text 1. Population and Environmental Trends, 1880 to the Present By…

Question Answered step-by-step text 1. Population and Environmental Trends, 1880 to the Present By… text 1. Population and Environmental Trends,1880 to the PresentBy Bridgette Byrd O’ConnorOur changing climate is one of the most talked-about current events—for good reason. It’s a story we are in the middle of, that began withindustrialization, and ends when… well now that’s a good question. Population and Environmental Trends, 1880 to the PresentBridgette Byrd O’ConnorIntroductionIt can be hard to grasp the impacts of climate change. Data sets, complex vocabulary, and confusing politicalviews further complicate our understanding of this long-term, global concern. So how can we make sense of theoverwhelming amount of information that’s out there? One way is to look at how environmental changes since 1880have been intertwined with industrialization and enormous increases in the global population.The Industrial Revolution changed how we work, where we live, and how many of us there are. Innovations inmachinery that propelled industry and improved agriculture produced enough food for a population explosion.Labor underwent massive changes, as more people moved to cities for factory jobs. Human migration changedcommunities and created new cultural and economic networks of exchange. These new networks connected andfurther globalized the world.By 1880, industrialization had spread throughout the world. It benefitted some a lot more than others. Europeannations and the U.S. gained the most. These wealthy, industrialized nations extracted resources from Africa, Asia,and Latin America to fuel their own growth. By the end of the nineteenth century, this uneven system of exchangeaffected everyone on Earth one way or another.Population ExplosionWe know industrial acceleration and globalization caused population growth. In 1803 the global population reached1 billion for the first time. But that took thousands of years. Then, industrialization took off. And in just 150 years,from 1803 to 1950, the global population more than doubled to reach 2.5 billion. Then, by 1987, it had doubled againand we were at 5 billion!Manhattan, New York City, 1874. By George Schlegel,public domain.Manhattan, New York City, 2014. By Anthony Quintano,CC BY 2.0.To put that in perspective, it took almost seven centuries (900 C.E. to 1500 C.E) for the population to increasefrom a quarter billion to half a billion. But it took only two centuries for the world population to jump from onebillion to a staggering 7,600,000,000 today. And much of that growth can be linked to the effects ofindustrialization, namely food production.3Population and Environmental Trends, 1880 to the PresentBridgette Byrd O’ConnorTable 1: Total Population by Region (in millions, rounded)1Region 1820 1900 1950 2000North America 12 82 173 313Central and South America 24 66 169 526Africa 89 141 229 818Europe 219 421 549 727Asia 745 939 1400 3730Oceania 1 5 13 31World 1090 1654 2533 6145However, there were also periods when the population fell dramatically in a short period of time. These drops werecaused by disasters like the two world wars and global epidemics like the influenza outbreak of 1914. Industrial-ization played a part as well. Technological breakthroughs and mass production of weapons made war deadlier,and improved transportation helped deadly germs to spread faster and farther. However, innovations in medicine,transportation, and communication—all products of industrialization—let the population recover faster than it everhad in the past.Increased UrbanizationAfter 1800, the areas where population increased the most were cities. People were migrating to cities for worklong before industrialization. But the urban growth rate really increased after industrialization spread outside ofEurope beginning around 1800. For example, in 1800 no region in the world had more than 13 percent of theirpopulation living in cities. By 2000, these numbers skyrocketed, as the table below shows. In fact, in 2008, for thefirst time in human history, the percentage of people living in urban areas was more than those living in rural areas.And by 2017, there were 4.13 billion people living in cities versus 3.4 billion in rural areas. The urbanization trendisn’t showing any signs of slowing down.Table 2: City Life: Percentage of Urban Population by RegionRegion 1800 1900 1950 2000North America 6.6% 33% 56% 77.6%Central and South America 8.6% 24.3% 39.6% 72%Africa 3% 6% 16.5% 38.7%Europe (not including Russia) 12.5% 30% 48% 67.5%West and Central Asia 3.4% 13.6% 32.8% 61.6%South and East Asia 4.8% 11.6% 19.8% 46.8%Oceania 8% 35% 72% 82%World 7% 16% 29% 47%1 As of October 1, 2019, the world population according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau was 7.6 billion. A visit to census.gov/popclock will tell you the current estimate.4Population and Environmental Trends, 1880 to the PresentBridgette Byrd O’ConnorUrbanization may have been good for employment, but it was generally bad for your health. As more people livedin close proximity, disease and pollution increased accordingly. However, over time, innovations in medicine andsanitation took care of some of these problems.Advances in medicine also increased life expectancy. In the late nineteenth century, people only lived an average of30 years! By the early twenty-first century, the global average was up to 71 years. If a 41-year increase in just overa century sounds normal, compare that with the previous hundred years. Life expectancy went from 29 years in1770 to the ripe old age of 30 for folks in 1870. However, these numbers did vary around the world. Increases in lifeexpectancy have been more pronounced in areas that industrialized first. Developing economies, such as those inAfrica and Southeast Asia, have seen more modest climbs.Environmental ChangesAnalyzing rising population and life expectancy may make it seem as though everything got better over this periodof time. Unfortunately, that’s not entirely the case. Yes, we have seen tremendous improvements in life expectancyand technological innovations, but industrialization has its downfalls. The industrial world depends on fossil fuels,and burning them has hurt the environment.For 400,000 years, the carbon dioxide level never exceeded 300 parts per million (ppm). Even in the first twocenturies of industrialization, CO2 levels stayed below this threshold. Then as a result of increasing industrializationafter World War II, CO2 levels exceeded 300 ppm for the first time in human history, and continued to rise. Currentlevels of CO2 are now at 415 ppm. So why does this matter and how does this relate to population growth?High levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cause global temperatures to rise. We are already 1 degree Celsius abovewhat’s normal. The rise in CO2 and global temperatures cause ice at the poles to melt, making sea levels rise.Human communities living near coastal areas are endangered by rising sea levels, and so are animal habitats.Considering nearly half of the human population currently lives within 100 miles of a major body of water, theserising waters will be a major challenge of the future.But it is not just species on land that are threatened. