US Population to Top 300 Million

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."

Comments

America is doing something right...

[SniperClops]

Asia has too many, Europe has a decreasing population, America is just right. Whats your secret?

US isn't the only one growing

[Malc]

"The number of Americans will surpass 300 million this month, a milestone [...] for the only major industrial nation whose population is increasing substantially"

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.

Perspective

[Rob Kaper]

The 5-25% phrase bugs me. It's designed to make the US look wasteful while that's definitely not the case.

According to Angus Maddison's [url=http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Stati stics/horizontal-file_2006.xls]world population and GDP .xls[/url], the US GDP is 8.2 billion and the world's 38.9 billion. So the US accounts for 21% of global economical output using 25% of energy resources. That's below average and something to think about, but it definitely puts a different perspective on matters.

Re:Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth

[maxume]

That's a lot of ... poop. By the way, 100 square meters is, drumroll, 10 meters on a side, which is about 35 feet. Assuming you use miracles for infrastructure, that's still not very much room, especially if you want silly things like parks.

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:Plenty of Room

[rlp]

For anyone who thinks the US is running out of space - I suggest the following exercise. Take a drive on I-10 westbound through western Texas. The road is arrow straight and goes for miles and miles through NOTHING. No towns, no buildings, no crossroads, nothing. Apart from portions of the east and west coast, the US is not very densely populated. You might say 'Who would want to live out in the desert in the middle of nowhere?' I'd agree with you, but then again, the residents of Vegas might not.

You believed that?

[Kadin2048]

the US gov't is far from welcoming the tired, poor and huddled masses anymore.

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.