US Population to Top 300 Million 792
An anonymous reader writes "The number of Americans will surpass 300 million this month, a milestone that raises environmental impact questions for the only major industrial nation whose population is increasing substantially. The US census bureau says the 300 million mark will be reached 39 years after US population topped 200 million and 91 years after it exceeded 100 million. That makes US the third most populous country behind china and india. It is noteworthy that sheer number of human beings do not necessarily have the heaviest impact on the environment. Instead environmental impact is a calculation that involves population, affluence and technology. The US consumes nearly 25% of the world's energy though it has only 5% of the world's population and has the highest per capita oil consumption worldwide. Each American produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, a rate about 5 times that in developing countries."
Plenty of Room (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Plenty of Room (Score:5, Insightful)
So the hispanics, whose population growth rate was over triple that of the general population last I checked, are all living in desirable areas?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the US is as bad as many foreigners make it out to be, then why are so many immigrants moving here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Correct. You are our 12th largest state. Rather larger than my home state of NY, which could fit several of the smaller states inside it.
Our smallest state has an area of only 1500 square miles, much is which is actually nothing more than tidal marsh.
And despite some claims to the contrary, we're not particularly overcrowded. .
How many wild bears and big cats do you have left? If the answer is "none" I'll join the group that thinks you're overcrowd
Re:Plenty of Room (Score:4, Interesting)
SSHHHH!!!!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
State of New England (Score:5, Funny)
New England is really one state, it just gets twelve Senatorial votes and has a particularly byzantine internal tax code.
Re:State of New England (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Plenty of Room (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Plenty of Room (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Plenty of Room (Score:5, Insightful)
It's that simple, really. If the grapes like the climate, so will we. And, if not, at least we will have wine.
Re:Plenty of Room (Score:4, Funny)
But but... Day After Tomorrow said...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Plenty of Room (Score:5, Insightful)
Number of major earthquakes on the West Coast: about 5 or 6 in the past century, spread out from California to Alaska.
Percentage of years in which Buffalo, New York has freeze-your-ass-off winters: 100.
Grey Days (Score:3, Funny)
AGAIN cue the anarcho-capitalists (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like the last story, cue the anarcho-capitalists who will ask "Would you rather have it any other way?"
They just dont get it.
Re:AGAIN cue the anarcho-capitalists (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, they probably will. But would you rather have it any other way?
Re: (Score:2)
Trashy Americans? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even our cars are pretty much designed to fall apart after 3 years of regular use. How can American's not be leaders in producing trash in this kind of environment. Only good note is my mother in the law is a packrat and has not thrown hardly anything away for the last 30+ years. But I guess she is just a minor rounding error on the average.
Not necessarily. (Score:3, Interesting)
Take off the rose-colored glasses. (Score:5, Insightful)
Cars today are far more reliable than cars were 40 or 50 years ago. You can take pretty much any car today, and expect to get 100,000 miles out of it, properly maintained. This is not just Japanese cars, most domestic cars will last this long too. A whole lot of cars didn't used to have odometers that even went beyond 100k; it was just assumed that it would be scrapped by that point. Plus, they're more efficient, safer, and cost less in real-dollar terms. Not to mention a lower defect rate and less production waste. In short, you get a lot more for your dollar when you purchase a 2006 automobile than its 1956 equivalent.
Maintainance statistics on refrigerators I don't have as readily, but I'm willing to bet that you're viewing the past with some rose-colored glasses there, too. Most major appliances today will easily last ten years, in fact I'll bet that more of them are thrown away because they're no longer stylish, than because they actually break.
There are certain legitimate criticisms of the way a lot of mechancial devices are currently designed (sealed units, difficult to repair), however the upshot of this is that they're both more reliable, require less maintainance (when's the last time you had to have the coolant in your fridge topped off?), and far less expensive than they were in the past.
The reason you don't see very many older cars on American roads is not because they all die, but because we as a whole, don't like to drive them. Rather than driving them until they're actually at the end of their mechanical life, they either get sold to other countries (Mexico imports tons of used cars from the U.S.), or are cut up for parts or scrap rather than being reparied after some non-fatal damage. I suspect that in any major U.S. junkyard, you could very quickly put together enough parts to have a working automobile; it's simply not worth the labor for a skilled mechanic to do so. In other countries, or in the U.S. in the past under different economic conditions, this wouldn't be allowed to happen.
