Mansi Saxena answered this
Ashwathi Babu answered this
Over six billion people exist on earth today and an increase of about 97 million people occurs annually (Greep 1998). A growing population leads to several environmental issues as well as social problems. An increasing population can be attributed to several variables. Within countries, we can credit the growth to increased immigration or lack of migration. Lack of education and contraceptive use and the need or desire for more children also adds to the population. In more developed countries we can attribute the population rises to better medical care, thus a longer lifespan and/or fewer deaths. As a result of this overpopulation we experience social issues such as increased rates of poverty, crime, disease, and environmental problems such as increased global warming, natural disasters, loss of habitat, pollution, and more. These threats are very necessary to be addressed, as they will affect people worldwide. It is important that we look at these problems since every human has the ability to prevent future damages and adjust their lifestyles to decelerate this increase in population.
In order to further understand such population growth and how it affects our environment, we looked at the developed country of the 
We predict that with an increasing population, both countries will experience much loss of forest area, loss of freshwater and high amounts of pollution. These in turn affect almost all, if not all, the other dimensions of an ecosystem.
- 2
Ashwathi Babu answered this
my answer is abt global population
- 0
Ashwathi Babu answered this
POPULATION GROWTH: 
From these models we see that a growing population puts major strains on the available freshwater and forest area. We see that more people indicate more consumption of freshwater and a greater need for developed area and paper products. The excel model shows that both freshwater availability and forest area are reaching zero at a rapid rate. Although we know the depleting of both is a definite threat, we cannot totally rely on these models. We fail to take into account other significant factors.
By looking at the figure 3 we see the growth of India and the
The reason for India ’s greater growth rate per year may be attributed to the women being less educated, the country’s GDP, and the rate of migration. The United States Gross Domestic Product exceeds $11,750,000,000,000, while India ’s GDP is $3,319,000,000,000 (Census 2004). With less money, India ’s population will not be suppressed because working class has a greater need for more children for more income. The United States' population mainly grows because of increased immigration. 820,000 people are immigrated to the United States yearly, whereas India ’s problem more resides in their lack of migration (Nowak no date). Because of the United State ’s power and wealth, many people are attracted to it. For both countries, medical advancements have increased the lifespan of people, thus the number of births exceed the deaths. India also experiences rapid urbanization. This urbanization arises from India ’s highly impoverished population. People move to the cities in hope of job opportunities. In 2001, the urban population was about 28%, yet by 2025 it is expected to reach 36% (Economist Intelligence Unit 2006). This urbanization causes more growth especially since the urban poor contribute the most to a growing population because they contribute the most to the labor force. In addition, they continue to reproduce because of their desire for male children, who are considered more efficient in the workforce and are less of a financial liability. A lack of education also contributes to India ’s growing population. 40% of the world’s illiterates live in India. Its literacy rate is only 65.2%, where 75.6% of males are literate and only 54% of females are literate (Economist Intelligence Unit 2006). An increase in education would potentially lead to postponed marriage, thus less children would be conceived. An education could also provide people with better jobs, thus the need for children workers would be less. More well-paid jobs in the private sector are provided to the educated. Women would also learn to use contraceptives, thus preventing unwanted pregnancies. In the year 2000, the rate of contraceptive use for women between 15 and 49 years of age was 52% (CIA 2003). Meanwhile, for the United States, 99% of the population is literate. 99% of males and females are literate as well. About 85% of the US population uses contraception. This number was takenfrom a 1995 survey, and we can only assume it has increased (Kaufmann 1998). These differences in numbers greatly affect the population growth rate.
FRESHWATER AVAILABILITY VS. POPULATION GROWTH
By looking at figure 4 we see a graph displaying the comparison between the consumption of freshwater in India and in the United States. We started off with the initial value of fresh water availability for the United States to be 4,477,000,000 m3, and for India to be 500,000,000,000 m3. After these initial numbers, the per capita fresh water use was multiplied by the population and the resulting amount was then subtracted from the overall fresh water available. India’s per capita fresh water use was 1211 m3, and the US ’s per capita fresh water use was 6932 m3 (Census 2004). In order to analyze the increase in water use, we assumed that the per capita water use was the same for all habitants of each country. Per capita water use takes into consideration all the discrepancies and achieves an overall rate. In addition, this graph does not include any excess in-flow of freshwater, which could ultimately affect the rate at which water is used. However, this does not impact the hypothesis being proven due to the growing population, which will ultimately still decrease the amount of available water.
These graphs differ in that India’s per capita water use is less than the United States, thus the United States depletes their freshwater supply more quickly, even though India starts off with a greater amount of freshwater supply. However, because of the United States ’ financial stability, the availability of freshwater is not as great of a problem although its supply is still depleting. The US should have more access to clean water and more money, so it can clean its water with better purification systems. The United States has a greater land and water area than India, which allows them more access to water. The United States has 9,161,923 square kilometers of land, while India has 2,973,190 square kilometers of land. Meanwhile, the US has 469,497 square kilometers of water, and India has 314,400 square kilometers of water (CIA 2006). India mainly relies on its ground water for drinking water and that is not only limited, but also becoming more and more polluted, as the growing populations lead to an increase in garbage being produced, and waste being deposited in the soil (Economist Intelligence Unit 2006). Furthermore, with 60% of the labor force employed in agriculture, 40% of their cultivated land is irrigated, which leaves farmers dependant on the annual monsoon. The monsoon season (June and September/October) provides India with the majority of its precipitation. Because the monsoon season brings about much flooding and polluted water this leads us to the problem of a lack of fresh water supply. With a growing population, a greater demand for fresh water exists. 19% of India has no access to clean water. According to Rich Planet, Poor Planet, population growth and consumption will cause people living in water- deficit areas to jump to a population of 2.4 billion from 505 million within the next 25 years (Flavin 2001). The US also has more consistent precipitation rather than one monsoon season.
