Britain to become the most populous country in EU

Antaletriangle · 03-23-2009, 11:56 AM

http://www.climateark.org/shared/rea...?linkid=122108

Soaring population will force millions to flee water shortages in search of refuge - and, according to new figures, Britain will be one of the world's 'lifeboats'. On the eve of a major population conference, Science Editor Robin McKie asks: could the UK cope?

Date: March 22, 2009

Britain will become one of the world's major destinations for immigrants as the world heats up and populations continue to soar. Statistics from the United Nations show that, on average, every year more than 174,000 people will be added to the numbers in the UK and that this trend will continue for the next four decades.

By then, only the United States and Canada will be receiving more overseas settlers, says the UN. This increase in British numbers is likely to put considerable strain on the country's transport, energy and housing, experts warned last week.

"The US and Canada will be taking in more people than us every year by 2050 but they are huge countries," said demographer Professor Tom Dyson of the London School of Economics. "Britain, by contrast, is a small nation. We will feel the impact of all these people. There will be no getting out of it. Simply controlling our carbon dioxide emissions will become harder and harder as more and more people arrive on our shores. In addition, housing, water supplies and transport will be strained and will need greatly increased investment."

However, other experts say such increases could also produce benefits for the nation, bringing in immigrants who could provide a vital supply of young workers. These demographers point out that, by 2050, more than a third of the UK population will be aged 60 or over. By then there will be a desperate need for bus drivers, care-workers and others to keep the country running and immigrants could fill this gap.

In addition, there is the issue of humanitarian responsibility. Britain is likely to be one of the few nations to survive the worst effects of climate change while other nations, particularly those in the developing world, have their farmland and fishing grounds destroyed. It could be argued that the UK has a moral duty to provide shelter for as many refugees as our shores can support.

But deciding what numbers the country might support is a highly controversial issue and will be the focus of a conference on sustainable populations which will be held this week in London. Organised by the Optimum Population Trust, the meeting will hear that the United Nation expects that by 2050 the world will be inhabited by around 9.2 billion people, compared to its current level of 6.8 billion. Every day, the equivalent of the population of a large city is added to the numbers of humans, a rise that is now straining the planet's resources to breaking point.

At the same time, Britain's population will rise from its current level of 61 million to 72 million by 2050. The nation will then be the most populous in the European Union, outstripping Germany, whose population will slump from 82 million to 71 million people as its immigration figures plummet.

The idea that Britain could one day support such numbers has been questioned by Aubrey Manning, emeritus professor of natural history at Edinburgh University. "There are far too many people living in Britain already," he said. "Once our population passed the 20 million level around 1850, it became too numerous. That is the figure at which we could no longer sustain our population from our own resources. We are now three times over the limit and heading for more. We have long passed the line of sustainability. As for the planet, its maximum sustainable population is no more than 3 billion, I would say."

The rise in population indicates that the country is set for some considerable overcrowding. Britain's land area is only two-thirds that of Germany, yet it will soon support the same number of citizens. "This population rise, brought about by rising immigration, will strain our infrastructures - our housing and water supplies - and bring very little advantage to the nation," said Dyson, who will address the conference. "Nor do I think these extra people will be able to help in looking after our older people."

But these points were disputed by Tim Finch, head of immigration for the Institute of Public Policy Research. "A healthy economy sucks in young, educated people and that is what has happened to this country over the past couple of decades. These young immigrants have helped keep the country running as our population has started to get older and they will become more important as the decades go past and that ageing intensifies. The immigration system picks out the best and the brightest of immigrants and they will be of great service to Britain. That is just a fact."

The problem is that discussions of population numbers in the past have been associated with talk of eugenics and with attempts at controlling ethnic populations. As a result, there is little discussion today of the subject or its impact on the environment, a point stressed by James Lovelock, the distinguished environmental scientist. "The subject has become a taboo, a matter of political correctness," he said last week. "And that is dangerous, for the numbers of humans on Earth are going to be crucial to our survival."

Manning added: "We have stopped worrying about population because other issues - acid rain, climate change and others - have occupied our attention and because past fears of global food shortages were proved unfounded. But the subject will not go away. Our planet is now dangerously overpopulated."

