Sara Pross
$2,500.
Clemson University, Clemson, SC

April 18, 2019

The Honorable Members of Congress
House (or Senate) Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressmen:

I am writing to you about a very important issue that affects every citizen of the United States.  I am referring to the issue of over population in our country.  According to the Population Reference Bureau, 14% of all humans that have ever lived are still alive today. Statistics show that at this trend, our planet is in grave danger of running out of resources to sustain such growth by the year 2050. Please allow me to share my concerns and potential solutions for your consideration.

The rapid growth and ultimate overpopulation of the United States poses many problems for the citizens of this great nation.  Some of the major issues include:

• water shortages;
• extinction of wildlife;
• climate change;
• carbon emissions;
• natural resource depletion.

Each of the afore-listed issues is a direct result of overpopulation.  With the influx of immigration population, the need for water sources has tripled.  According to the National Environmental Education Foundation, water managers in 40 states expect water shortages in the next decade.  They add that this issue will be amplified by climate change as warming climates lead to faster rates of evaporation and less freshwater.  The additional population growth also affects the amount of carbon emissions released into our atmosphere.  A CIS study recently reported that U.S. immigrants produced 637 million tons of CO2 annually.  In addition to immigration population, American births continue to add to our overall numbers.  Despite efforts to effectively utilize renewable energies, studies have shown that if a couple has two children, their carbon legacy could be forty times higher than any savings they could make.  Such emissions have a direct correlation to global warming.  Attempts to sustain population explosions have proven disastrous to our endangered wildlife.  The Center for Biological Diversity stated that over 1,300 endangered species in the U.S. may be driven to extinction as a result of overpopulation and urban sprawl. 

I do not write this letter in an effort to lodge a complaint, but rather to propose a solution.  I believe that there is a solution to our overpopulation problem and with Congress’s assistance in passing pertinent legislation, we can create a sustainable country for generations to come.  Please allow me to identify some of my suggestions:

• implementation of effective immigration policies;
• requirements for better sex education in schools;
• access to contraceptives;
• renewed focus on climate change and renewable energy use.

While it may seem unfair to say that immigrants are responsible for our country’s overpopulation and ultimately the global warming issue, it is still a factor that cannot be over-looked.  The 637 million tons of CO2 that these immigrants are emitting is approximately 482 million tons more than they would have produced in their home countries.  As such, a continued focus on the development and implementation of just and fair immigration policy should be a primary objective.  Additionally, I believe that we can do a far better job educating our own population as to the consequences of their actions.  This starts in our schools.  We need to devise and implement better sex education programs in our schools. This education needs to address the access to contraceptives.  Family planning and contraceptive education has proven to have a direct effect on our country’s population.  In 1972, the Supreme Court legalized birth control. According to the U.S. Census, the population growth rate was markedly reduced after this ruling. While immigration and birth control are sensitive but necessary topics for legislation, the issue of renewable energy is a less sensitive and more palatable matter.  With the growing population, we need to diligently and persistently pursue methods to preserve our natural resources.  Global warming is a very real concern.  We can not ignore it if we wish to provide fresh water, food and resources for our citizens.

Overpopulation of the United States of America is a serious issue.  To over-use our land and over-extend our welcome is to deplete our country of its resources, wealth, and well-fare.  If we do not take action, we will not have a country left for our future generations.  I want to raise my family in the greatest nation on Earth.  Please join me in helping to preserve the United States of America.

I thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Sara J. Pross

Jenna Leihgeber
$2,000
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX

April 8, 2019

Dear Congressman,

           As a concerned youth and informed citizen, I write to share my disposition in regards to our nation’s population growth. Politicians and the media have neglected the severity of this issue for decades. Previously, they have taken action to accommodate the growth of our nation rather than establishing permanent solutions to halt the increase. I would like to refute previous statements made about the population trends, present the underlying consequences of our negligence, and provide methods to ensure our stability as a nation for future generations. It is our responsibility as proactive citizens to understand the potential severity of our population growth and take action to limit its effects.

           Throughout my studies of this subject matter, I have found that the primary claims that refute population growth involve current trends in population. Many articles claim that the recent decline in birth rates and the wane of the baby boomer generation will be enough to stabilize the population. These claims, although feasible, do not capture the true time frame of population growth. The exponential track of population growth has been a part of American demographics for decades. In less than 50 years, the current population is expected to surpass four hundred million. Our current population growth will continue to put pressures on the ability to preserve resources until they are completely depleted.

           It is crucial to understand the patterns of human behavior and the supply and demand of resources. With more people, there is greater pollution, greater need for finite resources such as food and water, and greater excavations of the environment to make room for communities. The depletion of resources that once seemed infinite will be the cause of starvation and instability. With modern medicine, longer life expectancy, and the greater demand for resources, we need to evaluate the regulation of demographics and develop new plans to reduce our population before overpopulation compromises the future strength of our nation.

           The first action to halt population growth starts with reforming the current immigration system. Many politicians turn a blind eye to the internal consequences of rapid immigration in order to reunite families, assist dreamers, and provide relief to refugees. In doing so, their actions cause imbalances in our economic system and encourage illegal immigration. As legislators, you have the opportunity to reform our unorganized immigration system and regulate the incoming rate of migrants. We must be willing to secure our borders and halt the influx of migrants to revamp the system instead of continuing to overload it. The immigration system needs an entire reboot. We need to reevaluate the amount of immigrants we allow into our country. We are not able to accomplish any good for these migrants if we are unable to even sustain ourselves first.

           In addition to reforming the immigration system, we must develop incentives that encourage small families. Some of the ways to encourage a two parent, two child household could be through tax breaks or assistance with a set amount of college education funding. Couples would be able to take these factors into consideration before starting a family.

           Lastly, we need to reform our education system. Too much emphasis is placed on creating environmentally safe methods of retrieving resources instead of teaching youth how to preserve resources. Many students are unaware of the consequences of not having enough resources because we live in an age of instant gratification. The convenience of going to a local market or online shopping prevents many from understanding that resources are not as plentiful as they seem. We need to place greater importance on recycling and reveal the consequences of unrestrained human action.

Each congressman was recently elected into office because he/she wanted to help improve our system of government and help shape the future of our nation. I look up to each political leader no matter the party because each elected person holds the ability to influence others. Do not allow this influence to be tainted and manipulated. Do not allow political affiliations and personal beliefs to prevent you from seeing the truth and importance of this matter. Break away from your peers and worry less about seeking re-election but rather ensuring a stronger future for every American. I believe the diversity of culture and interests of the 116th Congress will be significant and will bring much needed attention to this issue.  I wish you the best of luck throughout this term.

Sincerely,

Jenna Leihgeber

Nicolas Zampaglione
$2,000
Kaiser University , West Palm Beach, FL

Dear Honorable Members of Congress,

Enough is enough. We have far surpassed the point of asking, “How many is too many?” Simply stated, there are way too many people in the country and it’s killing our planet. Unchecked population growth has led us to a not-so-pleasant place.

In my home state of Florida, rampant overdevelopment has caused the loss of habitat such as beautiful coastal areas—now forever gone. And nearly all species of sea turtles are now endangered. Our land, water and wildlife lie in jeopardy. Unbridled growth has placed unfair demands on our unique, natural resources.

Excessive farming, no clean water and climate change are current realities. Scores of evidence-based research studies have all arrived at the same unequivocal conclusion: Human activities are causing global warming that will result in irreversible damage to our environment. Critical environmental issues are negatively impacting the world in which we live. Add to that the fact that all environmental problems are only exacerbated by rapid growth in human population. The health of our planet is truly at risk with devastating consequences. Fact is, the earth does have finite resources but the population continues to grow exponentially. Sadly, government allows that but you are in a unique position to change that as new members of Congress. You can be game changers! Take the first step today.

We are a country of consumers and it’s hurting our planet in extremely destructive ways. We are consuming more resources than the earth can regenerate and the result is not pretty. Thankfully, there’s a solution and it’s called negative population growth. Yes, negative population growth.

I have barely scratched the surface in making the case for negative population growth. Negative Population Growth, Inc. (NPG) has been making the case since 1972. Negative population growth is needed to strike a balance between the strains of a growing population and the preservation of our natural assets for future generations to enjoy.

Here’s the good news. As newly elected members of Congress, you are in a position of positive power. You have the power to reverse our current population trends to a more sustainable level by enacting a National Population Policy. This would entail immigration reform. Immigrants (some of them illegal) contribute dramatically to the U.S. population growth—adding more than 1 million people each year. Go out on a limb and use your position to endorse smaller-sized families, and advocate for fertility education and women’s empowerment. It can be done and you have the power to make it happen.

We are at a point where negative population growth is not just desirable, it’s imperative. Put population control at the top of your political agenda and make it a priority. At this critical point in time, we cannot shy away from uncomfortable issues. Harsh times call for bold measures. When it comes to population, zero is a hero so please be a population “hero” before it’s too late. Sustainability is possible but it will require a reduction in population. The time is now.

Respectfully,

Nicolas A. Zampaglione

Anna Heilman
$1,500
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

April 10, 2019

Dear Congressmen,

           I am writing on behalf of the 300 million people currently living in the United States and this country’s future generations regarding the excessive population growth threatening our way of life. The United States is the third most populous country in the world, behind India and China, with a population that has quadrupled over the past century and is projected to double in the next hundred years. The United States lacks the resources and space to maintain such high growth. In order to live sustainably, we must work to reverse population rates. The negative effects of high population are already apparent in the U.S. as living standards are jeopardized, resources depleted, and ecosystems ravaged.