FOREST AREA VS. POPULATION
In figures 5 and 6 we see the growth of India and the United States ’ population in relation to the amount of forest area available over a 25-year time span. We start off in 2000 where the initial forest area of India was 67 {million hectares} and the United States ’ forest area was 299.6 {million hectares} (Butler 2006). In order to get the decreasing numbers we took the forest area available and multiplied it by the deforestation rate – India ’s was 0.0294 million hectares per year and US’s 0.2152 hectares per year – and then subtracted it from the forest area available from the preceding year. As a result, both forest areas decreased. Here we made the assumption that the deforestation rate of both India and United States was constant throughout the 25-year span. Although not specifically accounted for, tree regeneration, forest fires, and new trees planted are embedded into the deforestation rate given above.
Figure 7 compares the forest area of the United States with India ’s forest area. Because the US starts with a greater amount of forest area the total hectares exceeds India’s forest area until about 2008 when India’s forest area exceeds the US ’s. These forest areas differ because of the differing rates. You can also see how the US ’s forest area nearly crashes by 2019. This does seem entirely realistic considering 2019 is only 13 years away. Furthermore, these graphs do not take into account forest regeneration rates and the planting of new trees. The deforestation is supposed to include these two factors, but perhaps they were not stressed enough in the mathematical calculation.
The forest area’s rates of depletion differ between these two countries because of the different growing populations, and the greater urbanization in India. For India, deforestation issues arise partly because of the growing masses of poor people who depend on biomass for energy (Flavin 1991). Furthermore, the migration from rural areas to urban areas has sparked a growing demand for timber, lumber, and paper. Evidently, this rapidly depletes the forests (Greep 1998). This loss of forest leads to greater problems since forests have much control over the ecological balance, biodiversity, and quality of the environment. Forests can check for soil erosion, water retention, and conserve and regulate the water cycle. It also retains carbon in order to balance the CO2 and O2 in the atmosphere, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Laurence 1999). Meanwhile, in the last 200 years, the United States has lost 50% of its wetlands, 90% of its northwestern old-growth forests, and 99% of its tall grass prairie (US Census Bureau 2006). Every day, an estimated nine square miles of U.S. rural land is lost to development (US Census Bureay 2006). India is at greater risk because they already have less land (see above). If we destroy our forests it means that global warming will be even a greater of a problem because of the increase in greenhouse gases. Also, we will lose many animals because they lose their habitat. The food chain will thus be disrupted. So, both countries experience forest loss, but at different rates. The US nears crashes sooner than India because people in the US consume much more wooded products and construction of paved areas is more frequent.
OTHER FACTORS:
Although we did not graph issues besides depleting forest area and freshwater resources, many other environmental impacts exist because of a growing population. For example, a growing population puts strains on other natural resources. Although India accounts for 2.4% of the earth’s surface, it not well endowed with natural resources. Coal, iron, ore, and bauxite are India ’s primary mineral reserves. Furthermore, a growing population also leads to an increase in pollution. In a 1990 report sponsored by the US Department of Energy, it said CO2 emissions had grown 5.6% per year from 1950 (Economist Intelligence Unit 2006). This inevitably leads to increase in greenhouse gas emissions, thus more global warming. These emissions mainly come from coal combustion. The World Resources Institute said that India is the fifth largest contributor to current annual increases in greenhouse effect because of its methane emissions from agricultural practices. The World Resources Institute also found that developing countries rank higher among greenhouse gas emitters because of deforestation and other human activities resulting in carbon releases. Coal is the primary fuel for power generation, yet its high ash content makes it a strong pollutant and inefficient source of energy (Economist Intelligence Unit 2006). The problems persist because there is little economic incentive to recycle and conserve energy. However, progress has been made with Indian taxation and corporate law. They have reduced excise taxes and custom duties for certified pollution control equipment, and have depreciation allowance for units designed to minimize pollution or conserve natural resources. Also there is an exemption from capital gains tax for industries relocating away from urban areas (Jasanoff 1993).
Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 25% of the world's energy. On average, one American consumes as much energy as 2 Japanese, 6 Mexicans, 13 Chinese, 31 Indians, 128 Bangladeshis, 307 Tanzanians, or 370 Ethiopians (US Census Bureau 2006). The United States is responsible for 22 percent of the world's industrial CO2 emissions (US Census Bureau 2006). Because of the growing populations, both nations must deal with this increase in pollution and excess use of energy.
Because we did not include some factors it is hard to graphically predict what would happen if we were to adjust certain factors. However we can make some predictions. For example, if we were to increase the literacy rate (meaning more people educated), we would see a decrease in the birth rate. This would then lead to a smaller population, less forest area loss, and more available water resources. If we were to increase the use contraceptives, a similar pattern would occur. By decreasing the per capita water use we can also see a decline in the water usage because less water per person will be consumed. However, realistically this does not seem reasonable, for water is necessary to everyone’s life and it seems impossible to monitor one’s water intake and use. Perhaps the crashing would occur at a later time. If major advancements were made, we can avoid crashing all together.
We also realize that by changing the amount of water available we can increase lifespan, or if we eradicate poverty, or if new medical discoveries arise, we will still see a population growth. However, at the rate things are going the graphs still show a hint of future trends.
------
m... my ans is too big!!!
- 1