Vancouver’s young generation embraces higher density

News item: “Micro suites” planned for Vancouver-area development

Janet and Bob (pictured) of Vancouver, BC — a jurisdiction heralded around the world as “the model city” by planners and politicians from afar who drop in for two-day visit of wining , dining and smoozing — represent the new generation of Canadians with a “green” vision. The same vision as their “green” Mayor Gregor Robertson. It is the vision of a sustainable future where citizens willingly choose to live more simply so that more and more billions of people can simply live.

That means living “smaller” (and smaller and smaller and smaller). For many, like Janet and Bob who used to live as man and wife, it means living apart in separate cardboard 36 cubic foot boxes in order to save the planet and sustain Vancouver’s reputation as a “welcoming” city by making room for the unending parade of humanity wishing to make it their home. . . .

Today is a day like any other. The morning paper is on the front step. Traffic is backed up. Another ozone alert. Homebuilders are optimistic new home starts are on the rise. Too few jobs were created last month. Consumers didn’t spend as much as manufacturers and retailers hoped. A global slowdown is making tough times for mining companies. And U.S. presidential candidates promise they have the roadmap for a return to robust economic growth.

Turn on the radio on your way to work today, and – as routine as all the above sound – they will be discussed to the exclusion of the fact that today is Earth Overshoot Day. That’s a shame, because Overshoot Day has more relevance to your quality of life, and the lives of your children, than any of items occupying the pundits and newscasters. . . .

Canadaian Ecosocialist Ian Angus is determined to undermine efforts to achieve sustainable population levels. He’s convinced we can only choose one remedy for our society’s unsustainable ills.

I disagree strongly with this view, and I take great exception to several of his misassumptions and generalizations about sustainable population advocacy. So it is tempting NOT to bring attention to what he writes. However, I think we can all learn something from his mistakes. I trust you to see through the fallacies in his arguments, but just in case the clueless happen across this, I’ll shine a little light here on them.

Angus’ mission in life is to rid the world of capitalism. He is certain we cannot achieve climate stability unless we replace capitalism with socialism. He may very well be right. Where he errs, however, is in his view that – regardless of which system we organize by – the sheer quantity of people on the planet has little to do with our sustainability or carbon footprint. Of this he is so certain, that he co-wrote a book, Too Many People?, to convince us. . . .

The world is overpopulated.
Overpopulation is everywhere.
It is a major cause of most of the crises we face.
We can fix it…humanely, voluntarily, and starting today.

Six things stand in our way.

This week a few human rights and too few environmental organizations will observe World Population Day. In 1989, as world population passed the 5 billion mark, the United Nations declared July 11 World Population Day. In the 23 years since, we’ve added another 2 billion.

The UN’s latest mid-range scenario has us passing through 10 billion before this century ends. We’ve been adding a billion to the planet about every 12 years, but the UN expects fertility rates to decline such that it will take nearly 80 years to add the next 3 billion. This scenario also has us hitting peak population just after 2100. Some feel this means population growth is no longer a concern. . . .

On July 11 a few people and organizations observe World Population Day. I write “few” because the subjects of population growth and overpopulation are too often ignored or even avoided. Even those organizations which do make note of the day generally tapdance around the issue. They talk about “population dynamics” rather than “population growth.” They avoid the word “overpopulation.” “Birth control” becomes “family planning.” “Making responsible decisions about family size” is not mentioned. Instead we talk about “reproductive health,” “reproductive rights,” “equality or education for women,” etc. Even the United Nations, which started World Population Day in 1989, beats around the bush in its annual World Population Day statements. . . .