            According to The Economist Magazine, low population growth is correlated closely with high quality of life. It is a myth that population growth is required for economic growth and wellbeing. Many European countries, Germany for example, have low population growth, but through well-planned economies can maintain a high GDP and living standards. Abundant population growth in the U.S. has jeopardized the quality of life in cities, leading to overcrowding and urban sprawl, which perpetuates inner-city poverty. Education has also taken a toll. According to the Digest of Educational Statistics, student enrollment has reached an all-time high of 50.4 million. Many schools, mostly in poor urban areas, have to accommodate more students than they were designed for with less funding, resulting in worse test scores and further disadvantaging impoverished students.

           Additionally, due to population growth, resources in the U.S. have been depleted and the environment simultaneously ruined. For many years, the effects of exorbitant population growth have been offset by improvement in technology. Farming techniques have been developed, often at the expense of the environment, such as pesticides and GMOs that allow for more yield per acre. Cleaner fuels have been developed to replace the consumption of coal and gas. However, as the world’s population continues to exponentially grow, inevitably, a point will be reached when the world’s resources will not be enough to sustain us. In fact, the U.S. currently consumes renewable resources at twice the rate it takes to replace them.

           Water supplies in the U.S. are quickly diminishing. According to Nature Conservancy, “an estimated 40% of rivers, 56% of lakes, and 50% of estuaries are too polluted for fishing and swimming.” Aquifers are being depleted at a rate that cannot be replenished. The Central Valley Aquifer has lost around 125 million acre-feet of water in the past century. Though the U.S. is increasing renewable fuel consumption, the level of natural gases consumed in the recent decade have reached the highest point in history and has resulted in unprecedented levels of pollution. According to The Royal Society, global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by 40%, methane 150%, and nitrous oxide 20% since the pre-industrial era. Ecosystems are being ravaged by increased pollutant levels and habitat loss. The International Union for Conservation states an estimated 6,700 species in the United States are at risk of pollution.

           Clearly, the world’s resources already cannot sustain its current population, much less handle its projected growth. In order to ensure prosperity and peace for future generations, we must reverse population rates. The United States has the responsibility to lead this effort; we must enact policies to curb the amount of immigration into the United States and encourage lower fertility rates. Immigrants and their U.S. born children represent the largest population growth in America – an estimated 75-85%. Though immigration has recently become a divisive, hot-button issue, for the sake of preserving the resources and prosperity of this country, political parties must unite over this issue and slow immigration. Illegal immigration should be completely stopped, and better border security implemented. For our nation to reach sustainable levels, legal immigration should also be significantly reduced. Lower fertility rates, which will additionally help reduce poverty, should also be encouraged. Women should have easy access to contraceptives and politicians should encourage smaller families. Since women who are in the work force have fewer children, programs designed to aid girls and women in joining the workforce should be encouraged.

The issue of overpopulation is the most pressing problem facing the world today – leading to loss of resources, destruction of habitats, and increased levels of greenhouse gasses related to climate change. I beseech you to heed the warning signs, unite against divisive party politics, and take action to reverse the effects of this epidemic.

Sincerely,

Anna Heilman

Drew Pedersen
$1,500
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

April 17, 2019

Dear Congressman:

It is hard to imagine what the world or even the U.S. would be like if only the number of people the planet could indefinitely support lived on Earth.  The U.S. is well past its carrying capacity, a term that can be defined as the maximum population size that an environment can sustain indefinitely. So, unless we change what we are doing, eventually, we will run out of resources. Unfortunately, at this rate, this is going to happen sooner rather than later.  Something that should be alarming for this generation and the generations soon to come.

The average American uses 550,000 gallons of water annually, an amount that is much greater than the Earth can sustain.  This consumption amount has caused a dramatic increase in water pollution.  Now, over 40% of rivers, 46% of lakes, and 50% of estuaries are too polluted for fishing and swimming (“The United States Is Already Overpopulated”.)  The amount of consumption is not only hurting the amount of water available but is also negatively affecting the fishing industry, which helps supply the food for our country.

Next, in the last 40 years, global energy usage has increased by over 40% (“The United States Is Already Overpopulated”.)  The increase in energy usage has resulted in significantly more fuel spills and greenhouses gases, both of which are detrimental to the environment and costly to fix. Much of these impacts are due to the U.S. population increase of over 49% in the last 40 years (“US Population By Year”.)   If we slow the population increase, these negative impacts will decrease.

To mitigate these effects, it is important that we acknowledge the problem in the first place. Many people, including lawmakers and politicians, fail to even recognize this massive problem.  Many of them fail to acknowledge that many of these detrimental impacts are due to a population growth that should be falling instead of rising. One suggestion is to educate students about this issue in high schools. It is important to raise awareness about this issue and show students the real implications if population continues to rise. If we can make it required for schools to educate students about how the world is changing and what this will mean for future generations, we can draw attention to arguably one of the most important issues in the world.

Another suggestion would be to make changes to border security.  Over 12 million illegal immigrants reside in the U.S. as of 2015 (“Population Estimates”.)  This number will only continue to increase if something is not done about this issue. It is important to increase border security to decrease the number of illegal immigrants who enter the country.  As of recently, immigration is responsible for most of the population growth. Along with stopping illegal immigration, it is important to have stricter immigration laws to reduce the number of immigrants into the country. These simple changes to immigration will dramatically decrease the population rate in the U.S. since it is the largest contributor to the U.S. population rate as of late.

It is also important to decrease the number of births, especially those which are not planned.  In the U.S. in 2018, 40% of pregnancies were unplanned (Ahrens et al.).  Imagine the effects on the population growth rate if the number of unplanned pregnancies was to drop dramatically?  If we educate more people on the importance of birth control or can find better and more affordable ways to stop unplanned pregnancies, the population growth would see a significant decrease, making life better for everyone.

To conclude, the population is well over its carrying capacity, and it is only a matter of time until we run out of necessary resources such as food and water. The U.S., along with the rest of the world, is suffering through many problems resulting from overpopulation and it is our job to limit and hopefully eliminate these problems in the future. However, it is important that we educate the younger generation on the issue so more people can acknowledge the issue at hand. In addition, we need to strengthen immigration policies and help drop the number of births, specifically the number of unplanned pregnancies. If we can accomplish these goals, we will be one step of the way to ensure negative population growth and a better life for everyone.

Sincerely,

Drew Pedersen

Works Cited

Ahrens, Thoma, et al. “Unintended Pregnancy and Interpregnancy Interval by Maternal Age, National Survey of Family Growth.” Contraception, Elsevier, 1 Mar. 2018, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782418300751.

“Population Estimates.” Homeland Security, 2015, www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_1214_PLCY_pops-est-report.pdf.

“The United States Is Already Overpopulated.” Federation for American Immigration Reform,fairus.org/issue/population-environment/united-states-already-overpopulated.

“US Population By Year.” 2019, www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table/by-year.

Zoe Wright
$1,500
Clark University, Worcester, MA

April 3, 2019

Dear Congressmen,

I am writing to bring to your attention to an imminent and growing issue facing our nation, and the world today:  population size and growth.  Between the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, we saw an increase of 1.5 to 6.1 billion people inhabiting our planet in just 100 years. This growth in total was over three times greater than any other increase in our previous history.^[1] Boasting a population of over 328 million people, the US census bureau estimates that our nation alone sees a net gain of one person every 17 seconds.^[2] While I understand that this growth is slowing, it still poses several issues.

I believe that climate change and other environmental threats are the most prominent and pressing issues stemming from this growth. Increased population greatly contributes to climate change for a number of reasons. As the population of our nation increases, we are experiencing staggering increases in energy and water consumption, as well as the elimination of natural habitats and farmlands in response to urban sprawl and housing development. This increased use of nonrenewable energy sources and fossil fuels contributes to increased gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, which contributes to the warming of earth’s atmosphere.^[3] According to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, the US is the second highest emitter of Carbon Dioxide in the world, exposing us as a significant player in this issue.^[4] One simple way to combat this issue is through the restriction of population growth within our nation.

On a more social front, population growth is also affecting the daily functioning of American society as a whole. Increased numbers of people living within our nation further contribute to hospital and school overcrowding, unemployment, and the increased concentration of poverty. Experts have found statistical relationships between population size and crime rates,^[5] leading one to believe that as the population of the US continues to rise, crime will increase as well. School overcrowding exacerbates this issue, as increased class sizes create unsafe environments, making both teaching and learning more difficult. This contributes in turn to higher rates of school violence and truancy, and lower achievement.^[6] For these reasons, population growth within our nation poses several social as well as environmental issues.

I urge you all, as members of the 116th Congress, to take action in regards to this issue of population growth. Some steps that could contribute to the reversal of population growth include the establishment of voluntary incentives for smaller families, which would provide motivation for increased family planning efforts within the United States. The US population could also be controlled through reduced immigration levels into our nation.

I hope that the information provided above sheds light on the issue of US population growth, as well as the numerous detrimental consequences of this growth. The most direct way to reverse these issues is to address the problem of population growth head on. It is the responsibility of young people like myself to take proactive steps in shaping the quality of my future within the United States, and I am optimistic that by reaching out to my congressional representatives, my thoughts on this issue will be heard.

Regards,

Zoe Wright

Clark University Class of 2021

Charleston, South Carolina

Work Cited:

^[1] Roser, Max, and Esteban Ortiz-Ospina. “World Population Growth.” Our World in Data. May 09, 2013. Accessed March 28, 2019. https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth.

