as our population changes, but our living practices do not, we are putting an expiration date on our planet. As an avid outdoorsman and member of the U.S. Air Force, I find myself particularly worried about my future. I am concerned that the unchecked growth of our country’s population will destroy vast areas of land, overcrowd what few natural areas are preserved, and threaten the peace of our nation.

My entire life, I have lived in rural areas. All of my childhood, I was free to roam beautiful landscapes right out my back door; free to explore, create, and learn from the natural world around me. I feel strongly that these opportunities have played a pivotal role in determining who I am today. In recent years, I have seen my untouched desert beauty, bulldozed to build vacation properties and my mountainsides clear-cut to make room for gated communities. I want nothing more than to give my children and grandchildren the opportunity to experience a childhood like mine; the ability to explore, imagine, and learn in the beauty of nature rather than in front of a television screen. I fear this might only be a dream, however, as I see neighborhoods being built to accommodate the demand for housing for our nation’s exploding population. Where once before there had been wilderness, now there is only asphalt and “cookie-cutter” housing.

In addition to enjoying natural wonders right outside my backdoor, my family always spent our vacations in national parks. I loved looking at the towering red rocks and listening to the stillness of the day as my family crunched up a mountain trail alone. These days, our solitary family moments are interrupted by giant, noisy lines of hikers, blasting their music as they trudge along the trail. Visitors by the tens of thousands have flocked to the parks daily where only a few years prior the trails were sparsely occupied. This massive influx of people has ruined the opportunity to enjoy the still beauty of nature. I can only imagine what 2060 will look like as undeveloped land continues to dry up and even more people flock to the national parks for a sight of what our world used to look like.

My biggest concern about our country’s unchecked growth, however, is in international relations. We have a limited number of resources on this planet and are using them at an unsustainable rate. Anyone trying to buy toilet paper these days can tell you how aggressive people get when demand exceeds supply. When fossil fuels, water, food, and so many other vital quantities become increasingly scarce, I have no doubt that international relations will become tense. Nations will become selfish, hoarding resources and waging war to get what they need and protect what they have. As a student training to become an Air Force pilot, war will directly affect my life. If that time comes, it will be me and my friends that are sent out to fight. While a hazard of the trade, it concerns me as I think how vicious things could become unless we begin taking measures to slow population growth and consumption of resources. I don’t want my family to have to deal with my life being at risk every day for something that could be avoided by taking action now.

With current projections of a 2060 U.S. population around 400 million, our country is quickly overrunning itself. I am particularly concerned about the impact this growth will have on my life. My childhood spent in nature, something I would love to give to my children, is becoming a thing of the past. Once sparsely inhabited expanses of land are becoming suburbs. As natural spaces become fewer and fewer, people are overcrowding what remains and ruining the experience of the national parks. Of bigger concern are the future conflicts over resources that could erupt in my lifetime and find my friends and I fighting for what our country needs to survive. We need to curb population growth and I am confident that human ingenuity and the efforts of groups like NPG will allow humanity to find a way to do this while continuing to see peace and prosperity for years to come.

Zakkariyya Yandle
Wayne State University
$1,000

As of January 28^th, 2020, the population of the United States was estimated to be 329,227,746 (United States Census Bureau), and by the year 2060 the population is estimated to be over 417 million people. As this growth continues, our nation will begin experiencing the negative effects of overpopulation, effects ranging from environmental impact, biodiversity loss, pollution, depletion of natural resources, and even extinction of species. My generation will start experiencing the brunt of these effects, and even my own life will be impacted in certain aspects due to unmoderated population growth. My financial, social, and my way of living will be changed severely down the road if overpopulation isn’t curbed.

The first aspect of my life that will be affected by unmitigated population growth is food security, for both myself and others around me. John Beddington, former UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser, predicted in 2009 that supplies of food, water, and energy will need to be increased by around 50% in order to meet peak demand by the year 2030. Combined with extreme climate events (Food and Agriculture Organization), droughts and loss of arable land will only be multiplied by a nationwide population growth, making this goal extremely difficult to meet. This strain on the US food supply, and global, will begin to increase food prices and put a strain on the incomes and lives of working-class American citizens, me being one of them, and our modern way of consumption will be disrupted.

Another important aspect of my life that will be largely influenced by overpopulation is the depletion of fossil fuels/natural resources. Until we can begin to utilize renewable energies on a mass scale, the depletion and rampant unregulated use of fossil fuels will have numerous effects and could even trigger economic recessions. In the 1973 oil crisis, the US price of petroleum had risen 400% percent (U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian). This brief bottleneck of access to fuel had led to a recession, causing mass unemployment and economic stagnation. If population growth isn’t properly managed, and we don’t begin to implement renewable energies in an economical way, we will reach the peak of our oil supply and begin to face increased prices, economic depressions, and more cascading effects that will directly impact my way of life in the future.

The most important and impactful effect of human overpopulation in the United States is the environmental impact. Sir David Attenborough, patron of Population Matters, was quoted as saying “All of our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder – and ultimately impossible – to solve with ever more people.” According to the Global Footprint Network, “today humanity uses the equivalent of 1.5 planets to provide the resources we use and absorb our waste”. Not only is our current usage of earth’s resources unsustainable at our population, further population growth will only exponentially worsen this unsustainability. Not only will this make it harder for the human population to exist, this usage and growth will only increase emissions, climate change, and biodiversity loss (Cambridge University Press). This will directly impact my life inevitably, with all the exponential effects environmental destruction, overconsumption, and climate change have on anyone; an increase in the price of essentials, unemployment, droughts, poverty, etc.

In conclusion, the current trend of increased population growth and the associated overconsumption will make it increasingly difficult for the average American, or human in general, to continue the normal comfortable modern way of life. If we don’t make mass efforts to increase access to contraceptives, women empowerment, or family planning education, our unregulated growth on this planet will be our downfall. It won’t be an issue that you can read about happening in a third-world country either, my generation and myself will be directly impacted by this failure to mitigate overpopulation, and will directly reap the effects of it.

Sara Pross
$2,500.
Clemson University, Clemson, SC

April 18, 2019

The Honorable Members of Congress
House (or Senate) Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressmen:

I am writing to you about a very important issue that affects every citizen of the United States. I am referring to the issue of over population in our country. According to the Population Reference Bureau, 14% of all humans that have ever lived are still alive today. Statistics show that at this trend, our planet is in grave danger of running out of resources to sustain such growth by the year 2050. Please allow me to share my concerns and potential solutions for your consideration.

The rapid growth and ultimate overpopulation of the United States poses many problems for the citizens of this great nation. Some of the major issues include:

water shortages;
extinction of wildlife;
climate change;
carbon emissions;
natural resource depletion.

Each of the afore-listed issues is a direct result of overpopulation. With the influx of immigration population, the need for water sources has tripled. According to the National Environmental Education Foundation, water managers in 40 states expect water shortages in the next decade. They add that this issue will be amplified by climate change as warming climates lead to faster rates of evaporation and less freshwater. The additional population growth also affects the amount of carbon emissions released into our atmosphere. A CIS study recently reported that U.S. immigrants produced 637 million tons of CO2 annually. In addition to immigration population, American births continue to add to our overall numbers. Despite efforts to effectively utilize renewable energies, studies have shown that if a couple has two children, their carbon legacy could be forty times higher than any savings they could make. Such emissions have a direct correlation to global warming. Attempts to sustain population explosions have proven disastrous to our endangered wildlife. The Center for Biological Diversity stated that over 1,300 endangered species in the U.S. may be driven to extinction as a result of overpopulation and urban sprawl.

I do not write this letter in an effort to lodge a complaint, but rather to propose a solution. I believe that there is a solution to our overpopulation problem and with Congress’s assistance in passing pertinent legislation, we can create a sustainable country for generations to come. Please allow me to identify some of my suggestions:

implementation of effective immigration policies;
requirements for better sex education in schools;
access to contraceptives;
renewed focus on climate change and renewable energy use.

While it may seem unfair to say that immigrants are responsible for our country’s overpopulation and ultimately the global warming issue, it is still a factor that cannot be over-looked. The 637 million tons of CO2 that these immigrants are emitting is approximately 482 million tons more than they would have produced in their home countries. As such, a continued focus on the development and implementation of just and fair immigration policy should be a primary objective. Additionally, I believe that we can do a far better job educating our own population as to the consequences of their actions. This starts in our schools. We need to devise and implement better sex education programs in our schools. This education needs to address the access to contraceptives. Family planning and contraceptive education has proven to have a direct effect on our country’s population. In 1972, the Supreme Court legalized birth control. According to the U.S. Census, the population growth rate was markedly reduced after this ruling. While immigration and birth control are sensitive but necessary topics for legislation, the issue of renewable energy is a less sensitive and more palatable matter. With the growing population, we need to diligently and persistently pursue methods to preserve our natural resources. Global warming is a very real concern. We can not ignore it if we wish to provide fresh water, food and resources for our citizens.

Overpopulation of the United States of America is a serious issue. To over-use our land and over-extend our welcome is to deplete our country of its resources, wealth, and well-fare. If we do not take action, we will not have a country left for our future generations. I want to raise my family in the greatest nation on Earth. Please join me in helping to preserve the United States of America.

I thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Sara J. Pross

Jenna Leihgeber
$2,000
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX

April 8, 2019

Dear Congressman,

As a concerned youth and informed citizen, I write to share my disposition in regards to our nation’s population growth. Politicians and the media have neglected the severity of this issue for decades. Previously, they have taken action to accommodate the growth of our nation rather than establishing permanent solutions to halt the increase. I would like to refute previous statements made about the population trends, present the underlying consequences of our negligence, and provide methods to ensure our stability as a nation for future generations. It is our responsibility as proactive citizens to understand the potential severity of our population growth and take action to limit its effects.

Throughout my studies of this subject matter, I have found that the primary claims that refute population growth involve current trends in population. Many articles claim that the recent decline in birth rates and the wane of the baby boomer generation will be enough to stabilize the population. These claims, although feasible, do not capture the true time frame of population growth. The exponential track of population growth has been a part of American demographics for decades. In less than 50 years, the current population is expected to surpass four hundred million. Our current population growth will continue to put pressures on the ability to preserve resources until they are completely depleted.