Another conference speaker, Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, in London, agreed. "We desperately need to bring down our emissions of greenhouse gases but the truth is we will never get the contribution of each individual down to zero. Only the lack of the individual can bring it to zero, and that is an issue for population control which we need to talk about openly and urgently."

Rapley will tell delegates that the Earth's population is now rising at a rate of around 80 million a year. "That is roughly the same as the number of unwanted pregnancies across the world," he said. "If we can prevent unwanted pregnancies, we can halt this spiral in our numbers."

To do that, contraception will have to become universally available - and political and religious opposition to birth control removed. If that happened, the world's population could be stabilised to around 8 billion by 2050, added Rapley.

But many climatologists believe that by then life on the planet will already have become dangerously unpleasant. Temperature rises will have started to have devastating impacts on farmland, water supplies and sea levels. Humans - increasing both in numbers and dependence on food from devastated landscapes - will then come under increased pressure. The end result will be apocalyptic, said Lovelock. By the end of the century, the world's population will suffer calamitous declines until numbers are reduced to around 1 billion or less. "By 2100, pestilence, war and famine will have dealt with the majority of humans," he said.

One of the few places to survive the worst impacts will be Britain. "Our climate will be one of the least affected by global warming," added Lovelock. "As a result, everyone will want to live here. We will become one of the world's lifeboats. The trouble, of course, will be that, even if we wanted to, we will not be able to pick up everyone. There will be some hard decisions to make."

Many experts predict that disaster will strike long before 2050. Last week, the government's chief scientific adviser, Professor John Beddington, said the planet faced "a perfect storm" of food, energy and water shortages which could strike in less than 20 years. In a speech to the Sustainable Development Commission conference in London, Beddington said that one in three people were already facing water shortages and that by 2030 world water demand would increase by more than 30%; energy demands would increase by 50%. "There are dramatic problems out there, particularly with water and food, but energy also, and they are all intimately connected."

In the long run, however, humanity should benefit, said Lovelock. "If you look at our species over the past million years, there have been a number of major climatic events, some devastating. Between the Ice Ages, sea levels rose by 120 metres and tracts of land were flooded. Yet that period covers the time that early humans emerged and evolved into Homo sapiens

"Often our numbers were brought to catastrophically low levels by climate change and numbers were reduced to only a couple of thousand on a couple of occasions. Every time things got bad, our numbers plummeted and we improved as a species. That is certainly going to happen again over the next 100 years."

The world by numbers

1 million Britain's population in Roman times

6 million Britain's population around the time of the English civil war

47 million Britain's population in 1945

52,000 The number of tonnes of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere every minute

267 The average number of births every minute worldwide; the average number of deaths per minute is 118

78 million The planet's annual population increase, a number roughly equivalent to the population of Germany

1 million The number of chimpanzees in Africa in 1900. Today, thanks to habitat loss and hunting, numbers have dropped to around 15,000

38.4 The median age in the UK rose from 34.1 years in 1971 to 38.4 in 2003 and is projected to reach 43.3 in 2031. (The median is the age that separates the oldest half of the population from the youngest.)

10 billion The number of chickens eaten by man worldwide every year

500 million The number of ducks eaten every year

1.3 billion The population of China

1.2 billion India's population

500 million The population of the EU

74 million The number of barrels of oil pumped daily across the planet; 15 million tonnes of coal are dug every day

9 Between 2010 and 2050, nine countries will account for half of the world's projected population increase: India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, the United States, the Democratic Republic of Congo, China, Bangladesh, Tanzania

* Sources: World Clock; Poodwaddle; UN Population Division

Copyright 2009, Guardian

Jacqui D · 03-23-2009, 01:34 PM

Hi Antale just posted on your other piece of depopulation in the UK, and here we are again talking about how a further mass of migrational workers could be coming to our shores because of enviromental changes.
I understand what could happen but how do they come up with all this data. the UK is such a tiny island this is simply out of the question.
I have to question why us!
What do they have in mind are they trying to wipe out the British people we are becoming a minority now something i thought would never happen.
Is the true British race to be extinguished seems that way.

