The Demise of the Norse

In this post I am going to look at the Norse civilisation in Greenland and how they came to their demise. I look at the literature to question whether or not this had anything to do with climate change. I think it is important to look at the collapse of civilisations in the past not only because i find it interesting, but also because it could give us some pointers on how we could deal with climate change in the future. 

In 986AD, Eric the Red and his followers began settling in Greenland in search of land and resources. At this time, the climate was fairly nice for the Norse, however at around 1300AD the temperature began to cool abruptly the Little Ice Age set in at 1400 AD.

This Graph uses evidence from two lake sediment cores to determine the temperature of Greenland through different civilisations (D'Andrea et al, 2011)

This Graph shows evidence of climate change occurring over the period when the Norse occupied Greenland, but was it the cause of their demise?  There is no arguing that the change in climate will have had a major affect on the lifestyles of the Norse:

A cooler climate = Soil degradation affecting -> Agriculture -> food sources-> Economies and trade -> PEOPLE

A cooler climate = Increased sea ice affecting -> Trade Routes -> Economies -> PEOPLE

But there is a big debate in the literature over whether climate change was the main factor in the Norse demise. It seems odd that the Little Ice Age also took its toll on Iceland, however the Vikings survived there. McGovern (1991) suggests that the Norse chose not to adapt to the changing climatic conditions and suck with their traditional routines, causing them to ultimately die. Dugmore et al (2007)  argue that changing market conditions in the European market, with the re-introduction of elephant ivory, heighten the sensitivity of the Norse to climate change causing their collapse. Rather, Diamond (2005) suggests that it could have been down to an increased hostility with the Inuit, leading to unrest.

There has been much Palaeoenvironmental research undertaken to understand the collapse of the the Norse (see Edwards et al, 2011; Perren et al, 2012; and D'Andrea et al, 2011). Scientists observe the changes which took place in the flora and fauna in relation to climate at that time. All show that Norse farming did not have a big imprint on environmental proxies, indicating little agricultural change and making conclusions difficult to draw. However, it should be noted that no single and continuous mutiproxy record has been obtained within the immediate region of a Norse site in Greenland (Perren et al, 2012). This should be completed in order to gain more thorough Palaeoenvironmental knowledge which should be able to provide more evidence for the demise of the Norse between 1480- 1500 AD.

Overall, i think this topic is so interesting is because i feel it shows how climate change has an impact on many different things. Changes in climate cause a chain reaction and result on consequences on populations which affect lifestyles significantly. I look forward to reading more research on the Norse culture in the future!

                                                               Eric the Red

Looking back to Gerland et al (2014)

Lets do some reflection and get down to the nitty gritty...

So far, we have looked at the history of population estimations, with a focus on the 7 billion milestone in 2011, and have also looked at climate change in Africa, the power of younger populations and whether reducing human populations will help environmental problems.

In this post i want to go right back to the beginning and pick apart the report that this blog is based around - 'World Population stabilisation Unlikey this Century' which states population will increase to 10.9 billion in 2100.

The report uses data from the third revision of probabilistic population projections based on the 'World population prospects: The 2012 Revision'.The probabilistic estimates are based around historical data of population by age and sex, fertility, mortality and migration rates trend between 1950 and 2010.

So first of all lets look at the positives of the report and the data it uses....

- The report highlights that probabilistic projections give the ability to quantify our confidence in future trends - This is great, as it ensures we have a good idea of what will happen in the future and allows us to plan for these demographic and population changes. 

- Data is incorporated from every country and area of the world (UNESA, 2014) -  Fab a complete data set!

- Data includes information on incidence, prevalence and treatment for countries most effected by HIV and Aids which has not been included before - Including more data from different sources helps to ensure more accurate projections.

Now lets look at some of the problems with the report and the data it uses ....

- The supplementary report for the article indicates that the probabilistic projections do not incorporate uncertainty about future age patterns of fertility and mortality, or international net migration - This means that the confidence levels for the projections that use this data are not as precise as they could be.

- The supplementary report for the article also states that the data is subject to a time lag between the latest available data and the base year for the projection - This is ultimately inevitable, however it does mean that the data used is not the most recent data, which, if used, could produce slightly different estimations.

- As highlighted within the report, the UN projections are reliant on a continuation of existing policies - UN policies are subject to change, particularly if population is to increase, therefore the effects of changing UN policies on probabilistic population projections could be an area for further research?

- Again highlighted in the report, The projections don't take into account the negative effects from the environmental consequences of the population increase - This is the big crux of the report. We do not know how the environment will change because of this population increase and therefore there is still uncertainty in saying that the population will not stabilise in this century. This calls for more research into how an increase in population will effect the environment, in order to know whether this will have an effect on the population. 

