Thursday, 25 October 2007

Should we reduce the UK population to 30 Million?

The Optimum Population Trust,, believe that we should reduce the UK population to 30 million. Jonathan Porrit and David Attenbourough also seem keen on this. There would certainly be less strain on resources, and reduce traffic congestion. But is that the answer to our problems?

We can expect that as climate change intensifies, many people will flee their land as some parts of the world flood, other parts become desert. Can we deny safe haven to genuine refugees, especially when we were responsible for a share of the emissions that caused it?

'The OPT suggested policy for the UK is population stabilisation and reduction, Population Projection A shows that simply by welcoming the continuation of the present total fertility rate of 1.64 children per woman, by assuming current life expectancy, and by reducing the immigration effect to zero, a UK population of 30 million could be achieved by 2121'. This was done before thousands of economic migranrs came from Eastern Europe and our population has increased rapidly. If current trends continue, the population will continue to grow, reaching 71 million by 2031.

But unlike the Labour Government, I dont think building thousands of new homes on the Green Belt is the answer. I think they should make more use of empty properties including office blocks like GreenPark. Also better regional distribution would help, streets of empty houses in some plarts of the North as people come south for a job. I suggested to Martin Salter MP in 2005 that we move some of the government deptartment to the North, like tax officers. He said that would be state controll like in Russia, but wouldt some intervention be better than the current situation?There are thousands of bureaucrats here, think how their offices space could be used? The precedent is moving the DVLC to Swansea, that worked well, why not extend it. They could move AWE somewhere else also, maybe somewhere far from populations. Better of course to close it down, but if they insist we must have it, it shouldnt be next to large populations.

The world's richest 50 million people consume as much as the 2.7 billion poorest people on the planet. The richest 1% use more resources than the poorest 44% so its not population that is the most important but living a sustainable life.

No comments: