Columns

In the ongoing clash over President Trump’s reluctance to extend security assurances to Ukraine to protect the country against an aggressor like Russia, one “minor” detail has received little, if any, attention.

In the ongoing clash over President Trump’s reluctance to extend security assurances to Ukraine to protect the country against an aggressor like Russia, one “minor” detail has received little, if any, attention.

Such assurances already exist -- at least on paper -- but have escaped public examination and analysis. Even Ukraine has only referred to them obliquely in its ongoing confrontation with the U.S. president.

So, let’s visit a little history on this subject.

In 1991, when the U.S.S.R. collapsed and Ukraine won its independence, the Soviets left thousands of nuclear weapons entrenched on Ukrainian soil. Those weapons made Ukraine the third most powerful nuclear nation in the world.

Ukraine inherited 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodels ICBMs with 10 warheads each as well as 33 heavy bombers. The total? About 1,900 nuclear warheads.

With Western powers seeking to avoid nuclear proliferation, Ukraine was urged to return the weapons to Russia which would disassemble them.

After extended negotiations, Ukraine signed the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine (known as the Budapest Memorandum). Ukraine agreed not to accept, acquire, or produce nuclear weapons and its government declared that Ukraine would be a non-nuclear-weapon state.

Along with Ukraine, the Budapest Memorandum was signed December 5, 1994 in Budapest, Hungary by the, U.S., the United Kingdom and Russia. France and China signed a separate document but the assurances given Ukraine were basically the same. The pact also covered Belarus and Kazakhstan.

The agreement promised none of these nations would use force against Ukraine and respect its sovereignty. However, if the agreement were violated, the signatories would seek immediate action by the United Nations Security Council.

Ukraine believed that it would not be left alone should its independence be threatened by outside forces and, by 1996, Ukraine had returned all the nuclear weapons to Russia and became a party to the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.

We now, of course, know what has happened. In 2014, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, calling the agreement null and void, invaded and annexed Crimea. In response, the U.S., U.K. and France provided Ukraine with military and financial assistance and imposed economic sanction on Russia, but ruled out a “direct confrontation with Russia.”

Sadly, in the present war, the U.S. seems to have forgotten entirely about the memorandum. It would not be unfair to speculate that President Trump does not even know about it. He isn’t exactly a student of history -- nor one to keep promises and commitments.

President Trump has charged that Ukraine started the war, called Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator,” has paused $1 billion in military arms assistance for Ukraine, voted against a U.N. resolution condemning Russia as the aggressor in the war, temporarily stopped some intelligence sharing, and is “blackmailing” Zelensky by demanding rights to Ukraine’s valuable minerals.

Surely, many Ukrainians probably now regret having surrendered the nuclear weapons.

In December 2024 at a NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha held up the Budapest Memorandum and stated, “This document failed to secure Ukrainian and trans-Atlantic security and we must avoid repeating such mistakes.”

Noteworthy: President Clinton, who pressured Ukraine to sign the agreement, expressed regrets for his decision in an interview in April 2023.

“I feel a personal stake because I got them (Ukraine) to agree to give up their nuclear weapons. And none of them believe that Russia would have pulled this stunt if Ukraine still had their weapons,” Clinton said.  

He continued: “Kyiv was afraid to give them up because of a belief that a nuclear stockpile was the only thing to offer protection from an expansionist Russia.

"When it became convenient to him, President Putin broke it and first took Crimea and I feel terrible about it because Ukraine is a very important country."

Now, there is no way of knowing what would have happened had Ukraine kept possession of the nuclear arsenal.

While Ukraine may not have used the nukes in the present war, the weapons might have served as a deterrent; Russia may not have wanted to risk a nuclear exchange with Ukraine.  Also, Ukraine may have been able to use some of the weapons in conventional, non-nuclear operations.

There are many “what ifs” in this story, none of which can be answered with any certainty.

But one result is unquestionable: Democracies around the world know that it is risky to trust that the U.S. will keep its commitments.