A Crash Course in Malthus

Heres a just a fun, short video running you past everything you need to know about the Malthus and the history of population! Enjoy!

The power of the Young #SWOP2014

Just last week, the UNFPA published a report called 'The power of 1.8 billion.' It highlights the fact that there are more adolescents on Earth than ever before, as there are now 1.8 billion people aged between 10 and 24. It suggests that young people are the key to transforming the future. The report stresses that there is a need to invest in young people through advances in education, focusing on the positives of having a large young population, e.g. a larger work force will provide the opportunity for economic growth and stability.

This provides many advantages for poor countries, in particular in sub-Saharan Africa, as half of the populations of Chad, Niger and Uganda are under 16 (Guardian, 2014).  The report states: "The 'economic miracle' experienced by the East Asian economies could become a reality for many of today's poorer countries, particularly sub-Saharan Africa." It is referring to the 1970's when Eastern Asian countries realised their demographic dividend, invested in young people, and saw massive returns in their GDP (Guardian, 2014).

This is all great and well and good, but lets relate this to the global environment. Will empowering the young improve the global environmental problems which we are currently facing? The report stresses that the young people in society will be making headway in the innovation needed to transform the relationship between development and the environment (UNFPA, 2014).  The graph below makes for an interesting read. The poll shows the opinions of 597,00 young people between the ages of 10 and 24, ranking their priorities for the world after 2015. It shows that for the countries in low levels of human development, 'protecting forests, rivers and oceans' as well as 'action taken on climate change' are ranked at the bottom of the list.

Source: A global My World 2015 poll taken from the UNFPA report 

This may suggest that we need to focus on empowering young people in countries which have high levels of human development into acting on environmental problems at present. But in the future, if we focus on irradiating problems facing poorer countries such as healthcare and food, and most importantly EDUCATION is improved, then there is hope that environmental issues will be ranked more highly. Therefore, the work of the UNFPA in focusing on young people in education is exceedingly important, if we are to succeed in sustaining a healthy planet for future generations.

JOIN THE DEBATE!! #SWOP2014 on twitter to join the discussion @UNFPA or #SHOWYOURSELFIE to show world leaders that youth matters!

A Closer Look at Africa: Climate Change and Food Production

It is highlighted in Gerland et al, 2014 that much of the population increase we will experience over this century will occur in Africa. In particular, this is said to be due to the slower fertility decline experienced in Sub Saharan African. Gerland et al (2014) recognise that this increase in population will cause severe shortages in resources.

This post will focus on agriculture in Africa in relation to climate change, and look at what can be done to solve these problems. 

The IPCC 2007 report on 'Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability' in regards to climate change, identifies that there are a range of factors associated with climate change that will affect African countries. These include issues such as the decrease in grain yields and changes in run off and water availability. These factors will be made more difficult by population changes, as there is a shift from rural to urban lifestyles across the continent, causing an increased demand for staple foods, and increased competition for land (World Bank, 2012).  

The map below is taken from research preformed by the The International Livestock Research Institute (2006) . It shows areas of vulnerability to climate change across the continent. It is clear that there is vulnerability across most of the continent, with high vulnerability in Ethiopia. 

Quartiles of Vulnerability in Africa (Quartile one = less vulnerable, Quartile four = most vulnerable)  Source: Mapping Climate Vulnerability in Africa (2006)

It seems climate change and population hand in hand is a recipe for disaster. However are there ways around the problems? Morton (2007) indicates that small holder and subsistence farming in Africa is most at risk to changes in climate and actions must be taken by farmers to adapt. He stresses that a framework is needed to understand the impacts on substance farmers with an understanding that changes are locally specific and complex. This is exemplified in the work of Mortimore and Adams (2001), cited in Morton (2007), who look at 5 elements of adaptation that are already occurring in Nigeria, such as diversifying livelihoods and working land harder. 

Other ways of reliving the issue associated with climate change include bringing more land into agriculture, expanding trade for subsistence farmers to minimise risks and changing diets to reduce the consumption of meat (Godfray et al, 2010).  Another option is a turn towards new HYV and modified crops which are able to cope with warming climates (Schlenker and Lobell, 2010). This certainly worked back in the 1940/50's during the Green Revolution, however will this have knock on effects of land degradation for further generations? 

What is agreed by all is the fact that agricultural productivity improvements in Africa are needed to cope with more people and a changing environment. There are many ways of going about this, yet i think that a multi faceted approach is needed, combining new technologies and global strategies, with locally specific planning.

