THE CROWDED PLANET
ZERO POPULATION GROWTH OF GREATER BOSTON
| Volume 11, Issue 2 | March/April 2001 |
|
THE CROWDED PLANET ZERO POPULATION GROWTH OF GREATER BOSTON
|
|
In The News |
Special Section: Global Warming |
Editorial |
About Us |
What Does The Policy Do?
The global "gag" rule (originally referred to as the "Mexico City policy") was first announced by the Reagan Administration at the 1984 United Nations International Conference on Population in Mexico City. President William J. Clinton rescinded this executive branch policy in 1993. President George W. Bush reinstated the policy immediately upon taking office in January 2001.
The global "gag" rule denies U.S. family-planning funding to any foreign non governmental organization (NGO) that uses any of its own private, non-U.S. dollars to:
Implications Of The Policy: 1984 - 1992
Despite the claims made by supporters of the global "gag" rule, this policy will do nothing to make abortion more rare. The "gag" rule will, however, make abortion less safe. When these restrictions were first imposed, medical personnel were not trained to deal with unsafe abortions. Fear of losing desperately needed family planning funds led some providers to refuse to treat women with severe complications or infection resulting from unsafe abortions.
Furthermore, the global "gag" rule undermined the very thing that does prevent abortions: family-planning services. When the restrictions were first in effect, many of the most effective and experienced family-planning providers in developing countries could not comply with the restrictions banning activities that were (and are) legal in their own countries; the provision of high-quality services suffered as a result. And unnecessary taxpayer funding was diverted from paying for vital health services to paying for burdensome paperwork and monitoring responsibilities associated with the global "gag" rule. In summary, the way to make abortion more rare is by assuring that high-quality family-planning services are widely available—an outcome the global "gag" rule does nothing to help achieve, and in fact, makes even more difficult.
The reimposition of this onerous policy is likely to have even more dramatic effects today.
The World Is A Different Place Now Than It Was In 1984
Democracy has burgeoned around the world, due in part to U.S. government support to NGOs that stand up for the basic principles of freedom. The number of activists in, and level of support for local, indigenous women’s organizations has also grown. They advocate for policies in the interests of their families, thus promoting a more just society.
The HIV/AIDS pandemic has exploded, especially among women. Whereas HIV/AIDS cases were only first being reported in 1984, more than 36 million people, most in the developing world, are now infected and 22 million have already died. Family planning programs provide both condoms and information that helps curtail the spread of HIV. These services can be life-saving to women, particularly in situations where they are monogamous but their spouses are not.
The world is facing even greater challenges related to the health of our planet—water scarcity, increased pollution, resource depletion and loss of habitat for other species. Rapid population growth exacerbates environmental problems. Environmental health is closely interrelated with the health of women and their families. Family planning services not only directly affect the well being of families, they have an impact on how we coexist on this planet.
Since 1985, 20 nations have significantly changed their abortion laws; only one to substantially curtail legal access to abortion. The global trend continues to move toward providing safe, legal abortions, while the reinstatement of this global "gag" rule moves in the opposite direction.
At the International Conference on Population and Development in 1994, the global community recognized unsafe abortion as a major public health problem and highlighted the value of family-planning programs not only to protect and improve women’s health, but also to help achieve sustainable development and protect the global environment.
Support the Global Democracy Promotion Act
No service provider "promotes" abortion either in the context of pregnancy counseling or lobbying. These organizations make available neutral information concerning a woman’s legal medical options in coping with an unintended pregnancy. Why should U.S. policy prohibit this?
But the global "gag" rule did more than prevent abortion counseling. Providers, who see first-hand the morbidity and mortality associated with unsafe abortion, could do nothing to advocate for life saving changes to their own country’s abortion laws. In contrast, in the United States, it was the ability of providers and advocates to speak freely and openly about the harmful effects of our own country’s abortion laws that lead to the legalization of abortion. This, in turn, caused a dramatic decrease in deaths and harm due to unsafe, illegal abortion.
