Our Population Cup Runneth Over

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

Vermont’s own Johnny One-Note, Art Woolf is saying pretty much what he says every week in the Freeps;

that Vermont is doomed by a declining population
(blah, blah, blah…)

Instead of repeating the usual rebuttal, I thought it would be fun to see the other side of the “How We’re Doin‘” story; the one that doesn’t get a weekly half-page to sell the same old line with the same old selective pie-charts and graphs.

So, this morning, we are taking a look at what Vermonters for a Sustainable Population has to say on the subject.  

VSP, under the direction of George Plumb and with support from the Vermont Chapter of the Sierra Club, recently released its Optimum Sustainable Population Report, which is available online.  

The report, which has met with praise from a host of population think-tanks, explores the population question in much greater complexity, adding the prism of sustainability; which we already know from his enthusiastic embrace of Walmart, is of little interest to Mr. Woolf.

Not surprisingly, the VSP arrives at a very different conclusion from Mr. Woolf.  

Defining a sustainable system thusly:

A sustainable human population is one where the people living in a given politically or geographically defined area (such as Vermont) do not live beyond the limits of the renewable resources of that area for either input (energy and matter) or output (food, material goods, and absorption of pollution). They then purchase or trade from environmentally-aware sources those necessities that cannot be locally satisfied, either in sufficient amounts or at all. They will thereby be living in a manner that present and future generations of people, and all other life native to that area, will be able to enjoy a healthy habitat over the long term;”

the VSP analysis suggests that Vermont has already passed its ideal population number, based on the guidelines above.  

I will not do the report justice here, so simply suggest that readers check out the 53-page original.

There may be some disagreement over the conclusions, but no one can dispute the value of the study, nor its scope and the care that has been taken in its preparation.

What is the ideal population depends on the lens through which you are filtering the data.  The report suggests a number of conclusions; but no matter how you parse it, the message is clear: we’re already a little…or a lot…past “there”:

Biodiversity:

working toward a human

population in Vermont of 310,000 would give us a significantly improved chance of being able to sustain the totality of genes, species, and ecosystems found in Vermont. It would be a significant step toward conserving biodiversity in Vermont and the world.

Democracy:

For the best democratic representation, communication, and transparency, the optimal population size of Vermont is not any greater than our current population of 626,011.

Ecology:

The ideal, sustainable population size for Vermont, with an ecological footprint of 9.57 (American typical footprint), is 150,000 people.

Food Self-sufficiency:

Based upon these assumptions, Vermont can support a population of 432,923.

Forest:

To retain forest cover at the current percentage a sustainable population for Vermont is approximately 600,000.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: (assuming that a number of remedial measures detailed in the report have already been taken)

Assuming other factors mentioned in the preceding paragraph result in additional reductions in greenhouse gas emissions per capita, a sustainable population for Vermont is likely somewhat less than 400,000.

Quality of Life:

It seems likely that continued investments in the areas of education, health, the economy, culture and the environment would go far in ensuring this QOL continues to improve. It seems reasonable, then, that a population of up to 700,000 would support the high QOL that Vermonters enjoy.

Happiness: (not specifically quantified in terms of population.)

Renewable Energy Production:(assuming adoption of some guiding principles that are discussed in the report)

This path could likely be achieved with Vermont’s existing population of around 600,000 (and their current energy demand).

Rural Living/Working Landscapes:

Using the rural living/working landscape indicator, the optimal population is 450,000.

Scenic Beauty:  

Using the rural living/working landscape indicator, the optimal population is 450,000.

Spiritual Connectedness:

Using the rural living/working landscape indicator, the optimal population is 450,000.

Steady State Economy:

Under these conditions, (when enjoyment has successfully replaced consumption as the prime motivator) it’s likely that a sustainable economy in Vermont could support a population in the range of 500,000 to 700,000.

Water Quality:

it would be prudent from a population perspective to look to maintain the population status quo of about 600,000 until such time that the cost, energy, and resources required to improve water quality will be better understood. Any maintenance of water quality must be considered within the context of the other population indicators cited.

About Sue Prent

Artist/Writer/Activist living in St. Albans, Vermont with my husband since 1983. I was born in Chicago; moved to Montreal in 1969; lived there and in Berlin, W. Germany until we finally settled in St. Albans.