ForumGarden

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer

Sun Oct 15, 3:02 AM ET





WASHINGTON - America's population is on track to hit 300 million on Tuesday morning, and it's causing a stir among environmentalists.



People in the United States are consuming more than ever — more food, more energy, more natural resources. Open spaces are shrinking and traffic in many areas is dreadful.

But some experts argue that population growth only partly explains America's growing consumption. Just as important, they say, is where people live, what they drive and how far they travel to work.

"The pattern of population growth is really the most crucial thing," said Michael Replogle, transportation director for Environmental Defense, a New York-based advocacy group.

"If the population grows in thriving existing communities, restoring the historic density of older communities, we can easily sustain that growth and create a more efficient economy without sacrificing the environment," Replogle said.

That has not been the American way. Instead, the country has fed its appetite for big houses, big yards, cul-de-sacs and strip malls. In a word: sprawl.

"Because the U.S. has become a suburban nation, sprawl has become the most predominant form of land use," said Vicky Markham, director of the Center for Environment and Population, an advocacy group. "Sprawl is, by definition, more spread out. That of course requires more vehicles and more vehicle miles traveled."

America still has a lot of wide-open spaces, with about 84 people per square mile, compared with about 300 people per square mile in the European Union and almost 900 people per square mile in Japan.

But a little more than half the U.S. population is clustered in counties along the coasts, including those along the Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes. Also, much of the population is moving away from large cities to the suburbs and beyond.

The fastest growing county is Flagler County, Fla., north of Daytona Beach; the fastest growing city is Elk Grove, Calif., a suburb of Sacramento; and the fastest growing metropolitan area is Riverside, Calif., about 50 miles east of Los Angeles.

"In New York City, people tend to think of that as an urban jungle, but the environmental impact per capita is quite low," said Carlos Restrepo, a research scientist at New York University. "It tends to be less than it is for someone who lives in the suburbs with a big house where they need more than one car."

The Census Bureau projects that America's population will hit 300 million at 7:46 a.m. EDT Tuesday. The projection is based on estimates for births, deaths and net immigration that add up to one new American every 11 seconds.

The estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. are included in official population estimates, though many demographers believe they are undercounted.

The population reached its last milestone, 200 million, in 1967. That translates into a 50 percent increase in 39 years.

During the same period, the number of households nearly doubled, the number motor vehicles more than doubled and the miles driven in those vehicles nearly tripled.

The average household size has shrunk from 3.3 people to 2.6 people, and the share of households with only one person has jumped from less than 16 percent to about 27 percent.

"The natural resource base that is required to support each person keeps rising," Replogle said. "We're heating and cooling more space, and the housing units are more spread out than ever before."

The U.S. is the third largest country in the world, behind China and India. The U.S. is the fastest growing of the industrialized nations, adding about 2.8 million people a year, or just under 1 percent. India is growing faster but the United Nations considers it to be a less developed country.

About 40 percent of U.S. population growth comes from immigration, both legal and illegal, according to the Census Bureau. The rest comes from births outnumbering deaths.

"It's not the population, it's the consumption that can do us in," said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "These are the luxuries we have been able to support until now. But we're not going to be able to do it forever."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061015/ap_ ... hvBHNlYwM-

I thought this was interesting...%50 increase in less than 40 years...astounding!

America has had a phenominal rate of growth since the 19th century, lots of immigrants go there cause its a great place to live and achieve success, and obviously you also like getting busy with eatch other a lot! I remember seeing a projection that has the population of the U.S. at 550 million by 2100. Sure why not, the Europe Union is geograpically smaller than the U.S. but it already has a population of 480 million, so I wouldn't worry. As long as we do something to clean up our emissions and all that ye will be fine. Though admittedly thats a big if. But thats not just America's problem, everywhere has to do it. Especially China, they have 1.2 billion people and their economy is growing at a rate of knots, along with massive pollution.

Our rate of reproduction is slightly higher than what it takes to prevent a loss in population. A huge amount of our growth is imigration both legal and illegal.

Galbally wrote: America has had a phenominal rate of growth since the 19th century, lots of immigrants go there cause its a great place to live and achieve success, and obviously you also like getting busy with eatch other a lot!

(snip)

But thats not just America's problem, everywhere has to do it. Especially China, they have 1.2 billion people and their economy is growing at a rate of knots, along with massive pollution.


Do the Chinese still have some sort of population-control measures in place?

Bill Sikes wrote: Do the Chinese still have some sort of population-control measures in place?


I'm not sure if the one-child policy is still actually in operation. It wasn't obviously all that sucessful, though I've heard that without it the population would be several hundred million more than it is now, scary. One of the stranger things about modern china is that it has tens of millions of only children, that must be quite strange, whole towns and citys where the vast majority of children have no siblings. Whatever people's take on China is, its certainly a unique place and a world unto itself.

Pinky wrote: One of the more disturbing things that I have heard is that baby girls are often dumped on the street or orphanages if they are lucky. People want sons to carry on the name. That is tragic in my eyes. There are so many people that would love to have children, but it just hasn't happened. Why not let people from other countries adopt them?

I know I would love to bring up a child, but it hasn't happened. Maybe it never will.

If it doesn't, I would love to give a child in need a good home, but the other half doesn't see it that way. I work with kids...some of them have never known a stable family environment. Those kids keep me awake at night.

Maybe that's a different topic altogether though.


Yes the attitude of many chinese families to having girl children is terrible, I suppose its not something that was planned to be that way, its just a reflection of a culture where women are not given the same status as men, and thats obviously not a very good thing. Sad.

Galbally wrote: Yes the attitude of many chinese families to having girl children is terrible, I suppose its not something that was planned to be that way, its just a reflection of a culture where women are not given the same status as men, and thats obviously not a very good thing. Sad.


It seems common to many cultures, not just the various that make up China.

Bill Sikes wrote: It seems common to many cultures, not just the various that make up China.


That is completely true, I didn't mean to sound like I was singling China out, it was just anwering a question on that particular country. After all, women have only really become emancipated in the last 40 years or so in our societies, and there are still lots of areas where women have a tougher deal then men.