Tag: population growth
Weekend Reader: ‘The Age Of Sustainable Development’

Weekend Reader: ‘The Age Of Sustainable Development’

As the planet becomes a smaller, hotter, and more crowded place, unless we change our practices, we will all become more imperiled. Jeffrey D. Sachs is one of the foremost minds in the fields of global economics and international development. His understanding of the combined ramifications of climate change, the growing population, and our increasingly entangled economies is virtually unrivaled.

And as the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and a long-time senior advisor to the United Nations, Sachs is uniquely placed to address the challenges facing our world. He brings to bear his savvy analysis as well as knowledge of international economic, environmental, and political issues in The Age Of Sustainable Development.

In his latest book, Sachs addresses the systemic problems of environmental degradation, extreme poverty, and economic injustice, and points the way for policymakers and corporate leaders to begin a new era of sustainable development. But the book is necessary reading not only for politicians and executives, but for all citizens of our troubled little world.

You can purchase the book here.

Global Environmental Threats Caused by Economic Development

One of the most important messages of the field of sustainable development is that humanity has become a serious threat to its own future well-being, and perhaps even its survival, as the result of unprecedented human-caused harm to the natural environment. Gross world product per person, now at $12,000 per person, combined with a global population of 7.2 billion people, means that the annual world output is at least 100 times larger than at the start of the Industrial Revolution. That 240-fold increase in world output (or even a thousandfold increase on particular dimensions of economic activity) results in multiple kinds of damage to the planet. Large-scale economic activity is changing the Earth’s climate, water cycle, nitrogen cycle, and even its ocean chemistry. Humanity is using so much land that it is literally crowding other species off the planet, driving them to extinction.

This crisis is felt by rich and poor alike. In late October 2012, police cars floated down the street in Manhattan during Superstorm Sandy, one of the strongest storms to hit the Eastern Seaboard in modern times. Even if scientists can’t determine whether the storm’s remarkable ferocity was due in part to human-induced climate change, they can determine that human-induced climate change greatly amplified the impact of the storm. As of 2012, the ocean level off the Eastern Seaboard of the United States was roughly one-third of a meter higher than a century earlier, the result of global warming causing a rise in ocean levels around the world. This higher sea level greatly exacerbated the flooding associated with the superstorm.

Superstorm Sandy wasn’t the only climate-related shock to the United States that year. Earlier in the year, U.S. crops suffered major losses as the result of a megadrought and heat wave in the Midwest and western grain-growing regions. Drought conditions have continued to burden some parts of the U.S. West since then, with California in an extreme drought as of 2014.

Buy From Amazon.com

Halfway around the world from New York City, also during 2012, Beijing experienced massive flooding that followed especially heavy rains. Bangkok experienced astounding floods in October 2011. Indonesia experienced heavy flooding in early 2014, while Australia suffered another devastating heat wave. All of these events were huge setbacks for both the local and global economy, with loss of life, massive loss of property, billions or even tens of billions of dollars of damage, and disruptions to the global economy. The floods in Bangkok, for example, flooded automobile parts suppliers, shutting down assembly lines in other parts of the world when the parts failed to arrive.

The particular disasters are varied, but it is clear that one broad category — climate-related catastrophes — is rising in number and severity. One major class of climate shocks is known as “hydrometeorological disasters.” These are water- and weather-related disasters, including heavy precipitation, extreme storms, high-intensity hurricanes and typhoons, and storm-related flood surges such as those that swept over Manhattan, Beijing, and Bangkok. Massive droughts cause deadly famines in Africa, crop failures in the United States, and a dramatic increase in forest fires in the United States, Europe, Russia, Indonesia, Australia, and other parts of the world. Other climate-related catastrophes include the spread of diseases and pests that threaten food supplies and the survival of other species.

The frequency and severity of these threats have risen dramatically and are likely to increase still further. Indeed, the reshaping of the Earth’s physical systems — including climate, chemistry, and biology — is so dramatic that scientists have given our age a new scientific name: the Anthropocene. This is a new word that comes from its Greek roots: anthropos, meaning humankind, and cene, meaning epoch or period of Earth’s history. The Anthropocene is the era — our era — in which humanity, through the massive impacts of the world economy, is creating major disruptions of Earth’s physical and biological systems.

From The Age of Sustainable Development by Jeffrey D. Sachs. Copyright © 2015 by Jeffrey D. Sachs. Published by Columbia University Press, on March 3, 2015. Reprinted with permission.

If you enjoyed this excerpt, purchase the full book here.

Want more updates on great books? Sign up for our email newsletter!

2020 Census Might Offer Hope For Democrats

2020 Census Might Offer Hope For Democrats

By David Hawkings, CQ-Roll Call (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Even at the center of the Beltway’s echo chamber, the preoccupation with a presidential election almost two years away is starting to sound a bit crazy. So maybe the best antidote is to start talking about an important political occasion more than five years in the future.

It’s the next census, on April Fools’ Day 2020. Just a handful of the numbers will have a significant effect on the congressional power structure, most importantly whether Democrats gain a better shot in the next decade at controlling the House.

And unlike the race for the White House, a fundamentally human drama with the potential to take more unpredictable turns than any previous such contest, the census story is all about mathematics and the basic plotline already is pretty easy to predict.