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationreleased a report in 2019 detailing CO2 increases in Earth’s oceans.”The global ocean absorbed 34 billion metric tons of carbon from the burning of fossil fuels from 1994 to2008—a fourfold increase of 2.6 billion metric tons per year when compared to the period starting…1800 to1994″ (NOAA).These increases make the oceans more acidic, endangering marine life. Shellfish, for example have more difficultyproducing their calcium carbonate protection (shell) because of the water’s increased acidity. Luckily, the oceansabsorb some of the CO2 that would otherwise lead to ever-increasing temperatures. However, an importantquestion is whether the oceans can sustain these increases in CO2 absorption.Carbon dioxide levels and other pollutants have been increasing since the early nineteenth century. Burningcoal to power factories, trains, and ships bathed whole cities in soot with noxious air—a grim image we oftenassociate with the early decades of industrialization. As new engines were developed that relied on oil and gas,more pollutants were then released into the atmosphere and waterways. And as the global population doubledtwice in the twentieth century, more resources, more production, and more fuel was needed. More people requiredelectricity, usually generated from the burning of coal. More people required transportation, which led to more oiland gas for cars, buses, trains, and planes. More, more, more. Population and Environmental Trends, 1880 to the PresentBridgette Byrd O’ConnorGlobal temperature increases historical from 1880 and projected to 2020. NASA, public domain.By the mid-twentieth century, people were feeling the effects of fossil fuel use. In 1948 and 1952, Donora,Pennsylvania and London, England had drastic episodes of toxic air pollution that caused more than 4,000 deaths. Inthe 1960s, scientists and governments began to call for environmental legislation to help alleviate some of the moredangerous side-effects of industrialization. Many of these actions helped reduce pollution. For example, volatile(dangerous) organic compounds that cause smog decreased by a factor of 50 in Los Angeles from 1960 to 2010,even though the number of gas-powered vehicles went up. However, we still have much more to do. Carbon dioxidelevels plateaued (stopped rising) in the early twenty-first century but are now rising again.Climate scientists around the world warn that if we do not act quickly to reduce emissions, both the Earth andhumanity may be doomed.So now what?Collectively, humanity must cooperate. If we lower CO2 levels and curb plastic use, we can, with effort andcollaboration, replace these fuels with renewable energy resources like solar, wind, and water power. But what canwe do as individuals to help our community and our planet? Population and Environmental Trends, 1880 to the PresentBridgette Byrd O’ConnorIn September of 2019, climate activists organized a worldwide “climate strike” to demand worldleaders address climate change with more urgency. By Ckohtala, CC BY-SA 2.0.Jane Goodall, a noted primatologist and environmental activist, was recently asked what we can do today to helptomorrow. She said, “Everyday you live you make some impact. So start thinking about the consequences of thelittle choices you make. What do you buy? Where did it come from? Did it harm the environment?” If the majority ofEarth’s 7.6 billion population took the time to think about these choices on a daily basis then collectively, we coulddramatically change the way we interact with the environment.text 2.  IntroductionAfter the destruction of the Second World War and the hardships caused by the Great Depression (1929-1939),many nations of the world faced challenges. Leaders looked for solutions to global conflict, poverty, injustice andinstability. Intergovernmental groups like the League of Nations (1920-1946) had tried and failed to promote peaceand economic security. So, world leaders came together to think of a new approach.Their ideas led to the creation of several new institutions. An institution is an organized social structure that tendsto be complex and long-lasting. Institutions affect how communities are organized by influencing behavior, customs,and laws. In this case, leaders wanted to create institutions that would help communities or networks of people.These institutions would work toward particular social, political, or economic goals.The new institutions formed at the end of the Second World War were political, economic, and even non-governmental. But as you’ll see, the distinction between these isn’t always very neat. As we discuss these worldinstitutions, we’ll consider how effective they were at influencing people’s lives. How did the world change as aresult of these new institutions?A world government? The development of political institutionsThe League of Nations, formed in 1918, had beenintended to prevent another world war. But in 1943, atthe height of World War II, it had obviously failed. Globalleaders knew they needed a new institution that couldcarry out similar goals but in a different way. So in 1945they formed the United Nations (UN).Headquartered in New York, the United Nations wasdesigned to provide what the League of Nations hadnot: collective security. This basically means that allmembers (meaning nations, not individuals) have aduty to come together as an international communityand resist