Antaletriangle · 03-23-2009, 01:40 PM

I know what you mean jackster-i read an article last week concerning that there are certain schools,quite alot in fact that English is the second language now;wild, i suppose i can't remember where i read the article-it was mentioned in an online newspaper somewhere i think.

Jacqui D · 03-23-2009, 02:07 PM

THis is true i know, watched a morning breakfast show the other day they were focussing on how to get our kids more motivated in schools exercise etc;
If you remember MR Motivator on our screens a few years ago well they got him back getting the kids and adults alike to do more exercise.
Well what i'm getting to is they visited a school in London and i could not see one white kids face!
Now i'm not racist in the least but even i have to question now what's happening to our traditions and schooling, these kids are given extra help in language, the tradition of religion ( be what it is that we were taught anyway) has been given over to the muslims.
Our kids are going to be so confused and our heritage will be lost for sure.

What of our ancestry and history with in our own backgrounds it is sadly being pushed aside while this new agenda is forming.
There are so many mixed partnerships also there will be generations of mixed blood for years to come.
Yes the British Gene will be wiped out!

She-Ra · 03-23-2009, 02:11 PM

People can travel, they move and races and cultures change and mix in places - country boundaries are artificial, political and can be geographical in terms of changes/difference in terrain. This movement of people is not the same as conquering and wiping out 'true' races - unless of course all these potential immigrants from different countries have conspired together to wipe out or push aside the British that live here already and perhaps seek out the ones that have moved elsewhere and not bred with anyone else, keeping their generations in tact.

The interesting question was why here? Good point. I think I read somewhere on this forum that we would be likely to survive certain pressures hence our location would be desirable but then geologically we don't stand much of a chance do we? So yes why here? So they can wipe out multiple peoples together or cause further division not only through hostility from anti-immigration but by emphasising differences and perhaps furthering tensions by being involved in more political action in areas where the 'new' immigrants (anyone from the 60-70's onwards which was the last major wave of 'different' immigrants) came from? Moving peoples to certain places to make population culling more possible as customs/immigration controls would make these people easier to track and leave other areas easier to control with less people?

Note - English is a 'junk' language in as much as Latin was perceived and made of in its day. It's a trade language and empire language mixed from many other languages which themselves have root languages. I love language in general and hence don't like to see them lazily butchered but have no problem with them evolving with different cultural and practical use which is how language, including English came to be.

Jacqui D - London has numerous boroughs, there are plenty of areas with a majority of certain races, White and White British included not excluded. I disagree with your inference that heritage is wiped out because of mixed breeding or living amongst other cultures; heritage and culture is changed and wiped out any way over time as people change their demands, yes it changes with mixing cultures as well but not simply because of it. Like you said there are plenty of mixed raced relationships but within many of those there are those who mutually admire and take part in each other's cultures and being in such a situation doesn't make them any less unless they choose so or are forced. For example, I'm not any less culturally what my parents were because I was born a British citizen and I'm not less British either. The existence of a 'British gene' is questionable and if it's based on a recently historic group of people i.e. in the last couple of hundred years then it was wiped out or greatly reduced already.

Edit - Duh how silly, I knew I saw it in the article and then forgot - water shortages apparantly, but then again we could easily have too much due to flooding... I wonder, if we did receive many more people in a 'lifeboat' situation, would flouride overtly be added to all water supply as currently we supposedly only have it in a few places in the drinking/tap water.

Swanny · 03-23-2009, 06:53 PM

I'm English, my family have been here forever, the England I grew up in was a very different place to the one today

Jacqui D · 03-24-2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swanny

I'm English, my family have been here forever, the England I grew up in was a very different place to the one today

Well said Swanny!

Egg · 03-24-2009, 02:01 PM

Most of the immigrants are muslim (look at your own governments figures) and they DO want to destroy your way of life and national identity. Same as every other country they 'settle' in. Only need to look at Ssweden and Norway for evidence of this.