—————
Berl Falbum is a longtime political journalist and author of several books.

In 1947, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, a Chicago-based nonprofit organization, created the Doomsday Clock to symbolize how close they believed the Earth was to human extinction.

At the time, the clock was set at 11:53 p.m., seven minutes to midnight.

Through the years, the scientists shortened the time period and in January 2025, they set the clock at 89 seconds -- 89 seconds, a second less than in January 2023 and January 2024, the closest they believe the world has been to “global catastrophe.”

In making their judgment the scientists consider a variety of factors: nuclear war threats, global warming, water and food shortages, biological dangers, and disruptive technologies like artificial intelligence.

But, as I have written in these articles, scientists throughout the world believe we face human extinction from the climate crisis alone.

And, sadly, there are no signs that we will leave the path to “final destruction.” Why? Because we face huge political and economic hurdles that cannot be overcome. The failure “to do anything” at the 29 annual international summit conferences we mentioned in one article prove the point.

The “solutions” on the table presently do little, if anything, to solve the crisis.

Electric cars: The vehicles use lithium-ion batteries that require cobalt and nickel, leading to mining and the destruction of some of the most pristine areas in the world.

Recycling: Not everything can be recycled, particularly almost all plastics. Many recycling operations use poisonous chemicals and some emit dangerous fumes. Finally, recycling, even if successful, may slow some contamination; it does not eliminate it.

Solar energy: The panels use hazardous materials and large projects need huge swaths of land, and disposal of the panels create enormous problems.

Wind: The turbines invade bird habitats, and create noise pollution and tremor issues on land and, if located on water, in the seas. Also, large projects require significant acreage.

Then there are suggestions on what all of us can do to save the planet, like not opening refrigerators too often, or using an old T-shirt instead of a sponge to clean a counter, or walk, bike, or take public transit.

Yup, we are on the brink of disaster and we are advised that using a T-shirt to clean a counter can help. The other recommendations fall into the same category.

So, what to do? One word defines what needs to be done: We need to sacrifice. And I mean really sacrifice.

As I stated in the introduction, I am a layperson, not an environmental scientist, but here are examples of what I believe we should do. If you believe any of them have even a remote chance of being adopted, contact me.

--Population growth. We need not only to control population but we need to reduce it, perhaps as much as 50 percent. It’s pure logic that if the population continues to grow, we will need more food, water, energy and land on which to expand. Growth will prove deadly. The Earth’s resources are, ultimately, finite.

--We must create a worldwide economy that does not depend on growth. Unless we create a financial system that makes saving the environment profitable, there is little reason to hope that the world will respond effectively. We live by the god of profits. We are ruled by the dollar, ruble, shekel, peso, euro, kopeck, dinar, franc. I would be more hopeful if the international conglomerates and corporations began offering stock in environmental protection programs.

--We need to consider the crisis not in term of decades, but in hundreds and thousands of years. Presently, we propose solutions with target dates of 2030, 2050, etc. What about 500 years from now, or 1,000 years (only 35 to 40 generations). I hear the response already: Who cares? Well, we are talking about saving humanity and hundreds of years is just a blink of an eye in the history of humanity on the planet.

--Drive cars that get 200 to 300 miles a gallon or more and have maximum speeds of, let’s say, 50 miles an hour. That would help. In 1973, after OPEC initiated an oil embargo, the auto industry built smaller cars. But, given that manufacturers considered profit margins unsatisfactory, they sold the public on SUVs.

--Reduce the number of flights daily from 100,000 in half or more.  Remember, aviation emits one billion tons of CO2 every year. And opening your refrigerator less frequently will not help.

--Stop ravaging rain forests which are essential to our survival because they absorb CO2.  Every hour forests the size of three footballs fields are cut down.  Studies project that by 2030, only 10 percent of the world’s forests will remain standing.  

--We must reduce cattle farming because cattle release methane gases which are more deadline than CO2.

--Starkly reduce both commercial and residential construction.