There are lots of things I'm nostalgic about the past for, but I have no illusions about the strides we've made in product engineering over the interim. That we've taken those engineering gains and used them to create a disposable culture is a social, not technological, problem.
Re:Take off the rose-colored glasses. (Score:4, Interesting)
My 1972 Volkswagen, when it was running, had over 200,000 miles on the frame, (maybe 50k on the current engine). On the other hand, I had to tweak the timing or the carb adjustment literally every other week to keep it running smoothly, and adjust the valve clearance pretty much at every oil change (3000 miles - the classic 1600cc Air Cooled VW engine has NO oil filter stock). Yes, I tinkered with it, I've swapped engines, rebuilt engines, swapped transaxles, bolted on some suspension modifications, etc.
My 2003 Volkswagen. . . I pop the hood for oil changes every 5000 miles. I expect 200,000 miles with no unscheduled maintenance, and given anaecdotes from other Jetta owners, that's not an unreasonable expectation.
On the third hand - if something DID go wrong with the 2003 VW, I'd pretty much have to take it to a shop. I own a nice set of tools, a timing light, tach/dwell meter, even a bore kit for carb jets, compression tester, and I have rebuilt the 34-pict carb blindfolded (as an exercise). But I couldn't even begin to troubleshoot a complex fuel-injection timing or turbocharger problem with the 2003 VW. Even if I had the necessary manuals, I don't have the experience or the equipment. And I would expect the equipment to run north of $10k. (though the VAG-COM serial cable and software is pretty slick - that's the exception in the industry today, not the rule).
So I'm somewhat "on the fence" as to whether I'm better off with today's cars.
Definately, when one takes into account, safety features - air bags, crumple-zones, antilock brakes, more advanced suspension designs, etc. And the lower-maintenance factor is mighty convenient. But the inability to DIY (partially caused by emissions regulations - partially by IP-law profiteering) is a big minus.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, in the case of refrigerators, replaced after 10 years as a general recommendation because newer models are (or can be) vastly more efficient.
Re:Take off the rose-colored glasses. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, a lot of people get a new car every 3 years. But they don't trash the previous one. They trade it in, return it to the leasing company, or re-sell it.
Re:AGAIN cue the anarcho-capitalists (Score:4, Interesting)
huh (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder what would happen if China decided to relax those controls, I'm relatively sure the population would explode and almost double within a decade.
Re:huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Except, according to TFA, a full 40% of the US population growth is due to immigration (legal and illegal).
- Tony
Re: (Score:2)
Invasion of The Straw Men!! Aaaahh!!! (Score:2)
Maybe if China was more like the US, they'd be better off.
Of course, China *HAS* to adopt strict population controls, because of all those people from the neighboring companies constantly crashing their borders to sneak into China for the better life it offers them there.
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Fathers, or husbands? Perhaps the reason he doesn't want to go home is because he already has a kid and knows better than to start that shit again.
It's all the immigrants (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's all the immigrants (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's all the immigrants (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey now, that's a discussion for a whole other type of website.
ah but.... (Score:3, Insightful)
You believed that? (Score:5, Interesting)
And we never did.
The whole "give us your tired, your sick" crap was just that, crap. The U.S. has never been particularly interested in taking refugees; exceptions to this are just that -- exceptions -- and not the rule.
I don't know what drives this constant temptation to embellish the past, but it wasn't this wonderful place of sunshine and light. Most of the people who were allowed to immigrate into the United States throughout its history weren't allowed in out of some sort of self-righteous pity, but because they were needed in order to meet the demand for labor. Lots of sick people got sent right back on the boats they came over on, and even if you were young and healthy, you still had to have someone willing to vouch for you here in the States before you were allowed in.
We need to stop deluding ourselves about our past immigration policies. While they may have ended up being more liberal than the rest of the Western world's at the time, that was only because Europe had more people than it knew what to do with, and the U.S. was starved for labor and people to tame the new lands it was in the midst of acquiring. As a nation we needed more people, and as a result we became more welcoming; the latter was a response to the former, not the other way around.
The needs of the United States have always been the driving force in our immigration policy historically; if it worked out well for the immigrants then all the better for them. It's mostly after the fact that people have congratulated themselves for being so high-minded.