Regardless of what decision an NGO makes—whether it is to continue receiving U.S. funding and give up the ability to speak freely on these vital public health matters, or to forego U.S. funding—the women of the world suffer.
Forty-nine of the 50 countries in which USAID provides family planning assistance permit abortion in some instances. Only one country prohibits abortion altogether. The providers in these 49 countries will be coerced into determining which of the life saving and health promoting services they should not provide to their clients. Should the NGO comply with its own country’s law or the current US administrations antiabortion policy?
Any restrictions impede the ability of family planning clinics to provide effective services and affect overall access to critical health and education services.
Rapid population growth is one of the leading contributors to environmental degradation around the world. The best way to address this problem is through voluntary family planning programs that empower women to make their own choices about how many children to have and when to have them. These programs work best when they are responsive to the needs and concerns of the women and families they serve, and one of the most important components of a successful family planning program is providing clients with complete and accurate information about their choices. The global gag rule undermines the ability of family planning providers to provide that information, and threatens to destroy the trust between provider and patient.
In short, the global "gag" rule is bad policy. Its effects will be directly opposite to those intended. It needs to be overturned, and soon. One way to do this is to support the Global Democracy Promotion Act, which will do far more to prevent abortions than the global "gag" rule ever will.
"When a well packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic." —Dresden James
As we who are so terribly concerned about the issue of overpopulation know, the "p" word is often absent from many political discussions, even from discussions about environmental problems. However, as we also know, all other solutions about all other problems depend on how well we are able to solve the problem of a burgeoning population on what is already an overpopulated planet.
In December of 1994, 34 Heads of State from all of the countries in the American Hemisphere (with the exception of Cuba) met in Miami, Florida, to initiate discussions in order to construct a multilateral agreement that would bring down trade barriers in all the countries. It was to be called the "Free Trade Agreement of the Americas" (FTAA). This summit, besides being sponsored by all the governments, was also supported by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the Organization of American States (OAS) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), also known as the Tripartite Committee. It was to be modeled roughly after the European Economic Union, which brought down trade barriers all over Europe and introduced the Eurodollar to all the member states.
Since that meeting, the Hemisphere’s trade ministers have met four times in order to negotiate the details of the agreement, which they hope now will be concluded by the year 2005. The website for this arrangement, with all its history and details, is: www.ftaa-alca.org
Should this agreement fulfill its promise of success, trees will be cut down to make room for more shopping malls from Fairbanks, Alaska, to Montevideo, Argentina. McDonald’s hamburger stands will dot the Andes. Wal-Mart stores will go up along the Amazon River, and SUVs will roar down and up the Pan-American Highway. The indigenous peoples of each area will get jobs as cashiers and stocking clerks at each location.
Grass roots political activists and environmental organizations are being called to help organize resistance to this effort. An umbrella organization called Peoples’ Global Action (PGA) has begun meetings to organize political actions against this massive and largely secret effort by the member states. It is PGA’s interest to stop this environmental desecration, worker displacement and orgy of consumption. Here in the New England area, the first meetings are being held on the campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). One of the peripheral elements of their strategy is to organize resistance to Plan Columbia, which is the recent allocation by the United States Congress of $1.3 billion to fight the guerrilla activity in the nation of Columbia. This decision by the government of the United States is its biggest mistake since the Vietnam War. Their website is: www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp
I have been invited to the planning sessions not, unfortunately, as chair of the Boston Area Chapter of ZPG but as a member of Columbia Vive, an organization dedicated to spreading the truth about Columbia and the horrible mistake the United States is making there. However, I have already written letters to the organizers asking that I be able to bring up the issue of overpopulation. I have not as yet heard from them, and the first meeting is in two days. I am anxious to see how these grass roots activists, union organizers, academicians and environmentalists react to my suggestion.
Parts of the following article were published in a book titled Weather: How It Works and Why It Matters (see review on next page). —Editor
Two of the winters of this last decade in New England have not been very pleasant. Each in its turn brought record snowfall to many places, and near-record cold temperatures as well. In the winter of 1993-94, Hartford, Connecticut recorded the coldest two-month average of the century, and a record 85 inches of snow. Just two winters later, Hartford received a whopping 115 inches of snow, 30 inches more than the previous record. Can global warming be real? Doesn’t this disprove it?