 --We must cut back, drastically, on logging, mining, fishing, farming, the use of pesticides, etc.  

Then there is plastic. We need -- must -- must, cut back or even eliminate its use. Indeed, it is probably impossible to repair the damage plastics have already done.

I cite these few examples only as illustrations of the kind of commitment that is needed to assure a habitable planet. But regrettably that will never happen because no community in the world will ever adopt projects that eliminate jobs, or temper the insatiable appetite for profit. The politics and economics are insurmountable.

Twenty-seven countries have levied “carbon taxes” on manufacturers emitting CO2 hoping the financial burden will reduce contamination. Of course, that does not solve the problem; many just pay the tax.

Former vice president, Al Gore, for all his fine work with his book and movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” in discussing possible solutions, does not mention one that requires sacrifice -- from halting population growth to curbing air traffic. (In 2007, he shared the Nobel Prize for his work on the environment with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.)

The optimists and climate deniers tell us not to worry. The Earth is very resilient.  True.  But to give the Earth a chance to recover we must stop the assault. We are using resources faster than they can be replenished.

To conclude: I finished this series on a beautiful day. I went outside, scanned a blue cloudless sky and then realized that we are polluting space as well. Yes, space.

In what is called the low Earth orbit (LEO), there are 6,000 tons (12 million pounds) of “junk” -- paint from spacecrafts, rocket parts, “dead” satellites -- flying around the planet at 18,000 miles per hour.

I went to NASA’s website to see what it says about this, expecting it to be defensive since it is the country’s space agency. But it wasn’t.” It called the LEO the “world’s largest garbage dump,” posing threats to manned and unmanned flights.

“The space around the planet is filled with rubbish,” because, NASA adds, it is too expensive to clean up the mess -- just like on Earth.

“It’s time to take out the trash!” NASA says.  

Yes, but where do we put it?

So, the Doomsday Clock will steadily continue its countdown on when the Earth will become inhabitable. But it’s not the symbolic one we have to worry about.

—————

This is the fifth and concluding column in a series of articles on the environment.

Bhashit (Sheek) Shah and Marisa K McConnell
Varnum

There has been significant buzz around the progression of legislation aimed at restricting minors’ use of social media. This trend has been ongoing for years but continues to face resistance. This is largely due to strong arguments that all-out bans on social media use not only infringe on a minor’s First Amendment rights but, in many cases, also create an environment that allows for the violation of that minor’s privacy.

Although companies subject to these laws must be wary of the potential ramifications and challenges if such legislation is enacted, these concerns should be integrated into product development rather than driving business decisions.

Design-Code Laws

A parallel trend emerging in children’s privacy is an influx in legislation aimed at mandating companies to proactively consider the best interest of minors as they design their websites (Design-Code Laws). These Design-Code Laws would require companies to implement and maintain controls to minimize harms that minors could face using their offerings.

At the federal level, although not exclusively a Design-Code Law, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) included similar elements, and like those proposed bills, placed the responsibility on covered platforms to protect children from potential harms arising from their offerings. Specifically, KOSA introduced the concept of “duty of care,” wherein covered platforms would be required to act in the best interests of minors under 18 and protect them from online harms. Additionally, KOSA would require covered platforms to adhere to multiple design requirements, including enabling default safeguard settings for minors and providing parents with tools to manage and monitor their children’s online activity. Although the bill has seemed to slow as supporters try to account for prospective challenges in each subsequent draft of the law, the bill remains active and has received renewed support from members of the current administration.

At the state level, there is more activity around Design-Code Laws, with both California and Maryland enacting legislation. California’s law, which was enacted in 2022, has yet to go into effect and continues to face opposition largely centered around the law’s alleged violation of the First Amendment. Similarly, Maryland’s 2024 law is currently being challenged. Nonetheless, seven other states (Illinois, Nebraska, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, South Carolina and Vermont) have introduced similar Design-Code Laws, each taking into consideration challenges that other states have faced and attempting to further tailor the language to withstand those challenges while still addressing the core issue of protecting minors online.