Now it's disappointing to me as an American that our immigration process wasn't easier for your wife, who I am assuming is probably educated and employable -- in short, exactly the type of people we need to be encouraging to come here. However, I don't think that as a nation we should be guilt-tripping ourselves into rolling out a red carpet to everyone who needs a place to live, particularly to those without skills, for whom there is little demand today and less so in the future; we have never engaged in this historically, and there's no reason to start now.
America is doing something right... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Already??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Already??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thing is, Funny is both a) subjective and b) unrelated to "tasteful" (well, inversely related if anything). I don't mind being modded down - that's what the system's for - but your statement that "it isn't funny" means that you didn't find it funny. Clearly at least 3 other people did at the time, which is what humour is about - timing. The following Troll/Flamebait mods only appeared after you sulked and wept your heart out.
I can appreciate it wasn't funny to you - yes, it was tasteless - but I knew people who were badly affected by the London bombings and who that very night were making jokes about it. Partly it was a coping mechanism, but partly it was just that some people like edgy humour and prefer to distance themselves from tragedy with levity. In some ways it's a way of confronting tragedy head-on. Iodine for the wound, as it were. I've no doubt you would have found those jokes as funny as they and I did. You might have felt slightly uneasy about it, but it was that ability to laugh, to shrug it off, at least to be pragmatic, that stopped everyone from going bug-fuck paranoid and bitter at the time, and which allowed London to get on with its life instead of doing exactly what the terrorists wanted - freaking out.
Sorry if I offended you. However, your knee-jerk reply suggests that you aren't well equipped to deal with the stings and blows that everyone experiences in life. Still, it is interesting how quickly the mod-tide turned...
Come on... lets rally and beat this number (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Come on... lets rally and beat this number (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately this is not happening, despite large numbers of homes being constructed.
Not so bad (Score:3, Interesting)
So, while we do, in fact, have a large global consumer footprint, we still, as a nation of plenty, have to capacity to contribute back resources.
Re:Not so bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not so bad (Score:5, Insightful)
How much of that low-cost is due to subsidising? How does the US stack up against developing countries pre-subsidy? I'd like a figure please.
More to the point, do you have any idea what impact subsidising your food exports has on the global economy? Specifically, have you got a clue just how badly fucked the third-world, agriculture-based economies are thanks to your heroic efforts to get rid of this food that your farmers are overproducing so they can reap the benefits of such a heavily manipulated market?
You may not be sucking up other nations' resources in this regard, but you are destroying their ability to be economically profitable and competitive. The thing is, economically speaking it doesn't make much difference to the US - just a few less wasted fields here or there, a marginally improved national deficit figure - but to the countries who rely on food export to maintain any kind of currency in the global market, it is everything. Still, as long as nothing inconveniences the honest 'Merkin, yes?
Re:Not so bad (Score:5, Insightful)
The big problem in "starving Africa" is not food, but war, corrupt government and diverted distribution. Africa is materially capable of self-sufficiency, but corruption and fighting always prevent the aid and resources from reaching those who most need it. I have hear first-hand stories of how import shipments of good grain, after a mysterious week's delay somehow end up arriving in port half their expected size and full of vermin and rot - and, curiously, of the same variety that the importing country was supposed to be shipping out.
And one of the main reasons for constant war and corruption? Manipulation of the global market through subsidy, sanctions and ridiculous demands by the western-led IMF & World Bank. Like it or not, we as a culture are pretty much directly responsible for all of the shit that's going on in Africa.
I've seen whole essays on this, and it's too depressing for me to go into any more detail.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pirates (not the bittorrent kind) stealing supplies:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1014/p06s03-woaf.htm l [csmonitor.com]
Food seized by political activists:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2341549.stm [bbc.co.uk]
From what I've been reading over the years, this sort of stuff is extremely common. It's very sad, but the problem is NOT the quantity of our aid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, since it's the basis for the whole argument, I'd say it's essential.
"Everyone knows that" is not customarily accepted as proof.
Kennedy Shot! (Score:2)
Immigration anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Immigration anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
This isn't cherry picking. The point is that the developed world has a resource usage pattern that is globally unsustainable. As the largest developed country in the world the U.S. is actually in a position to do something about this, and in fact actually are doing something about it at the state and local level, although the federal government leaves something to be desired in this regard.