Global warming is a result of the greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere. The effect is most widely experienced on a summer day whenever a car is left in the sunshine with the windows closed. The interior quickly becomes stifling hot. The window glass is transparent to sunlight, or nearly so, shining as it does in the visual portion of the spectrum. Reradiation of excess heat back outward occurs in the infrared, where the glass is mostly opaque. Much of this reradiation is blocked from escaping, and the air temperature inside the car will rise until an equilibrium is reached. The atmosphere acts in the same way, and consequently the Earth’s surface is warmer than it would be if no greenhouse effect were present. But another factor is rising as well; this is the weather of extremes.
The fierce winter storm of 1991, chronicled by Sebastian Junger in his book, The Perfect Storm, and later in a movie thriller of the same name, resulted from the juxtaposition of three low pressure areas, or lows, in conjunction with high tides. These events raised one of the very worst storms in East Coast history. In total contrast to the storm full of sound and fury, the norm in summer is becoming a steady dose of yellow-gray sky lying heavy and uniform, broken only by the bright yellow Sun shining diffusely high overhead. The stifling heat is pervasive; no breath of air breaks the very palpable stillness; no zephyrs come to relieve the all too oppressive miasma.
Here we have described perhaps the two extremes in the weather of the temperate regions of the World. In the first, the wind of winter storms ravages in barbaric proportions, and in the second not even a gentle susurrus stirs the leaves in the unrelenting heat. Climatologists are coming to the realization that both of these extremes are becoming much more commonplace. Extreme though they appear, they constitute the weather of the future. Most of the century now just ending featured a gentle period of weather that was abnormal in its very normality and relative calm. The weather of floods and drought, and long steamy summers and cold snowy winters is our likely lot for the coming century, and the addition of greenhouse gases by humankind will only further and prolong the misery.
"Heat drives the weather engine" some have said, and almost all of our heat comes directly from the Sun. But this remarkable star, a furnace made of its own fuel, is an amazingly constant energy source, varying hardly at all over recorded history. As Michael Perlman has stated, "a fundamental rule is that heat energy is the engine of climactic extremity." Thus we can look forward to extremes of heat and cold, floods and drought, wind and stagnation as the rule; overall heat increases but locally weather will feature extremes of all kinds.
We have known for decades that carbon dioxide is the prime cause of greenhouse warming. The gas is an efficient blocker of infrared radiation, more effective than the more abundant gases (nitrogen, oxygen, argon, and water vapor) combined. For centuries, carbon dioxide remained at a level near 0.028 percent, equivalent to 280 parts per million air particles (abbreviated ppm) in the total atmosphere. This level began to rise slowly at the start of the industrial revolution, from 280 ppm to about 300 ppm by 1950, and then more rapidly, to near 360 ppm today. The steep rise in the abundance of this gas has been closely monitored since 1958. The amount varies annually, rising with the disappearance of foliage in the Northern Hemisphere each fall and winter, and declining with its emergence in the springtime. But a steady overall increase is also present, as is shown in Figure 1. The increase is the result of human consumption of fossil fuels in ever-increasing amounts, and lately also to increasing deforestation, especially in tropical regions. Carbon dioxide leads the way, but methane and other gases also act as greenhouse gases, although in smaller amounts.
Global warming, the steady heating of the atmosphere averaged all over the Earth, is mostly due to two human components. First is the explosive growth in population; there were a billion of us just two centuries ago, now the population is increasing by about this much each decade with over six billion altogether. The second is the increased use and waste of energy per person.