^[2] “U.S. and World Population Clock.” United States Census Bureau. Accessed April 03, 2019. https://www.census.gov/popclock/.

^[3] “Climate Change Causes: A Blanket around the Earth.” NASA Global Climate Change. February 05, 2019. Accessed April 03, 2019. https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/.

^[4] Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, 2014

^[5] Nolan, James J. “Establishing the Statistical Relationship between Population Size and UCR Crime Rate: Its Impact and Implications.” Journal of Criminal Justice 32, no. 6 (2004): 547-55. Accessed April 3, 2019. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2004.08.002.

^[6] “Preventing Overcrowding & Other School Impacts of Development.” Community and Environmental Defense Services. Accessed April 03, 2019. http://ceds.org/school.html.

Felix Herbst
$1,000
Arizona Stat University, Tempe, AZ

April 10^th, 2019

Dear Congressman/Congresswoman:

First of all, let me congratulate you on your election to the 116^th Congress. It is a great honor to serve one’s state and country, and I am sure that you already have an agenda for what you want to achieve in your first year in office. Oftentimes however, short-term problems and localized issues can become overwhelming and hard to look past, obscuring larger universal trends that may not have straightforward solutions. If these universal issues are not acknowledged and addressed, they will only get worse, and their downstream effects will continue to negatively impact the people of the United States.

The universal issue I want to talk to you about is population growth. This is not a topic often brought up in U.S. political discourse, and there are understandable reasons why: a) people don’t consider this a political issue, and if they do then they associate it (erroneously) with “unamerican” principles such as China’s one-child policy, and b) most politicians have never gotten the chance to learn about the effects of population growth, and how it is impacting their own constituents every day. In this letter, I want to inform a better understanding of how current U.S. population size and growth levels are pressing problems, and what you as a member of Congress can do to be a protagonist at the forefront of one of the most pressing issues of our time.

There are nearly 330 million people living in the U.S. at the time of writing this letter, 100 million more people than 40 years ago[i]. This means that a child born today is competing with 100 million more people for space, food, water, jobs, and education. This may seem like an abstract concept, but a global view can demonstrate these principles in action. Due to rapid population growth around the world, more than one billion people go to bed hungry every night[ii]. If one looks at highly developed countries, the U.S. is third only to China and India in both population size and growth. It’s not a coincidence that economically successful and advanced nations typically have slow or negative growth; the most drastic growth occurs in underdeveloped countries, and it should be cause for concern that the U.S. echoes those trends[iii].

To meet its growing populations’ needs, the U.S. must get more and more efficient in terms of food production, water accessibility, and infrastructure projects. A larger population means less space, more expensive housing, greater demands for better transportation, compounding needs for health care… the list goes on and on. Although transportation is constantly being improved, housing is being made more efficient, and agricultural/food production technologies are constantly evolving, there are only so many resources to tap into, only so many scientific advancements to be made. Eventually, the U.S. will reach a breaking point where it simply cannot sustain the amount of people that inhabit it. So, what can be done about this, and how can a member of Congress such as yourself address population growth in a way that resonates with your constituents and colleagues?

Population growth should not be a partisan issue; every single person in the United States regardless of where they live or whom they vote for is feeling its effects every day. It must, however, be a political issue. If leaders in government do not address frankly the issue of population growth, it will continue unchecked and wreak havoc down the line. The single best thing you as a member of Congress can do is inform your constituents and colleagues about the issue, using your platform to make people aware. Stating that you wish to research and address an issue that affects people’s healthcare, food supply, housing prices, and job prospects is bound to speak to every listener in fundamental way.

Everyone has a different view on specific policy proposals to alleviate population growth. Whether you want to focus on ensuring that Americans have access to family planning services and information, make it easier to obtain safe contraceptives, or strive towards revamping a flawed immigration system­­—these are all different approaches that can help reduce population growth. In the end, regardless of which strategy you want to pursue, addressing this issue is one of the single most comprehensive and crucial things you can do in your time in office to help ensure a better life for your constituents, their children, and all future generations.

Sincerely,

Felix Herbst

[i] according to http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/us-population/

[ii] according to https://www.populationinstitute.org/resources/whypopulationmatters/

[iii] according to https://www.prb.org/whatdrivesuspopulationgrowthpdf540kb/

Linnea Bakos
$750
Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA

Dear Esteemed Congressmen,

As a young person in America it is concerning to me that our country continues to grow in population despite the fact that as a nation our resources are finite. At some point we will reach the tipping point where this country’s bountiful resources will be inadequate to meet the needs of those living here. The state of HI is an example of what happens when population exceeds resources. One hundred and twenty years ago, when the US took over HI, the islands were self-sustaining. Today, they produce only twenty percent of the food needed to feed the residents and visitors (http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kent/FOODSECURITYINHAWAII.pdf). We need to prevent this from happening in the other forty-nine states of our great country.

I was adopted from China as an infant, most probably due to the one child policy in that country. Because of that policy over 700,000 children from China were adopted to other countries (http://archive.pov.org/offandrunning/fact-sheet/) and thousands of children remain in the orphanages. This convinces me that restrictions to control population don’t work – families continue to have children, but are forced to abandon children to avoid punishment. This just places the burden of caring for these children onto the government.

If restrictions regarding the number of children per couple isn’t the answer, how can we limit population growth? I have a few suggestions. The first would be to restructure the Child Tax Credit. Instead of the full amount for every child in a family, it could be staggered with a decreased amount for the second child and nothing for additional children. Another idea would be cover birth control measures at full coverage, similar to preventative care such as mammography. I know of many children conceived despite standard birth control methods.

There will always be couples wanting a large family. Simultaneously, there are children in foster care throughout the US. Our states need to do a much better job of recruiting foster and adoptive families for these children by targeting families wanting more children. I feel that most people think that all adoption costs ten of thousands of dollars and that it is hard to qualify to be an adoptive family. Couples are unaware that adopting a foster child costs next to nothing (https://consideringadoption.com/adopting/adoption-costs/foster-care-adoption-costs). If we can match available children with those wanting larger families we can avoid adding to the overall population.

Part of limiting the population growth of the US will need to involve changed immigration policies. We have nearly four million children born each year in the US (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm) and each family has an average of 2.4 children (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/05/07/family-size-among-mothers/). Even if we could bring that number down to 2.0, or zero population growth, the US population will continue to grow when we admit about 1.8 million people each year (https://cis.org/Report/18-Million-Immigrants-Likely-Arrived-2016-Matching-Highest-Level-US-History).  This rate of immigration will impact all of those residing in the US for years to come, especially as those immigrants have children and add to our population.

The final component that seems to have a large impact on birth rates is education. Many studies find that with the higher the level of education that a woman receives, the fewer children she ultimately has. (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/9/education-level-inversely-related-to-childbearing/). Improving educational opportunities for women is integral to limiting population growth. In Georgia, the HOPE scholarship allows good students to automatically get 80% of tuition covered by the state. If all states were to have a similar program, higher education would be attainable for all those who are qualified academically and desire to continue learning.

These are just a few steps that I see that could be taken to halt an increase in the US population.  I hope I have also highlighted why this is important. Despite my limited life experience and education, I can see a problem and possible solutions.  I am hopeful that the collective life experience and education of the over one hundred newest leaders of our country will bring a fresh look at this issue and result in an effort to find truly impactful and lasting solutions. Please consider making this a priority during your tenure in Congress.

Thank you,

Linnea Bakos

Amy Simko
$750
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

April 17, 2019

Dear Congressman:

I am a high school senior heading off to North Carolina State University in the fall with a major in Environmental Science. My interests are in decreasing pollution, making energy more efficient, and saving our natural resources. Population growth and size are components that lead to increased pollution and depletion of resources. Our sustainability in the future is in jeopardy if we do not do something to control our growing population. I am writing to you to voice my concern about this situation.

The US Census Bureau predicts a 0.7 percent annual growth in the United States over the next decade. Although that does not seem like a large number, other developing countries are predicted to have much less growth. Japan is one of the countries having negative population growth. Decreasing the population or even going so far as to have negative population growth will help save our environment. There are two factors that precipitate an increase in population: births and immigration. There are two factors that create a decrease in population: emigration and death.

According to population reports by the US Census Bureau released in March 2018, (“Demographic Turning Points for the United States: Population Projections for 2020 to 2060”) “by 2030, net international migration is expected to become the primary driver of population growth in the United States.” This is due to an increased death rate with the aging population and a decreasing birth rate.

Overpopulation leads to increased depletion of valuable resources: fresh water, farm land, fossil fuels and forests. Pollution, carbon dioxide emissions and deforestation are all negative effects resulting from our growing population. There must be a change in our current immigration policies to address these issues. By changing these policies we can help protect our land.

There is a major focus on cleaning up our water from pollutants and oil spills, recycling/reducing/reusing our trash, and reducing our use of fossil fuels.  We spend our time trying to reduce the negative impact overpopulation has on our environment. This is like treating the symptoms of an illness, but not addressing the cause. If we were to work towards a decrease in the United States population we would be helping to prevent environmental damage. By addressing both the cause and the effect of overpopulation we can promote a healthy environment. With the statistics from the US Census Bureau glaring us in the face, there is an obvious conclusion we can make. Decreasing our immigration rates will help decrease our population, which will in turn protect our environment and improve our sustainability.

