Skip to content

Washington Post : Ecologist Corey Bradshaw looked at the question of “whether trying to reduce the size of the global population would help stave off climate change, the loss of species, and other environmental concerns. The resulting research, just out in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and co-authored by the University of Adelaide’s Barry Brook , seriously challenges the idea that greens ought to be campaigning for population control.”  

“On top of the serious ethical problems with trying to restrict the global population, the study also finds a purely practical one: It doesn’t even appear possible.”  

 Curbing Population Growth is Not an Environmental Solution
Modeling a variety of different scenarios, the researchers found that “only very unrealistic and extreme scenarios — 6 billion people suddenly killed in a catastrophic war or pandemic; or a sudden, draconian and globally enforced one-child policy — dramatically changed the trajectory of population growth by 2100.”  

“At present, we’re in a phase of population growth that is exponential … We may slow it down eventually, but there is no way to take away the current momentum.”  

Working Capital Review : CEOs increasingly see sustainability as core to success.

Recent Stories

Lawmakers welcome Zelenskyy but don’t have path to Ukraine aid

House GOP leaders scrap spending bill votes amid infighting

One of these five people will (probably) be Trump’s running mate

How a new generation of Merchant Marine ships can chart a course for government efficiency

At the Races: Beyond the Beltway, voters voted

Gibberish in Washington keeps them guessing (and spelling)