Population as pollution cause

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32587, 22 April 1971, Page 14

Population as pollution cause

To anyone who had visited Pakistan, India or Java, it would be impossible to doubt that uncontrolled human reproduction was the greatest single danger to man’s world environment and to man himself. Mr C. G. Martin, a chemical engineering consultant, said this in an address to a combined meeting of the Canterbury branches of the Institution of Engineers and the Institute of Chemistry last evening. The world was a closed finite system which could not support an indefinitely increasing population, said Mr Martin. Those who were in favour of birth control were simply in favour of death control. GROWTH AND PROGRESS

“Our whole society is predicated upon growth—more people, more houses, more factories, more electricity, more rubbish, more cars, more pollution,” said Mr Martin. He questioned the belief that growth was progress and that progress was good.

“If man is to preserve his environment he must learn to build a stable society, if for no other reason than that the world’s resources are finite,” said Mr Martin. He said New Zealand could be the first sovereign country in the world to opt for a stable, non-growth society. The reasons why this would be easier in New Zealand than anywhere else included its relative wealth, its state of development, its geographical remoteness and its fairly small population.

Mr Martin said that the idea of rejecting the traditional concept of progress, which was based on growth, in favour of conservation, was not yet common in New Zealand, but he. believed that it would be. Protection of the environment was an emotive subject and frequently the facts, although available, were disregarded or misinterpreted. As an instance, most of the arguments advanced against the abatement of the most serious source of pollution, too many people, were based on sincere moral and religious convictions which. Mr Martin submitted, were in conflict with the weight of evidence.

RUBBISH DISPOSAL Discussing the disposal of solid waste, Mr Martin said that judging by overseas figures it could be assumed that each person in New Zealand produced nine hundredweight of rubbish a year. At this rate greater Auckland would produce in a year enough rubbish to cover 300 acres a yard deep. I

Compressing rubbish and covering it with earth was the least objectionable method of disposal, but eventually every city would run out of land for this purpose. High temperature incinerators could convert solid wastes into heat, gas and ash or slag, but there were few really successful incinerators in the world, but a large number of unsatisfactory ones which added greatly to air pollution. Some wastes, such as paper, or tin cans, while unsightly and undesirable, were not as bad, because they would eventually decay and disappear, said Mr Martin. Other articles made from aluminium , and synthetic plastics were much more objectionable because they lasted for ever.

It was interesting to note that New Zealand, which was chronically short of overseas funds, spent about s2lm a year to import plastic raw materials, much of which was used to make everlasting products which could be thrown away. GLASS RUBBISH

Glass rubbish was in a special category, said Mr Martin. It was everlasting, unsightly and dangerous, yet non-returnable bottles had arrived, in New Zealand practically without public protest. Mr Martin said the twin themes of his address were people and the machinery of material prosperity as degraders of the environment, and that those in New Zealand had the choice of their own future. “PEOPLE EPIDEMIC”

“Do we want to join the people epidemic? If we want more people and also to retain the quality of life, we must spend an ever-increas-ing amount of our real income on protection of the environment.

“Do we really want 10m people in New Zealand? If not, then how many do we want?” asked Mr Martin.