| New England Coalition for Sustainable Population |
 |  |  |  |  |
Future generations depend
on the wisdom of the present.
on the wisdom of the present.
Published in the Union Leader, Concord NH
May 2007
Joe Bish, Coordinator
Dear Editor,
As a coordinator for one of New England's few sustainable population
organizations, I read your January 28th, 2007 story, "Projections show state
population will keep growing, but slower than projected," with both relief and
concern. Relieved, as Dennis Delay was, that NH wasn't "going to have to try
to stick another city three-quarters the size of Manchester somewhere" by
2025.
Concerned, however, that every day since article was published global human
population has increased by a net of 200,000. Or in other words, the planet --
as is normal operating procedure -- has been asked to support the rough
equivalent of two additional Manchesters each day. To quote Mr. Delay again,
"That's significant."
The New England Coalition for Sustainable Population seeks a balanced,
all-inclusive approach when considering the issues raised by human
population levels. We have no "silver-bullet" prescriptions for the complex
interplay between economics, demographics, environmental health and the
sustainability of our communities and our civilization. However, we are certain
that current challenges to our civilization such as global warming, depleted
fisheries and New England style sprawl can not be looked at seriously without
considering the population issue.
We invite regional citizens interested in the population issue to visit our
website http://www.necsp.org and join the discussion.
Published in Foster's Dover, NH
February 2007
By: Rachel Zegerius, Coordinator
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to the LTE submitted by D. Strodel (published 2-5-07)
urging support for Senator Barnes' amendment to SB77. This bill would
prevent any contracts between the Division of Public Health Services (DPHS)
and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (PPNNE), the largest
reproductive health care and sexuality education provider and advocate in
northern New England. This amendment would limit reproductive health
services to the 61,000 patients whom PPNE treats annually. Cutting federal
and state funding for family planning services in the region would be doing a
huge injustice to young women. DPHS currently contracts nearly $1 million
with PPNE, of which only $215,457 is state general funds. This bill would not
only prevent state contracts, but would divert the federal funds as well. This
funding provides comprehensive reproductive health care, HIV testing, STD
testing and treatment, and health education. Federal law prohibits the funding
to be used for abortions. It is reckless to propose such a cut in funding without
providing health care alternatives for the thousands of women that cannot
afford family planning services in the state. What better place for our public
health tax dollars to be spent?
Submitted To TheBostonChannel.com
March 29, 2006
David Sussman, Treasurer
Dear Editor,
An AP article of March 27, 2007 describes a report by the International
Institute for Environment and Development in London warning of disastrous
flooding to be expected in coastal areas around the world. Global warming is
responsible, as massive melting of polar ice raises sea levels. Although the
greatest impact will be to low-lying areas of Asia, even cities such as New York
and Los Angeles are at risk.
The authors state that the solution to the problem will not be cheap, may
involve relocating many people and building protective engineering
structures. They suggest that nations should consider halting or reducing
population growth in coastal areas.
Several decades ago Paul Ehrlich and John Holden proposed the IPAT
formulation to explain the impact (I) of human activity on planet Earth, a
function of the variables population (P), affluence (A) and technology (T).
Changes in any of the variables have a multiplicative affect on impact. With
earth's population expanding by about 75 million, approximately the size of
Philippines, Iran or Vietnam, per year, it is remarkable that there is not more
widespread interest in the effect of our ever-expanding presence.
We inhabitants of this relatively miniscule orb floating in the vastness of the
cosmos need to come to a consensus on just how many of us can be
supported in a decent and sustainable manner, so that we do not eventually
consume each other with hatred arising from widespread material and spiritual
deprivation. Leaders of nations have to come together to come to consensus
on policies and their implementation to avoid what may be our greatest threat
of all our numbers.
Sincerely,
David Sussman
May 2007
Joe Bish, Coordinator
Dear Editor,
As a coordinator for one of New England's few sustainable population
organizations, I read your January 28th, 2007 story, "Projections show state
population will keep growing, but slower than projected," with both relief and
concern. Relieved, as Dennis Delay was, that NH wasn't "going to have to try
to stick another city three-quarters the size of Manchester somewhere" by
2025.
Concerned, however, that every day since article was published global human
population has increased by a net of 200,000. Or in other words, the planet --
as is normal operating procedure -- has been asked to support the rough
equivalent of two additional Manchesters each day. To quote Mr. Delay again,
"That's significant."
The New England Coalition for Sustainable Population seeks a balanced,
all-inclusive approach when considering the issues raised by human
population levels. We have no "silver-bullet" prescriptions for the complex
interplay between economics, demographics, environmental health and the
sustainability of our communities and our civilization. However, we are certain
that current challenges to our civilization such as global warming, depleted
fisheries and New England style sprawl can not be looked at seriously without
considering the population issue.
We invite regional citizens interested in the population issue to visit our
website http://www.necsp.org and join the discussion.
Published in Foster's Dover, NH
February 2007
By: Rachel Zegerius, Coordinator
Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to the LTE submitted by D. Strodel (published 2-5-07)
urging support for Senator Barnes' amendment to SB77. This bill would
prevent any contracts between the Division of Public Health Services (DPHS)
and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (PPNNE), the largest
reproductive health care and sexuality education provider and advocate in
northern New England. This amendment would limit reproductive health
services to the 61,000 patients whom PPNE treats annually. Cutting federal
and state funding for family planning services in the region would be doing a
huge injustice to young women. DPHS currently contracts nearly $1 million
with PPNE, of which only $215,457 is state general funds. This bill would not
only prevent state contracts, but would divert the federal funds as well. This
funding provides comprehensive reproductive health care, HIV testing, STD
testing and treatment, and health education. Federal law prohibits the funding
to be used for abortions. It is reckless to propose such a cut in funding without
providing health care alternatives for the thousands of women that cannot
afford family planning services in the state. What better place for our public
health tax dollars to be spent?
Submitted To TheBostonChannel.com
March 29, 2006
David Sussman, Treasurer
Dear Editor,
An AP article of March 27, 2007 describes a report by the International
Institute for Environment and Development in London warning of disastrous
flooding to be expected in coastal areas around the world. Global warming is
responsible, as massive melting of polar ice raises sea levels. Although the
greatest impact will be to low-lying areas of Asia, even cities such as New York
and Los Angeles are at risk.
The authors state that the solution to the problem will not be cheap, may
involve relocating many people and building protective engineering
structures. They suggest that nations should consider halting or reducing
population growth in coastal areas.
Several decades ago Paul Ehrlich and John Holden proposed the IPAT
formulation to explain the impact (I) of human activity on planet Earth, a
function of the variables population (P), affluence (A) and technology (T).
Changes in any of the variables have a multiplicative affect on impact. With
earth's population expanding by about 75 million, approximately the size of
Philippines, Iran or Vietnam, per year, it is remarkable that there is not more
widespread interest in the effect of our ever-expanding presence.
We inhabitants of this relatively miniscule orb floating in the vastness of the
cosmos need to come to a consensus on just how many of us can be
supported in a decent and sustainable manner, so that we do not eventually
consume each other with hatred arising from widespread material and spiritual
deprivation. Leaders of nations have to come together to come to consensus
on policies and their implementation to avoid what may be our greatest threat
of all our numbers.
Sincerely,
David Sussman