03-23-2009, 11:56 AM	#1
Antaletriangle Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: U.K. Posts: 3,380	Britain to become the most populous country in EU http://www.climateark.org/shared/rea...?linkid=122108 Soaring population will force millions to flee water shortages in search of refuge - and, according to new figures, Britain will be one of the world's 'lifeboats'. On the eve of a major population conference, Science Editor Robin McKie asks: could the UK cope? Date: March 22, 2009 Britain will become one of the world's major destinations for immigrants as the world heats up and populations continue to soar. Statistics from the United Nations show that, on average, every year more than 174,000 people will be added to the numbers in the UK and that this trend will continue for the next four decades. By then, only the United States and Canada will be receiving more overseas settlers, says the UN. This increase in British numbers is likely to put considerable strain on the country's transport, energy and housing, experts warned last week. "The US and Canada will be taking in more people than us every year by 2050 but they are huge countries," said demographer Professor Tom Dyson of the London School of Economics. "Britain, by contrast, is a small nation. We will feel the impact of all these people. There will be no getting out of it. Simply controlling our carbon dioxide emissions will become harder and harder as more and more people arrive on our shores. In addition, housing, water supplies and transport will be strained and will need greatly increased investment." However, other experts say such increases could also produce benefits for the nation, bringing in immigrants who could provide a vital supply of young workers. These demographers point out that, by 2050, more than a third of the UK population will be aged 60 or over. By then there will be a desperate need for bus drivers, care-workers and others to keep the country running and immigrants could fill this gap. In addition, there is the issue of humanitarian responsibility. Britain is likely to be one of the few nations to survive the worst effects of climate change while other nations, particularly those in the developing world, have their farmland and fishing grounds destroyed. It could be argued that the UK has a moral duty to provide shelter for as many refugees as our shores can support. But deciding what numbers the country might support is a highly controversial issue and will be the focus of a conference on sustainable populations which will be held this week in London. Organised by the Optimum Population Trust, the meeting will hear that the United Nation expects that by 2050 the world will be inhabited by around 9.2 billion people, compared to its current level of 6.8 billion. Every day, the equivalent of the population of a large city is added to the numbers of humans, a rise that is now straining the planet's resources to breaking point. At the same time, Britain's population will rise from its current level of 61 million to 72 million by 2050. The nation will then be the most populous in the European Union, outstripping Germany, whose population will slump from 82 million to 71 million people as its immigration figures plummet. The idea that Britain could one day support such numbers has been questioned by Aubrey Manning, emeritus professor of natural history at Edinburgh University. "There are far too many people living in Britain already," he said. "Once our population passed the 20 million level around 1850, it became too numerous. That is the figure at which we could no longer sustain our population from our own resources. We are now three times over the limit and heading for more. We have long passed the line of sustainability. As for the planet, its maximum sustainable population is no more than 3 billion, I would say." The rise in population indicates that the country is set for some considerable overcrowding. Britain's land area is only two-thirds that of Germany, yet it will soon support the same number of citizens. "This population rise, brought about by rising immigration, will strain our infrastructures - our housing and water supplies - and bring very little advantage to the nation," said Dyson, who will address the conference. "Nor do I think these extra people will be able to help in looking after our older people." But these points were disputed by Tim Finch, head of immigration for the Institute of Public Policy Research. "A healthy economy sucks in young, educated people and that is what has happened to this country over the past couple of decades. These young immigrants have helped keep the country running as our population has started to get older and they will become more important as the decades go past and that ageing intensifies. The immigration system picks out the best and the brightest of immigrants and they will be of great service to Britain. That is just a fact." The problem is that discussions of population numbers in the past have been associated with talk of eugenics and with attempts at controlling ethnic populations. As a result, there is little discussion today of the subject or its impact on the environment, a point stressed by James Lovelock, the distinguished