It is crucial to understand the patterns of human behavior and the supply and demand of resources. With more people, there is greater pollution, greater need for finite resources such as food and water, and greater excavations of the environment to make room for communities. The depletion of resources that once seemed infinite will be the cause of starvation and instability. With modern medicine, longer life expectancy, and the greater demand for resources, we need to evaluate the regulation of demographics and develop new plans to reduce our population before overpopulation compromises the future strength of our nation.

The first action to halt population growth starts with reforming the current immigration system. Many politicians turn a blind eye to the internal consequences of rapid immigration in order to reunite families, assist dreamers, and provide relief to refugees. In doing so, their actions cause imbalances in our economic system and encourage illegal immigration. As legislators, you have the opportunity to reform our unorganized immigration system and regulate the incoming rate of migrants. We must be willing to secure our borders and halt the influx of migrants to revamp the system instead of continuing to overload it. The immigration system needs an entire reboot. We need to reevaluate the amount of immigrants we allow into our country. We are not able to accomplish any good for these migrants if we are unable to even sustain ourselves first.

In addition to reforming the immigration system, we must develop incentives that encourage small families. Some of the ways to encourage a two parent, two child household could be through tax breaks or assistance with a set amount of college education funding. Couples would be able to take these factors into consideration before starting a family.

Lastly, we need to reform our education system. Too much emphasis is placed on creating environmentally safe methods of retrieving resources instead of teaching youth how to preserve resources. Many students are unaware of the consequences of not having enough resources because we live in an age of instant gratification. The convenience of going to a local market or online shopping prevents many from understanding that resources are not as plentiful as they seem. We need to place greater importance on recycling and reveal the consequences of unrestrained human action.

Each congressman was recently elected into office because he/she wanted to help improve our system of government and help shape the future of our nation. I look up to each political leader no matter the party because each elected person holds the ability to influence others. Do not allow this influence to be tainted and manipulated. Do not allow political affiliations and personal beliefs to prevent you from seeing the truth and importance of this matter. Break away from your peers and worry less about seeking re-election but rather ensuring a stronger future for every American. I believe the diversity of culture and interests of the 116th Congress will be significant and will bring much needed attention to this issue. I wish you the best of luck throughout this term.

Sincerely,

Jenna Leihgeber

Nicolas Zampaglione
$2,000
Kaiser University , West Palm Beach, FL

Dear Honorable Members of Congress,

Enough is enough. We have far surpassed the point of asking, “How many is too many?” Simply stated, there are way too many people in the country and it’s killing our planet. Unchecked population growth has led us to a not-so-pleasant place.

In my home state of Florida, rampant overdevelopment has caused the loss of habitat such as beautiful coastal areas—now forever gone. And nearly all species of sea turtles are now endangered. Our land, water and wildlife lie in jeopardy. Unbridled growth has placed unfair demands on our unique, natural resources.

Excessive farming, no clean water and climate change are current realities. Scores of evidence-based research studies have all arrived at the same unequivocal conclusion: Human activities are causing global warming that will result in irreversible damage to our environment. Critical environmental issues are negatively impacting the world in which we live. Add to that the fact that all environmental problems are only exacerbated by rapid growth in human population. The health of our planet is truly at risk with devastating consequences. Fact is, the earth does have finite resources but the population continues to grow exponentially. Sadly, government allows that but you are in a unique position to change that as new members of Congress. You can be game changers! Take the first step today.

We are a country of consumers and it’s hurting our planet in extremely destructive ways. We are consuming more resources than the earth can regenerate and the result is not pretty. Thankfully, there’s a solution and it’s called negative population growth. Yes, negative population growth.

I have barely scratched the surface in making the case for negative population growth. Negative Population Growth, Inc. (NPG) has been making the case since 1972. Negative population growth is needed to strike a balance between the strains of a growing population and the preservation of our natural assets for future generations to enjoy.

Here’s the good news. As newly elected members of Congress, you are in a position of positive power. You have the power to reverse our current population trends to a more sustainable level by enacting a National Population Policy. This would entail immigration reform. Immigrants (some of them illegal) contribute dramatically to the U.S. population growth—adding more than 1 million people each year. Go out on a limb and use your position to endorse smaller-sized families, and advocate for fertility education and women’s empowerment. It can be done and you have the power to make it happen.

We are at a point where negative population growth is not just desirable, it’s imperative. Put population control at the top of your political agenda and make it a priority. At this critical point in time, we cannot shy away from uncomfortable issues. Harsh times call for bold measures. When it comes to population, zero is a hero so please be a population “hero” before it’s too late. Sustainability is possible but it will require a reduction in population. The time is now.

Respectfully,

Nicolas A. Zampaglione

Anna Heilman
$1,500
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

April 10, 2019

Dear Congressmen,

I am writing on behalf of the 300 million people currently living in the United States and this country’s future generations regarding the excessive population growth threatening our way of life. The United States is the third most populous country in the world, behind India and China, with a population that has quadrupled over the past century and is projected to double in the next hundred years. The United States lacks the resources and space to maintain such high growth. In order to live sustainably, we must work to reverse population rates. The negative effects of high population are already apparent in the U.S. as living standards are jeopardized, resources depleted, and ecosystems ravaged.

According to The Economist Magazine, low population growth is correlated closely with high quality of life. It is a myth that population growth is required for economic growth and wellbeing. Many European countries, Germany for example, have low population growth, but through well-planned economies can maintain a high GDP and living standards. Abundant population growth in the U.S. has jeopardized the quality of life in cities, leading to overcrowding and urban sprawl, which perpetuates inner-city poverty. Education has also taken a toll. According to the Digest of Educational Statistics, student enrollment has reached an all-time high of 50.4 million. Many schools, mostly in poor urban areas, have to accommodate more students than they were designed for with less funding, resulting in worse test scores and further disadvantaging impoverished students.

Additionally, due to population growth, resources in the U.S. have been depleted and the environment simultaneously ruined. For many years, the effects of exorbitant population growth have been offset by improvement in technology. Farming techniques have been developed, often at the expense of the environment, such as pesticides and GMOs that allow for more yield per acre. Cleaner fuels have been developed to replace the consumption of coal and gas. However, as the world’s population continues to exponentially grow, inevitably, a point will be reached when the world’s resources will not be enough to sustain us. In fact, the U.S. currently consumes renewable resources at twice the rate it takes to replace them.

Water supplies in the U.S. are quickly diminishing. According to Nature Conservancy, “an estimated 40% of rivers, 56% of lakes, and 50% of estuaries are too polluted for fishing and swimming.” Aquifers are being depleted at a rate that cannot be replenished. The Central Valley Aquifer has lost around 125 million acre-feet of water in the past century. Though the U.S. is increasing renewable fuel consumption, the level of natural gases consumed in the recent decade have reached the highest point in history and has resulted in unprecedented levels of pollution. According to The Royal Society, global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by 40%, methane 150%, and nitrous oxide 20% since the pre-industrial era. Ecosystems are being ravaged by increased pollutant levels and habitat loss. The International Union for Conservation states an estimated 6,700 species in the United States are at risk of pollution.

Clearly, the world’s resources already cannot sustain its current population, much less handle its projected growth. In order to ensure prosperity and peace for future generations, we must reverse population rates. The United States has the responsibility to lead this effort; we must enact policies to curb the amount of immigration into the United States and encourage lower fertility rates. Immigrants and their U.S. born children represent the largest population growth in America – an estimated 75-85%. Though immigration has recently become a divisive, hot-button issue, for the sake of preserving the resources and prosperity of this country, political parties must unite over this issue and slow immigration. Illegal immigration should be completely stopped, and better border security implemented. For our nation to reach sustainable levels, legal immigration should also be significantly reduced. Lower fertility rates, which will additionally help reduce poverty, should also be encouraged. Women should have easy access to contraceptives and politicians should encourage smaller families. Since women who are in the work force have fewer children, programs designed to aid girls and women in joining the workforce should be encouraged.

The issue of overpopulation is the most pressing problem facing the world today – leading to loss of resources, destruction of habitats, and increased levels of greenhouse gasses related to climate change. I beseech you to heed the warning signs, unite against divisive party politics, and take action to reverse the effects of this epidemic.

Sincerely,

Anna Heilman

Drew Pedersen
$1,500
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

April 17, 2019

Dear Congressman:

It is hard to imagine what the world or even the U.S. would be like if only the number of people the planet could indefinitely support lived on Earth. The U.S. is well past its carrying capacity, a term that can be defined as the maximum population size that an environment can sustain indefinitely. So, unless we change what we are doing, eventually, we will run out of resources. Unfortunately, at this rate, this is going to happen sooner rather than later. Something that should be alarming for this generation and the generations soon to come.

The average American uses 550,000 gallons of water annually, an amount that is much greater than the Earth can sustain. This consumption amount has caused a dramatic increase in water pollution. Now, over 40% of rivers, 46% of lakes, and 50% of estuaries are too polluted for fishing and swimming (“The United States Is Already Overpopulated”.) The amount of consumption is not only hurting the amount of water available but is also negatively affecting the fishing industry, which helps supply the food for our country.

Next, in the last 40 years, global energy usage has increased by over 40% (“The United States Is Already Overpopulated”.) The increase in energy usage has resulted in significantly more fuel spills and greenhouses gases, both of which are detrimental to the environment and costly to fix. Much of these impacts are due to the U.S. population increase of over 49% in the last 40 years (“US Population By Year”.) If we slow the population increase, these negative impacts will decrease.

To mitigate these effects, it is important that we acknowledge the problem in the first place. Many people, including lawmakers and politicians, fail to even recognize this massive problem. Many of them fail to acknowledge that many of these detrimental impacts are due to a population growth that should be falling instead of rising. One suggestion is to educate students about this issue in high schools. It is important to raise awareness about this issue and show students the real implications if population continues to rise. If we can make it required for schools to educate students about how the world is changing and what this will mean for future generations, we can draw attention to arguably one of the most important issues in the world.

