Long ago Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford professor, wrote The Population Bomb. Yet you probably know about the demographic transition: A sharp decrease in family size when countries reach a certain level of wealth. Which implies a big problem with Ehrlich’s forecasts. You probably don’t know about three related transitions:
1. Forests. For a long time humans destroyed forests and forest area decreased. More recently, however, forests have been regrowing as people leave rural areas for cities.
2. Obesity. In poor countries, rich people are fatter than poor people. In rich countries, the opposite is true: the poor are fatter than the rich, presumably because the rich eat less factory food.
3. Fast food. On a recent visit to Tokyo, I was told that the number of fast food restaurants in Tokyo is declining.
QUOTE:
“… More recently, however, forests have been regrowing”
With the decline of print media, fewer trees are needed to produce those quaint 20th Century relics known as newspapers and books.
Paper use has been rising. https://www.businessedge.ca/archives/article.cfm/paper-consumption-on-rise-study-14161
https://chrislang.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/paper.png
Most pulp is from reforested places anyway, making up a whopping 75% of pulp, with a further 16% from wood farms.
Dear Seth,
I usually enjoy your blog, but today you got something seriously wrong. Please allow me a comments regarding “1. Forests:”
There are huge problems with the so-called “Environmental Kuznets Curve” (EKC, referred to in your link). People start to understand now that all systems on Earth are interacting constantly. What the EKC actually shows is not a decline in pollution in wealthy countries, but an EXPORT of polluting practices to poor countries.
Dirk, I wasn’t referring to the Environmental Kuznets Curve in Point 1. I was referring to a graph (plus supporting data) showing that in many countries forests are in fact regrowing — a much more specific point than Kuznets was predicting.
Seth,
the link you provide directs to page 51 of the book – and there is no graph on this page.
The point with forest regrowth is the same as with the EKC: the ressources of rich countries get protected by importing wood (products) from poorer countries – which globally leads to continued deforestation, while it allows some countries to report regrowth of forests. But country statistics are calculations limited to artificialy drawn areas, they are usually insufficient to show what is going on in nature…
Dirk, the graph is on a different page. I think the interpretation you raise (export of pollution, export of deforestation) is plausible but less certain than you seem to say (“actually shows”). People in poor countries really are moving to cities in great numbers, as the more beneficent explanation implies. When rich people stopped getting fat, did they “export” the consumption of factory food to poor people? I think these transitions are important to know about no matter what the explanation turns out to be.
FAO statistics show that global forest cover is still decreasing – and that is what counts in globally connected ecosystems, in my opinion. National statistics always only show one frame of the picture.
Regarding the factory food I would not say it was ‘exported’ to poor people, as this usually happens within the same country. Middle class and rich people eat less factory food, but they are getting fewer. At the same time, the increasing number of poor lower class people within many industrialized countries continually increases their consumption of factory food, leading to the success of McDonald’s and Starbucks – and to the “obesity epidemic” of the masses, as we can see in many rich countries today.
By the way, thank you for your time, the interesting discussion and the objective tone – it really is much appreciated!
You’re welcome, Dirk. Re the FAO statistics: I think it’s important whether the rate of deforestation is increasing or decreasing. If the rate is decreasing, I think it suggests the transition I describe may be playing an important role. If not I would agree with you the deforestation is merely being exported. World population is still increasing, as far as I know, but I think the rate of increase is decreasing. I’ve never heard a demographer doubt the huge importance of the demographic transition.