#Throwback to 2011

I thought it would be important to take a look back 3 years to 2011, when the population hit 7 billion - on the 31st of October to be exact. There is no doubt that we were informed about this historic milestone even months before the event happened with National Geographic even dedicating a year long special series to the topic. On the day we turned into 7 billion, it was prominent all over the media:

"Today, you are one of 7 billion people on Earth"  USA TODAY (2011)

"World's 'seven billionth baby' is born" Guardian (2011)

Theres also the article 'A letter to baby 7 billion: 'dear kid, welcome to our mess' (Guardian, 2011) which makes for quite a quick funny read!

The 7 billion milestone didn't even make it onto the list of what people clicked on the most on the BBC news website in 2011!  Nor did it make the list of top ten news stories in 2011 the Gaurdian or the Washington Times   Source: (BBC 2011)

But did this milestone kick us into action and make us think seriously about the future? Indeed, much of the literature that was published in 2011 focuses on the past. Lam (2011) looks at demographic change over the previous 50 years when populations change grew rapidly and remains optimistic about the future. In addition, Bloom (2011) also looks at past demographic trends and concludes on the note that demographic change can create opportunities. Again, a positive reflection in the population increase.

But will looking at the past change the future? The UNFPA (2011) published a report called 'People and Possibilities in a World of 7 Billion'  looking at how people in different countries are facing diverse demographic changes, for instance the effect of an increased in the number of young people . It stresses the need to move away from asking questions such as ' how many people can the world hold' and concentrate on the now. The report finishes on a very significant quote: 'The future depends on the choices we make now' recognising the importance of action.'

Clearly there is no other way to make predictions about future estimates other than looking at past trends, but it is important to use these past trends to implement policy and make a difference. So did the 2011 milestone make ensure change?

I feel that the headlines and literature at the time seems to lack the shock factor. There's nothing that truly made us sit up in our seats and realise wow we have a lot of people on Earth and we need to implement ways that ensures that in the future we can accommodate this many people and more. Much of the literature is even optimistic! It's sad to say that i think the importance of the milestone has now been lost, and at the time there was a lot of talking and analysing, but not a lot of doing! 

Reducing Human Population is No Quick Fix

China implemented their One Child Policy in 1979 to correct population by 700 million. Others have posed the idea that for human survival on a global level, all families need to adapt the one child policy and reduce the destructive effect of each person (Butler, 1996). Others choose a softer approach, suggesting an increase in family planning as the most effective way to protect the Earth's environmental future (Cleland et al, 2006). It is therefore clear that many feel implementing population controls are the answer to a growing population and environmental problems.

Source: BBC News 

However, a recent report in PNAS suggests that reducing human population is 'not a quick fix' for environmental problems (Bradshaw and Brook, 2014 ). They use WHO and US Census Bureau data input into a Leslie Matrix to predict population in the year 2100 under different global scenarios. The findings are quite remarkable:

• Enforcing a scenario with a global one child per woman policy by 2100 resulted in a peak population size of 8.9 billion in 2056, followed by a decline to around 7 billion by 2100 (Essentially causing a return to the 2013 population)

• A mass mortality scenario of 2 billion dead within a 5 year time span half way through the projection interval led to a population of 8.4 billion in 2100.

• A mass mortality scenario of 6 billion dead implemented 1/3rd of the way through the projection led to a population of 5.1 billion by 2100.

These figures make for a shocking read. They show that even with major catastrophic events (such as those described by Malthus as 'positive checks' to raise the death rates (Malthus, 1798) population is still going to pose a huge strains on the environment. They stress: 

'Even if the human collective were to pull as hard as possible on the total fertility policy lever (via a range of economic, medical, and social interventions), the result would be ineffective in mitigating the immediately looming global sustainability crises'


They therefore propose that there is a need to focus on policies that decrease consumption and of natural resources for immediate sustainability gains. This throws into question of whether we should be turing away from population controls as a means of creating a sustainable environment. Is reducing population menial?

Of course we cannot forget that controlling population has other benefits such as poverty reduction. It is my opinion we cannot disregard reducing population as a solution to improving the environment. However, i feel we should maybe prioritise and bring to the forefront other measures to preserve the Earths environment, which focus on conservation, recycling and reduced consumption of natural resources by both individuals and businesses. 

Can you Really Comprehend World Population?

Can you imagine what more than 7 billion people people look like? 

According to Google it takes 1 years, 251 days, 7 hours, 46 minutes, and 40 seconds to count to 1 billion... Never mind 7 billion! 

But what about if all population was represented on one page?

Check out the link below to see what the world's population on one page looks like and watch it grow....

http://www.worldometers.info/watch/world-population/

Its slightly scary when you put it all on one page isn't it?!

I think this really puts into perspective the extent of population growth, and hits home that something needs to be done about it. It truly makes you think about the stress that the sheer amount of people are exerting on our planet.