The main reason for a nationwide headcount at the beginning of every decade, the Constitution says, is so seats in the House can be allocated among the states. This reapportionment is a vital prerequisite to redistricting, the “R” word that gets so much more attention. That’s because the political cartographers can’t draw new congressional district lines until they know how many districts they’re allowed to draw.

We’ve reached the midpoint between the last census and the next one, and three more Election Days will pass before the next national House map is in place. But population trends paint a clear big picture of the coming changes: More seats will be stripped from the colder parts of the country and assigned to the warmer regions. And states that are either politically competitive or reliably Democratic, and where the Hispanic population is already important and growing, dominate the list of likely winners.

Using population estimates the Census Bureau released at the end of the year, the first reapportionment forecasts are out from Election Data Services, a nonpartisan consulting firm specializing in political demographics with a strong track record for such predictions. EDS now expects Texas, which is growing at the rate of half a million people annually, will be awarded three more seats. California, Colorado, Florida and North Carolina can each look forward to adding a district. Arizona, Oregon and Virginia are still in the hunt for an additional seat if their population growth is on the high end of estimates.

The states on course to lose a seat, because they’re not growing as fast as the nation, are Alabama, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and West Virginia. New York is on the bubble.

The projections are cause for some optimism from the Democrats. Moving seats mainly to solid “blue” or “purple” states gives the party at least a shot at decent gains in 2022, though that’s far from certain given the myriad variables in redistricting — which include control of state legislatures, the makeup of the federal courts and the views of the Justice Department. (It’s way too early to predict, for example, how many new Texas districts will be drawn to elect a Hispanic Democrat from around San Antonio or Houston instead of a conservative Republican from the Dallas-Fort Worth area.)

There’s also a chance reapportionment would slightly strengthen the 2024 and 2028 Democratic presidential nominees’ hands a bit in the Electoral College, where a state’s strength equals the size of its total congressional delegation. (Keep in mind by the time reapportionment is announced in December 2020, America will have had two presidential elections.)

The reason reapportionment is a zero-sum game has nothing to do with the Constitution. The current size of the House was fixed in a law enacted in 1909. Every state is guaranteed at least one seat, and the remaining 385 are parceled out using a formula requiring advanced knowledge in statistics to explain. (It goes by the benign name “method of equal proportions.”)

If fewer than ten seats shift next time, as seems likely, it will be the smallest reapportionment since before World War II, suggesting the enormous demographic shift of the last half-century is slowing down.

After all, over the last few decades as air-conditioning ducts filled the new homes and office buildings of the South and West and assembly lines shut down across the Midwest and Northeast, millions of people picked up stakes in the Rust Belt and put down new roots in the Sun Belt. And the political clout of the states has moved accordingly.

When John F. Kennedy was elected in 1960, just 12 percent of House members were from either California or Texas. In the next decade, that share looks to crest at 21 percent. If Arizona gets a 10th seat, its House strength will have quintupled since the 1950s. Florida’s delegation has more than tripled thanks to the previous five reapportionments. Getting a 28th seat next time would cement its status as the third most populous state ahead of New York, which has seen its House strength shrink steadily from its peak of 45 seats in the 1940s to 27 today.

If Pennsylvania loses its 19th seat, its delegation will be exactly half what it was at the height of the industrial age a century ago. If the predictions hold true, Ohio’s 15 seats (17 pivotal electoral votes) will be only three more than those for Virginia, another swing state. When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, Ohio had twice as many electoral votes.

The only state looking to lose population during this decade is West Virginia, so it’s sure to shrink from three House districts to two. And Rhode Island, which has been assigned a pair of seats for all but 20 years since the 1790s, is on the cusp of becoming the eighth state represented by an at-large member. That would be an all-time high.

All this will come true, of course, only if population trends hold steady and the Census Bureau’s count reflects the gains and losses accurately. And here’s where this year’s legislative politics come in. Already, demographers are fretting about reduced appropriations leading to serious census corner-cutting.

“It would be ironic,” said EDS President Kimball Brace, if “Republican-led efforts in the new Congress to cut government spending could cause Republican-leaning states like Texas to lose out in apportionment.”

Photo: ehpien via Flickr

The Sky Isn’t Falling — Just Leaking

The new jobs numbers show unemployment declining slightly from 9.2 to 9.1 percent, with the economy adding well over 100,000 jobs, the minimum needed to keep pace with population growth and prevent the rate rising. After such a massive stock market collapse this week, the numbers were badly needed to stanch the bleeding.

And yet despite some initial rebounds here and abroad, markets remain stuck in neutral — and S&P, threatening to downgrade the United States’ credit rating for some time, took the plunge Friday, an unprecedented development.

Confidence has been badly shaken, and progressives are looking around and thinking for the first time in a long time that their president may be a one-termer. Political scientists love to point to the correlation between the jobs rate and presidential elections, and it is indeed strong — though real income growth seems to be the greater factor. Will Americans remember all those invisible payroll tax cuts Obama provided over the years? Invisible because they made themselves known only as small increases in take-home pay.

The economy is crying out for more fiscal stimulus, but also a more activist Fed, specifically one that sets a high inflation target and prints more money, rather than hawkishly worrying about a potential inflationary disaster that doesn’t exist. And the administration might do well to appoint some nominees to the Board of Governors and pressure that body to act.