There are more wasteful countries in the developed world, notably your smug neighbour to the north: Canadians are one of the few peoples on Earth who are even more wasteful than Americans, and our only saving grace is that there are so few of us in such a large amount of empty space that we don't in aggregate have such a large impact on the plant. Conversely, things don't improve so much globally when we clean up our act. But when America goes green, the weight of 5% of the world's population comes off the planet's shoulders.
There was some guy once who said something about treating others with the same love you give to yourself, and another guy around the same time who said something about not doing to other people what you do not want them to do to you. "Using up the world's non-renewable resources and treating the planet as our personal garbage can" is probably something that most of us would rather not see other people doing, and so it probably behooves us to not do so ourselves.
US isn't the only one growing (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong! Canada (member of the G8, so technically a major industrial nation, even though a little over a tenth the size of the US) is increasing in size faster. More new immigrants settle in Greater Toronto Area every year than any other N. American city, including LA and Miami. Since I first came to Canada 10 years ago, I've seem the population grow from 28 million to 32. The last government was trying to increase the inflow of immigrants. Yes, it's easier to have a higher growth rates on lower numbers, but the impact on things like services (medical, roads, education, etc) and the enviroment are still proportionally higher.
Re:US isn't the only one growing (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but 4 million Canadian is only like 1.3 million American.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, in regards to your experience. It may be possible that to those fast-food workers it was you who had the hard to understand accent. Maybe someone born and raised in Toronto can understand you just fine, but they'll still detect an accent. For someon
Before we can (Score:3, Funny)
What is the real "breaking point"? (Score:5, Insightful)
If we had Germany's population density, the US would have 2.2 billion people (and still only about 400 interested in the World Cup).
The question isn't about density, as it is about resources and the ecological footprint that Americans have. We're terribly, awfully wasteful. If we all became more conscious about resource use, in twenty years, even with 360 million people, we could use less resources then than we use today. At that point, the economic benefits of population (and immigration) outweigh the other costs.
I'd be a lot more worried if we've maxed out our resource use efficiency and there was simply no way to improve. No, we've got a lot of improvements we can do. If we follow through with them, US population growth won't be a problem in the next century.
Re:Would you like Mexicans with that? (Score:4, Insightful)
And here in California, there is fruit rotting in the fields [cfbf.com] because border tightening has cut the supply of farm workers.
So you out of work IT folks, get out there and pick lettuce, corn, tomatoes and pears!
Slashdot: Still Editorially Challenged (Score:2)
Perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
According to Angus Maddison's [url=http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Stat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems that while we have fewer people in the world, those that are born head to the US.
Source [wikipedia.org]
You may also note the US population growth rate @ 0.91% [cia.gov]
Oh and as to the oil usage, So what! Look at what we give the world back for the oil we use.
agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn), industrial supplies (organic chemicals), capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment), and consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) (In order of quantity)
Americans & Energy Use (Score:4, Interesting)
I really doubt that's true. Not that 25% of the world's energy use takes place in America, but that a good energy accounting system would assign all that use to Americans.
Say what?
What I mean is, America uses more energy per capita in a simple account, but think about what we're using that energy for. At least some of it is going toward production of goods & services for export. Should the energy used to manufacture and ship a computer be assigned to us, or to whoever buys it in another country? I think the latter.
Even taking that into account, I would guess that we still use more per capita. But not 5x as much.
Per Capita Oil Usage (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting to note: Luxembourg is number 7 and most of the largest consumers per capita are Island Nations.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
22 million tons of people (Score:3, Funny)
Look up your own satirical comparison here [google.co.uk], for example New York alone allegedly produces that much waste anually [homestead.com].
no spin needed (Score:5, Insightful)
That makes US the third most populous country behind china and india.
True, as far as it goes, but those countries are 3-4 times larger.
Instead environmental impact is a calculation that involves population, affluence and technology.
Population density is worth at least a mention, no?
Each american produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, the current rate is about 5 times that in developing countries.
Since the US produces more waste per person than any country in the world, why set up the comparison against developing countries? The US produces more than twice the trash per person of the more efficient industrialized nations. Isn't that trouble enough?
US environmental impact is an important problem that shouldn't be undermined by spinning the statistics. The reality of the problem is more than bad enough.
Garbage production (Score:3, Funny)
What is the multiplication factor if you count corpses in developing countries as trash?