environmental scientist. "The subject has become a taboo, a matter of political correctness," he said last week. "And that is dangerous, for the numbers of humans on Earth are going to be crucial to our survival." Manning added: "We have stopped worrying about population because other issues - acid rain, climate change and others - have occupied our attention and because past fears of global food shortages were proved unfounded. But the subject will not go away. Our planet is now dangerously overpopulated." Another conference speaker, Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, in London, agreed. "We desperately need to bring down our emissions of greenhouse gases but the truth is we will never get the contribution of each individual down to zero. Only the lack of the individual can bring it to zero, and that is an issue for population control which we need to talk about openly and urgently." Rapley will tell delegates that the Earth's population is now rising at a rate of around 80 million a year. "That is roughly the same as the number of unwanted pregnancies across the world," he said. "If we can prevent unwanted pregnancies, we can halt this spiral in our numbers." To do that, contraception will have to become universally available - and political and religious opposition to birth control removed. If that happened, the world's population could be stabilised to around 8 billion by 2050, added Rapley. But many climatologists believe that by then life on the planet will already have become dangerously unpleasant. Temperature rises will have started to have devastating impacts on farmland, water supplies and sea levels. Humans - increasing both in numbers and dependence on food from devastated landscapes - will then come under increased pressure. The end result will be apocalyptic, said Lovelock. By the end of the century, the world's population will suffer calamitous declines until numbers are reduced to around 1 billion or less. "By 2100, pestilence, war and famine will have dealt with the majority of humans," he said. One of the few places to survive the worst impacts will be Britain. "Our climate will be one of the least affected by global warming," added Lovelock. "As a result, everyone will want to live here. We will become one of the world's lifeboats. The trouble, of course, will be that, even if we wanted to, we will not be able to pick up everyone. There will be some hard decisions to make." Many experts predict that disaster will strike long before 2050. Last week, the government's chief scientific adviser, Professor John Beddington, said the planet faced "a perfect storm" of food, energy and water shortages which could strike in less than 20 years. In a speech to the Sustainable Development Commission conference in London, Beddington said that one in three people were already facing water shortages and that by 2030 world water demand would increase by more than 30%; energy demands would increase by 50%. "There are dramatic problems out there, particularly with water and food, but energy also, and they are all intimately connected." In the long run, however, humanity should benefit, said Lovelock. "If you look at our species over the past million years, there have been a number of major climatic events, some devastating. Between the Ice Ages, sea levels rose by 120 metres and tracts of land were flooded. Yet that period covers the time that early humans emerged and evolved into Homo sapiens "Often our numbers were brought to catastrophically low levels by climate change and numbers were reduced to only a couple of thousand on a couple of occasions. Every time things got bad, our numbers plummeted and we improved as a species. That is certainly going to happen again over the next 100 years." The world by numbers 1 million Britain's population in Roman times 6 million Britain's population around the time of the English civil war 47 million Britain's population in 1945 52,000 The number of tonnes of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere every minute 267 The average number of births every minute worldwide; the average number of deaths per minute is 118 78 million The planet's annual population increase, a number roughly equivalent to the population of Germany 1 million The number of chimpanzees in Africa in 1900. Today, thanks to habitat loss and hunting, numbers have dropped to around 15,000 38.4 The median age in the UK rose from 34.1 years in 1971 to 38.4 in 2003 and is projected to reach 43.3 in 2031. (The median is the age that separates the oldest half of the population from the youngest.) 10 billion The number of chickens eaten by man worldwide every year 500 million The number of ducks eaten every year 1.3 billion The population of China 1.2 billion India's population 500 million The population of the EU 74 million The number of barrels of oil pumped daily across the planet; 15 million tonnes of coal are dug every day 9 Between 2010 and 2050, nine countries will account for half of the world's projected population increase: India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, the United States, the Democratic Republic of Congo, China, Bangladesh, Tanzania * Sources: World Clock; Poodwaddle; UN Population Division Copyright 2009, Guardian

