Reservoirs are drying up in the Western U.S.
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
The problem is an engineering problem: We need to build more reservoirs, encourage rainwater harvesting, convert agriculture to more efficient irrigation, and build out desalination. The Earth has no shortage of H2O, in fact it’s one of the most abundant things on the planet.
The central valley project has arguably been one of the most impressive things humanity has ever done. It turned 3 million acres of desert into farmland, which has provided us with almost 100 years of food and also produces over 5 Twh of electricity per year.
*edit, I just mean use traditional desalination powered by a dedicated nuclear plant. (If fresh water is that scarce)
Removing salt from sea water leaves behind a concentrated brine, which in turn has to be handled and managed properly. Otherwise you'll risk endangering the coastal ecosystems.[0] On the other hand, there is research indicating that the waste and side products could themselves be used to enhance the desalination process (to make it less destructive to surroundings) as well as generate secondary income streams from the side products themselves.[1]
0: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
1: https://news.mit.edu/2019/brine-desalianation-waste-sodium-h...
Which is probably something we should be looking into. What's a drought except a lack of fresh water? It's just another problem so solve and a great way to create jobs.
It is customary to completely ignore population size as a factor, as long as lifestyles or resource use could be more eco-friendly (commute with bicycles, rebuild infrastructure to make that possible, re-zone cities, change diets, make industries and farming greener, etc..)
This is the case even though those large, society-wide transformations would take decades, and even while the population is actively being increased by immigration (most of the developed world has had below-replacement fertility for decades, so birthrates are not a factor).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day
The point is arguable, IMO, and the details very much so.
I don't know why ecological stress is so rarely traced back to population size, outside of "debunkings" of Malthusianism.
Edit due to rate limit: One of the replies claims the US has a positive natural growth rate. This is false - US fertility is currently at 1.78 births/woman. The last time it was above the replacement level of 2.1 was in 1972, 49 years ago:
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/fert...
Edit 2: As dragonwriter pointed out, I was mistaken and both are true - fertility is below replacement, and natural population growth (birth - deaths) is positive. I think this is due to population aging, and due to immigrants skewing younger (i.e. childbearing age): https://cis.org/Report/Birth-Rates-Among-Immigrants-America
If you don't want one billion Americans, then you need to propose and support:
- Ending refugee programs and withdrawing from the UN convention on refugees
- Sending refugees back to safe countries
- Building walls along the southern border
- Ending the H1B visa
- deporting illegal immigrants already in the country
- Disallowing citizenship by birth
- Ending chain family migration
The bigger issue here is that Americans are moving out of States with huge pension bills, into 'younger' states with lower taxes and fewer legacy costs. Its basically a death loop playing out at an inter-state migration level.
No, the US still has a positive natural growth rate.
The two are compatible, though over the long term, if lifespans don't increase over time, a sustained below-replacement fertility would eventually require natural population growth to go negative.
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr012-508.pdf
[1] https://knoema.com/atlas/United-States-of-America/topics/Dem...
In 2019 1.03million immigrants were granted permanent resident status.
The American population increase is entirely driven by immigration. The fertility rate is 1.73.
At some point soon the American population will begin falling, without immigration, as the baby boomers die off.
That's...not an increase.
> In 2019 1.03million immigrants were granted permanent resident status.
That's kind of a non-sequitur. To make your case, you’d need net migration numbers, not number of immigrants granted permanent residency.
> The fertility rate is 1.73.
It’s actually 1.6375, but fertility below replacement isn't negative natural growth, though sustained over the long term with steady-state life expectancy it eventually leads to it.
https://www.census.gov/popclock/ says
> The United States population on January 1, 2019 was: 329,474,910
> The United States population on December 31, 2019 was: 331,163,242
Difference = 1,688,332
(Your given population numbers correspond to roughly October 4, 2017 and May 4, 2018.)
Your 1.03M appears correct - https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2019/tab... . It's the 3rd smallest number of the most recent 15 years. Smaller also than 1906, 1907, 1910, 1913 and 1914.
However, people do move away from the US. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/12/net-internati... comments "Net international migration added 595,000 to the U.S. population between 2018 and 2019, the lowest level this decade."
Thus, it does not appear true that "The American population increase is entirely driven by immigration".
And the 3 largest were 1.27M, 1.18M, and 1.13M. For the last 20 years legal immigration was at an average of 1.06M/year, and the year-to-year differences were negligible (except for 2003) (yes, including during the notoriously anti-immigrant Trump presidency, that averaged 1.08M legal immigrants/year). So ranking them in terms of Nth smallest/largest makes little sense - you're studying noise.