There are those who will argue that we should be sympathetic to the people who are trying to come into the United States to make a better life for themselves. However, if our environment continues to be polluted, ravaged and damaged, that “better life” will be a thing of the past.

Increases in our population threaten our environment and natural resources. I hope that you will consider implementing stricter immigration laws. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Amy Simko

Works Cited:

Vespa, Jonathan, David M. Armstrong, and Lauren Medina, “Demographic Turning Points for the United States: Population Projections for 2020 to 2060,” Current Population Reports, P25-1144, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2018.

Jasser Syed
$750
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

April 18, 2019

Dear Congressman:

I am writing with regards to your efforts of maintaining a trajectory for prosperity in the United States. Despite the numerous advancements in technology and industry, it is imperative to be cognizant of the adversities we face due to a fundamental issue across the globe: overpopulation. There was a time when increasing population provided employment and drove economic and industrial progress, but now the threshold of our carrying capacity has been passed. Between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau shows a 10% increase in population, which is propagated from the 72% increase observed since 1950. Moreover, the population is projected to grow to 400 million—a 80 million increase—by 2050 which will continue to expand exponentially. As the U.S. has a limit to the amount of resources it can allocate to support its population, new policies must be adopted to encourage Americans to collaboratively address this issue.

Congress has an overwhelming number of issues that it works to solve daily. However, overpopulation may just be the direst of issues we face because of the contributions it has on overall sustainability of life. For instance, climate change is directly linked to overpopulation; higher amounts of resource consumption has led to deforestation, overgrazing, and agricultural runoffs that have contaminated our water ways and eroded soil. Although the U.S. currently compensates through importing resources, this is not a long-term solution as continued growth will render them as inadequate.

Furthermore, the argument to increasing population providing economic development is overshadowed by strain on infrastructure. Existing hospitals, offices, schools, police departments, transportation systems, and roads cannot support a growing population. As new infrastructure is built to accommodate growth, the cost of services increases to where communities are subject to tax burden and the people start suffering economically. Even with larger roads and cities, congestion, pollution and subsequent deterioration of people’s quality of life is inevitable.

Technological advancements have made numerous efforts to mitigate the aforementioned challenges, however, they are fighting an uphill battle. Initiatives such as hydraulic fracturing and corn ethanol have proved insufficient as crop devastation has made production of corn ethanol unsustainable while fracking damages the environment. Oil prices are increasing as supplies deplete faster with increased population and consumption, and electric cars are too new to market to adequately replace the current reliance on gasoline automobiles. Quite simply, the rate of population growth has surpassed the rate of technological advancement, and it is not economically pragmatic to produce artificial replacements to provide for increasing demands. This issue is especially pertinent to the U.S. due to the influx of immigrants compared to other nations.

Studies show that 80% of U.S. population growth between 2005 and 2050 will be through immigration: both legal and illegal. Although many argue that the U.S. contains enough land to accommodate this increase, a lot of the seemingly open space is not suitable for habitation. Dry, rocky, or extreme places are incapable not only of housing people, but also of producing crops and other resources. The increasingly diverse population also means more multicultural imports, which can contribute to a trade imbalance as the U.S. already imports more than it exports. In the 1950s, immigration levels were 1/3 of what they are today, but now they are overwhelming our capacity.

Ultimately, with limited resources and increasing population in the U.S., it is impossible to sustain growth. Labor intensive economic expansion is having reverse effects, and technological initiatives to mitigate resource consumption are not developing as fast as the population: especially through immigration. If the basic needs of life such as food, water, and shelter can no longer be met, then more complex human advancements such as business industries will be useless. Thus, this issue is more significant for Congress to address before any other. Negative Population Growth (NPG) is a national non-profit organization that aims to solve this issue at the core by encouraging policy to help slow and eventually reverse population growth. NPG believes in strongly enforcing existing immigration laws and encouraging people to have smaller families through various incentives and benefits. NPG believes that each family should retain the right to decide their family size; their primary initiative is to educate. If Congress creates policy to educate the public and limit surplus immigration, people are more likely to cooperate. I encourage you to refer to the details in NPG’s Proposed National Population Policy and use it to help implement policy for a better America for all.

Sincerely,

Jasser Syed

Yue Taira
$750
University Texas, Austin, TX

To the 116th Congress members:

Good morning all. If all of the humans on earth stood side-by-side, they could fit into a space the size of Los Angeles. No matter how many times I hear it, I am always baffled by the fact—how could 7 billion people fit into such a seemingly small space? This brings up an important point of population size and growth—the fact that the issue with overpopulation and population growth does not have to do with a lack of space, but rather a lack of resources to sustain an ever-growing population.

As the number of people around the world, and in the US increase day by day, serious issues may arise concerning limited necessities for life. Not only does a growing population threaten the supply of basic necessities such as food, water, and shelter, but also of opportunities, and quality of life. It is an undeniable fact that the resources on this earth are limited, and there will be a point in time in which the population is too large for this limited supply of resources to sustain. When that point is reached—if it has not been already—the ability for the average American to pursue their goals and dreams in career and life will be diminished, not of their own accord, but because of an issue out of the control of their own hands.

Too many politicians and businesses have been promoting the idea of growth, when this “growth” cannot go on forever. Science does not lie, and there is just simply no way that more population growth can be sustained over time. We have long exceeded our long-range carrying capacity, and it is time that something be done about it. With unrestricted population growth, not only are we exceeding capacity, we are deteriorating the health and quality of existing natural systems. As a result, in order to effectively combat population growth, we must first address the root causes of the issue.

Population growth comes primarily from two sources. First is natural growth, or an increase in birth rate in the US. As of 2007, the U.S. fertility rate had risen above 2.1, up from a low of 1.74 in 1976. The second source is record-level immigration. The number of immigrants as a percentage of US population grew from 5.4% in 1970 to 13.7% in 2017, adding to the population growth. In addition, immigrants have higher birth rates than native-born Americans on average. Now, to address these sources of population growth, the government of the United States must take action. First, the government should attempt to ensure that all prospective parents have the necessary information and access to family planning services. In addition, Congress must implement changes in immigration policy to accept fewer immigrants as a percent of our population. In addition, laws meant to deter illegal immigration may be enforced more effectively. This will help to find and stabilize the balance between immigration and emigration from the US.

 It is important to remember that this in no way means that we are turning our backs on cultural or ethnic diversity, but rather that this is a way that we can gradually reach a stable population level. As a result of these policies and changes, the population of the United States can be brought down in a negative population growth trend until it reaches a level that is sustainable over the long term. Established in 1972 to educate the American public on the dangers of overpopulation, the non-profit membership organization Negative Population Growth estimates that a population of about 150-200 million people would be optimal for the United States. This would ensure that population does not exceed consumption of finite resources and destroy fragile ecosystems. In addition, Americans now and Americans of future generations would be more free to pursue their dreams and goals in this great country. However, this can only be done with your help to slow, halt, and eventually reverse U.S. population growth. I am not saying that negative population growth will be a quick and easy process, but with enough support from Congress and the American public, it is achievable.

Thank you.

Dear Congressman,

I’d like to bring to your attention the problem of population increase in America. The American population is now about 329 million and we’re consuming non-renewable resources at an astounding rate, robbing future generations by degrading our environment.

Every year, the Global Foot Print Network calculates each nation’s consumption of non-renewable resources, as opposed to those that can be regenerated.  The World Overshoot Day is 1 August, but Overshoot Day for America is 15 March. According to a report by the WWF, if everyone on earth lived the way we Americans do, it would take five planet earths to support humanity (McCamy, 2018).

Our population is growing at an unsustainable rate as our ecological footprint massively outnumbers our bio capacity, leaving us in ecological deficit. The increasing population is decreasing the standard of living of average Americans, yet we don’t notice the threat of population increase.

Some people might find these concerns about overpopulation bewildering, as our growth rate is declining; in fact, the US Census Bureau reports that the national population grew by just 0.6% between July 1, 2017, and July 1, 2018, the lowest rate since the Great Depression of 1937. The reason stated for this decline is more deaths than births (Reilly, 2018). In fact, the baseline population has increased significantly and even growth at a lower rate translates to another 2 million people per year, or 240 per hour (U.S. and World Population Clock, 2019).

The increased population’s impact on the environment is not linear, as many other factors come into play and thus even small increases impact earth’s resources. We need to understand Paul Ehrlich IPAT formula, which states that humans’ impact on the environment (I) is the product of population (P), affluence (A), and the impact of technology (T), or I = PAT. An increase in just one of these parameters, therefore, increases our environmental impact. Nature has a delicate balance where waste produced and pollution caused can be naturally broken down and recycled, but when the population is growing at an ecologically unsustainable rate, the natural cycle fails and pollution increases, as every addition in the population not only means one more mouth to feed and clothe, it also means more waste polluting earth’s environment (Moody, 2011)

We are clearly living beyond our means, stealing from future generations and we don’t care. In the words of Ehrlich in 1973 in National Wildlife, “The public must be made aware that we are rapidly depleting our stores of fossil-fuel, non-renewable mineral resources and fresh water. Someone has accurately described such behavior as ‘grand larceny against the future’ and it cannot continue much longer.”  We need to work on ways to decrease the population growth and change our consumption habits to reduce the massive ecological burden our nation puts on earth’s ecosystem.

We first have to analyze the drivers of population increase: the Census Bureau says half comes from new births and other half from immigration, so we can safely say that population growth rate can be massively decreased if we decrease the number of immigrants entering our country. It is high time to come out of the bubble that increasing population is good for America, providing workers for industry and in turn fueling economic and technological development (Ball, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Dec., 1992)).