Another suggestion would be to make changes to border security. Over 12 million illegal immigrants reside in the U.S. as of 2015 (“Population Estimates”.) This number will only continue to increase if something is not done about this issue. It is important to increase border security to decrease the number of illegal immigrants who enter the country. As of recently, immigration is responsible for most of the population growth. Along with stopping illegal immigration, it is important to have stricter immigration laws to reduce the number of immigrants into the country. These simple changes to immigration will dramatically decrease the population rate in the U.S. since it is the largest contributor to the U.S. population rate as of late.

It is also important to decrease the number of births, especially those which are not planned. In the U.S. in 2018, 40% of pregnancies were unplanned (Ahrens et al.). Imagine the effects on the population growth rate if the number of unplanned pregnancies was to drop dramatically? If we educate more people on the importance of birth control or can find better and more affordable ways to stop unplanned pregnancies, the population growth would see a significant decrease, making life better for everyone.

To conclude, the population is well over its carrying capacity, and it is only a matter of time until we run out of necessary resources such as food and water. The U.S., along with the rest of the world, is suffering through many problems resulting from overpopulation and it is our job to limit and hopefully eliminate these problems in the future. However, it is important that we educate the younger generation on the issue so more people can acknowledge the issue at hand. In addition, we need to strengthen immigration policies and help drop the number of births, specifically the number of unplanned pregnancies. If we can accomplish these goals, we will be one step of the way to ensure negative population growth and a better life for everyone.

Sincerely,

Drew Pedersen

Works Cited

Ahrens, Thoma, et al. “Unintended Pregnancy and Interpregnancy Interval by Maternal Age, National Survey of Family Growth.” Contraception, Elsevier, 1 Mar. 2018, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782418300751.

“Population Estimates.” Homeland Security, 2015, www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_1214_PLCY_pops-est-report.pdf.

“The United States Is Already Overpopulated.” Federation for American Immigration Reform,fairus.org/issue/population-environment/united-states-already-overpopulated.

“US Population By Year.” 2019, www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table/by-year.

Zoe Wright
$1,500
Clark University, Worcester, MA

April 3, 2019

Dear Congressmen,

I am writing to bring to your attention to an imminent and growing issue facing our nation, and the world today: population size and growth. Between the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, we saw an increase of 1.5 to 6.1 billion people inhabiting our planet in just 100 years. This growth in total was over three times greater than any other increase in our previous history.^[1] Boasting a population of over 328 million people, the US census bureau estimates that our nation alone sees a net gain of one person every 17 seconds.^[2] While I understand that this growth is slowing, it still poses several issues.

I believe that climate change and other environmental threats are the most prominent and pressing issues stemming from this growth. Increased population greatly contributes to climate change for a number of reasons. As the population of our nation increases, we are experiencing staggering increases in energy and water consumption, as well as the elimination of natural habitats and farmlands in response to urban sprawl and housing development. This increased use of nonrenewable energy sources and fossil fuels contributes to increased gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, which contributes to the warming of earth’s atmosphere.^[3] According to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, the US is the second highest emitter of Carbon Dioxide in the world, exposing us as a significant player in this issue.^[4] One simple way to combat this issue is through the restriction of population growth within our nation.

On a more social front, population growth is also affecting the daily functioning of American society as a whole. Increased numbers of people living within our nation further contribute to hospital and school overcrowding, unemployment, and the increased concentration of poverty. Experts have found statistical relationships between population size and crime rates,^[5] leading one to believe that as the population of the US continues to rise, crime will increase as well. School overcrowding exacerbates this issue, as increased class sizes create unsafe environments, making both teaching and learning more difficult. This contributes in turn to higher rates of school violence and truancy, and lower achievement.^[6] For these reasons, population growth within our nation poses several social as well as environmental issues.

I urge you all, as members of the 116th Congress, to take action in regards to this issue of population growth. Some steps that could contribute to the reversal of population growth include the establishment of voluntary incentives for smaller families, which would provide motivation for increased family planning efforts within the United States. The US population could also be controlled through reduced immigration levels into our nation.

I hope that the information provided above sheds light on the issue of US population growth, as well as the numerous detrimental consequences of this growth. The most direct way to reverse these issues is to address the problem of population growth head on. It is the responsibility of young people like myself to take proactive steps in shaping the quality of my future within the United States, and I am optimistic that by reaching out to my congressional representatives, my thoughts on this issue will be heard.

Regards,

Zoe Wright

Clark University Class of 2021

Charleston, South Carolina

Work Cited:

^[1] Roser, Max, and Esteban Ortiz-Ospina. “World Population Growth.” Our World in Data. May 09, 2013. Accessed March 28, 2019. https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth.

^[2] “U.S. and World Population Clock.” United States Census Bureau. Accessed April 03, 2019. https://www.census.gov/popclock/.

^[3] “Climate Change Causes: A Blanket around the Earth.” NASA Global Climate Change. February 05, 2019. Accessed April 03, 2019. https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/.

^[4] Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, 2014

^[5] Nolan, James J. “Establishing the Statistical Relationship between Population Size and UCR Crime Rate: Its Impact and Implications.” Journal of Criminal Justice 32, no. 6 (2004): 547-55. Accessed April 3, 2019. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2004.08.002.

^[6] “Preventing Overcrowding & Other School Impacts of Development.” Community and Environmental Defense Services. Accessed April 03, 2019. http://ceds.org/school.html.

Felix Herbst
$1,000
Arizona Stat University, Tempe, AZ

April 10^th, 2019

Dear Congressman/Congresswoman:

First of all, let me congratulate you on your election to the 116^th Congress. It is a great honor to serve one’s state and country, and I am sure that you already have an agenda for what you want to achieve in your first year in office. Oftentimes however, short-term problems and localized issues can become overwhelming and hard to look past, obscuring larger universal trends that may not have straightforward solutions. If these universal issues are not acknowledged and addressed, they will only get worse, and their downstream effects will continue to negatively impact the people of the United States.

The universal issue I want to talk to you about is population growth. This is not a topic often brought up in U.S. political discourse, and there are understandable reasons why: a) people don’t consider this a political issue, and if they do then they associate it (erroneously) with “unamerican” principles such as China’s one-child policy, and b) most politicians have never gotten the chance to learn about the effects of population growth, and how it is impacting their own constituents every day. In this letter, I want to inform a better understanding of how current U.S. population size and growth levels are pressing problems, and what you as a member of Congress can do to be a protagonist at the forefront of one of the most pressing issues of our time.

There are nearly 330 million people living in the U.S. at the time of writing this letter, 100 million more people than 40 years ago[i]. This means that a child born today is competing with 100 million more people for space, food, water, jobs, and education. This may seem like an abstract concept, but a global view can demonstrate these principles in action. Due to rapid population growth around the world, more than one billion people go to bed hungry every night[ii]. If one looks at highly developed countries, the U.S. is third only to China and India in both population size and growth. It’s not a coincidence that economically successful and advanced nations typically have slow or negative growth; the most drastic growth occurs in underdeveloped countries, and it should be cause for concern that the U.S. echoes those trends[iii].

To meet its growing populations’ needs, the U.S. must get more and more efficient in terms of food production, water accessibility, and infrastructure projects. A larger population means less space, more expensive housing, greater demands for better transportation, compounding needs for health care… the list goes on and on. Although transportation is constantly being improved, housing is being made more efficient, and agricultural/food production technologies are constantly evolving, there are only so many resources to tap into, only so many scientific advancements to be made. Eventually, the U.S. will reach a breaking point where it simply cannot sustain the amount of people that inhabit it. So, what can be done about this, and how can a member of Congress such as yourself address population growth in a way that resonates with your constituents and colleagues?

Population growth should not be a partisan issue; every single person in the United States regardless of where they live or whom they vote for is feeling its effects every day. It must, however, be a political issue. If leaders in government do not address frankly the issue of population growth, it will continue unchecked and wreak havoc down the line. The single best thing you as a member of Congress can do is inform your constituents and colleagues about the issue, using your platform to make people aware. Stating that you wish to research and address an issue that affects people’s healthcare, food supply, housing prices, and job prospects is bound to speak to every listener in fundamental way.

Everyone has a different view on specific policy proposals to alleviate population growth. Whether you want to focus on ensuring that Americans have access to family planning services and information, make it easier to obtain safe contraceptives, or strive towards revamping a flawed immigration system—these are all different approaches that can help reduce population growth. In the end, regardless of which strategy you want to pursue, addressing this issue is one of the single most comprehensive and crucial things you can do in your time in office to help ensure a better life for your constituents, their children, and all future generations.

Sincerely,

Felix Herbst

[i] according to http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/

[ii] according to https://www.populationinstitute.org/resources/whypopulationmatters/

[iii] according to https://www.prb.org/whatdrivesuspopulationgrowthpdf540kb/

Linnea Bakos
$750
Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA

Dear Esteemed Congressmen,

As a young person in America it is concerning to me that our country continues to grow in population despite the fact that as a nation our resources are finite. At some point we will reach the tipping point where this country’s bountiful resources will be inadequate to meet the needs of those living here. The state of HI is an example of what happens when population exceeds resources. One hundred and twenty years ago, when the US took over HI, the islands were self-sustaining. Today, they produce only twenty percent of the food needed to feed the residents and visitors (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/FOODSECURITYINHAWAII.pdf). We need to prevent this from happening in the other forty-nine states of our great country.

I was adopted from China as an infant, most probably due to the one child policy in that country. Because of that policy over 700,000 children from China were adopted to other countries (http://archive.pov.org/offandrunning/fact-sheet/) and thousands of children remain in the orphanages. This convinces me that restrictions to control population don’t work – families continue to have children, but are forced to abandon children to avoid punishment. This just places the burden of caring for these children onto the government.

If restrictions regarding the number of children per couple isn’t the answer, how can we limit population growth? I have a few suggestions. The first would be to restructure the Child Tax Credit. Instead of the full amount for every child in a family, it could be staggered with a decreased amount for the second child and nothing for additional children. Another idea would be cover birth control measures at full coverage, similar to preventative care such as mammography. I know of many children conceived despite standard birth control methods.

