PRESS RELEASE 25 APRIL 2005

Embargo - Not for publication or broadcast before 1.00 am Monday 25 April 2005

BRITAIN'S MAJOR PARTIES "ENVIRONMENTALLY ILLITERATE"

Britain’s main political parties are accused today (Monday April 25) of “environmental illiteracy” following an analysis of their election manifestos which shows that none of them mentions human population growth as an issue, either globally or nationally.

A scorecard of their manifestos by the Optimum Population Trust awards four of the five main parties (Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Greens and the UK Independence Party) only two marks out of 10 (20 per cent) for population awareness. Labour does even worse, scoring only 1½ marks (15 per cent). In a combined total of 67,000 words and 210 pages, there was no mention of population growth or of key words such as “crowding”, “density”, or “overpopulation.”

The OPT analysis also finds that none of the five main parties makes any links between in-migration to the UK, which according to the Office of National Statistics will account for 84 per cent of projected population growth over the next quarter century, and environmental carrying capacity. The strongest emphasis on immigration comes from the Conservatives and UKIP, but the Conservatives view it as primarily an issue of order, “control” and community relations, not as an environmental one.

There is some recognition of the environmental impact of housing in the countryside (although not, surprisingly, by the Greens), but no apparent awareness of the links between population growth and housing plans. And, although many people argue that population growth brings economic growth, only two parties – Labour and the Greens – acknowledge that there are trade-offs between economic growth and quality of life.

The report Population, Environment, Housing and Migration - An Election 2005 Scorecard, identifies a range of political “blind spots” on the population issue. “None of the parties has a position on population limits, nationally or globally. None refers to any potential benefits that might result from a stable or smaller population. There was almost no sense in any of the manifestos that Britain, or any part of it, was suffering the effects of overpopulation or crowding…”

It adds: “For the two parties with arguably the strongest environmental credentials – the Greens and the LibDems – these blind spots were surprising. The Greens, in particular, have in the past argued for a much reduced population in the UK and, in their policy statements on their website, call for a “debate on sustainable population levels for the UK” and a reduction of [the UK’s] “ecological footprint”.”

The parties’ positions are at odds both with reality and with most people’s own perceptions and experiences, the study says. The UK is more densely populated than China and more than three-quarters of Britons think it is overcrowded. A recent study from the Institute of Public Policy Research’s Commission on Sustainable Development in the South East warned of growing resource shortages, adding:“The growth in congestion and the demand for more space for housing and traffic are viewed by many in the South East as a threat to their quality of life.”

Rosamund McDougall, OPT co-chair, said: "This scorecard shows a devastating lack of political will to face up to the issue of unsustainable population size and growth in the UK. The public wants action on both population and the environment, but manifestos are addressing neither. Perpetual growth and blind optimism offer no solutions."

Prof John Guillebaud, OPT co-chair and emeritus professor of family planning and reproductive health, University College London, added: “If the parties were taking an environmental exam, rather than writing a political manifesto, they would fail dismally. The level of basic environmental illiteracy on display is profoundly depressing. Population growth is one of the main causes of environmental crisis, both at home and in the world as a whole, and it’s very sad that the major political parties don’t have the awareness or the courage to say as much, particularly during an election campaign.”

OPT’s briefing paper, Population, Environment, Housing and Migration - An Election 2005 Scorecard, appears below.

For further information, telephone David Nicholson-Lord, Research Associate, at OPT: 07976-370 221, email: info@optimumpopulation.org or see www.optimumpopulation.org

NOTES FOR EDITORS

The Optimum Population Trust, a think-tank and campaign group, was founded in 1991 by the late David Willey. Its main aims are to promote and co-ordinate research into criteria that will allow the sustainable or optimum population of a region to be determined; and to campaign for a lower population in the UK. Its patrons include Paul Ehrlich, professor of population studies, Stanford University; Susan Hampshire, actress; Aubrey Manning, broadcaster and professor of natural history, University of Edinburgh; Professor Norman Myers, visiting fellow, Green College, Oxford; Jack Parsons, former deputy director, Sir David Owen Population Centre; Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the UK Sustainable Development Commission; and Sir Crispin Tickell, director of the Green College Centre for Environmental Policy and Understanding.

SUMMARY

The growth in human population numbers is at the root of most environmental problems. Many experts believe it is the single most important cause of the environmental crisis. But do the political parties share that view? What emphasis, if any, do they place on population issues, globally or nationally? The manifestos of the five main political parties (Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats, Greens, United Kingdom Independence Party) were analysed for their content on population and scored out of a possible 10 points against a series of criteria, ranging from reference to population growth as an issue and awareness of environmental carrying capacity in the United Kingdom to the presence of policies on unwanted pregnancies and family planning, either at home or abroad. (For full criteria, see Methodology, below).

MAIN FINDINGS

Out of a total of 67,000 words and 210 pages, population growth was not mentioned in any of the manifestos. The word “population” itself received 18 mentions, all in a statistical or policy context – the “poorest fifth of the population”, for example, or “an ageing population.” Given this apparent gap in the parties’ thinking, it was perhaps not surprising that there were no references in the manifestos, either within a UK or global context, to “crowding”, “density”, or “overpopulation”.

