I’m one of Swedens stearing group members and I had the priveledge to be part of a coupel of days of Naresh’s vistit to Sweden.

I agree with Hillevi, and would like to add that I believe that the ecological footprint’s value is that it should be at the pesonal level and a tool for solidarity and staying within the planetary boundaries. I also like Friends of the Earths environmental space as it is embedding a foundation for fairness and stability if reached.

Thank you all for beeing there and doing transition!
Warm regards/Ylva

First oil well in 1859 and global population:

10s of thousands of years to reach 1.5 billion in 1883
Another 74 years to add another 1.5 billion
Another 27 years to add another 2 billion
Another 12 years to add another 1 billion

Do any of us really believe that we would have 6 billion people on the planet without oil. There are a lot of complex issues around this which involve not only simple numbers of people but what those people are consuming in terms of energy and global resources, but I feel that however you slice it, nature will decide whether 6 billion is a reasonable number when we’re down, down in oil (and gas) production.

Earlier I was actually making the point (but obviously not very well!!) that we are global citizens, not inhabitants isolated nation states (as you appeared to imply is the desirable Swedish situation). But I also wanted to highlight some of the demographic trends – which seem to get missed in some of the arguments about population – and that suggest global birth rates are in decline.

It frightens me that many people want to shift the blame for the mess we’re in onto some ‘other’(here, potentially here or overseas) and misrepresent the demographic data (which I reiterate and acknowledge doesn’t show declining global population – but does show declining birth rates: in many countries to below replacement levels). I think misunderstood your first post and thought you were doing the same – I’m sorry for that.

I’m not saying that absolute population pressure (regardless of patterns of consumption and other factors)isn’t a problem, I’m just saying it’s part of a complex picture and that among other things global inequities coupled with over-consumption in the minority world are just as much of a problem. That’d be our over-consuming lifestyles and our reluctance to really address inequity.

I’m very interested in and in favour of re-localisation, but I think we have to do it in an outward-facing, open-minded way.

And you’ve guessed right, I am uncomfortable with these kinds of sentiments (and, though I know you’re making a tongue in cheek rhetorical point after the last comma, be aware that some might misread it):

“…because our borders are so darn wide open to any economic migrant who thinks they will/tries long enough to get in – as well as the (entitled to) genuine political refugees = our population is increasing drastically still, even if us native British only stick to our “replacement two children” each.”

I try and think about why most of those economic migrants are economic migrants and why we aren’t (yet)… It’s also uncomfortable, but I can’t help but feel those economic migrants have some right to ask for a bit of the lifestyle our use of their resources has made possible.

Also, your last point appears to suggest that though Sweden’s people have a big ecological footprint, because they have a big country so it’s OK. If this is what you mean (and I’ve probably misunderstood again!) it rather flies in the face of your acknowledgment that we are global citizens in a world with porous borders. To me this means we should be thinking about global hectares, not simply dividing the land area of each country by its population. By that measure (and I don’t have the numbers and could be wrong) I suspect Sweden’s population doesn’t come out much better than the rest of western Europe.

i think what has happened re the data – is Swedish people individually have a high “ecological footprint” – but your country as a whole doesnt because you are fortunate enough to be underpopulated if anything.

(walks off trying not to feel envious of that fact….)

Wrong…wrong…wrong. A person is a person is an extra body wherever they happen to live on this Planet of ours. We simply cannot/should not count only what is going on in one little country (ie Britain) because that is the one we personally live in. We are citizens of the world.

The other thing is that – uncomfortable fact time – because our borders are so darn wide open to any economic migrant who thinks they will/tries long enough to get in – as well as the (entitled to) genuine political refugees = our population is increasing drastically still, even if us native British only stick to our “replacement two children” each.

Just a question. Who told you that Sweden is in its Ecological Footprint??? It just isn’t true. I really would like to know who you got this information from and how they do calculate. Spreading this kind of information creates a lot of confusion in peoples minds.

We are the country in Europe using most energy per person! Whe are on number 18 in the entire world of per capita footprint!

all the best
Hillevi

Whilst I fundamentally agree that an ever growing population isn’t a sustainable situation I think we have to be very careful to avoid a scenario where we end up blaming (or appearing to support those who blame) poor people in poor countries for environmental problems that are actually the responsibility of rich people in rich countries – a result of our ‘development’ trajectory.

More to the point it seems clear to me that many of those countries are in the mess they’re in because of our (ongoing) demands for the raw materials that fuel our consumer culture.

Global population growth rates are in decline, and we can continue to reduce them through the many non-coercive and positive means that have been shown to work over the past few decades. This doesn’t mean that the global population is contracting but it is the only first step available to us (OK; it’s the only first step I’m prepared to consider – there are other more radical and ‘morally complex’ approaches) and we have to hope that it will lead to contraction.

In the UK replacement rate is around 2.06 that means that though there has been a much reported baby boom in the last couple of years, even in 2008 with a total fertility rate of 1.96 (according to the Office for National Statistics: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=951)the UK was below replacement fertility levels.

I couldn’t find the UNs global data presented neatly anywhere but wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate It shows a global picture of uneven but generally declining birth rates and, though this still means population growth, it is unprecedented in human history and demonstrates we are in fact tackling a very real problem. But we’re not tackling consumption in the minority world, continue to pursue the same bankrupt models for international development and the profligacy and waste associated with industrial societies: http://provenancesupply.co.uk/2009/09/reducing-waste-feeding-the-world/

We can’t make half the world’s population disappear overnight so that we can continue with our destructive lifestyles – this is our problem, we have to face it head-on not shift the responsibility to the poor and the unborn.

http://www.thelocal.se/14082/20080902/

Nope….seriously NOT convinced that even more overpopulation has ANY plus points at all…

More people means more land built on and lost, greater demand for resources of all descriptions, greater and greater difficulty in having valuable things like peace & quiet/privacy/recreational countryside to visit/greater difficulty for some of us in staying calm and focused on The Transition when we watch those who produced these “extra mouths to feed” over & above “replacement value” clearly not REALLY understanding the problems we face…

I have spent the last 30 or so years watching with steadily increasing fear/anger/sheer horror as the level of overpopulation has gone on and on and on increasing…..and still watching people having more than “replacement value” number of children and pretending that they didnt realise what our single biggest problem is…..and, yes, we all DO have personal responsibility for recognising that the number of children we have stopped being our “own personal choice” back the second we got full control of that….ie 30 years back.