We now need to follow a multi-pronged strategy to tackle the issue of population growth, as we’re clearly overpopulated as a country. First, we need to put our immigration policy in perspective and analyze its impact on our economy, as we definitely need a more strict immigration policy to reduce the influx of immigrants.  Then our government needs to stop making pro-natal policies encouraging Americans to have big families by providing additional tax credits for children and their college tuition (Does the US Have Population Problem?).

We need to get our act together and educate our nation to live mindfully and reduce our ecological footprint by decreasing our use of cars, changing the way we eat by adding more vegetables in our diet and reducing the production of meat, and most importantly by investing in renewable sources of energy and developing energy-saving habits as a nation. We need a strict environmental protection policy accompanied by a population planning policy to plan for the optimum usage of resources for the growing American population.

Dear members of the 116th Congress,

The United States population currently sits at around 328 million people. The population growth rate has been slowing in recent years due to reductions in births, but continuing immigration from countries around the world will drive further U.S. population growth.

 This represents a potentially serious problem for the United States to face in upcoming years.

The current population level in the United States is already leading to problems with sustainability. The U.S. is consuming its’ natural resources at an unsustainable rate with concern to the rise in population over the last fifty years. Since the 1970 Census found the U.S. population was 100 million, the population has seen a 50% growth in the past fifty years. Fortunately, the United States has huge reserves of natural resources that have made it possible to sustain such a large, growing population. But even with the abundance of natural resources, current high rates of consumption by Americans won’t be sustainable because our supply of certain natural resources is finite; the country already depends on foreign imports for almost thirty percent of U.S. energy consumption.

There are a number of effects that U.S. overpopulation is having on the overall health of the environment. One major issue associated with population growth in the U.S. is the decrease of land made available for agriculture. Over three million acres of farmland are lost each year due to population growth and land being taken away for fuel production or suburban development. This is a huge problem because it takes away the U.S.’s capability to support its growing population. U.S. population growth has also contributed to the decrease in total forest cover throughout the nation, which reduces the environment’s ability to remove harmful carbon dioxide from the air to prevent further atmospheric warming due to CO2. Also, water levels within the country have been diminished significantly due to increased demand from fast-growing cities. Furthermore, the additional population growth has led to increased pollution of water supplies, leaving the country with a high percentage of polluted waterways.

Proponents of population growth will often point to the potential for increased economic growth if population growth increases. But the continued spike of the U.S. population is not 100% necessary for economic growth. Competitors in economic capability such as Germany and Japan are showing that economic growth can be achieved even through population decline. In fact, certain factors associated with population growth like decreased amount of natural resources and increased pollution can lead to a decline in productivity. Economic growth should be based on technological and organizational innovations rather than population growth alone.

Members of the 116th Congress should work to form and implement a national population policy capable of protecting the United States from the harms of overpopulation and rapid population growth. The current problems stemming from overpopulation such as land and resource shortages and congestion in urban areas, as well as environmental degradation, will jeopardize the future of the United States as a first-world country. Congress would better be able to monitor natural resources and environmental policy if they figure out how to keep the U.S. population from growing out of control.

Dear Congresspeople:

Scarcity.

It’s a word nobody on The Hill wants to acknowledge. But the US is and always has been a nation with limited resources, so the concept should be nothing new to Congress. After all, scarcity drives our economy, fueling the constant fluxes in supply and demand that dictate the prices we charge and quantities of goods we produce.

So why is it difficult to understand that many of our nation’s environmental and economic issues are the direct result of the scarcity generated by a ballooning population? Every seventeen seconds, the US’ net population increases by one. If this rate is left unchecked, our population will over double by 2050. Americans living today face the prospect of having their quality of life decrease as they age. According to one US Energy Information Administration report, our mines can yield another 25 years of coal at our current rate of consumption. Meanwhile, global warming caused by coal consumption threatens to leave countless Americans nutrient deficient, while displacing residents on our East and Gulf coasts through flooding, and leaving communities increasingly vulnerable to devastating tropical cyclones.

The ecological impacts of uncontrolled population growth are similarly grave. Urban sprawl continues to wreak havoc on native ecosystems, endangering species across the nation. Of course, this is occurring concurrently with climate change, which is forcing species into extinction at a rate between 100 and 1,000 times the normal frequency.

Members of Congress, in the face of this population growth-induced crisis, I ask you to act. No longer can our nation afford to shirk current responsibility with the expectation that future innovation will save our ecosystems, our children, and ourselves. We must take steps to immediately limit US population growth. Consequently, I implore you to consider the following policy initiatives:

1. Limit Migration

The US must work to strike a balance between assisting foreigners impacted by overpopulation and protecting US citizens and their interests. Currently, visa overstays constitute 62% of illegal immigration. Unlike the illegal immigrants who cross our nation’s southern border, these migrants originally had the means and credentials to enter the US legally. For migrants from India and China (whose citizens constitute the greatest number of visa overstayers other than Mexican nationals), this means purchasing intercontinental airfare and proving to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that you can financially support yourself for the duration of your stay. For these illegal immigrants, I propose hefty fines and a lifetime ban on entry to the US.

 Illegal immigrants crossing our southern border typically face an entirely different set of circumstances. Driven from impoverished, resource-exhausted areas by the push factors of violence and crime, these migrants cannot be deterred by fines. Given that imprisonment of these migrants serves only as a drain on American financial and environmental resources, the ideal plan of action must prevent entry altogether. The continued development of a physical, well-manned barrier will lessen illegal immigration somewhat, but it’s hard to imagine that migrants won’t learn to exploit any barrier’s inevitable weaknesses. Perhaps a more effective measure in the short run would be to establish CBC field offices on common migration routes within Mexico and in towns and cities from which the greatest number of illegal immigrants come. From these bases of operation, agents could work to inform migrants of the consequences of illegal entry to the US and, most importantly, provide feasible alternatives. At these offices, migrants would ideally be able to file for asylum and receive an expedited decision. These offices could additionally work alongside the Mexican government to direct migrants to educational and work opportunities within Mexico as well as to provide information on receiving Oportunidades, Mexico’s anti-poverty welfare.

1. Educate

This initiative is relatively straightforward: make Americans more aware of the negative personal impacts of having more than two children and empower women by affirming their reproductive freedom.

While strides can be made in promoting sexual responsibility among all age groups, as a highschooler, I can attest firsthand that not enough is being done to serve teenagers. In the US, abstinence-based sex education is correlated with higher rates of teen pregnancy when compared to comprehensive courses, which cover a broader range of birth control methods. Requiring comprehensive sex education at every public school in the US would not only decrease teen pregnancy, but it would also leave women and men more equipped to make informed decisions about reproduction in the future. In the extreme short-run, funding programs which provide free birth control, especially condoms, to teens would undoubtedly decrease pregnancy rates.

Sincerely,

Brennan George

Dear Congressman:

The population size of the United States of America is becoming a massive reason for concern. Although the national population is not the largest in the world, the conflict that it creates could become unsustainable. The quantity of people that currently lives in the country is becoming too large to provide all of the land and resources to. It is becoming increasingly likely that food and water sources, as well as nonrenewable energy sources, could cease to exist. These only account for a small percentage of everything in the country that is finite for a population of over 300 million people. If the government does not take an approach to this situation, the population size will increase along with the demand for resources, and ultimately worsen the issue.

A gradual increase in consumption of land and resources, as a result of population growth and size, takes a toll on the environmental conditions of the United States. Some resources, people use up to supply their needs, and the natural environment cannot replenish all of it fast enough to provide for such a colossal population size. The farmland in the country is declining each year, due to suburban development. And according to the Energy Information Administration, land use has caused a 48% increase in developed land from 1982 to 2003. The amount of forests in the nation has also declined over the decades. But perhaps an even more tremendous reason for concern is the 550,000 gallons of water used by Americans annually. More so, the pollution of nearly half of the bodies of water will only get worse as the national population continues to expand. This is caused by the excessive waste products produced by industries and agricultural activities. These waste products could enter various bodies of water and cause harm to marine environments, thus tarnishing the quality of the water in the United States. In addition, the level of carbon dioxide emissions has skyrocketed over the course of several decades. Heat produced by energy usage gets accumulated within the atmosphere, which is the main cause for the well-known conflict of global warming. Global warming, along with the release of gas emissions that pollute the air, causes damage to the ozone layer. Destruction of the ozone layer could provoke human exposure to harmful radiation from the sun. Therefore, as the population increases, industrial and agricultural activities increase, consequently using more resources and leaving behind waste products that harm the environment and constitute a detrimental effect on the quality of life in the United States of America.

There are a number of ways to resolve the problems constituted by population growth and size. Before the Congress simply applies any efforts to do so, the entirety of the United States population must be informed of the issue, allowing the country as a whole to fathom the negative effects of population growth. The population size faces an annual change of over 2 million, and immigrants account for 900,000 of those people. One means of helping the situation would be for the government to pass a bill regarding immigration. While some individuals may argue that the national birth rate is a catalyst for population growth, the birth rate has actually declined over the course of nearly 30 years. Therefore, immigration is, by a considerable margin, more concerning than birth rate. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the number of immigrants in the United States was roughly 14 million in 1980, and has since ballooned up to nearly 45 million as of 2017. This accounts for nearly 14% of the population. The population growth can be slowed down if the government makes an effort to limit the annual immigration rate to 400,000, less than half of where it stands currently. Doing this, while allowing the fertility rate to remain the same, will lower the population growth, which may slow down all of the effects that it has on our nation’s environment. But this will not solve all of the problems. After the annual immigration is limited, the government must then increase spending on research and technology. This can apply to more efficient energy resources that may last longer than fossil fuels, as well as cause significantly less environmental damage. Moreover, this spending can also go to environmental engineers who have a means of finding ways to not only reduce, but reverse the effects that pollution has on the water, forests, and atmosphere of the United States. If the pollution problems across the country are resolved, then the effects of population growth on the environment will be eliminated.  

