Overpopulation and its Relation to Environmental Damages

We have a crisis. The growth of the human population has peaked, which in turn contributes to a severe escalation of environmental and ecological concerns. However, the issue that I would like to address is not solely regarding environmental damages; my focus will be centered on the creation of a certain power that allows atrocities to nature to occur as the consequence of our ever expanding population. I am not concerned here, then, to explain what overpopulation is; instead, the focal points to this rhetoric are, environmental damages caused by corporations as a consequence of rising population. Keep in mind, for the sake of this essay, when I refer to overpopulation, I merely just mean rising population. I will begin by explaining how companies obtain their power through supplying the growing demand as a result of overpopulation. Then, I will illustrate few examples of environmental damages caused by corporations. Lastly, incorporating Ulrich Beck’s ideas on cosmopolitans and risk society, I will explain how corporations become too powerful and manipulate political decision-making process to their advantage. In brief, this essay offers insight as to how companies obtain their power, affect the environment, and alter political decision making: consequences of overpopulation.

Corporations enlarging themselves to be mega-businesses, franchises, or multi-national are an inevitable fate of capitalism. To understand the extent of how environmental impact is caused, we must first understand economics in terms of consumer demand and corporate supply. It is quite clear that population and consumer demand correlate; a rise in population will result in rise in demand. So how does this relate to the overall crisis of overpopulation? To start, there is a supply for every demand. As population numbers rise, so too does demand, thus allowing corporations to provide the supply desired by the society. Ultimately, with a continued increase in world population, this rise enables the corporations to expand through means of increasing the supply to meet all demands. With continued cycle of consumer demand and corporate supply, the corporations are bound to grow thus, having too much power. However, the issue raised here is not just about businesses gaining power, but rather what they do with their power, and their connection to the impact it causes on the environment. 

Companies seek alternatives to overcome the challenge of limited resources. The methods, however, are questionable; for example, BP’s – British Petroleum – oil spill that caused an environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. The extent of the damages ranges from closing 88,000 square miles of federal waters designated for commercial fishing to the generation-spanning recovery of the affected bodies of water to costing the company nearly $20 billion dollars in damages (CBS, 2013). What were their initial motives for this investment? Surely in part to supply our need for gas. Moreover, companies continuously expand the area for livestock to graze upon. This impacts local ecosystems and the wildlife existing within them. The motives? Again this reoccurring theme of supplying our perceived needs for survival. Statistical data indicates that roughly 40% of the Earth’s landmass is being used for raising animals for food (Owen, 2005). This data implies that as humanity encroaches on land in this manner, this eco-imperialism eradicates the natural elements to our planet; with this process, the benefits of living in such an environment.  The extent of the damage was described in 2008 when a London-based consultancy group, Trucost, estimated the combined damage to our global ecosystem costing in sum around US $2.2 trillion dollars (Jowit, 2010). And what were their motives again? To supply our need for our survival necessities.

      Now, let us assume that companies do not want to harm the environment as they have in the past. Yet, in reality they do otherwise. Perhaps it can be justified that companies are impacting the environmental ultimately for our sake. It can be also understood that companies are always finding cheaper methods for production, regardless of the environmental impact, to supply the ever growing demand. So why do they? One perspective offers insight into the relationship between a rising population and demand. As previously stated, with increasing demand, this consumer shift in preferences requires an increase in supply. But, being well aware that global resources are scarce, companies are forced to become more innovative in this pursuit. Companies are the easiest to blame for global climate change. They may wish to be environmentally friendly, but they fear their competition will overtake them. This idealistic way establishes a hopefully belief: supplying the rising demand will require going beyond the limits of our usable natural resources and these bold risks may result in detrimental results. It is hard for companies to stop when they take into consideration that rise in population correlates to rise in demand and more so, their capital. But the hardest part of all, how can society stop the corporations from causing further damage? Lord Acton claimed, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it” (Acton, 1887).

      Corporations, have an integral role within the cycle of supply and demand in effect swelling up their power. Walmart’s revenue, for example, surpassed Norway’s GDP by roughly $7.5 billion dollars (Trivett, 2011). The combined revenue of the top 10 companies of 2014 was nearly $2.2 trillion dollars. Compared with the same analysis from 2004, there is a $760 billion dollar jump. While population and its demand tend to increase at a steady pace, big businesses have grown exponentially. In turn, their financial capital, among other kinds, also increases their power in society. In the first nine months of U.S. federal elections in 2014, $15.3 million dollars was spent on lobbying by the Canadian corporations (Rose, 2014).The question can be posed here, how do politics and companies relate and why do they need each other?

