Published: October 27, 2009 08:47 pm      

We must talk about the size of our population

We have all kinds of national debate about health care, Afghanistan, global warming — but the debate we refuse to have is one about the population size of the United States.

If we are serious about climate change, we must realize how large a carbon footprint an individual has. As part of climate change we should consider population reduction.

What population size can the United States support without destroying its environment and its natural resources?

There have been numerous reports of water shortages from California to Georgia. In some cases the conclusion has been not that there is less water available than in previous years but that the population growth has outstripped the water available.

While total water availability remains fixed, the population of the United States has grown from around 150 million in 1950 to over 305 million today. The population of California in 1950 was 10.5 million; today it is around 37 million. The population of the state of Georgia in 1950 was under 4 million; today it is approaching 10 million.

Population growth has already destroyed large areas of California and made the state a financial basket case. Do we want 49 more Californias?

Too often, state, local, and even national governments do not consider the long-term consequences of their decisions.

Local governments, greedy for new residents, allow unchecked growth because it increases tax revenue, but these same governments do not sufficiently plan for the resources such unchecked growth will require or realize when additional population is detrimental to the area.

Remember a few years ago when a regional water shortage was declared? Guess what: too many people for the water supply.

What about food? Right now we supply tons of surplus food to the rest of the world, but what happens if we allow our population to grow so large that we run short of some food? It is not impossible. Countries that now have their hands out for the dole were self-sustaining before they allowed so much population growth.

We must address this issue of population. As of October 2009, according to the U.S. Census bureau the population hit 308 million. A subsequent 2008 report projects a population of 439 million by 2050, is a 44 percent increase from 2008.

The Pew Hispanic Center and the Center for Immigration Studies predicted the large majority of this growth will be due to future immigrants and their descendants.

We need to discuss what size population the United States can support without jeopardizing our natural resources, environment and current lifestyle. Since the major part of the growth will come via immigration, we should ask ourselves how many immigrants and refugees we want to allow in this country.

Do we want to allow continual population growth to despoil our natural resources and increase our carbon footprint?

Do we want to allow illegal immigrants to remain in this country and gain amnesty? Would we not be better off to set a limit on immigration, family reunification and refugee acceptance?

Should there not be a national debate on the topic instead of avoiding it altogether as the government does with any tough topic — putting it off until there is a crisis.

We should decide the optimal population size for the the United States and adjust our policies accordingly. We should not continue with unchecked immigration, destroying our natural resource and our environment. There must be a limit, and the sooner we discuss this issue the better off the country will be.

Setting zero population grown for the next decade by ending immigration and refugee asylum will go a long way in reducing the U.S. carbon footprint.

Dr. Judith Weller

LaVale