Why Does This Matter?

While opposition to laws banning social media use for minors has demonstrated success in the bright line rule restricting social media use, Design-Code Laws not only have stronger support, but they will also likely continue to evolve to withstand challenges over time. Although it’s unclear exactly where the Design-Code Laws will end up (which states will enact them, which will withstand challenges and what the core elements of the laws that withstand challenges will be), the following trends are clear:

There is a desire to regulate how companies collect data from or target their offerings to minors in order to protect this audience. The scope of the Design-Code Laws often does not stop at social media companies, rather, the law is intended to regulate those companies that provide an online offering that is likely to be accessed by children under the age of 18. Given the nature and accessibility of the web, many more companies will be within the scope of this law than the hotly contested laws banning social media use.
These laws bring the issue of conducting data privacy impact assessments (DPIAs) to the forefront. Already mandated by various state and international data protection laws, DPIA requirements compel companies to establish processes to proactively identify, assess and mitigate risks associated with processing personal information. Companies dealing with minor data in these jurisdictions will need to:

- Create a DPIA process if they do not have one

- Build in additional time in their product development cycle to conduct a DPIA and address the findings.

- Consider how to treat product roll-out in jurisdictions that do not have the same stringent requirements as those that have implemented Design-Code Laws.

As attention to children’s privacy continues to escalate, particularly on the state level, companies must continue to be vigilant and proactive in how they address these concerns. Although the enactment of these laws may seem far off with continued challenges, the emerging trends are clear. Proactively creating processes will mitigate the effects these laws may have on existing offerings and will also allow a company to slowly build out processes that are both effective and minimize the burden on the business.

—————

Varnum partner Bhashit (Sheek) Shah advises clients on data privacy best practices and regulatory compliance. With experience in global privacy frameworks and laws including GDPR, CCPA and COPPA, he helps businesses build and implement compliance programs and manage data breaches. Associate Marisa K. McConnell focuses on litigation and data privacy, with a focus on children’s privacy issues, regulatory and compliance challenges in the mobility sector, commercial business disputes and general litigation matters.

What if there were a non-divisive public policy change that would save the country billions and benefit the average American worker?

What if there were a non-divisive public policy change that would save the country billions and benefit the average American worker? Well, there is one, and it is ripe for action: The enactment of legislation that restricts how Social Security Disability Benefits may be used by private insurers to “offset” their own financial obligations.

When most of us think of Social Security, we think of retirement benefits. The Social Security Act is a Depression-era law whose original purpose was to protect widows and children when the family’s provider died.

Over time, Social Security’s scope of coverage expanded. It became a primary retirement plan while continuing to provide death benefits to minor children. It also expanded to protect workers who became permanently disabled with the creation of the Disability Insurance Benefits program, known as SSDI. It is this SSDI coverage that has been exploited by the disability insurance industry.

Here’s how:

The typical employee with disability insurance is often covered through their employer’s group long-term disability plan, often an ERISA-qualified plan. If this employee becomes seriously ill or is hurt, they can file a claim with the employer’s disability insurer. When a claim is filed, the insurer sends the employee a packet of forms that includes a contract requiring them to file a claim with Social Security and simultaneously claim disability benefits from the federal government.
The insurer will condition the payment of benefits on the claimant’s filing an application with Social Security and pursuing all avenues of appeal. Some insurers will even provide the disabled employee with legal representation to pursue a Social Security claim. This is done right when the claim is filed.

The problem is that, in most cases, Social Security’s legal standard of disability is much stricter than what a private disability contract requires. A private disability contract may pay a benefit if an employee cannot do their own job. Social Security requires proof of an inability to perform any job in the national economy.

So, already, the private disability insurer is forcing an employee to file a claim for benefits paid by the federal government when that same employee has a private contract of insurance. And, worse still, the insurer is requiring the filing of an SSDIB claim when the employee may not yet be eligible.

