Werner Flueck sent me a copy of a 1995 article (not available online, but read a précis here)
in the journal Population & Environment called "The Environmental
Consequences of Having a Baby in the United States", by SUNY professor
Charles Hall et al. In summary they report:
Each
American born in the 1990s will produce in a lifetime approximately 1.5
million kilograms (3.3 million lbs.) of atmospheric wastes (mostly
CO2), 10 million kilograms (22 million lbs.) of liquid wastes, and one
million kilograms (2.2 million lbs.) of solid wastes (mostly pro-rata
share of agricultural, mining and construction wastes, and including
83,000 kg (185,000 pounds) of hazardous & toxic waste.
Each
American will consume 700,000 kilograms (1.5 million lbs.) of minerals
(mostly sand and gravel), and 24 billion BTUs of energy -- equivalent
to 4000 barrels of oil (40% in petroleum products, 25% each in natural
gas and coal). In a lifetime, an average American will eat 25,000
kilograms (55,000 lbs.) of plant foods (20% each in vegetables,
sweeteners, fruits & juices, grains, and other plant products) and
28,000 kilograms (60,000 lbs.) of animal products (70% milk, 7% each
beef, chicken and pork), provided in part by slaughtering 2000 animals
(>90% poultry)
Each American's consumption will result in the
permanent loss of approximately one hectare (2.5 acres) of forest,
wilderness and wetlands, and the incremental poisoning with chemicals
of fifty times this acreage, mostly with oil-based fertilizers,
herbicides and pesticides. Each American will also consume in a
lifetime 162,000 cubic meters (5.7 million cubic feet) of fresh water
and directly or indirectly 170 cubic meters (6,000 cubic feet) of
timber.
These numbers include both direct effluents and
consumption and the pro rata share of industrial and commercial
effluents and consumption used to sustain a median lifestyle. This is a
massive 'footprint' for each additional human added to the American
mosaic. I've tried to show this graphically and approximately to scale
(1:1500) above, with consumption depicted as arrows coming in and
emissions as arrows going out (to be even visible at this scale, the
baby is shown supported by his/her parents). Density data is from the
Internet and calculations have been double-checked.
Multiply these numbers by the 1,000,000,000 humans being added, net, to Earth's population every 15 years (of course they don't all consume at US levels, but meanwhile there are 6 billion more mostly aspiring to increase their wealth and consumption to those levels) and you'll understand the meaning of unsustainability.
The
authors don't attempt to quantify how much each child added to the
population contributes to species extinction, for the simple reason
that we are extinguishing species at a rate faster than we are
discovering them, so we will never know how many species we've
extinguished, in aggregate or per capita.
Every $100 spent by
Americans on goods and services entails the use, on average, of 50
litres (13 gallons) of petroleum or equivalent energy. Next time you
carry in your grocery bags, imagine the volume of oil consumed to
produce and distribute it: You'll appreciate why Richard Manning's
groundbreaking Harper's article on the inefficiency of our food
production systems is called The Oil We Eat.
In
the Population & Environment article, the authors debunk the
arguments that more efficient technologies will reduce this per-capita
'environmental impact', and that public pressure or commitment to
improve conservation or reduce pollution will have any net effect on
this impact.
They conclude:
The
most effective way an individual can protect the global environment,
and hence protect the well-being of all living people, is to abstain
from creating another human being.
|
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