The case for global warming is commanding, if not conclusively proven beyond a doubt. Can the parallel increase after a long period of stability, be coincidental in both the average temperature around the globe and the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere? Or does the one give rise to the other, as has long been predicted by theory? The latter is the more probable explanation and if so, our species is perforce making a historic experiment, unplanned as such and global in scale. If current emission trends continue, the gain in heat energy from greenhouse gases would double by the year 2030. The average temperature is predicted to rise by another 1° to 3° F around the world by that time. Polar ice caps would melt further, and ocean levels would rise and inundate low-lying coastal areas. Increased drought and other climatic changes would also occur, but with less predictability.
We have seen climatic changes that confirm an overall warming trend. Our understanding of past temperatures gained enormously with the ice core samples extracted from the Greenland and Antarctic icecaps, of ice accumulating there over the past 400,000 years. Scientists are now able to say with some conviction, that summers over the last decade have been among the very hottest not only of historical times, but over that entire interval of 400,000 years! North America and Europe alone have experienced many heat waves of unprecedented severity and extent since 1980.
But what about the recent winters? Shouldn’t they too be warmer and milder than their predecessors? Most global warming models predict that temperatures will increase more rapidly in the cold polar regions than at midlatitudes or in the tropics. But as we are acutely aware, some of the last winters were among the most severe. Supporting evidence in the form of frost damage reaching into more southerly counties in the orange growing areas of Florida, for example, suggest colder winters as well as hotter summers in our recent past and near future.
Many in the media have been quick to belittle the evidence for global warming during these long cold winters. But this is not realistic; colder winters are not less consistent with the effects of greenhouse gases than the very hot summers for two reasons. The first is that overall climatic trends can be masked by short-term effects that temporarily overwhelm them. It may take longer for the slower warming trend to affect winter weather, whereas it is already evident in the summertime.
Secondly, we must examine the nature of winter weather systems, especially here in midlatitudes. In summer, systems are comparatively large and slow moving. Seemingly endless strings of hot lazy days pass by with only an occasional shower to provide some variety, and rarely a front of any consequence. Few days in summer are fully overcast and gray from dawn to dusk; most are hazy with the Sun visible if not sharply clear. Air masses are huge and the fronts between one and the next are rare. The best known and most prominent summer feature is the infamous Bermuda High, that pumps its hot sticky air over us, frequently for weeks at a time. All summer long, the maritime tropical air holds forth and is only occasionally invaded by an outbreak of cooler, drier continental polar air. Summer rainfall is mostly of short duration, in the form of brief showers and thunderstorms.
In the winter months, the cold continental polar air pushes south again and again into New England and beyond. Weather systems are much smaller and more violent, and they move much faster. It is not uncommon for two storms to pass by in a week and cold and warm fronts are frequent and sometimes severe. The storms, sometimes called nor’easters, can dump rain or snow in great amounts and for days at a time.
Last winter we were belted with snow and cold winds, primarily because a low-pressure system formed high in the atmosphere and sat for months over eastern North America. This polar vortex allowed cold air to pump down from Canada over the East and Midwest, where it met the milder Atlantic air. The boundary between them became a track for one storm after another and we were on the cold side most of the time.
This may happen again this next winter, or it may not for several years. But it is not at all inconsistent with global warming. Next time we experience a long stretch of harsh winter weather, we would do well to recall, and weather forecasters on television would do well to remind us, that local and temporary winter conditions have overpowered the general pervasive warmup that tends to dominate throughout the long hot summer.
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
It’s all around us, no matter how we try to escape. The turbulent air, carrying storms, cold, and heat, is almost unbearably complex, yet we must understand it if we hope to undo some of the damage we’ve done to Earth’s climate over the past century. Atmospheric scientists Arthur Upgren and Jurgen Stock make the case for this understanding and lay the groundwork for readers’ learning with Weather: How It Works and Why It Matters. The writing is elegant and low-key, given the gravity of the situation; the authors take care to base their claims and explanations only on solid evidence.