The reason for this is that the private disability insurer receives a dollar for dollar offset (or credit) for any monies paid by Social Security.

To illustrate this point, take the case of a 40-year-old female with two minor children earning $75,000 per year. If the employer’s disability contract pays her a benefit equal to 60% of her salary, she would be entitled to a monthly payment of $3,750 per month or $45,000 per year.

If she were required to apply for SSDI, and her monthly Social Security benefit was $1,600 and $750 for each of her two children, the government would be paying her $3100. If she is awarded that amount from Social Security– voila – the insurance company’s responsibility drops to $650 per month.

During the period of “own occupation” benefits, typically two years, the insurer’s $90,000 obligation drops to $15,600, and the U.S. Taxpayer is now responsible for paying the claimant $74,400, even though, in our example, the employee had private insurance.

Given the original purpose of the Social Security Act, even with its subsequent amendments, it seems inappropriate to require the U.S. Taxpayer to pay for a benefit where a person has private insurance and may not even qualify for SSDI.

There are, of course, exceptions. In the case of a seriously injured or ill person or the victim of, for example, a stroke, an early claim seeking Social Security benefits is entirely appropriate. And Social Security claimants also received Medicare benefits. So, there are other considerations. But in those cases where an individual’s illness or injury has not yet risen to the level of a permanent disability, this practice seems to benefit no one but the insurance industry.

So, what can be done?

State insurance commissioners have been ineffective at combatting this practice, so the Social Security Act or the ERISA statute could be amended and updated to curb these practices. Here are three suggested reform propositions that could be added:

1) A disability insurer could not require a disabled employee to file a claim for Social Security Disability benefits any earlier that the first 36 months of continuous disability unless the employee wishes to do so voluntarily.

2) A disability insurance company would not be permitted to take an offset for Social Security for any period where the insurer denied a claim for disability benefits; and

3) If a private disability claim in “approved” status is later terminated and then reinstated, no Social Security offset could be claimed for any period where the private contract benefits were not paid.

These are common sense reforms that would bring about real and meaningful change in the lives of the occupationally disabled worker. They would save the federal government billions in actual benefit and administrative costs. And, as a bonus, these changes would clean up questionable claims-handling practices within the disability insurance industry.

—————

John Joseph (J.J.) Conway is an employee benefits and ERISA attorney and litigator and founder of J.J. Conway Law in Royal Oak.

Population growth and global warming are two of the “biggies” we discussed in previous columns.

This column is the fourth in a series of articles on the environment.

Population growth and global warming are two of the “biggies” we discussed in previous columns.

But there are numerous other environmental challenges that threatened a habitable Earth. Each one foretells an ominous future.

These include: pollution of air, water, soil, noise, radiation, light and thermal; soil degradation; dying coral reefs, depletion of natural resources; waste disposal; ocean acidification and hundreds of “dead zones” in which fish can no longer breed because of pollution; plastic suffocation; overfishing, nuclear waste disposal and acid rain. And there are others -- many others.

Given the space limitations of newspaper columns, we cannot examine each one in depth although all deserve extensive analysis.

Thus, we will only cover a few with a paragraph or two. Most of the following comes from Earth.org, a leading environmental news website.

Biodiversity

The populations of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles and amphibians have experienced a decline of an average 68 percent between 1970 and 2016. More than 500 species of land animals are on the brink of extinction and are likely to be lost within 20 years.

Up to 1 million of the estimated 8 million plant and animal species on Earth are at risk of extinction — many of them within decades — according to scientists and researchers who produced a sweeping U.N. report.

Without human destruction of nature, this loss would have taken thousands of years.

Plastics

In 1950, the world produced about 2 million tons of plastic. By 2024, this annual production grew to 445 million tons, and it is expected to reach 540 million tons by 2050.  If you are having trouble grasping these figures you are not alone.  What’s more, 91 percent of all plastic that has ever been made has not been recycled. Plastic presents us with one of the most significant environmental dangers “of our lifetime,” says Earth.org.

