The Environmental Crisis

The modern environmental crisis encompasses many issues. In large part, however, we can classify the issues into three categories: population, resources, and environmental quality. In essence, these topics are what this chapter is about. However, the core of their subject areas is the following:

• Population

The current population of the Philippines is 109,475,626 as of Saturday, June 6, 2020, based on Worldometer elaboration of the latest United Nations data. The Philippines 2020 population is estimated at 109,581,078 people at mid year according to UN data. The Philippines population is equivalent to 1.41% of the total world population. The Philippines ranks number 13 in the list of countries (and dependencies) by population. The population density in the Philippines is 368 per Km² (952 people per mi²). The total land area is 298,170 Km2 (115,124 sq. miles) 47.5 % of the population is urban (52,008,603 people in 2020) The median age in the Philippines is 25.7 years.

At the global level, the human population has been increasing because of the excess of birth rates over death rates. The recent explosive population growth, and the poverty of so many people, is a root cause of much of the environmental crisis. Directly or indirectly, large population increases result in extensive deforestation, expanding deserts, land degradation by erosion, shortages of water, change in regional and global climate, endangerment and extinction of species, and other great environmental problems. Considered together, these damages represent changes in the character of the biosphere that are as cataclysmic as major geological events, such as glaciation.

• Resources

Two kinds of natural resources can be distinguished. A non-renewable resource is present in a finite quantity. As these resources are extracted from the environment, in a process referred to as mining, their stocks are inexorably diminished and so are available in increasingly smaller quantities for future generations. Non-renewable resources include metals and fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal. In contrast, a renewable resource can regenerate after harvesting, and if managed suitably, can provide a supply that is sustainable forever. However, to be renewable, the ability of the resource to regenerate cannot be compromised by excessive harvesting or inappropriate management practices. Examples of renewable resources include fresh water, the biomass of trees and agricultural plants and livestock, and hunted animals such as fish and deer. Ultimately, a sustainable economy must be supported by renewable resources. Too often, however, potentially renewable resources are not used responsibly, which impairs their renewal and represents a type of mining.

• Environmental Quality

This subject area deals with anthropogenic pollution and disturbances and their effects on people, their economies, other species, and natural ecosystems. Pollution may be caused by gases emitted by power plants and vehicles, pesticides, or heated water discharged into lakes. Examples of disturbance include clear-cutting, fishing, and forest fires.

Environmental Impacts of Humans

In a general sense, the cumulative impact of humans on the biosphere is a function of two major factors: (1) the size of the population and (2) the per-capita (per-person) environmental impact. The human population varies greatly among and within countries, as does the per-capita impact, which depends on the kind and degree of economic development that has occurred.

Paul Ehrlich, an American ecologist, has expressed this simple relationship using an “impact formula,” as follows: I = P × A × T, where

· I is the total environmental impact of a human population

· P is the population size

· A is an estimate of the per-capita affluence in terms of resource use

· T is the degree of technological development of the economy, on a per-capita basis

Calculations based on this simple PAT formula show that affluent, technological societies have a much larger per-capita environmental impact than do poorer ones.

How does Canada’s impact on the environment compare with that of more populous countries, such as China and India? We can examine this question by looking at two simple indicators of the environmental impact of both individual people and national economies: (a) the size of the human population, (b) the use of energy and (c) gross domestic product (GDP, or the annual value of all goods and services produced by a country). The use of energy is a helpful environmental indicator because power is needed to carry out virtually all activities in a modern society, including driving vehicles, heating or cooling buildings, manufacturing industrial products, and running computers. GDP represents all of the economic activities in a country, each of which results in some degree of environmental impact.

One of the major influences on the environmental impact of any human population is the number of people (the population size). In this respect, Canada has a much smaller population (35.1 million in 2015) compared to China (1.3 billion), India (1.1 billion), or the United States (321 million) (Figure 1.3a).

However, on a per-person basis, people living in Canada or the U.S. have much larger environmental impacts than do those living in China or India, as indicated by both per-capita energy use (Figure 1.3c) and per-capita GDP (Figure 1.3e). This difference is an inevitable consequence of the prosperous nature of the lifestyle of North Americans and other wealthier people, which on a per-capita basis is achieved by consuming relatively large amounts of natural resources and energy, while generating a great deal of waste materials. Sometimes this environmental effect of a wealthier population is referred to as “affluenza”.

However, the per-capita environmental impact is only part of the environmental influence of a country, or of any human population. To determine the national effect, the per-capita value must be multiplied by the size of the population. When this is done for energy, China and the U.S. have by far the largest values, while Canada and India are much less (Figure 1.3b). Still, it is remarkable that the national energy use of Canada, with its relatively small population, is close to that of India and within an order of magnitude of China, which have enormously larger populations. The same pattern is true of national the GDPs of those countries.

These observations drive home the fact that the environmental impact of any human population is a function of both (a) the number of people and (b) the per-person environmental impact. Because of this context, relatively wealthy countries like Canada have much larger environmental impacts than might be predicted based only on the size of their population. On the other hand, the environmental impacts of poorer countries are smaller than might be predicted based on their population. We can conclude that the environmental crisis is due to both overpopulation and excessive resource consumption.

Figure 1.3. The relative environmental impacts of China, India, Canada, and the United States. The environmental impacts of countries, and of their individual citizens, can be compared using simple indicators, such as the use of energy and the gross domestic product. Canada’s relatively small population, compared with China and India, is somewhat offset by its higher per-capita GDP and use of energy. However, because the per-capita data for the U.S. and Canada are similar, relative population sizes are the key influence on the environmental impacts of these two countries. Sources of data: population data are for 2015 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015); energy use (all commercial fuels) for 2013 (BP, 2013); GDP for 2013 (CIA, 2014).