If our 116th Congress takes the approach of limiting annual immigration, and increasing spending on programs that work to reduce pollution and help restore the good quality of the natural environment, not only will the problems of overpopulation be solved, but this will paint a bright picture for the future of our nation. It is my hope that the government works to resolve the problems that population growth constitutes to the United States, and even tries the aforementioned approaches in doing so. It is my belief that limiting immigration will slow the growth of our population, and give the government more time to find ways to reverse the effects that the population size has on our nation. It is also my belief that spending on technology, research, and different recycling programs will prove as the best way to help the situation. The United States of America is a land of equal opportunity for everyone. And I am grateful for the opportunity to share my thoughts with the Congress on how our country can work to solve the problem of population growth. Our population should have equal opportunity to succeed, but allowing it to become too large may be problematic.

Sincerely

Anthony Hayes

Dear 116th Congress,

Famous author, Isaac Asimov once said, “What do you see happening… if this population growth continues at its present rate? …democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears.” Truer words have never been written. U.S. population size and growth are serious problems for our nation. They should be addressed — no — they need to be addressed by Congress and the government as a whole. We can’t sweep this under the rug any longer. Now is the time to act.

First, let’s take a look at the facts. According to the U.S. Census assessed in January 2019, the U.S. population is over 328 million and is growing by over 2 million people per year, half of which from immigration and half from new births. The Global Footprint Network states that America is using up renewable resources twice as fast as they can be generated. Energy consumption has risen by 25%. Greenhouse gas emissions are also on the rise. And we are producing waste at amounts that are terrifying. Stated clearly, the position our country is in is unsustainable.

So, you might be thinking — what can I do to help the situation? Well, to that I say, everything. You are the new members of the 116th Congress. During your term, you can make a real difference. Legislation is the best way to make strides at solving our population problem. I recommend limiting immigration by strengthening and lengthening our immigration process. This will regulate and slow growth by disincentivizing people from moving to America on a whim, while also keeping a governmental quota on the amount of people immigrating. Since immigration is a huge part of our country’s overpopulation issue, this will go a long way towards solving that. Fewer Americans equals more available resources, a smaller amount of pollution released into the atmosphere, and less waste produced, which results in heathier ecosystems.

I also recommend that we encourage smaller families.  Like immigration, new births are a big part of overpopulation, which is why it is so important to include when discussing possible solutions. When looking towards a more sustainable future, smaller families can help achieve that. In our current state, our government incentivizes women to have large families and multiple kids. Large families get tax breaks, welfare, and many other benefits. By getting rid of these benefits and/or giving tax breaks and other benefits (like instituting lower school taxes) to families with only one or two children, the government can effectively persuade women to have smaller families without actually restricting their right to bear children. Governmental incentivization to have small families will slow population growth and in time will reduce our population size. 

Based on all of this information, it is obvious that Congress needs to take action! Both of the suggestions I made above are totally attainable. If you work to create and sponsor bills focused on these ideas, we can make a real dent in the population problem. Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, “If government knew how, I should like to see it check — not multiply — the population.” I urge you to take what I have said into consideration in your congressional discussions. It will take hard work and commitment, but together we can solve the serious U.S. population size and growth issue.

Sincerely,

We the People of the United States (the Governed)

Dear Congressman:

 The subject of over-population is among one of the more serious problems affecting our country, yet it’s the least talked about. When people hear “population control” they think the worst. They think of wiping out cities of millions of people or  placing us under a dome so no one can enter. What they don’t think about are the straightforward fixes that can be done to simplify the problem. For example, immigration is the dominant cause of overpopulation in America. To fix this problem we wouldn’t prohibit the entrance of immigrants all together, we would simply put forth new policies to restrict the influx of immigrants entering the country. Some options could be to reevaluate and adjust the eligibility criteria that must be met by prospective immigrants and being more inflexible when it comes to the limit of immigrants allowed inside the country. Along with immigration, comes the topic of birth rate,  specifically the number of teens giving birth. In 2017, 194,277 babies were born to teen mothers. Even though this a 7% drop from 2016 the number is still alarming. A multitude of things can be contributing to teen pregnancy, such as low income levels of the family and poor education. A possible solution would be to introduce new programs into the school system that would educate kids on pregnancy prevention. Not to be confused with an “Abstinence only” program, but actual lessons on the different types of birth control that would steer kids in the right direction when it comes to making choices about their sexual health, which would in turn lower the teenage pregnancy rate.

The detrimental effects of population have already shown and will continue to become more of an environmental issue as well as a public health issue. With more people comes more mouths to feed and the agricultural problems associated with overpopulation have become some of the most pressing. More intensive farming and deforestation will continue to be remedies that will only prove useful in terms of the demand for food for a limited time. This is because these come with some serious issues that affect the environment. With intensive farming comes the usage of more pesticides and chemical fertilizers to produce more food at a faster rate, but these practices have been associated with soil erosion and depletion. And the agricultural runoff of excess fertilizers depletes bodies of water of oxygen which results in considerable negative impacts for marine life. Deforestation is another big problem that reduces the ability to take in CO2, which exasperates the greenhouse gas problem.

 Along with environmental issues comes public health issues, specifically a freshwater issue. Unfortunately a byproduct of overpopulation is an increased stress on freshwater supplies. The Earth is covered in water but only 2.5 percent of it is freshwater and just a small fraction of that is unpolluted drinkable water. Overpopulation isn’t just one problem, it’s a series of issues that will come to affect our lives for the worst. The US population is growing faster than predicted and while we are a country that values justice and safety for all, we must think about the measures that need to be taken to properly sustain our nation.

Sincerely,

Kiah Rivera

Hannah Sackles
$2,000
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

White picket fences, large suburban yards, and an escape from the city after a long day of work are iconic ideals associated with “The American Dream”.  However, these romanticized principles are also related to a myriad of environmental problems including increased use of fossil fuels for longer commutes, urban heat island effect, loss of wildlife habitat, and disruptions in the water cycle caused by the spread of impermeable surfaces.  As per a 2012 report by the United States Census Bureau, 80.7% of the American population lives in an urban area, and the urban population rate of increase between 2000 and 2010 was greater than the rate of increase for the nation’s total population growth.  This shocking trend indicates that as the population of America is predicted to increase to 400 million people by 2050, much of that growth will be unevenly distributed in urban areas, compounding the problem of urban sprawl currently plaguing our nation.

In Living in the Environment, Miller and Spoolman cite availability of land, suburban housing loans for World War II veterans in the 1950’s, cheap oil prices, federally-funded highways, poor zoning laws, and taxes that favor home owners as the main causes of urban sprawl in the United States.  These precedents have created an urban infrastructure that will only continue to encroach onto rural lands as a greater population of Americans inhabit urban spaces that grow farther away from city centers to accommodate the increasing population. Through my participation in the Future Leaders in Planning program hosted by the Hillsborough County Planning Commission, I learned from urban planners, engineers, and architects in the Tampa Bay Area about the measures that the City of Tampa is implementing to mitigate the effects of urban sprawl.  Many of the urban planners stressed the importance of creating infrastructure that grows “up” rather than “out”, meaning constructing and renovating multistory buildings with mixed use development (homes, parking garages, commercial businesses, and offices all in one space) to concentrate daily activities in a confined urban space.  The urban planners and city transportation officials also explained the importance of accessible and appealing mass transit systems, as well as safe biking and walking paths, to encourage urban residents to walk, bike, or carpool to work.  This would reduce the number of cars on the road that not only promote urban sprawl by allowing farther commutes between work and home, but that also create harmful pollutants that contribute to climate change, acid rain, health problems, and urban smog. 

To protect the natural environment from urban sprawl in the face of rapid population growth, I would incorporate my knowledge of current models for urban sprawl mitigation to create a multi-faceted approach, including creative solutions to the problems outlined above, to suggest to the nation’s leaders. First, I would suggest a gradual reduction of the federal subsidies provided to oil companies that were designed to keep gasoline prices low, until the price of gasoline matches its true environmental cost of $3.80 beyond the pump price (as estimated by the 2015 article The Social Cost of Atmospheric Release).  This would discourage Americans from living farther away from city centers, and the money that was originally spent on gasoline subsidies could instead be used to improve mass transit systems and pedestrian/cyclist paths throughout major cities.  I would also encourage the nation’s leaders to dismantle antiquated zoning laws that prevent the mixing of commercial and domestic spaces to allow for mixed-use development throughout American cities.  The nation’s leaders could also publish information on the importance of creating appeal in urban centers (such as the incorporation of green spaces or mixed-use development) to attract citizens and businesses from outlying suburbs.  Additionally, I would suggest creating strict boundaries for new and existing urban populations, which would further encourage local planning commissions to concentrate development closer to city centers to accommodate the growing American urban population.  The predicted population growth to 400 million Americans by 2050 will undoubtedly cause severe urban sprawl unless preventative measures are quickly enacted.