      Ulrich Beck, a German sociologists, clarifies in, Redefining Power in the Global Age that politics requires the services of large corporations or transnational cosmopolitans. Traditional notions of a threat towards a nation include war, terrorism, and so on. However, Beck introduces a new type of threat, “the threat of not doing something; that is, of not investing in the country” (Beck, 2001, 83). Politicians are well aware that they need outside help. What these companies provide is, “investment capital [which] is the equivalent of firepower” (Beck, 2001, 83).To examine the intimacy of such a relationship, ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) claimed companies were funding the law makers’ trip – business or otherwise - costs. In 2006 to 2008, nearly $2 million dollars was spent on trips as well as counting 1,300 cashed in checks from over 300 legislators in the United States. But what do the corporations want in return? A stake in influencing the political decision making process for their benefit. Chapters leaked from the Trans Pacific Partnership reveal plans for fracking and off-shore oil drilling in the United States for export to Europe. To make matters worse, with their transnational status they have the ability to undermine communities with the right to sue the local government. Why the government allowed such supremacy to occur can possibly be explained through their closed door meetings. Yet it is unclear whether they even happen, we can assume they do due to the fact they may have not been exploited or declared public. If and when bribing and lobbying the politicians is not enough, they turn to experts to falsify information, thus altering political decisions. In 2015, The New York Times exploited a relationship in which companies were funding researchers to provide information that would rule favourably to their interests. Under the Freedom of Information Act, Greenpeace, an environmental group, revealed that Wei-Hock Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, was funded quite handsomely by corporate interests to deny climate change as a global threat. It is a chilling fact that deals like these have occurred, and it scares us more for deals that are occurring or have occurred that we have yet to uncover.

      Beck, along with Anthony Giddens, coined the term “risk society” to describe the new era we are in. It is characterized as heightened awareness of risk and it focuses on efforts to know and control the risk (Doyle, 2007). He claimed, “Science becomes indispensable, and at the same time devoid of its original validity claims” (Beck, 1992).  One of the points that was emphasized was a “risk in government”, in which it analyzes how the discourse of risks hides moral judgments in technical assessments of the probability of harm (Ericson and Doyle 2003; Hunt 2003). It provides risks for the ordinary citizens because the crucial information that they are entitled to know is hidden in the midst of scientific language. Also, he argues how risks of nuclear radiation, technology advancements, greater mobility of diseases, climate change, invasive species, and many other problems are virtually a common risk to our global village. Therefore, it can be understood that the environmental damages are causing detriments on a global scale.

Beck was among the few to introduce and expand on the ideas of globalization. Of course, our world being populous is indeed a problem as well, but the problem of overpopulation, as mentioned above, continues to fuel corporations to commit these atrocities thus, causing more damages to the environment. For example, our most controversial environmental concern lingering our media and political realm is climate change. From 1751 to 2010, top 90 companies on the list of top emitters have contributed over 63% of the cumulative global emission of industrial carbon dioxide and methane, amounting to about 914 gigatonne carbon dioxide emission (Goldenberg, 2013). Insofar, they have impacted the global atmosphere, putting in risk the citizens of the globe. Climate change is not a national problem but rather, an international one.

Beck said, “One thing worse than being overrun by big multinationals: not being overrun by multinationals.” (Beck, 2001, 83) We must ask; what can we do to stop the corporations from committing such atrocities? Do we have to stop our population from growing? Or, can we even stop them now? People should be more educated in regards to issues like these. But more, the society should demand what is more necessary to survival, then to demand what is not. We cannot complain about issues such as oil spills if you drive a car every day because that would be paradoxical. 