There will always be couples wanting a large family. Simultaneously, there are children in foster care throughout the US. Our states need to do a much better job of recruiting foster and adoptive families for these children by targeting families wanting more children. I feel that most people think that all adoption costs ten of thousands of dollars and that it is hard to qualify to be an adoptive family. Couples are unaware that adopting a foster child costs next to nothing (https://consideringadoption.com/adopting/adoption-costs/foster-care-adoption-costs). If we can match available children with those wanting larger families we can avoid adding to the overall population.

Part of limiting the population growth of the US will need to involve changed immigration policies. We have nearly four million children born each year in the US (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm) and each family has an average of 2.4 children (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/family-size-among-mothers/). Even if we could bring that number down to 2.0, or zero population growth, the US population will continue to grow when we admit about 1.8 million people each year (https://cis.org/Report/18-Million-Immigrants-Likely-Arrived-2016-Matching-Highest-Level-US-History). This rate of immigration will impact all of those residing in the US for years to come, especially as those immigrants have children and add to our population.

The final component that seems to have a large impact on birth rates is education. Many studies find that with the higher the level of education that a woman receives, the fewer children she ultimately has. (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/9/education-level-inversely-related-to-childbearing/). Improving educational opportunities for women is integral to limiting population growth. In Georgia, the HOPE scholarship allows good students to automatically get 80% of tuition covered by the state. If all states were to have a similar program, higher education would be attainable for all those who are qualified academically and desire to continue learning.

These are just a few steps that I see that could be taken to halt an increase in the US population. I hope I have also highlighted why this is important. Despite my limited life experience and education, I can see a problem and possible solutions. I am hopeful that the collective life experience and education of the over one hundred newest leaders of our country will bring a fresh look at this issue and result in an effort to find truly impactful and lasting solutions. Please consider making this a priority during your tenure in Congress.

Thank you,

Linnea Bakos

Amy Simko
$750
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

April 17, 2019

Dear Congressman:

I am a high school senior heading off to North Carolina State University in the fall with a major in Environmental Science. My interests are in decreasing pollution, making energy more efficient, and saving our natural resources. Population growth and size are components that lead to increased pollution and depletion of resources. Our sustainability in the future is in jeopardy if we do not do something to control our growing population. I am writing to you to voice my concern about this situation.

The US Census Bureau predicts a 0.7 percent annual growth in the United States over the next decade. Although that does not seem like a large number, other developing countries are predicted to have much less growth. Japan is one of the countries having negative population growth. Decreasing the population or even going so far as to have negative population growth will help save our environment. There are two factors that precipitate an increase in population: births and immigration. There are two factors that create a decrease in population: emigration and death.

According to population reports by the US Census Bureau released in March 2018, (“Demographic Turning Points for the United States: Population Projections for 2020 to 2060”) “by 2030, net international migration is expected to become the primary driver of population growth in the United States.” This is due to an increased death rate with the aging population and a decreasing birth rate.

Overpopulation leads to increased depletion of valuable resources: fresh water, farm land, fossil fuels and forests. Pollution, carbon dioxide emissions and deforestation are all negative effects resulting from our growing population. There must be a change in our current immigration policies to address these issues. By changing these policies we can help protect our land.

There is a major focus on cleaning up our water from pollutants and oil spills, recycling/reducing/reusing our trash, and reducing our use of fossil fuels. We spend our time trying to reduce the negative impact overpopulation has on our environment. This is like treating the symptoms of an illness, but not addressing the cause. If we were to work towards a decrease in the United States population we would be helping to prevent environmental damage. By addressing both the cause and the effect of overpopulation we can promote a healthy environment. With the statistics from the US Census Bureau glaring us in the face, there is an obvious conclusion we can make. Decreasing our immigration rates will help decrease our population, which will in turn protect our environment and improve our sustainability.

There are those who will argue that we should be sympathetic to the people who are trying to come into the United States to make a better life for themselves. However, if our environment continues to be polluted, ravaged and damaged, that “better life” will be a thing of the past.

Increases in our population threaten our environment and natural resources. I hope that you will consider implementing stricter immigration laws. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Amy Simko

Works Cited:

Vespa, Jonathan, David M. Armstrong, and Lauren Medina, “Demographic Turning Points for the United States: Population Projections for 2020 to 2060,” Current Population Reports, P25-1144, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2018.

Jasser Syed
$750
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

April 18, 2019

Dear Congressman:

I am writing with regards to your efforts of maintaining a trajectory for prosperity in the United States. Despite the numerous advancements in technology and industry, it is imperative to be cognizant of the adversities we face due to a fundamental issue across the globe: overpopulation. There was a time when increasing population provided employment and drove economic and industrial progress, but now the threshold of our carrying capacity has been passed. Between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau shows a 10% increase in population, which is propagated from the 72% increase observed since 1950. Moreover, the population is projected to grow to 400 million—a 80 million increase—by 2050 which will continue to expand exponentially. As the U.S. has a limit to the amount of resources it can allocate to support its population, new policies must be adopted to encourage Americans to collaboratively address this issue.

Congress has an overwhelming number of issues that it works to solve daily. However, overpopulation may just be the direst of issues we face because of the contributions it has on overall sustainability of life. For instance, climate change is directly linked to overpopulation; higher amounts of resource consumption has led to deforestation, overgrazing, and agricultural runoffs that have contaminated our water ways and eroded soil. Although the U.S. currently compensates through importing resources, this is not a long-term solution as continued growth will render them as inadequate.

Furthermore, the argument to increasing population providing economic development is overshadowed by strain on infrastructure. Existing hospitals, offices, schools, police departments, transportation systems, and roads cannot support a growing population. As new infrastructure is built to accommodate growth, the cost of services increases to where communities are subject to tax burden and the people start suffering economically. Even with larger roads and cities, congestion, pollution and subsequent deterioration of people’s quality of life is inevitable.

Technological advancements have made numerous efforts to mitigate the aforementioned challenges, however, they are fighting an uphill battle. Initiatives such as hydraulic fracturing and corn ethanol have proved insufficient as crop devastation has made production of corn ethanol unsustainable while fracking damages the environment. Oil prices are increasing as supplies deplete faster with increased population and consumption, and electric cars are too new to market to adequately replace the current reliance on gasoline automobiles. Quite simply, the rate of population growth has surpassed the rate of technological advancement, and it is not economically pragmatic to produce artificial replacements to provide for increasing demands. This issue is especially pertinent to the U.S. due to the influx of immigrants compared to other nations.

Studies show that 80% of U.S. population growth between 2005 and 2050 will be through immigration: both legal and illegal. Although many argue that the U.S. contains enough land to accommodate this increase, a lot of the seemingly open space is not suitable for habitation. Dry, rocky, or extreme places are incapable not only of housing people, but also of producing crops and other resources. The increasingly diverse population also means more multicultural imports, which can contribute to a trade imbalance as the U.S. already imports more than it exports. In the 1950s, immigration levels were 1/3 of what they are today, but now they are overwhelming our capacity.

Ultimately, with limited resources and increasing population in the U.S., it is impossible to sustain growth. Labor intensive economic expansion is having reverse effects, and technological initiatives to mitigate resource consumption are not developing as fast as the population: especially through immigration. If the basic needs of life such as food, water, and shelter can no longer be met, then more complex human advancements such as business industries will be useless. Thus, this issue is more significant for Congress to address before any other. Negative Population Growth (NPG) is a national non-profit organization that aims to solve this issue at the core by encouraging policy to help slow and eventually reverse population growth. NPG believes in strongly enforcing existing immigration laws and encouraging people to have smaller families through various incentives and benefits. NPG believes that each family should retain the right to decide their family size; their primary initiative is to educate. If Congress creates policy to educate the public and limit surplus immigration, people are more likely to cooperate. I encourage you to refer to the details in NPG’s Proposed National Population Policy and use it to help implement policy for a better America for all.

Sincerely,

Jasser Syed

Yue Taira
$750
University Texas, Austin, TX

To the 116th Congress members:

Good morning all. If all of the humans on earth stood side-by-side, they could fit into a space the size of Los Angeles. No matter how many times I hear it, I am always baffled by the fact—how could 7 billion people fit into such a seemingly small space? This brings up an important point of population size and growth—the fact that the issue with overpopulation and population growth does not have to do with a lack of space, but rather a lack of resources to sustain an ever-growing population.

As the number of people around the world, and in the US increase day by day, serious issues may arise concerning limited necessities for life. Not only does a growing population threaten the supply of basic necessities such as food, water, and shelter, but also of opportunities, and quality of life. It is an undeniable fact that the resources on this earth are limited, and there will be a point in time in which the population is too large for this limited supply of resources to sustain. When that point is reached—if it has not been already—the ability for the average American to pursue their goals and dreams in career and life will be diminished, not of their own accord, but because of an issue out of the control of their own hands.

Too many politicians and businesses have been promoting the idea of growth, when this “growth” cannot go on forever. Science does not lie, and there is just simply no way that more population growth can be sustained over time. We have long exceeded our long-range carrying capacity, and it is time that something be done about it. With unrestricted population growth, not only are we exceeding capacity, we are deteriorating the health and quality of existing natural systems. As a result, in order to effectively combat population growth, we must first address the root causes of the issue.

Population growth comes primarily from two sources. First is natural growth, or an increase in birth rate in the US. As of 2007, the U.S. fertility rate had risen above 2.1, up from a low of 1.74 in 1976. The second source is record-level immigration. The number of immigrants as a percentage of US population grew from 5.4% in 1970 to 13.7% in 2017, adding to the population growth. In addition, immigrants have higher birth rates than native-born Americans on average. Now, to address these sources of population growth, the government of the United States must take action. First, the government should attempt to ensure that all prospective parents have the necessary information and access to family planning services. In addition, Congress must implement changes in immigration policy to accept fewer immigrants as a percent of our population. In addition, laws meant to deter illegal immigration may be enforced more effectively. This will help to find and stabilize the balance between immigration and emigration from the US.