The maximum score was 2 out of 10. This was achieved by four of the five main parties, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives, the Greens and UKIP, although for different reasons – “weaknesses” in some areas were compensated by “strengths” in others. Labour scored 1.5. Even these comparatively low scores were the result of some “generous” marking – half-points were awarded where a problem seemed to be implicitly recognised without being spelt out, for example.

The results suggest that, to judge by their manifestos, the main parties in the UK do not see population growth, either domestically or globally, as a problem, or at least not one to which they wish to draw voters’ attention.

SUBSIDIARY FINDINGS

*Immigration. This is currently the biggest driving force behind population growth in the UK (84 per cent of the projected population increase to 2031 is caused by international legal migration, according to the Office of National Statistics. This is made up of 59 per cent from direct net immigration and another 25 per cent from the increase in natural population change attributable to the age-structure of the immigrant population). The Conservatives focus on immigration and specifically mention the need for “popular consent for further demographic change” but see it almost entirely as an issue of order, control and community relations. UKIP, which advocates zero net immigration, views it similarly, talking of Britain’s inability “to accommodate immigration at its present net rate of a million newcomers every four years” but goes into no further detail. In both cases limits are implied but they are not necessarily or specifically environmental. Therefore both parties score half a point on the relevant question. Neither Labour, the Liberal Democrats or the Greens view in-migration as an environmental issue; they see it as either economic or social/cultural. Nor do they mention limits or carrying capacity in this context.

*Housing. One of the most obvious ways in which population growth impacts on the environment is through housing - hence the controversy over the Government’s housing plans for England. The Conservatives, the LibDems and UKIP specifically mention the impact of housing in the countryside and score a point for this. Labour refers to it but does not appear to view it as a serious problem, remarking only that “we will develop a clear plan to minimise the impact of new communities on the environment”. The Greens, perhaps surprisingly, do not mention this issue at all.

*Growth versus quality of life. Central to the debate about population growth, whether it occurs through natural increase or in-migration, is its role in economic growth and the effect of this on quality of life. For example, a future UK with twice the present population would have, all other things being equal, twice its current GDP – and would thus have “doubled” in size economically - but this would entail a significant cost in congestion, pollution, noise, loss of green space and stress (see below, Is Population Growth A Problem?). Labour and the Greens both score for explicitly recognising the trade-offs between economic (although not population) growth and environmental and human well-being. The Conservatives, LibDems and UKIP do not score.

*Blind spots. None of the parties has a position on population limits, nationally or globally. None refers to any potential benefits that might result from a stable or smaller population. There was almost no sense in any of the manifestos that Britain, or any part of it, was suffering the effects of overpopulation or crowding, although there was reference by the Liberals to traffic congestion. Beyond the points already mentioned, there was also very little sense of carrying capacity – the idea, central to sustainability, that places have natural limits to the number of species or amount of activity they can sustain. For the two parties with arguably the strongest environmental credentials – the Greens and the LibDems – these blind spots were surprising. The Greens, in particular, have in the past argued for a much reduced population in the UK and, in their policy statements on their website, call for a “debate on sustainable population levels for the UK” and a reduction of [the UK’s] “ecological footprint”.

IS POPULATION GROWTH A PROBLEM? THE OPTIMUM POPULATION TRUST'S POSITION

OPT believes it is axiomatic that population growth is a major issue internationally and nationally and a key cause of planetary overload. Indeed, it is hard to see how anyone could argue otherwise. The world’s population is set to increase over 40 per cent from 6.4 billion to 9.1 billion by 2050, while the UK’s is projected by the Office of National Statistics to grow from 59.6 million in mid-2003 to 65.7 million by 2031 – a rise of over 10 per cent or 6.1 million people. Some commentators have described these figures as “extrapolations” from present trends but in this they are not significantly different from any other attempt to predict the future. Over the last two years alone the UK’s population has increased by an estimated half million; if the growth rates of 2001-2003 were continued, the UK would pass 70 million by 2050.

Voters seem to be ahead of politicians in their awareness. Seventy-six per cent think the UK is already overcrowded (You Gov, 2003). The Institute of Public Policy Research Commission on Sustainable Development in the South East has warned of the “tensions” between economic and population growth and environmental sustainability, and of growing resource shortages, particularly water. In 10 years time, on current rates of growth, household water consumption will rise by 16 per cent, air emissions by 7 per cent and traffic levels by 23 per cent, according to the commission. “The growth in congestion and the demand for more space for housing and traffic are viewed by many in the South East as a threat to their quality of life. They are concerned about how further development will impact on the countryside, other green spaces and pollution levels… People in the South East are already noticing how the pressures for growth could have a detrimental impact on their quality of life.” (Commission on Sustainable Development in the South East, IPPR, 2004-5). The UK is more densely populated than China; even Scotland is far more densely populated than the US. Several recent independent reports on the Government’s housing plans have found they would seriously overstrain local and regional environmental capacity.

METHODOLOGY AND SCORES

The manifestos were scored against whether they:

ENQUIRIES:

David Nicholson-Lord, Research Associate, Optimum Population Trust - Tel: 07976-370 221

OPT is a think tank and campaign group concerned with the environmental effects of UK and global population growth. It is independent of any commercial or political interests.