We are being strangled by plastics on land and the seas. There are huge patches of plastics on oceans, some larger than twice the size of the state of Texas, and oceans bottoms are covered with microplastics which fish ingest.
A study in February found microplastics in 99 percent, or 180 out of 182 seafood samples, either from store bought fish or from fishing boats in Oregon.

In another study made public in early February, scientists reported that tiny microplastics are making their way into the human brain.

The new study, published in Nature, found that brain samples collected in 2024 contained significantly more microplastics than those taken eight years earlier. The amount of plastic in the brain has increased by about 50 percent -- the equivalent of an entire plastic spoon in weight.

Deforestation

Given the degree of deforestation every day, every hour, by the year 2030, the planet might only have 10 percent of its forests left. All forests could be gone in less than a century.

Most of the deforestation occurs in three countries: Brazil, The Democratic Republic of Congo and Indonesia. The Amazon, the world’s largest rain forest, is home to about three million species of plants and animals. Rain forests are also vital, as mentioned in a previous column, because they absorb CO2.

Air Pollution

Between 4.2 and 7 million people die from air pollution worldwide every year and 9 out of 10 people breathe air that contains high levels of pollutants. In Africa, 258,000 people died as a result of outdoor air pollution in 2017, up from 164,000 in 1990.

 More than half a million people in European countries died from heath issues directly linked to toxic pollutants exposure in 2021.

Melting Ice Caps/Sea Level Rise

The Artic is warming twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet. As a result, sea levels are rising more than twice as quickly as they did for most of the 20th century.

In 2019, Greenland lost a record amount of ice -- an average of a million tons per minute throughout the year. In the summer of 2020, 60 billion tons of ice were lost in Greenland. The Greenland ice sheet, the second largest ice sheet in the world, is cracking more rapidly than ever before, scientists reported in early February.

This melting is causing record sea level increases, threatening floods in coastal areas that are home to 340 to 480 million people. Five Solomon Islands have “disappeared” because of rising seas and another 20 are expected to sink around the world by the end of the century. Experts predict that by 2100 seas will rise enough to sink eight U.S. cities on the East Coast.

Agriculture/Clean Water

The global food system is responsible for up to one-third of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions with 30 percent caused by livestock and fisheries. Projections by experts warn that global food demand may increase by 70 percent by 2050.  

About 1.1 billion people worldwide lack access to water, and 2.7 billion find water scarce for at least once a month.

Fashion and Textile Waste

This is one category, I am confident, no one reading this series ever thought would be a threat to the planet.  Yet, it accounts for 10 percent of global carbon emissions. It produces more greenhouse gas emissions than aviation and shipping combined.  

The world generates an estimated 101 million tons of textiles waste every year, and that number is expected to increase to 147 million tons by 2030.

I have not even given any space to the following in this series: Dying coral reefs, nuclear waste disposal, overfishing, ocean acidification, soil degradation or garbage disposal (yes, garbage disposal is a horrendous problem).
Again, none of this tells the full story, and I almost feel like apologizing for reporting all this bad news.  But we need to understand the problem in order to solve it.

If you believe these problems or the others discussed in previous columns, can be fixed, then you don’t want to read my conclusion, the next and final column in this series on the environment.


—————

Berl Falbaum is a political author and journalist and the author of several books.

The Earth reached an historic milestone at year-end 2023 which should have been met with a woeful outcry but instead was greeted with a deafening silence.

The Earth reached an historic milestone at year-end 2023 which should have been met with a woeful outcry but instead was greeted with a deafening silence.

The world population of 7.9 billion slipped over the 8 billion mark. Worse, projections are that we will hit 9.1 billion by 2050, just 25 years away. This addition of another 1.1 billion people will require huge supplies of clean water, land, shelter, food, and energy, and it will further invade wildlife habitats.

Not only was this growth greeted with a yawn, but those who reported on the growth discussed it in entirely economic terms. Hardly a word was said about what it meant in terms of our environmental future.

