24th February 2008

Two letters responding to David Binns letter in the Stroud News and Journal last week

Letter one:

David Binns disappointingly misrepresented my views regarding families considering stopping at two children to relieve the world's resources (20/02/08). To suggest that I see children as "possessions" or "commodities" is preposterous. I have also never "admired" China's one-child policy, indeed it has significant problems. Many developing countries have, without coercion, reduced their fertility rate by better schooling and contraception.

Grain prices are rocketing. How will another 3 billion be fed and housed? It is surely common sense that stabilising or reducing population would ameliorate almost all environmental impacts? This is a sensitive issue and population reduction is only a part of the answer: we need to also eat less meat, travel less, insulate our homes and all the other things Greens have been banging on about for years!

In the UK, immigration is the main driver for population growth, but David Binns is mistaken that abortion law has caused this. It is Government economic policies which result in for example the NHS and agriculture relying on migrants. I welcome these migrants contributions, but we need policies to reduce the causes of migration: not just today, but also the forecast mass migration caused by environmental degradation from our CO2 emissions.

However where David Binns talks of reducing consumption he is spot on. Yet the three main parties plan ever more  economic growth driven by ever more consumption. What we need instead is to create an economy that gives access to things we all need, like warm homes, healthy food and creative rewarding work without the ever increasing overuse of resources. An economy that meets human need and not the greed of a few.

Cllr. Philip Booth, Stroud District Green Party

Letter two:

It must be obvious, surely, that you can’t have perpetual growth in a finite
world. The world’s population has been increasing exponentially over the
last two centuries, from one billion in 1804 (UN figures) to 6.7 billion at
the present. Currently our numbers are increasing at nearly a quarter of a
million a day. If this forty year doubling were to continue unabated,
numbers would reach 30 billion by 2100, 150 billion by 2200.

Obviously this cannot happen. So what is going to stop it? Either the laws
of nature, or conscious decisions made by us.

When a wild population reaches the limit of the environment’s ability to
sustain it, there is a population crash, often in the region of 60-80%.
Humanity is not exempt from the laws of nature. Population pressure and
exhaustion of resources has been implicated in the collapse of several
civilisations.

The alternative is a considered action by the human race. According to Marie
Stopes, one pregnancy in three worldwide is unintentional. There are only
about five condoms per man per year in Sub- Saharan Africa. WHO estimates
that there are 19 million unsafe (back-street) abortions annually, resulting
in 68,000 deaths and between 2 and 7 million permanent disabilities. This
means that much can be done without coercion. Politicians know what to do
about this, but they need the backing of public opinion. Our part, as
individuals, is to provide that public opinion which will motivate our
politicians, as well as to consider the size of our own families, and also
to support charities like Marie Stopes International and International
Planned Parenthood Federation, who carry out the work of education, pre- and
post-natal care and provision of contraceptives entirely without coercion,
racism or patronising.

However, I entirely agree with David Binns’ assertion that we need to reduce
consumption, but to reduce  per capita consumption by half, say, at the same
time that population is doubling (in 40 years)  will leave us no better off.
Both of these issues must be faced.

Roger Plenty,

Rodborough Hill, Stroud