It is important to remember that this in no way means that we are turning our backs on cultural or ethnic diversity, but rather that this is a way that we can gradually reach a stable population level. As a result of these policies and changes, the population of the United States can be brought down in a negative population growth trend until it reaches a level that is sustainable over the long term. Established in 1972 to educate the American public on the dangers of overpopulation, the non-profit membership organization Negative Population Growth estimates that a population of about 150-200 million people would be optimal for the United States. This would ensure that population does not exceed consumption of finite resources and destroy fragile ecosystems. In addition, Americans now and Americans of future generations would be more free to pursue their dreams and goals in this great country. However, this can only be done with your help to slow, halt, and eventually reverse U.S. population growth. I am not saying that negative population growth will be a quick and easy process, but with enough support from Congress and the American public, it is achievable.

Thank you.

Dear Congressman,

I’d like to bring to your attention the problem of population increase in America. The American population is now about 329 million and we’re consuming non-renewable resources at an astounding rate, robbing future generations by degrading our environment.

Every year, the Global Foot Print Network calculates each nation’s consumption of non-renewable resources, as opposed to those that can be regenerated. The World Overshoot Day is 1 August, but Overshoot Day for America is 15 March. According to a report by the WWF, if everyone on earth lived the way we Americans do, it would take five planet earths to support humanity (McCamy, 2018).

Our population is growing at an unsustainable rate as our ecological footprint massively outnumbers our bio capacity, leaving us in ecological deficit. The increasing population is decreasing the standard of living of average Americans, yet we don’t notice the threat of population increase.

Some people might find these concerns about overpopulation bewildering, as our growth rate is declining; in fact, the US Census Bureau reports that the national population grew by just 0.6% between July 1, 2017, and July 1, 2018, the lowest rate since the Great Depression of 1937. The reason stated for this decline is more deaths than births (Reilly, 2018). In fact, the baseline population has increased significantly and even growth at a lower rate translates to another 2 million people per year, or 240 per hour (U.S. and World Population Clock, 2019).

The increased population’s impact on the environment is not linear, as many other factors come into play and thus even small increases impact earth’s resources. We need to understand Paul Ehrlich IPAT formula, which states that humans’ impact on the environment (I) is the product of population (P), affluence (A), and the impact of technology (T), or I = PAT. An increase in just one of these parameters, therefore, increases our environmental impact. Nature has a delicate balance where waste produced and pollution caused can be naturally broken down and recycled, but when the population is growing at an ecologically unsustainable rate, the natural cycle fails and pollution increases, as every addition in the population not only means one more mouth to feed and clothe, it also means more waste polluting earth’s environment (Moody, 2011)

We are clearly living beyond our means, stealing from future generations and we don’t care. In the words of Ehrlich in 1973 in National Wildlife, “The public must be made aware that we are rapidly depleting our stores of fossil-fuel, non-renewable mineral resources and fresh water. Someone has accurately described such behavior as ‘grand larceny against the future’ and it cannot continue much longer.” We need to work on ways to decrease the population growth and change our consumption habits to reduce the massive ecological burden our nation puts on earth’s ecosystem.

We first have to analyze the drivers of population increase: the Census Bureau says half comes from new births and other half from immigration, so we can safely say that population growth rate can be massively decreased if we decrease the number of immigrants entering our country. It is high time to come out of the bubble that increasing population is good for America, providing workers for industry and in turn fueling economic and technological development (Ball, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Dec., 1992)).

We now need to follow a multi-pronged strategy to tackle the issue of population growth, as we’re clearly overpopulated as a country. First, we need to put our immigration policy in perspective and analyze its impact on our economy, as we definitely need a more strict immigration policy to reduce the influx of immigrants. Then our government needs to stop making pro-natal policies encouraging Americans to have big families by providing additional tax credits for children and their college tuition (Does the US Have Population Problem?).

We need to get our act together and educate our nation to live mindfully and reduce our ecological footprint by decreasing our use of cars, changing the way we eat by adding more vegetables in our diet and reducing the production of meat, and most importantly by investing in renewable sources of energy and developing energy-saving habits as a nation. We need a strict environmental protection policy accompanied by a population planning policy to plan for the optimum usage of resources for the growing American population.

Dear members of the 116th Congress,

The United States population currently sits at around 328 million people. The population growth rate has been slowing in recent years due to reductions in births, but continuing immigration from countries around the world will drive further U.S. population growth.

This represents a potentially serious problem for the United States to face in upcoming years.

The current population level in the United States is already leading to problems with sustainability. The U.S. is consuming its’ natural resources at an unsustainable rate with concern to the rise in population over the last fifty years. Since the 1970 Census found the U.S. population was 100 million, the population has seen a 50% growth in the past fifty years. Fortunately, the United States has huge reserves of natural resources that have made it possible to sustain such a large, growing population. But even with the abundance of natural resources, current high rates of consumption by Americans won’t be sustainable because our supply of certain natural resources is finite; the country already depends on foreign imports for almost thirty percent of U.S. energy consumption.

There are a number of effects that U.S. overpopulation is having on the overall health of the environment. One major issue associated with population growth in the U.S. is the decrease of land made available for agriculture. Over three million acres of farmland are lost each year due to population growth and land being taken away for fuel production or suburban development. This is a huge problem because it takes away the U.S.’s capability to support its growing population. U.S. population growth has also contributed to the decrease in total forest cover throughout the nation, which reduces the environment’s ability to remove harmful carbon dioxide from the air to prevent further atmospheric warming due to CO2. Also, water levels within the country have been diminished significantly due to increased demand from fast-growing cities. Furthermore, the additional population growth has led to increased pollution of water supplies, leaving the country with a high percentage of polluted waterways.

Proponents of population growth will often point to the potential for increased economic growth if population growth increases. But the continued spike of the U.S. population is not 100% necessary for economic growth. Competitors in economic capability such as Germany and Japan are showing that economic growth can be achieved even through population decline. In fact, certain factors associated with population growth like decreased amount of natural resources and increased pollution can lead to a decline in productivity. Economic growth should be based on technological and organizational innovations rather than population growth alone.

Members of the 116th Congress should work to form and implement a national population policy capable of protecting the United States from the harms of overpopulation and rapid population growth. The current problems stemming from overpopulation such as land and resource shortages and congestion in urban areas, as well as environmental degradation, will jeopardize the future of the United States as a first-world country. Congress would better be able to monitor natural resources and environmental policy if they figure out how to keep the U.S. population from growing out of control.

Dear Congresspeople:

Scarcity.

It’s a word nobody on The Hill wants to acknowledge. But the US is and always has been a nation with limited resources, so the concept should be nothing new to Congress. After all, scarcity drives our economy, fueling the constant fluxes in supply and demand that dictate the prices we charge and quantities of goods we produce.

So why is it difficult to understand that many of our nation’s environmental and economic issues are the direct result of the scarcity generated by a ballooning population? Every seventeen seconds, the US’ net population increases by one. If this rate is left unchecked, our population will over double by 2050. Americans living today face the prospect of having their quality of life decrease as they age. According to one US Energy Information Administration report, our mines can yield another 25 years of coal at our current rate of consumption. Meanwhile, global warming caused by coal consumption threatens to leave countless Americans nutrient deficient, while displacing residents on our East and Gulf coasts through flooding, and leaving communities increasingly vulnerable to devastating tropical cyclones.

The ecological impacts of uncontrolled population growth are similarly grave. Urban sprawl continues to wreak havoc on native ecosystems, endangering species across the nation. Of course, this is occurring concurrently with climate change, which is forcing species into extinction at a rate between 100 and 1,000 times the normal frequency.

Members of Congress, in the face of this population growth-induced crisis, I ask you to act. No longer can our nation afford to shirk current responsibility with the expectation that future innovation will save our ecosystems, our children, and ourselves. We must take steps to immediately limit US population growth. Consequently, I implore you to consider the following policy initiatives:

Limit Migration

The US must work to strike a balance between assisting foreigners impacted by overpopulation and protecting US citizens and their interests. Currently, visa overstays constitute 62% of illegal immigration. Unlike the illegal immigrants who cross our nation’s southern border, these migrants originally had the means and credentials to enter the US legally. For migrants from India and China (whose citizens constitute the greatest number of visa overstayers other than Mexican nationals), this means purchasing intercontinental airfare and proving to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that you can financially support yourself for the duration of your stay. For these illegal immigrants, I propose hefty fines and a lifetime ban on entry to the US.

Illegal immigrants crossing our southern border typically face an entirely different set of circumstances. Driven from impoverished, resource-exhausted areas by the push factors of violence and crime, these migrants cannot be deterred by fines. Given that imprisonment of these migrants serves only as a drain on American financial and environmental resources, the ideal plan of action must prevent entry altogether. The continued development of a physical, well-manned barrier will lessen illegal immigration somewhat, but it’s hard to imagine that migrants won’t learn to exploit any barrier’s inevitable weaknesses. Perhaps a more effective measure in the short run would be to establish CBC field offices on common migration routes within Mexico and in towns and cities from which the greatest number of illegal immigrants come. From these bases of operation, agents could work to inform migrants of the consequences of illegal entry to the US and, most importantly, provide feasible alternatives. At these offices, migrants would ideally be able to file for asylum and receive an expedited decision. These offices could additionally work alongside the Mexican government to direct migrants to educational and work opportunities within Mexico as well as to provide information on receiving Oportunidades, Mexico’s anti-poverty welfare.

Educate

This initiative is relatively straightforward: make Americans more aware of the negative personal impacts of having more than two children and empower women by affirming their reproductive freedom.

While strides can be made in promoting sexual responsibility among all age groups, as a highschooler, I can attest firsthand that not enough is being done to serve teenagers. In the US, abstinence-based sex education is correlated with higher rates of teen pregnancy when compared to comprehensive courses, which cover a broader range of birth control methods. Requiring comprehensive sex education at every public school in the US would not only decrease teen pregnancy, but it would also leave women and men more equipped to make informed decisions about reproduction in the future. In the extreme short-run, funding programs which provide free birth control, especially condoms, to teens would undoubtedly decrease pregnancy rates.