Just one “minor” example: The New York Times in April 2023, reported that India will soon pass China in population, writing: “With size -- a population that now exceeds 1.4 billion -- comes geopolitical, economic and cultural power…And with growth comes the prospect of a ‘demographic dividend’.’’

The Times devoted three pages analyzing this development. There was not one word on what this meant to the environment.

Now, you don’t have to be a climate change expert, scientist or scholar to know that growth requires resources. We will now need more land for shelter, food, water, and energy -- resources which are already at a minimum. We are already using resources faster than the Earth can replenish them.

The dire warnings regarding population growth are not new; many experts in the past have tried to get the attention of the world on the threat that population growth poses to our existence.

For instance, the United Nations has estimated the planet will need twice as much food by 2050 than we are producing now. Its Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has reported we will need to increase world food production by 60 to 70 percent to feed 9 billion people.

In 2006, when former Vice President Al Gore released his award-winning book and movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which warned about the environmental challenges we face, the world population stood at 6.6 billion. We have witnessed an increase of 1.4 billion people or a 21.2 percent jump in just 19 years.

In 1968, Paul R. Ehrlich, and his wife, Anne Howland Ehrlich, two Stanford University researchers, warned in their book, “The Population Bomb,” that the Earth cannot sustain the growth it was experiencing.
The population at the time: a mere 3.5 billion.

In 2016, Edward Osborne Wilson, a biologist known as the Darwin of the 21st century who won two Pulitzer Prizes, warned in his book, “Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life,” that to survive, mankind needs to reserve half the Earth for wildlife. He also warned in his studies that the Earth has only the capacity to support 9 to 10 billion people.

In the early 1970s, a small group of scientists created a computer model called World3 which analyzed population growth.  Its findings were published in a book, “The Limits to Growth.” The conclusion?

“…humanity was despoiling nature so fast that civilizational collapse would occur sometime within the next one hundred years.”

To give these abstract forecasts some meaning let’s look at Kenya. In 1971, it had a population of 11 million which grew to 53.7 million by 2021. In 1971, the country had 160,000 elephants and 20,000 black rhinos. By 2021, those numbers dropped to 35,000 elephants and 1,000 black rhinos and only two white rhinos (both female.) The same scenario is playing out throughout the world.  (I chose Kenya as an example because I visited the country on a photo safari in 1996. It was an experience of a lifetime.)

Let’s focus on a place closer to home: Oakland County. Every time friends would point to a beautiful new subdivision, I would reply, “that’s pollution” because it took habitat from insects, bees, deer, coyotes, skunks, racoons, etc., all essential to the “circle of life.” Of course, the growth also created problems of water supply and pollution in the county’s many lakes.

When I was in my teens in the 1950s (yes, I’m old), much of where I now live, West Bloomfield, was farmland. I paid a farmer a couple of bucks to go horseback riding. It was a win-win for the farmer. He earned a few dollars and I exercised his horses. Now, when I sit in a traffic jam at Orchard Lake Road and Maple, I wish I was back in the saddle again.  

I doubt there is much land left on which to expand in my suburb. Space is, after all, finite.

The problem: by the time the world understands the meaning of the emergency flashes on the radar and tries to respond appropriately, it will probably be too late.  

The NATO Review, reported under the headline, “Population Growth, the Defining Challenge of the 21st Century:”

“Without taking action now, billions of people across the world will face thirst, hunger, slum conditions and conflict in response to droughts, food shortages, urban squalor, migration and ever depleting natural resources, while capacity tries to catch up with demand.”

The Population Center wrote:

“Slowing down, stopping and eventually reversing human population growth ---these are ethical imperatives that will help improve the chances for future generations establishing living scenarios with the planet. The most ethical gift we can give people and creatures of the last 21st century and early 22nd century is a chance.”

Regrettably, we are not living up to our moral and ethical obligation.

(Editor’s Note: This is the second in a series of five columns on the environment.)

—————

Berl Falbaum is a political author and journalist and the author of several books.