Exploring the history of atmospheric science, the nature of storms, weather on other planets, paleoclimatology, and the current trend toward global warming, the authors masterfully express the simple principles that give rise to such wonderfully complex systems. From El Niño to Old Man Winter, the complete cast of meteorological characters travels across the stage, each adding a bit of insight before moving on. The closing chapters cover the increasingly urgent greenhouse symptoms we have experienced, and ask for calm as we explore means to turn back the clock a bit. Readers looking for a quiet, rational guide to our planet’s climate couldn’t ask for better than Weather: How It Works and Why It Matters. —Rob Lightner
Book Description
An insightful look at the science of weather and the human role in climate change.
Scientists have delved deep into the smallest particles of matter and have extended their view to the far reaches of the universe, but still seem unable to predict the temperature five days hence. In this intriguing book, two scientists examine recent progress in the fields of meteorology and climatology. Amid colorful anecdotes of the Galapagos, Siberia, and places closer to home, they describe the earth’s atmosphere, its origin and structure, and the forces that have shaped and continue to affect it. They explore temperature, pressure, and other properties of air and weather, including warm and cold fronts, highs and lows, clouds, trade winds, prevailing westerlies, and sky phenomena such as rainbows, halos, coronae, and sun dogs. The authors end with a discussion of the major threats to earth’s atmosphere brought on by human activity, including global warming and ozone depletion, and argue that pure science—not politics—should dictate our policy responses.
About the Author
Arthur Upgren is Professor of Astronomy at Wesleyan University, former director of its Van Vleck Observatory, and Senior Research Scientist at Yale University. He is the author of Night Has a Thousand Eyes: A Naked-Eye Guide to the Sky, Its Science and Lore. Jurgen Stock has been on the faculty of Hamburg and Case-Western Reserve Universities. He has also been director of the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory at La Serena, Chile, as well as founding director of CIDA, the Venezuelan National Observatory at Mrida.
Throw a frog in a pot of boiling water, and she jumps out. Heat the water slowly, and she gradually cooks to death. That’s because frogs can’t sense slow changes in temperature.
Likewise, we live in an environment that is slowly heating up. The Earth got a few degrees warmer during the last century. Much larger increases are forecast for this one.
Heat drives the weather engine; small changes in temperature make a big difference in climate. We are due for increasingly severe hurricanes, floods, droughts, and earthquakes.
Global warming is caused by greenhouse gases emitted from our power plants, factories, cars and trucks. Here in Western North Carolina, these gases form a gray haze over the mountains, and aggravate asthma and other respiratory problems.
Global warming acts in concert with other major, but gradual, environmental changes: deforestation, pollution, and overpopulation. These forces each egg the others on, worsening their effects. Together, they conspire to make our planet all but unlivable by the year 2100. They are slow trends, but powerful ones—and their pace is accelerating.
Unlike the frog, we can’t just jump out. Will we at least have enough sense to turn off the heat?
Dear Editor:
The headline in today’s Boston Globe (Tuesday, Jan. 23): "Bush bans abortion aid overseas" is factually incorrect. As the same article states on page 4, "...US law (already) forbids the use of taxpayer funds for abortions abroad." What George Bush did was ban US taxpayers’ money to organizations that provide family planning services abroad. These family planning services offer advice on abortion as a last resort if the woman is already pregnant and doesn’t want the child, just as many government supported organizations do in this country. That is a big difference.
By cutting off funding to family planning services worldwide, more women are going to unintentionally become pregnant and, in some cases, seek abortions. The end effect of what George Bush did will be to cause millions of unwanted children to be born in an already overpopulated world. It will also increase the number of abortions that will take place, because the funding that was cut had been going to purchase birth control pills and other contraceptive devices.
A dumb policy? You bet it is.
Jeff Herman
Jamaica Plain
(617) 522-6324
If you were formerly on our email list and are now getting this newsletter in paper form, it means that your email address has been bouncing for at least two issues (in some cases more). First I apologize that you have not gotten a backup hard copy until now. Second, if you have a new email and wish to go back to the email (and/or to stop receiving the paper copy) please contact me. Remember that the newsletter can always be viewed on the web site: http://www.populationconnection.org/chapters/boston/
Thanks for keeping in touch with us.
Howie Breinan
Email and address list master
breinan@alumni.stanford.org