Sincerely,

Brennan George

Dear Congressman:

The population size of the United States of America is becoming a massive reason for concern. Although the national population is not the largest in the world, the conflict that it creates could become unsustainable. The quantity of people that currently lives in the country is becoming too large to provide all of the land and resources to. It is becoming increasingly likely that food and water sources, as well as nonrenewable energy sources, could cease to exist. These only account for a small percentage of everything in the country that is finite for a population of over 300 million people. If the government does not take an approach to this situation, the population size will increase along with the demand for resources, and ultimately worsen the issue.

A gradual increase in consumption of land and resources, as a result of population growth and size, takes a toll on the environmental conditions of the United States. Some resources, people use up to supply their needs, and the natural environment cannot replenish all of it fast enough to provide for such a colossal population size. The farmland in the country is declining each year, due to suburban development. And according to the Energy Information Administration, land use has caused a 48% increase in developed land from 1982 to 2003. The amount of forests in the nation has also declined over the decades. But perhaps an even more tremendous reason for concern is the 550,000 gallons of water used by Americans annually. More so, the pollution of nearly half of the bodies of water will only get worse as the national population continues to expand. This is caused by the excessive waste products produced by industries and agricultural activities. These waste products could enter various bodies of water and cause harm to marine environments, thus tarnishing the quality of the water in the United States. In addition, the level of carbon dioxide emissions has skyrocketed over the course of several decades. Heat produced by energy usage gets accumulated within the atmosphere, which is the main cause for the well-known conflict of global warming. Global warming, along with the release of gas emissions that pollute the air, causes damage to the ozone layer. Destruction of the ozone layer could provoke human exposure to harmful radiation from the sun. Therefore, as the population increases, industrial and agricultural activities increase, consequently using more resources and leaving behind waste products that harm the environment and constitute a detrimental effect on the quality of life in the United States of America.

There are a number of ways to resolve the problems constituted by population growth and size. Before the Congress simply applies any efforts to do so, the entirety of the United States population must be informed of the issue, allowing the country as a whole to fathom the negative effects of population growth. The population size faces an annual change of over 2 million, and immigrants account for 900,000 of those people. One means of helping the situation would be for the government to pass a bill regarding immigration. While some individuals may argue that the national birth rate is a catalyst for population growth, the birth rate has actually declined over the course of nearly 30 years. Therefore, immigration is, by a considerable margin, more concerning than birth rate. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the number of immigrants in the United States was roughly 14 million in 1980, and has since ballooned up to nearly 45 million as of 2017. This accounts for nearly 14% of the population. The population growth can be slowed down if the government makes an effort to limit the annual immigration rate to 400,000, less than half of where it stands currently. Doing this, while allowing the fertility rate to remain the same, will lower the population growth, which may slow down all of the effects that it has on our nation’s environment. But this will not solve all of the problems. After the annual immigration is limited, the government must then increase spending on research and technology. This can apply to more efficient energy resources that may last longer than fossil fuels, as well as cause significantly less environmental damage. Moreover, this spending can also go to environmental engineers who have a means of finding ways to not only reduce, but reverse the effects that pollution has on the water, forests, and atmosphere of the United States. If the pollution problems across the country are resolved, then the effects of population growth on the environment will be eliminated.

If our 116th Congress takes the approach of limiting annual immigration, and increasing spending on programs that work to reduce pollution and help restore the good quality of the natural environment, not only will the problems of overpopulation be solved, but this will paint a bright picture for the future of our nation. It is my hope that the government works to resolve the problems that population growth constitutes to the United States, and even tries the aforementioned approaches in doing so. It is my belief that limiting immigration will slow the growth of our population, and give the government more time to find ways to reverse the effects that the population size has on our nation. It is also my belief that spending on technology, research, and different recycling programs will prove as the best way to help the situation. The United States of America is a land of equal opportunity for everyone. And I am grateful for the opportunity to share my thoughts with the Congress on how our country can work to solve the problem of population growth. Our population should have equal opportunity to succeed, but allowing it to become too large may be problematic.

Sincerely

Anthony Hayes

Dear 116th Congress,

Famous author, Isaac Asimov once said, “What do you see happening… if this population growth continues at its present rate? …democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears.” Truer words have never been written. U.S. population size and growth are serious problems for our nation. They should be addressed — no — they need to be addressed by Congress and the government as a whole. We can’t sweep this under the rug any longer. Now is the time to act.

First, let’s take a look at the facts. According to the U.S. Census assessed in January 2019, the U.S. population is over 328 million and is growing by over 2 million people per year, half of which from immigration and half from new births. The Global Footprint Network states that America is using up renewable resources twice as fast as they can be generated. Energy consumption has risen by 25%. Greenhouse gas emissions are also on the rise. And we are producing waste at amounts that are terrifying. Stated clearly, the position our country is in is unsustainable.

So, you might be thinking — what can I do to help the situation? Well, to that I say, everything. You are the new members of the 116th Congress. During your term, you can make a real difference. Legislation is the best way to make strides at solving our population problem. I recommend limiting immigration by strengthening and lengthening our immigration process. This will regulate and slow growth by disincentivizing people from moving to America on a whim, while also keeping a governmental quota on the amount of people immigrating. Since immigration is a huge part of our country’s overpopulation issue, this will go a long way towards solving that. Fewer Americans equals more available resources, a smaller amount of pollution released into the atmosphere, and less waste produced, which results in heathier ecosystems.

I also recommend that we encourage smaller families. Like immigration, new births are a big part of overpopulation, which is why it is so important to include when discussing possible solutions. When looking towards a more sustainable future, smaller families can help achieve that. In our current state, our government incentivizes women to have large families and multiple kids. Large families get tax breaks, welfare, and many other benefits. By getting rid of these benefits and/or giving tax breaks and other benefits (like instituting lower school taxes) to families with only one or two children, the government can effectively persuade women to have smaller families without actually restricting their right to bear children. Governmental incentivization to have small families will slow population growth and in time will reduce our population size.

Based on all of this information, it is obvious that Congress needs to take action! Both of the suggestions I made above are totally attainable. If you work to create and sponsor bills focused on these ideas, we can make a real dent in the population problem. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, “If government knew how, I should like to see it check — not multiply — the population.” I urge you to take what I have said into consideration in your congressional discussions. It will take hard work and commitment, but together we can solve the serious U.S. population size and growth issue.

Sincerely,

We the People of the United States (the Governed)

Dear Congressman:

The subject of over-population is among one of the more serious problems affecting our country, yet it’s the least talked about. When people hear “population control” they think the worst. They think of wiping out cities of millions of people or placing us under a dome so no one can enter. What they don’t think about are the straightforward fixes that can be done to simplify the problem. For example, immigration is the dominant cause of overpopulation in America. To fix this problem we wouldn’t prohibit the entrance of immigrants all together, we would simply put forth new policies to restrict the influx of immigrants entering the country. Some options could be to reevaluate and adjust the eligibility criteria that must be met by prospective immigrants and being more inflexible when it comes to the limit of immigrants allowed inside the country. Along with immigration, comes the topic of birth rate, specifically the number of teens giving birth. In 2017, 194,277 babies were born to teen mothers. Even though this a 7% drop from 2016 the number is still alarming. A multitude of things can be contributing to teen pregnancy, such as low income levels of the family and poor education. A possible solution would be to introduce new programs into the school system that would educate kids on pregnancy prevention. Not to be confused with an “Abstinence only” program, but actual lessons on the different types of birth control that would steer kids in the right direction when it comes to making choices about their sexual health, which would in turn lower the teenage pregnancy rate.

The detrimental effects of population have already shown and will continue to become more of an environmental issue as well as a public health issue. With more people comes more mouths to feed and the agricultural problems associated with overpopulation have become some of the most pressing. More intensive farming and deforestation will continue to be remedies that will only prove useful in terms of the demand for food for a limited time. This is because these come with some serious issues that affect the environment. With intensive farming comes the usage of more pesticides and chemical fertilizers to produce more food at a faster rate, but these practices have been associated with soil erosion and depletion. And the agricultural runoff of excess fertilizers depletes bodies of water of oxygen which results in considerable negative impacts for marine life. Deforestation is another big problem that reduces the ability to take in CO2, which exasperates the greenhouse gas problem.

Along with environmental issues comes public health issues, specifically a freshwater issue. Unfortunately a byproduct of overpopulation is an increased stress on freshwater supplies. The Earth is covered in water but only 2.5 percent of it is freshwater and just a small fraction of that is unpolluted drinkable water. Overpopulation isn’t just one problem, it’s a series of issues that will come to affect our lives for the worst. The US population is growing faster than predicted and while we are a country that values justice and safety for all, we must think about the measures that need to be taken to properly sustain our nation.

Sincerely,

Kiah Rivera

Hannah Sackles
$2,000
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

White picket fences, large suburban yards, and an escape from the city after a long day of work are iconic ideals associated with “The American Dream”. However, these romanticized principles are also related to a myriad of environmental problems including increased use of fossil fuels for longer commutes, urban heat island effect, loss of wildlife habitat, and disruptions in the water cycle caused by the spread of impermeable surfaces. As per a 2012 report by the United States Census Bureau, 80.7% of the American population lives in an urban area, and the urban population rate of increase between 2000 and 2010 was greater than the rate of increase for the nation’s total population growth. This shocking trend indicates that as the population of America is predicted to increase to 400 million people by 2050, much of that growth will be unevenly distributed in urban areas, compounding the problem of urban sprawl currently plaguing our nation.

In Living in the Environment, Miller and Spoolman cite availability of land, suburban housing loans for World War II veterans in the 1950’s, cheap oil prices, federally-funded highways, poor zoning laws, and taxes that favor home owners as the main causes of urban sprawl in the United States. These precedents have created an urban infrastructure that will only continue to encroach onto rural lands as a greater population of Americans inhabit urban spaces that grow farther away from city centers to accommodate the increasing population. Through my participation in the Future Leaders in Planning program hosted by the Hillsborough County Planning Commission, I learned from urban planners, engineers, and architects in the Tampa Bay Area about the measures that the City of Tampa is implementing to mitigate the effects of urban sprawl. Many of the urban planners stressed the importance of creating infrastructure that grows “up” rather than “out”, meaning constructing and renovating multistory buildings with mixed use development (homes, parking garages, commercial businesses, and offices all in one space) to concentrate daily activities in a confined urban space. The urban planners and city transportation officials also explained the importance of accessible and appealing mass transit systems, as well as safe biking and walking paths, to encourage urban residents to walk, bike, or carpool to work. This would reduce the number of cars on the road that not only promote urban sprawl by allowing farther commutes between work and home, but that also create harmful pollutants that contribute to climate change, acid rain, health problems, and urban smog.

