Population and climate change put Scotland in a Catch-22

Published on Saturday 27 October 2007 00:17

JOSEPH Heller's classic novel Catch-22 features Yossarian, a pilot desperate to avoid flying the bombing missions he knows to be putting his life in extreme danger. A paradox, the Catch-22 of the title, says pilots can only be exempted from duty if they are crazy. But not wanting to fly is a rational response to the danger, so asking to be grounded proves their sanity. There is no way out. They have to keep flying.

The phrase Catch-22 has become part of our vernacular. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The coincidence of two news stories this week suggests we're in such a no-win situation right now.

The Registrar-General for Scotland, Duncan Macniven, projected that Scotland's trend of falling population would reverse, with a record number of 5.39 million inhabitants by 2031. John Swinney, Cabinet Secretary for Finance, welcomed this, commenting that it had the "potential to boost Scotland's economic growth and help our nation prosper".

But earlier in the week, a WWF report ranked residents of British cities by their ecological footprint. It calculated the number of earths that would be needed to provide resources if everyone consumed them at the same rate as our urban dwellers. It wasn't good reading. Edinburgh residents consume the most in Scotland, at 3.2 planets each; Dundee's inhabitants score the lowest, but still use the resources of 2.96 planets.

The same day saw yet more bad news about global warming. Research showed that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had risen by 35 per cent above forecasts in just seven years.

In that context, is it really good news that the population is increasing? The arguments in favour are primarily economic. That Scotland is perceived as a good place to live and do business is borne out by this week's statistics, which show a significant part of the rising population is due to inward migration.

The combination of an increasing birth rate and higher numbers of people choosing to live in Scotland are particularly important because many are of working age. They have the potential to generate wealth. Not only is this good for our general prosperity, but it will help tackle the biggest looming economic problem we have, supporting our ageing population. The Office of National Statistics predicts the number of UK pensioners will rise by 7.2 per cent over the next four years to 12.2 million. Viewed from this perspective, Scotland's population growth is not just a good thing, but vital if we are to maintain our current standards of living.

But an increasing population is only going to accelerate global warming further. Thomas Malthus, the economist, believed that the population of the world would eventually outgrow its capacity to feed itself. With environmental factors it's more complex, but we all know the dangers: chaotic weather, increased flooding and drought. As the environment deteriorates, crop yields will fall; transport links and residential areas will become vulnerable to flooding; our natural environment will be irretrievably altered.

It's even worse in low-lying countries like Bangladesh, which might well be immersed by the oceans, increasing population and resource pressures elsewhere.

It's Catch-22 writ large. Population must increase to maintain our lifestyles; but that will render the earth incapable of meeting the resource demands we place upon it. On the face of it, this spells doom for our standard of living, not to mention the environment.

We have to change one or more of the variables in the equation. In Heller's book, Yossarian eventually gets out of flying by contracting jaundice, a recognisable physical rather than mental malady.

How do we get out of the lifestyle Catch-22? Reducing the population isn't feasible. Those who want to put the brakes on rising standards of living are likely to find their arguments falling on deaf ears. The other variable we can change is the nature of our consumption. Given that the Office of National Statistics predicts the UK population will be more than 70 million by 2031 and WWF estimate that the average British resident has a "three planet" ecological footprint, we have little choice.

We are reusing and recycling more than we used to; we know about insulating our houses better; we understand the damage caused by our driving addiction; the environmental benefits of renewable energy are obvious.

We've acknowledged the problem and we know many of the answers. In a half-hearted way, we've started to act, but what we're doing isn't enough. A recent survey found that a huge proportion of supermarket packaging cannot be recycled; at Marks & Spencer the figure was a shocking 40 per cent. In all, 5 per cent of the average shopping basket weight consists of packaging.

A UN report yesterday warned that efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions from power and transport have been "woefully inadequate". The softly-softly approach is not sufficient. More substantive action is required.

Realistically, people will continue shopping, travelling and using energy. But unless these activities pollute less and use far fewer natural resources - roughly two-thirds less - we will find the planet can no longer sustain our lifestyle. If the supermarkets won't do something about packaging, government must make them. If car companies don't make all cars more environmentally friendly, they need to be forced by taxation. If builders don't ensure all houses are energy efficient, they should be compelled to do so through planning permission.

Can we get ourselves out of this Catch-22? Yes - but we'd better hurry up about it. Otherwise our rising population is going to prove very bad news indeed.