That's 5 Pounds of trash... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if there was just some way to keep the Anglos from moving down to the south-west, where my family have lived, since the early 1600's...
Gratuitous US Bashing Increases Pagehits (Score:2, Interesting)
The linked article says nothing about concerns over Americans energy usage or anything of the sort. Why did the submitter have to add this when the article itself doesn't mention it. In fact, no articles I've read about US hitting 300 mi
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
BZZZT (Score:4, Informative)
WRONG [wikipedia.org]
World GDP = 60,000 Bn
US GDP = 12,000 Bn
Share of US in World GDP : 20%
Amazingly enough, the US are less energy efficient than the RoW.
If you're looking for an exceptionally efficient economy, try the EU.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BZZZT (Score:4, Insightful)
The EU is now what 'these united States of America' (note the lower-case u in united and 'these' instead of the) was before the civil war. States used to be as distinct and seperate here as the EU countries are now; and the federal government had much less influence, concerning itself primarily with matters like the treasury and common defense.
~Rebecca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It helps to prop up your standard of living when you start off with the most educated people in the world and exclude immig
What's with the balance of payments then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Then why was the balance of payments deficit for goods for 2005 a record $782 billion? The last time the United States had a positive balance of payments was in 1973, and the deficit has been on an almost steady increase for the past two decades. Read the figures published by the Census Bureau [census.gov] (warning PDF link), or if you prefer, a a graph from the Bureau of Economic Analysis [bea.gov]. With these figures, the only reason why the United States hasn't yet suffered an Argentina-style economic collapse is that other countries keep buying up US debt...
Re:Gratuitous US Bashing Increases Pagehits (Score:4, Insightful)
USA produces approx. 21% of the Gross World Product (for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_economy#Econom
So your efficiency is below average.
Re:Gratuitous US Bashing Increases Pagehits (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here is one I love.
Each american produces about 2.3 kg of trash a day, the current rate is about 5 times that in developing countries.
Does this mean the current trash production rate in the developing world is ~.45 kg of trash per person per day or does it mean that the current trash production rate in the developing world is ~11.5 kg of trash per person per day?
Re: (Score:2)
Humans know the context, so I would know that in a third world country when that person lives in the dessert and is lucky if he can eat some bugs cannot produce 11 kg worth of trash.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The US Consumes More Because It Does More (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be one thing if the US had accumulated its wealth in fair and equal competition with the rest of the world. But I doubt anyone would claim that to be true...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Us in Europe used all of ours rather heavily in the last centuary.
Whereas at the time the Indians in Amnerica at the time were managing a country that would last them an enternity.
Unfortunately for them us Europeans used our natural resources to steal it from them and create the United States as it is today.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
According to this study [worldbank.org]...
1. Switzerland ~9M
2. Denmark ~5M
3. Sweden ~9M
4. United States ~300M
5. Germany ~82M
6. Japan ~127M
7. Austria ~8M
8. Norway ~4M
9. France ~59M
10. Belux ~10M
Interestingly, the top 3 have their wealth spread over only 20M folks. Of course if you took a look at some regions with 20M folks out of 300M in the US (say california or new york), there's an interesting comparison there...
Re: (Score:3)
Yes.
KFG
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
At least that's what the movies tell me.
Re:Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (Score:4, Interesting)
Taking you somewhat less literally, we get most of our fresh water from nature at the moment. Oxygen too. Those things are quite a bit more important than physical space. If you choose to take E.O. Wilson seriously, read "The Future Of Life". He puts the carrying capacity of the earth at somewhere less than 20 Billion people. Comfortable at less than that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exept the fertility rate of your typical natural-born US citizen resembles that of your average European. Nearly half of our current population increase comes from immigration. If Europe is becoming "Muslim," then the US is becoming Mexican and Chinese (et al), and at a far faster rate (even in this day and age we're more immigra
Re:Immigration is the source of US population grow (Score:3, Interesting)
>why do so many people move to the U.S. versus, say Europe or Japan?
There are many immigrants moving to Europe, and many Europeans aren't happy about that: There have been problems. Think French riots, Turks in Germany, "Swedish jobs are for Swedes," and new Dutch immigration laws. It is likely that many countries will follow the Netherlands' lead.
And all that's nothing next to Japan, which is famously xenophobic. To preach national and racial superiority is a great deal more mainstream there t
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Application to reproduce denied.
Hey, this could work...