To protect the natural environment from urban sprawl in the face of rapid population growth, I would incorporate my knowledge of current models for urban sprawl mitigation to create a multi-faceted approach, including creative solutions to the problems outlined above, to suggest to the nation’s leaders. First, I would suggest a gradual reduction of the federal subsidies provided to oil companies that were designed to keep gasoline prices low, until the price of gasoline matches its true environmental cost of $3.80 beyond the pump price (as estimated by the 2015 article The Social Cost of Atmospheric Release). This would discourage Americans from living farther away from city centers, and the money that was originally spent on gasoline subsidies could instead be used to improve mass transit systems and pedestrian/cyclist paths throughout major cities. I would also encourage the nation’s leaders to dismantle antiquated zoning laws that prevent the mixing of commercial and domestic spaces to allow for mixed-use development throughout American cities. The nation’s leaders could also publish information on the importance of creating appeal in urban centers (such as the incorporation of green spaces or mixed-use development) to attract citizens and businesses from outlying suburbs. Additionally, I would suggest creating strict boundaries for new and existing urban populations, which would further encourage local planning commissions to concentrate development closer to city centers to accommodate the growing American urban population. The predicted population growth to 400 million Americans by 2050 will undoubtedly cause severe urban sprawl unless preventative measures are quickly enacted.

Citations

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott E. Spoolman. Living in the Environment. 16th ed., Cengage Learning, 2011.

Shindell, Drew T. “The Social Cost of Atmospheric Release.” Climatic Change, vol. 130, no. 2, May 2015, pp. 313–326., https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-015-1343-0

US Census Bureau Public Information Office. “Growth in Urban Population Outpaces Rest of Nation, Census Bureau Reports.” United States Census Bureau Newsroom Archive, United States Census Bureau, 26 Mar. 2012, www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html.

Grace Klein
$1,000
Denison University, Granville, Ohio

Plant Growth v. Population Growth

As a member of a small, farm-town community in a rural stretch of Ohio, I know the importance of farming first hand and how it affects the community’s food supply. But I also know first hand how population growth affects that farming. Because of the population growth there is a decline, even in my community, in farmland and in farmers. According to top organizations, this phenomenon is not only happening in my community but to most farming communities throughout the United States. To stop this deterioration, lawmakers must take action and designate plots of land that will be used exclusively for farming and come up with greener ways to farm in order to help sustain the environment. The farming community can still thrive despite population growth but lawmakers must take action now before it’s too late.

The population of the United States is expected to grow at an alarming rate over the next 35 years. In 2015, the U.S. population was at 322 million and by the year 2050, the population is expected to grow to 389 million (Mayo). This rapid population spike means there will be more people who need more houses that need more land. The more land needed for urban development means there is less land used for farming. California Department of Conservation member John Lowrie states that, “Population growth in and of itself is one of the most significant forces in the quest to develop land for interests other than agricultural production and open space” (qtd. in Adler). This effect has already been seen over the last decade. From 2008 to 2015, the amount of farms decreased from 2,184,500 to 2,067,000 and the amount of farm acreage decreased from 918,600,000 to 912,000,000 (Mayo). The relationship of increasing population and decreasing agricultural space is growing ever-stronger and lawmakers must start taking action now.

The first way lawmakers should take action to secure the agricultural industry is by setting aside plots of land used specifically for agriculture. Like they do for National Parks, the government should designate specific land areas that are used to aid the agricultural community and sustain its resources without interference. By designating land for farming use, a secure place is created for farmers to farm without worry that their farm will be replaced for urban development. It is necessary to have more adequate farmland and farming resources in order to supply food for the growing population and, therefore, this plan is imperative. The land chosen for this project has to be land proven well-suited for farming or existing farmland that the government now protects. It also has to be beneficial to the community and cannot harm it in any way. This project should start in areas where urban development is increasing and the farming community is at risk. Not only would this program be beneficial to agriculture but it would create and sustain jobs for current and future farmers across the United States. This project would create jobs and support agriculture making our country and Earth a more secure place for future generations.

The second way lawmakers should take action to help sustain agriculture is by creating and enforcing greener methods of farming. Protecting the agricultural community is important but so is protecting our delicate environment. If we do not stand up for our environment, agriculture, as well as most everything else, will cease to exist. That being said, farming uses an abundance of natural resources, requiring a great deal of water and soil. The use of pesticides and fertilizers as well as factors contributing to erosion take harsh tolls on the ecosystem (Green). All of the farming equipment using natural gas contributes to air pollution as well. Lawmakers should work with agricultural experts to come up with ways, like alternatives to pesticides or irrigation, to be more environmentally friendly and sustainable while farming. When a decision is reached on the new solutions, the practices should be implemented and enforced on as many farms in America as possible. This will enable agriculture to not only thrive but to help save the environment for future generations.

Works Cited

Mayo, Doug. “Population Growing but US Farm Acreage Declining.” nwdistrict.ifas.ufl.edu. 4 March, 2016.

Adler, Steve. “More prime farmland feared to be lost to population growth.” dailydemocrat.com. 6 August, 2012.

Green, Jared. “The Effects of Population Growth on Land Use.” dirt.asla.org. 9 November, 2009.

Abigail Snellgrove
$750.
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC

Population Growth: Wildlife Destruction

Not everyone has the opportunity to live in the best city in the world as I do. Charleston, South Carolina is the best city for so many reasons. The allure of the history, the weather, and as stated in Conde Nast Traveler magazine “The friendliest city in the world” attracts people by the masses. “The official number of new people moving (net new arrivals) into the Charleston metro is: 34 people a day.” (Holba & Renegar, 2017). These qualities are the same things that attract big industry such as Boeing, Volvo Cars, and Mercedes Benz to our beautiful city. The influx of people and industry has had a profound impact on the availability of habitat for our diverse wildlife population.

Population growth in the Charleston area is exceeding the availability of land for the people that are relocating here. “In the Charleston area, for example, from 1973 to 1994, a one percent increase in population resulted in a six percent loss in forest and farm land” (Allen and Lu 1998). Forest and farm land are not the only habitats being destroyed. Charleston is known for its beaches and fresh seafood is a staple in this area. Climate change caused by a growing population has started causing sea levels to rise. Rising sea levels can cause devastation to nesting areas for sea turtles and different types of birds that nest on the coast. Sea turtles are already an endangered species and they are also creatures of habit. They return to the same spot every couple of years to nest and if these nesting spots are destroyed by rising sea levels the population of sea turtles will not grow and they will eventually become extinct. Sea turtles are not the only species that is being affected by population growth, species such as bats, woodpeckers, warblers, and salamanders are also being threatened in South Carolina. Population Connection states “over 2,500 species are listed as endangered and threatened species. And as human population continues to grow in the U.S., reaching up to 420 million by 2050 (as estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau), many more species will be added to the list.” Not only is their existence being threatened by the invasion of their natural habitats, but there have been increasing numbers of incidents caused by wildlife living in populated areas. Animals driven out of their habitats into residential areas have resulted in many headlines. People have come home to alligators on their front porches, deer have leaped into cars, and there have been countless numbers of birds mistakenly flying into windows or homes.

What measures can we, must we, take to stop the destruction of wildlife habitat due to population growth? Investing in infrastructure to revitalize cities to alleviate urban sprawl, investing in mass transit to eliminate the number of cars on the road, stricter and enforced regulations on manufacturing facilities to reduce pollution, and requirements for developers to retain more green space when building. With the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing to climate change related to population growth it is time for leaders to get on board and do something positive to at least slow the damage caused by the population. Our nation’s leaders need to take a stronger stance about environmental change, if they do not there will soon be no nation left to lead.

References

Allen, Jeffery and Kang Shou Lu. 1998. Modeling and predicting future urban growth in the Charleston area. Strom Thurmond Institute. Clemson University.

CNT editors. (2017) The Friendliest Cities in the U.S. retrieved from www.cntraveler.com

Holba, K. & Renegar, J. (2017) Exactly How Many People are moving into the Charleston Region Each Day? Retrieved from www.Crda.org

N.A. (2017) Alligator ‘ Intruder’ Lays Claim to South Carolina Family’s Porch. Retrieved from www.foxnews.com

N.A. (2018) Caught in the Crosshairs. Retrieved from www.PopulationConnection.org

N.A. (2016) Climate Change Impacts to Natural Resources in South Carolina. Retrieved from http://www.dnr.sc.org

N.A. (2017) Endangered Species in South Carolina. Retrieved from www.bollotpedia.org

Susan Leigh Thomassie
$750.
Loyola University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA

The word ‘park’ brings a throng of pleasant images to mind: colorful playground equipment, crawling with children; meandering walkways, threaded between the trunks of spreading trees; vast stretches of manicured lawn, spread invitingly in welcome of picnics or casual Frisbee games. Each mental picture is accompanied by the promise of either relaxation or a rollicking good time.

Appealing as these images are already, urban green space offers benefits far beyond boosting physical and mental health. The spreading trees and manicured lawns perform functions that help the environment, such as oxygen production, pollution control, and air cooling.^[1] The playgrounds and walkways provide opportunities for community members to mingle and enjoy themselves regardless of “age, race, income, or physical or cognitive ability”.^[2] And taken as a whole, parks boost the local economy by generating new jobs through parks and recreation agencies,^[3] increasing nearby property value,^[4] and drawing businesses looking for new locations.^[5]

Given this wide array of benefits, any threat to the preservation of public green space should be taken very seriously—perhaps none more so than the looming threat of population growth.