Overall, I believe the information provided enabled you to take a step back to see the bigger picture behind the crisis of overpopulation. The creation of a certain power that allows atrocities to nature to occur are an unfortunately consequence to our expanding human population. With ample evidence and support, it is clear that environmental damages caused by corporations are a consequence of rising population. I have explained how companies obtain their power through supplying the growing demand as a result of overpopulation, followed by illustrating few examples of environmental damages caused by companies, followed by incorporation of ideas by Ulrich Beck in explaining how corporations become too powerful and begin to alter political decision-making to their advantage. With sufficient facts to the comprehension to the problem of rising corporate influence in political realm as a consequence of rising population, I believe I have made my point clear. Continued impact could lead to our ultimate downfall of humanity; though we may not have the power to do much, we have made a progression in solving this issue because the first step in solving a problem, is to know that there is one.

Works Cited

Beck, Ulrich. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage, 1992. Print.

Beck, Ulrich. "Living In The World Risk Society." Economy and Society 35 (2006): 329-45. Print.

Beck, Ulrich. "The Cosmopolitan State: Redefining Power in the Global Age." International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society (2006): 83-84. Print.

"Buying Influence." Buying Influence. Center for Media and Democracy, D.B.A. Press & Common Cause. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.

"Current World Population." World Population Clock: 7 Billion People (2015). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Doyle, Aaron. "Introduction." Risk and Trust: Including or excluding Citizens? Black Point, N.S.: Fernwood Pub., 2007. 7-10. Print.

Ericson, Richard V. Risk and Morality. Toronto, Ont.: U of Toronto, 2003. Print.

"Fortune." FORTUNE 500: 2004 Archive Full List 1-100. Fortune 500, 1 Jan. 2004. Web. 10 Mar. 2015.

Gillis, Justin, and John Schwartz. "Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher." The New York Times. The New York Times, 21 Feb. 2015. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.

Jowit, Juliette. "World's Top Firms Cause $2.2tn of Environmental Damage, Report Estimates." World's Top Firms Cause $2.2tn of Environmental Damage, Report Estimates | Environment | The Guardian. The Guardian, 18 Feb. 2010. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.

Kolbert, Elizabeth. "Head Count." Head Count - The New Yorker. The New Yorker, 21 Oct. 2013. Web. 12 Mar. 2015.

"Meat Production Wastes Natural Resources." Meat Production Wastes Natural Resources | Animals Used for Food | The Issues | PETA. PETA. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.

"Native Wildlife Recovery / Livestock Grazing." Native Wildlife Recovery / Livestock Grazing | Hells Canyon Preservation Council. Hells Canyon Preservation Council. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.

Owen, James. "Farming Claims Almost Half Earth's Land, New Maps Show." Farming Claims Almost Half Earth's Land, New Maps Show. National Geographic Society, 9 Dec. 2005. Web. 15 Mar. 2015.

"Researcher: Extent of BP Oil Spill's Damage to Sea-floor Life "astounding"" CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 25 Sept. 2013. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.

Shah, Anup. "Corporations and the Environment." Corporations and the Environment - Global Issues. Global Issues, 25 May 2002. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.

Shah, Anup. "The Rise of Corporations." The Rise of Corporations - Global Issues. GlobalIssues.org, 5 Dec. 2002. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.

Trivett, Vincent. "25 US Mega Corporations: Where They Rank If They Were Countries." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 27 June 2011. Web. 7 Mar. 2015.

Zeese, Kevin, and Margaret Flower. "With The People's Climate March Behind Us, What Do We Do Now?" With The People’s Climate March Behind Us, What Do We Do Now? MintPress News, 29 Sept. 2014. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.

Goldenberg, Suzanne. "Just 90 Companies Caused Two-thirds of Man-made Global Warming Emissions." Just 90 Companies Caused Two-thirds of Man-made Global Warming Emissions | Environment | The Guardian. The Guardian, 20 Nov. 2013. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.

Hunt, Alan. "Risk and Morality in Everyday Life." Risk and Morality. Toronto: U of Toronto, 2003. Print.

Rosa, Eugene. "Risk Society." Risk Society. The Encyclopedia of Earth, 9 Nov. 2009. Web. 21 Mar. 2015.

Rose, Chris. "Canadian Corporations Spent Over $15M Lobbying U.S. Government in 2014, Report." Canadian Corporations Spent Over $15M Lobbying U.S. Government in 2014, Report | Desmog Canada. Desmog Canada, 28 Oct. 2014. Web. 14 Mar. 2015.

Letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887published in Historical Essays and Studies, edited by J. N. Figgis and R. V. Laurence (London: Macmillan, 1907)