Citations

Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott E. Spoolman. Living in the Environment. 16th ed., Cengage Learning, 2011.

Shindell, Drew T. “The Social Cost of Atmospheric Release.” Climatic Change, vol. 130, no. 2, May 2015, pp. 313–326.,  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-015-1343-0 

US Census Bureau Public Information Office. “Growth in Urban Population Outpaces Rest of Nation, Census Bureau Reports.” United States Census Bureau Newsroom Archive, United States Census Bureau, 26 Mar. 2012, www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html.

Grace Klein
$1,000
Denison University, Granville, Ohio

Plant Growth v. Population Growth

As a member of a small, farm-town community in a rural stretch of Ohio, I know the importance of farming first hand and how it affects the community’s food supply. But I also know first hand how population growth affects that farming. Because of the population growth there is a decline, even in my community, in farmland and in farmers. According to top organizations, this phenomenon is not only happening in my community but to most farming communities throughout the United States. To stop this deterioration, lawmakers must take action and designate plots of land that will be used exclusively for farming and come up with greener ways to farm in order to help sustain the environment. The farming community can still thrive despite population growth but lawmakers must take action now before it’s too late.

The population of the United States is expected to grow at an alarming rate over the next 35 years. In 2015, the U.S. population was at 322 million and by the year 2050, the population is expected to grow to 389 million (Mayo). This rapid population spike means there will be more people who need more houses that need more land. The more land needed for urban development means there is less land used for farming. California Department of Conservation member John Lowrie states that, “Population growth in and of itself is one of the most significant forces in the quest to develop land for interests other than agricultural production and open space” (qtd. in Adler). This effect has already been seen over the last decade. From 2008 to 2015, the amount of farms decreased from 2,184,500 to 2,067,000 and the amount of farm acreage decreased from 918,600,000 to 912,000,000 (Mayo). The relationship of increasing population and decreasing agricultural space is growing ever-stronger and lawmakers must start taking action now.

The first way lawmakers should take action to secure the agricultural industry is by setting aside plots of land used specifically for agriculture. Like they do for National Parks, the government should designate specific land areas that are used to aid the agricultural community and sustain its resources without interference. By designating land for farming use, a secure place is created for farmers to farm without worry that their farm will be replaced for urban development. It is necessary to have more adequate farmland and farming resources in order to supply food for the growing population and, therefore, this plan is imperative. The land chosen for this project has to be land proven well-suited for farming or existing farmland that the government now protects. It also has to be beneficial to the community and cannot harm it in any way. This project should start in areas where urban development is increasing and the farming community is at risk. Not only would this program be beneficial to agriculture but it would create and sustain jobs for current and future farmers across the United States. This project would create jobs and support agriculture making our country and Earth a more secure place for future generations.

The second way lawmakers should take action to help sustain agriculture is by creating and enforcing greener methods of farming. Protecting the agricultural community is important but so is protecting our delicate environment. If we do not stand up for our environment, agriculture, as well as most everything else, will cease to exist. That being said, farming uses an abundance of natural resources, requiring a great deal of water and soil. The use of pesticides and fertilizers as well as factors contributing to erosion take harsh tolls on the ecosystem (Green). All of the farming equipment using natural gas contributes to air pollution as well. Lawmakers should work with agricultural experts to come up with ways, like alternatives to pesticides or irrigation, to be more environmentally friendly and sustainable while farming. When a decision is reached on the new solutions, the practices should be implemented and enforced on as many farms in America as possible. This will enable agriculture to not only thrive but to help save the environment for future generations.

Works Cited

Mayo, Doug. “Population Growing but US Farm Acreage Declining.”  nwdistrict.ifas.ufl.edu. 4 March, 2016.

Adler, Steve. “More prime farmland feared to be lost to population growth.”   dailydemocrat.com. 6 August, 2012.

Green, Jared. “The Effects of Population Growth on Land Use.”  dirt.asla.org. 9 November, 2009.

Abigail Snellgrove
$750.
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC

Population Growth: Wildlife Destruction

Not everyone has the opportunity to live in the best city in the world as I do.  Charleston, South Carolina is the best city for so many reasons.  The allure of the history, the weather, and as stated in Conde Nast Traveler magazine “The friendliest city in the world” attracts people by the masses.  “The official number of new people moving (net new arrivals) into the Charleston metro is: 34 people a day.” (Holba & Renegar, 2017).  These qualities are the same things that attract big industry such as Boeing, Volvo Cars, and Mercedes Benz to our beautiful city.  The influx of people and industry has had a profound impact on the availability of habitat for our diverse wildlife population.

Population growth in the Charleston area is exceeding the availability of land for the people that are relocating here. “In the Charleston area, for example, from 1973 to 1994, a one percent increase in population resulted in a six percent loss in forest and farm land” (Allen and Lu 1998).  Forest and farm land are not the only habitats being destroyed.  Charleston is known for its beaches and fresh seafood is a staple in this area.  Climate change caused by a growing population has started causing sea levels to rise.  Rising sea levels can cause devastation to nesting areas for sea turtles and different types of birds that nest on the coast.  Sea turtles are already an endangered species and they are also creatures of habit.  They return to the same spot every couple of years to nest and if these nesting spots are destroyed by rising sea levels the population of sea turtles will not grow and they will eventually become extinct.  Sea turtles are not the only species that is being affected by population growth, species such as bats, woodpeckers, warblers, and salamanders are also being threatened in South Carolina.  Population Connection states “over 2,500 species are listed as endangered and threatened species.  And as human population continues to grow in the U.S., reaching up to 420 million by 2050 (as estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau), many more species will be added to the list.”  Not only is their existence being threatened by the invasion of their natural habitats, but there have been increasing numbers of incidents caused by wildlife living in populated areas.  Animals driven out of their habitats into residential areas have resulted in many headlines.  People have come home to alligators on their front porches, deer have leaped into cars, and there have been countless numbers of birds mistakenly flying into windows or homes.

What measures can we, must we, take to stop the destruction of wildlife habitat due to population growth?  Investing in infrastructure to revitalize cities to alleviate urban sprawl, investing in mass transit to eliminate the number of cars on the road, stricter and enforced regulations on manufacturing facilities to reduce pollution, and requirements for developers to retain more green space when building.  With the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing to climate change related to population growth it is time for leaders to get on board and do something positive to at least slow the damage caused by the population.   Our nation’s leaders need to take a stronger stance about environmental change, if they do not there will soon be no nation left to lead. 

References

Allen, Jeffery and Kang Shou Lu.  1998.  Modeling and predicting future urban growth in the Charleston area.  Strom Thurmond Institute. Clemson University.

CNT editors. (2017) The Friendliest Cities in the U.S. retrieved from www.cntraveler.com

Holba, K. & Renegar, J. (2017) Exactly How Many People are moving into the Charleston Region Each Day? Retrieved from www.Crda.org

N.A. (2017) Alligator ‘ Intruder’ Lays Claim to South Carolina Family’s Porch. Retrieved from www.foxnews.com

N.A. (2018) Caught in the Crosshairs. Retrieved from www.PopulationConnection.org

N.A. (2016) Climate Change Impacts to Natural Resources in South Carolina. Retrieved from http://www.dnr.sc.org

N.A. (2017) Endangered Species in South Carolina. Retrieved from www.bollotpedia.org 

Susan Leigh Thomassie
$750.
Loyola University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA

The word ‘park’ brings a throng of pleasant images to mind:  colorful playground equipment, crawling with children; meandering walkways, threaded between the trunks of spreading trees; vast stretches of manicured lawn, spread invitingly in welcome of picnics or casual Frisbee games.  Each mental picture is accompanied by the promise of either relaxation or a rollicking good time.

Appealing as these images are already, urban green space offers benefits far beyond boosting physical and mental health.  The spreading trees and manicured lawns perform functions that help the environment, such as oxygen production, pollution control, and air cooling.^[1] The playgrounds and walkways provide opportunities for community members to mingle and enjoy themselves regardless of “age, race, income, or physical or cognitive ability”.^[2] And taken as a whole, parks boost the local economy by generating new jobs through parks and recreation agencies,^[3] increasing nearby property value,^[4] and drawing businesses looking for new locations.^[5]

Given this wide array of benefits, any threat to the preservation of public green space should be taken very seriously—perhaps none more so than the looming threat of population growth.

The U.S. population is currently climbing through the hundred-millions (with growth in cities surpassing the rest of the nation),^[6] bringing increased urbanization with it.^[7]  This clashes with the establishment and upkeep of parks, as the characteristic mutability of developing urban systems cripples attempts to plan for a stable environment that sustains plant life in the long-term. Additionally, high population levels aggravate a perceived need for more resources and residences, which in turn leads to the degradation of existing green space in the never-ending quest for materials and construction sites.  If left unchecked, our nation’s tendency to put short-term concerns above long-term ones may lead to a dramatic loss in public park land, possibly even causing its extinction in low-income areas where its benefits are most pronounced.

Effectively resolving such a nationwide issue requires a concentrated effort.  State governments have begun to tackle the problem of shrinking green space by offering grants to cities that set aside land for recreational purposes; however, bringing the gravity of the situation to the public eye demands the involvement of a higher authority—the federal government itself.