The U.S. population is currently climbing through the hundred-millions (with growth in cities surpassing the rest of the nation),^[6]bringing increased urbanization with it.^[7] This clashes with the establishment and upkeep of parks, as the characteristic mutability of developing urban systems cripples attempts to plan for a stable environment that sustains plant life in the long-term. Additionally, high population levels aggravate a perceived need for more resources and residences, which in turn leads to the degradation of existing green space in the never-ending quest for materials and construction sites. If left unchecked, our nation’s tendency to put short-term concerns above long-term ones may lead to a dramatic loss in public park land, possibly even causing its extinction in low-income areas where its benefits are most pronounced.

Effectively resolving such a nationwide issue requires a concentrated effort. State governments have begun to tackle the problem of shrinking green space by offering grants to cities that set aside land for recreational purposes; however, bringing the gravity of the situation to the public eye demands the involvement of a higher authority—the federal government itself.

This involvement begins with engaging the public. By taking a proactive, well-informed position, our nation’s leaders are capable of fostering a robust dialogue through which to engage lower-level legislators industry leaders, NGOs, and private citizens alike, educating them and encouraging them to take action. Yet words alone are not enough. If it is to successfully curb the negative effects population growth has had on green space, the federal government must pair public engagement with more aggressive measures. Urban development policies are a viable way to nip the issue of unbridled urbanization in the bud: Congress can require municipalities and states to pool a fund that provides for the preservation and upkeep of public parks, or can make federal funding of urban projects contingent on the designation of parkland. To combat land degradation, it can force mitigation by insisting that certain footage of green space be set apart for every corresponding footage developed or stripped for resources. And in areas where the local government cannot afford to provide for park construction and maintenance, the federal government can offer grants specifically designed to pay for these amenities. All of these steps would ensure that green space is preserved in both the places where it is most threatened and the places where it is most needed.

While addressing the issue of shrinking green space may seem out of the federal government’s scope in the eyes of some, it is vital to remember that our country’s leaders are bound not only to protect and run the nation, but also to promote the quality of life for both current and future generations. Parks and green spaces bring benefits that touch almost every area of concern in the United States—health, society, the economy, and the environment—making their preservation a serious concern for all levels of our society, the highest level most of all. And with the U.S. population growing at such an explosive rate, particularly in metropolitan areas, the need for a watchful, conscientious administration is greater than ever.

[1] Paul M. Sherer, The Benefits of Parks: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space, reprint of “Parks for People” (San Francisco: The Trust for Public Land, 2006), 19-20, accessed April 17, 2018, https://www.recpro.org/assets/Library/Parks/benefit_of_parks_jul2005.pdf.

[2] Economic Impact of Local Parks (Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association, 2018), 4, accessed April 17, 2018, https://www.nrpa.org/siteassets/research/economic-impact-study-summary-2018.pdf.

[3] Economic Impact of Local Parks, 5.

[4] Ibid., 11.

[5] Ibid.

[6] “Growth in Urban Population Outpaces Rest of Nation, Census Bureau Reports,” United States Census Bureau (website), United States Census Bureau, accessed April 17, 2018, https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html.

[7] “Urbanization and Population Change,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (website), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, accessed April 17, 2018, https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator.cfm?i=52.

Clarke Williams
$750.
Howard University , Washington , DC

As America’s population continues to gradually increase, it is imperative that we consider how population growth affects the environment around us. It is clear, based on environmental issues that have plagued this Earth for decades that population growth has long-lasting effects on the environment. These effects are manifested in issues like air pollution, climate change, and more. I chose to focus on urban sprawl in this short essay to highlight the issue that is ever present in my own hometown, Baltimore, MD, and make suggestions to policy makers, elected officials, and any other person that cares about what we leave for generations to come.

Urban sprawl is an issue that is greatly impacted by population growth because of the increased housing demand that comes with more potential residents of metropolitan cities all over the country. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines urban sprawl as “the rapid expansion of the geographic extent of cities and towns, often characterized by low-density residential housing, single-use zoning, and increased reliance on the private automobile for transportation.” The detrimental effects on the environment are clear even in the term’s definition. “Rapid expansion” implies a lack of environmentally friendly urban planning, which promotes air pollution and excessive energy use. Urban sprawl causes people to rely on their cars more to get around urban and suburban areas. This is dangerous because carpooling and using means of public transportation are very important in the efforts to protecting the environment.

To make the concept of urban sprawl more clear, I decided to research its effects in Baltimore, MD. Baltimore presents an interesting case because of our recent population decline, but the devastating effects of urban sprawl on one of the country’s largest cities (population decline or not) will demonstrate how dangerous urban expansion is for larger cities, which will become increasingly common for cities around the country as America’s population is expected to increase approximately 30% by 2050. As urbanization conquers cities, rich forests and farmlands are destroyed to build more residential areas and structures to accommodate the rising population such as malls, supermarkets, hotels, and more. With more urban housing comes more infrastructures to support said housing. This infrastructure is not often very environmentally friendly. The septic system, waste management, and construction industry contribute to the harming of the environment each and every day.

With all of these negatives to consider, it is also important to look toward the future with hope and concrete solutions. The time to take preventive action has passed us, so the best we can do now is work towards recovery and permanent reversing efforts. Protecting cities from urban sprawl will promote overall greener living and will protect the waterways, farmlands, and wildlife from the harmful effects of excessive urbanization and the centralization of industry. My first suggestion is to implement clean and green forms of public transportation. This includes trains, buses, bicycles, and all forms of ride sharing. Bike lanes should be implemented and encouraged. It would even be a good idea to promote bikes in schools by providing school-aged children access to affordable bikes and the safest routes. On a larger scale, bills need to be drafted protecting waterways. For example, The Chesapeake Bay is currently in great danger with multiple scientists citing poor water-quality due to pollution, suburban runoff, and high nitrogen and phosphorus levels from sewage. These are all effects of urban sprawl. Lawmakers will need to provide stricter regulations on sewage treatment plants with the help of the Environmental Protection Agency. I also suggest something a tad outlandish. We have police departments to protect us from crime, but there is no force that protects the environment from the harmful agents that constantly put it in danger. I suggest cities implement task forces to prevent pollution, monitor waste and sewage management, promote green living with programs in schools and youth centers, and maintain the overall health of the environment by controlling the man made, negative effects. Saving the environment should be seen as much less of a volunteer effort and more of a required change in lifestyle for people all over the world. Extreme circumstances call for extreme solutions. With more action-based solutions, America’s leaders can reverse the effects of urban sprawl and prevent cities from succumbing to it as the population continues to rise in this country.

Morgan Zenon
$750.
Lakeland University, Plymouth, WI

Changing Our Climate Begins with Changing Our Habits

Living in the suburbs was once considered to be a fulfilment of the American dream. A large house with a white picket fence and a child-friendly car or two in the driveway was the picture of success for millions of U.S. citizens. For many, this dream still exists today. But how much does this comfortable suburban lifestyle contribute to climate change? It may not be obvious but our consumption, driving and housing habits may hasten global warming more than we realize.

Americans are the worst per capita emitters of greenhouse gasses, producing double what all of Europe discharges and five times more than the global average. Much of our toxic vapor output comes from the way we consume. Diana Ivanova, a PhD candidate at Norwegian University of Science and Technology’s Industrial Ecology Program, and her research team published a study in the Journal of Industrial Ecology in 2015 which found that “between 60 – 80 percent of the impacts on the planet come from household consumption,” (qtd. by Bazilchuk, “Household consumption significant driver of climate, other environmental impacts”).

Ivanova stated the majority of consumption’s damaging effects do not come from the direct use of resources, like fueling vehicles with fossil fuels, but from the consumer’s indirect use of resources, like eating chocolate that took thousands of gallons of water to make or buying paper sourced from a cleared forest. Through water and land pollution, deforestation and direct gas emission during manufacturing, these processes can have a drastic effect on overall atmospheric toxicity. When we buy these products, we contribute to the ozone deterioration yet people often think of this issue as unrelated to their personal contributions to air pollution. The population of the United States stands at 325 million and is expected to double by the end of the century. These poor consumption habits coupled with a rapidly growing population mean emissions from this country will significantly worsen over coming generations. The Center for Biological Diversity stated over half of all American citizens now live in suburbs (“Human Population Growth and Climate Change”). These regions tend to have income levels higher than the national average and the more affluent a person or family is, the more likely they are to consume at high levels.

Americans also collectively drive over three trillion miles annually and that figure is growing. Suburban commuting contributes to this number and overall transportation makes up one-third of the country’s carbon emissions. The homes that fossil fueled cars drive from also contribute to air pollution. Around twenty percent of domestic greenhouse emissions come from homes and their construction. In 1970, the average U.S. home held 3.1 people but that number fell to 2.6 in 2000. However, new homes are still increasing in size and this creates the need for more resources, namely trees, used for building that would otherwise reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

From a legislative standpoint, there are a number of things our leaders in government can do to make life in the suburbs less damaging to the planet – the first deals with changing consumption patterns. Lawmakers can give rewards like tax exemptions to companies that do things which help the environment such as – limiting their pollution levels, recycling adamantly or working with local residents to rebuilt area forests or clean waterways. Grants can be given to companies that invest in alternative yet sustainable goods, like creating paper from hemp rather than tree pulp. Businesses should be incentivized to make their products in ways that do the least amount of damage to the planet as possible and consumers should be educated on what effects their purchases can have. All this could ultimately lower levels of indirect carbon emissions by consumers.

There should also be more public transportation to and from the suburbs. The government could provide funding for the construction of rail systems or the addition of numerous bus lines to the suburbs of metropolitan areas all across the country. If more people commuted without using their personal vehicles, it could significantly reduce emissions from transportation. Homes should also be downsized in the future and lawmakers can reward construction companies that work to restore the forests their lumber is sourced from.

The suburbs can be wonderful places to live and grow up but conversely, life in the area can make it difficult to reduce one’s carbon footprint. However, with a few lifestyle changes and initiatives from the government, this does not have to be the case forever.

Works cited

Bazilchuk, Nancy. “Household Consumption Significant Driver of Climate, Other Environmental Impacts.” Geminiresearchnews.com, 19 Feb. 2016, geminiresearchnews.com/2016/02/household-consumption-significant-driver-of-climate-other-environmental-impacts/.

“Human Population Growth and Climate Change.” Center for Biological Diversity, www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/.