03-23-2009, 01:34 PM	#2
Jacqui D Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Kent,England Posts: 1,267	Re: Britain to become the most populous country in EU Hi Antale just posted on your other piece of depopulation in the UK, and here we are again talking about how a further mass of migrational workers could be coming to our shores because of enviromental changes. I understand what could happen but how do they come up with all this data. the UK is such a tiny island this is simply out of the question. I have to question why us! What do they have in mind are they trying to wipe out the British people we are becoming a minority now something i thought would never happen. Is the true British race to be extinguished seems that way.

03-23-2009, 01:40 PM	#3
Antaletriangle Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: U.K. Posts: 3,380	Re: Britain to become the most populous country in EU I know what you mean jackster-i read an article last week concerning that there are certain schools,quite alot in fact that English is the second language now;wild, i suppose i can't remember where i read the article-it was mentioned in an online newspaper somewhere i think.

03-23-2009, 02:07 PM	#4
Jacqui D Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Kent,England Posts: 1,267	Re: Britain to become the most populous country in EU THis is true i know, watched a morning breakfast show the other day they were focussing on how to get our kids more motivated in schools exercise etc; If you remember MR Motivator on our screens a few years ago well they got him back getting the kids and adults alike to do more exercise. Well what i'm getting to is they visited a school in London and i could not see one white kids face! Now i'm not racist in the least but even i have to question now what's happening to our traditions and schooling, these kids are given extra help in language, the tradition of religion ( be what it is that we were taught anyway) has been given over to the muslims. Our kids are going to be so confused and our heritage will be lost for sure. What of our ancestry and history with in our own backgrounds it is sadly being pushed aside while this new agenda is forming. There are so many mixed partnerships also there will be generations of mixed blood for years to come. Yes the British Gene will be wiped out!

03-23-2009, 02:11 PM	#5
She-Ra Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: London, UK Posts: 159	Re: Britain to become the most populous country in EU People can travel, they move and races and cultures change and mix in places - country boundaries are artificial, political and can be geographical in terms of changes/difference in terrain. This movement of people is not the same as conquering and wiping out 'true' races - unless of course all these potential immigrants from different countries have conspired together to wipe out or push aside the British that live here already and perhaps seek out the ones that have moved elsewhere and not bred with anyone else, keeping their generations in tact. The interesting question was why here? Good point. I think I read somewhere on this forum that we would be likely to survive certain pressures hence our location would be desirable but then geologically we don't stand much of a chance do we? So yes why here? So they can wipe out multiple peoples together or cause further division not only through hostility from anti-immigration but by emphasising differences and perhaps furthering tensions by being involved in more political action in areas where the 'new' immigrants (anyone from the 60-70's onwards which was the last major wave of 'different' immigrants) came from? Moving peoples to certain places to make population culling more possible as customs/immigration controls would make these people easier to track and leave other areas easier to control with less people? Note - English is a 'junk' language in as much as Latin was perceived and made of in its day. It's a trade language and empire language mixed from many other languages which themselves have root languages. I love language in general and hence don't like to see them lazily butchered but have no problem with them evolving with different cultural and practical use which is how language, including English came to be. Jacqui D - London has numerous boroughs, there are plenty of areas with a majority of certain races, White and White British included not excluded. I disagree with your inference that heritage is wiped out because of mixed breeding or living amongst other cultures; heritage and culture is changed and wiped out any way over time as people change their demands, yes it changes with mixing cultures as well but not simply because of it. Like you said there are plenty of mixed raced relationships but within many of those there are those who mutually admire and take part in each other's cultures and being in such a situation doesn't make them any less unless they choose so or are forced. For example, I'm not any less culturally what my parents were because I was born a British citizen and I'm not less British either. The existence of a 'British gene' is questionable and if it's based on a recently historic group of people i.e. in the last couple of hundred years then it was wiped out or greatly reduced already. Edit - Duh how silly, I knew I saw it in the article and then forgot - water shortages apparantly, but then again we could easily have too much due to flooding... I wonder, if we did receive many more people in a 'lifeboat' situation, would flouride overtly be added to all water supply as currently we supposedly only have it in a few places in the drinking/tap water. Last edited by She-Ra; 03-24-2009 at 10:01 AM.

03-23-2009, 06:53 PM	#6
Swanny I dont need a label ! Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: The Shire of Wilt Posts: 2,889	Re: Britain to become the most populous country in EU I'm English, my family have been here forever, the England I grew up in was a very different place to the one today

03-24-2009, 02:01 PM	#8
Egg Banned Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 727	Re: Britain to become the most populous country in EU Most of the immigrants are muslim (look at your own governments figures) and they DO want to destroy your way of life and national identity. Same as every other country they 'settle' in. Only need to look at Ssweden and Norway for evidence of this.