This involvement begins with engaging the public.  By taking a proactive, well-informed position, our nation’s leaders are capable of fostering a robust dialogue through which to engage lower-level legislators industry leaders, NGOs, and private citizens alike, educating them and encouraging them to take action.  Yet words alone are not enough. If it is to successfully curb the negative effects population growth has had on green space, the federal government must pair public engagement with more aggressive measures. Urban development policies are a viable way to nip the issue of unbridled urbanization in the bud:  Congress can require municipalities and states to pool a fund that provides for the preservation and upkeep of public parks, or can make federal funding of urban projects contingent on the designation of parkland.  To combat land degradation, it can force mitigation by insisting that certain footage of green space be set apart for every corresponding footage developed or stripped for resources.  And in areas where the local government cannot afford to provide for park construction and maintenance, the federal government can offer grants specifically designed to pay for these amenities.  All of these steps would ensure that green space is preserved in both the places where it is most threatened and the places where it is most needed.

While addressing the issue of shrinking green space may seem out of the federal government’s scope in the eyes of some, it is vital to remember that our country’s leaders are bound not only to protect and run the nation, but also to promote the quality of life for both current and future generations.  Parks and green spaces bring benefits that touch almost every area of concern in the United States—health, society, the economy, and the environment—making their preservation a serious concern for all levels of our society, the highest level most of all.  And with the U.S. population growing at such an explosive rate, particularly in metropolitan areas, the need for a watchful, conscientious administration is greater than ever.

[1] Paul M. Sherer, The Benefits of Parks: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space, reprint of “Parks for People” (San Francisco: The Trust for Public Land, 2006), 19-20, accessed April 17, 2018, https://www.recpro.org/assets/Library/Parks/benefit_of_parks_jul2005.pdf.

[2] Economic Impact of Local Parks (Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association, 2018), 4, accessed April 17, 2018, https://www.nrpa.org/siteassets/research/economic-impact-study-summary-2018.pdf.

[3] Economic Impact of Local Parks, 5.

[4] Ibid., 11.

[5] Ibid.

[6] “Growth in Urban Population Outpaces Rest of Nation, Census Bureau Reports,” United States Census Bureau (website), United States Census Bureau, accessed April 17, 2018, https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-50.html.

[7] “Urbanization and Population Change,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (website), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, accessed April 17, 2018, https://cfpub.epa.gov/roe/indicator.cfm?i=52.

Clarke Williams
$750.
Howard University , Washington , DC

As America’s population continues to gradually increase, it is imperative that we consider how population growth affects the environment around us.  It is clear, based on environmental issues that have plagued this Earth for decades that population growth has long-lasting effects on the environment.  These effects are manifested in issues like air pollution, climate change, and more.  I chose to focus on urban sprawl in this short essay to highlight the issue that is ever present in my own hometown, Baltimore, MD, and make suggestions to policy makers, elected officials, and any other person that cares about what we leave for generations to come.

Urban sprawl is an issue that is greatly impacted by population growth because of the increased housing demand that comes with more potential residents of metropolitan cities all over the country.  The Encyclopedia Britannica defines urban sprawl as “the rapid expansion of the geographic extent of cities and towns, often characterized by low-density residential housing, single-use zoning, and increased reliance on the private automobile for transportation.”  The detrimental effects on the environment are clear even in the term’s definition.  “Rapid expansion” implies a lack of environmentally friendly urban planning, which promotes air pollution and excessive energy use.  Urban sprawl causes people to rely on their cars more to get around urban and suburban areas.  This is dangerous because carpooling and using means of public transportation are very important in the efforts to protecting the environment.    

To make the concept of urban sprawl more clear, I decided to research its effects in Baltimore, MD.  Baltimore presents an interesting case because of our recent population decline, but the devastating effects of urban sprawl on one of the country’s largest cities (population decline or not) will demonstrate how dangerous urban expansion is for larger cities, which will become increasingly common for cities around the country as America’s population is expected to increase approximately 30% by 2050.  As urbanization conquers cities, rich forests and farmlands are destroyed to build more residential areas and structures to accommodate the rising population such as malls, supermarkets, hotels, and more.  With more urban housing comes more infrastructures to support said housing.  This infrastructure is not often very environmentally friendly.  The septic system, waste management, and construction industry contribute to the harming of the environment each and every day.

With all of these negatives to consider, it is also important to look toward the future with hope and concrete solutions.  The time to take preventive action has passed us, so the best we can do now is work towards recovery and permanent reversing efforts.  Protecting cities from urban sprawl will promote overall greener living and will protect the waterways, farmlands, and wildlife from the harmful effects of excessive urbanization and the centralization of industry.  My first suggestion is to implement clean and green forms of public transportation.  This includes trains, buses, bicycles, and all forms of ride sharing.  Bike lanes should be implemented and encouraged.  It would even be a good idea to promote bikes in schools by providing school-aged children access to affordable bikes and the safest routes.  On a larger scale, bills need to be drafted protecting waterways.  For example, The Chesapeake Bay is currently in great danger with multiple scientists citing poor water-quality due to pollution, suburban runoff, and high nitrogen and phosphorus levels from sewage.  These are all effects of urban sprawl.  Lawmakers will need to provide stricter regulations on sewage treatment plants with the help of the Environmental Protection Agency.  I also suggest something a tad outlandish.  We have police departments to protect us from crime, but there is no force that protects the environment from the harmful agents that constantly put it in danger.  I suggest cities implement task forces to prevent pollution, monitor waste and sewage management, promote green living with programs in schools and youth centers, and maintain the overall health of the environment by controlling the man made, negative effects.  Saving the environment should be seen as much less of a volunteer effort and more of a required change in lifestyle for people all over the world.  Extreme circumstances call for extreme solutions.  With more action-based solutions, America’s leaders can reverse the effects of urban sprawl and prevent cities from succumbing to it as the population continues to rise in this country.     

Morgan Zenon
$750.
Lakeland University, Plymouth, WI

Changing Our Climate Begins with Changing Our Habits

Living in the suburbs was once considered to be a fulfilment of the American dream. A large house with a white picket fence and a child-friendly car or two in the driveway was the picture of success for millions of U.S. citizens.  For many, this dream still exists today.  But how much does this comfortable suburban lifestyle contribute to climate change?  It may not be obvious but our consumption, driving and housing habits may hasten global warming more than we realize. 

Americans are the worst per capita emitters of greenhouse gasses, producing double what all of Europe discharges and five times more than the global average.  Much of our toxic vapor output comes from the way we consume. Diana Ivanova, a PhD candidate at Norwegian University of Science and Technology’s Industrial Ecology Program, and her research team published a study in the Journal of Industrial Ecology in 2015 which found that “between 60 – 80 percent of the impacts on the planet come from household consumption,” (qtd. by Bazilchuk, “Household consumption significant driver of climate, other environmental impacts”).

Ivanova stated the majority of consumption’s damaging effects do not come from the direct use of resources, like fueling vehicles with fossil fuels, but from the consumer’s indirect use of resources, like eating chocolate that took thousands of gallons of water to make or buying paper sourced from a cleared forest.  Through water and land pollution, deforestation and direct gas emission during manufacturing, these processes can have a drastic effect on overall atmospheric toxicity.  When we buy these products, we contribute to the ozone deterioration yet people often think of this issue as unrelated to their personal contributions to air pollution. The population of the United States stands at 325 million and is expected to double by the end of the century.  These poor consumption habits coupled with a rapidly growing population mean emissions from this country will significantly worsen over coming generations. The Center for Biological Diversity stated over half of all American citizens now live in suburbs (“Human Population Growth and Climate Change”). These regions tend to have income levels higher than the national average and the more affluent a person or family is, the more likely they are to consume at high levels.

Americans also collectively drive over three trillion miles annually and that figure is growing.  Suburban commuting contributes to this number and overall transportation makes up one-third of the country’s carbon emissions.  The homes that fossil fueled cars drive from also contribute to air pollution.  Around twenty percent of domestic greenhouse emissions come from homes and their construction.  In 1970, the average U.S. home held 3.1 people but that number fell to 2.6 in 2000.  However, new homes are still increasing in size and this creates the need for more resources, namely trees, used for building that would otherwise reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

From a legislative standpoint, there are a number of things our leaders in government can do to make life in the suburbs less damaging to the planet – the first deals with changing consumption patterns.   Lawmakers can give rewards like tax exemptions to companies that do things which help the environment such as – limiting their pollution levels, recycling adamantly or working with local residents to rebuilt area forests or clean waterways.  Grants can be given to companies that invest in alternative yet sustainable goods, like creating paper from hemp rather than tree pulp. Businesses should be incentivized to make their products in ways that do the least amount of damage to the planet as possible and consumers should be educated on what effects their purchases can have. All this could ultimately lower levels of indirect carbon emissions by consumers.

There should also be more public transportation to and from the suburbs.  The government could provide funding for the construction of rail systems or the addition of numerous bus lines to the suburbs of metropolitan areas all across the country.  If more people commuted without using their personal vehicles, it could significantly reduce emissions from transportation. Homes should also be downsized in the future and lawmakers can reward construction companies that work to restore the forests their lumber is sourced from.

The suburbs can be wonderful places to live and grow up but conversely, life in the area can make it difficult to reduce one’s carbon footprint.  However, with a few lifestyle changes and initiatives from the government, this does not have to be the case forever.

Works cited

Bazilchuk, Nancy. “Household Consumption Significant Driver of Climate, Other Environmental Impacts.” Geminiresearchnews.com, 19 Feb. 2016, geminiresearchnews.com/2016/02/household-consumption-significant-driver-of-climate-other-environmental-impacts/.

“Human Population Growth and Climate Change.” Center for Biological Diversity, www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/.