aggression. Ideally, this means preventingaggression in the first place. But the United Nationsdoes have some tools for dealing with aggression andconflict if they occur. One of these tools is the UnitedNation’s judicial arm, which deals with legal issues.This judicial arm is called the International Court ofJustice (ICJ) headquartered in the Hague, a city in theNetherlands. The Court’s role is to resolve disputesbetween member states1and to advise the UnitedNations’ various agencies.The United Nations has also created measures for protecting global health and human rights. Perhaps the bestexample of this is the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It is a set of standards for human rights,the treatment of women and children, and labor. Another example was the UN’s creation, in 1984, of a specialagency called the World Health Organization (WHO). This agency’s goal is to ensure public health globally.1 A state is any region with its own government, while a nation has that and a population who unified in many ways, i.e. culturally, socially,economically, ancestrally, etc.Emblem of the United Nations. By Spiff~enwiki, public domain.3International InstitutionsEman M. ElshaikhThe UN in 1945: founding members in light blue, protectorates and territories of the founding members in dark blue. Public domain.So, the UN clearly serves many different functions, all aimed at a better, healthier, fairer, and more peacefulworld. This has led some to describe the UN as a “world government” that controls an international community.But it functions quite differently from a government. The United Nations is not like a sovereign nation that canpunish its citizens. Instead, it must influence its member states through treaties, monitoring, special procedures,and commissions.These are definitely impressive aims, but has the UnitedNations met these goals? The language of rights that itsponsored has certainly been influential, shifting howpeople think about individuals, citizens, and states.Though the United Nations isn’t always able to enforcehumanitarian standards, these standards seem to haveaffected people’s beliefs and behaviors.Has the United Nations eliminated conflict and humanrights abuses? Absolutely not. Over half a century afterthe United Nations was formed, there are still manyviolent conflicts and human rights abuses. But we haveto look at the evidence and think about the scale of theconflicts. Does the evidence show an overall reductionof violence? Have human rights abuses increasedor decreased over the decades? And for whom havethese measures been most effective? To answer thesequestions, we can consider evidence like human rights reports, changes in population, and mortality rates. We knowthe shifts are occurring, but it’s a lot trickier to figure out what’s causing them.The World Health Organization flag. By WHO, public domain.4International InstitutionsEman M. ElshaikhEleanor Roosevelt with the Spanish language version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.By Franklin D Roosevelt Library, public domain.Globalizing trade: the economic institutionsThe simple fact that the United Nation was formed shows that countries were really concerned about reducingviolent conflict after the end of World War II. But the violence of war wasn’t the only concern. Many leaders werealso worried about economic instability and poverty. After the Great Depression, most world economies were stillstruggling. Even before the war ended in 1944, some leaders met in the United States to address this problem. Theirgoal was to think of policies for regulating the global economy. They wanted to prevent the ups and downs of theinterwar period and ensure stable currencies.Out of these discussions, two crucial institutions were formed. The first was the International Monetary Fund (IMF).The second was the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which later became the World Bank.The original goals of these institutions were to help control the destructive ups and downs of global markets. Theywere created to ensure that the world economy was growing in a balanced way.The original goals of the IMF and the World Bank were protecting employment and standards of living. They alsowanted to make sure trade was balanced and not dominated by specific countries. Both institutions therefore investedin helping member countries develop their resources and productive powers. The IMF’s written mission reflected this,with its emphasis on international cooperation, balanced growth of international trade, and stability. Its initial goalswere largely focused on regulation. The World Bank had a slightly different focus: reconstruction and development.Working together, the idea was that they would help member states share risk, resources, and information. Thiswas meant to be non-political. Each state’s voting power was aligned to its economic contribution. This non-political style was important, because member states wanted to avoid the nationalist policies that had made theGreat Depression so devastating. Instead, these institutions worked by creating more cooperation. The IMF, forexample, gave loans to developing countries to cover trade deficits (shortages). The World Bank made massiveinvestments in the form of debt relief and reconstruction projects, particularly in Europe.5International InstitutionsEman M. ElshaikhThose were the original goals of these two organizations. But over time, this changed. The goal became opening upmarkets around the world, which is called economic liberalization. The idea is that markets would be less regulated,allowing networks of exchange to operate more freely. The international institution that most pushed for economicliberalization is the World Trade Organization (WTO), which was founded in 1995.How did these institutions change the world? Over several decades, the global markets did in fact becomeincreasingly connected into broad networks. This allowed money and investment to move a lot more easily. Theseinstitutions also played crucial roles in managing financial crises and economic transitions. For example, theyencouraged centrally-planned economies from the former Soviet Union to move toward open markets.Non-Governmental InstitutionsAnother type of institution that attempts to make change at the global level are international non-governmentalorganizations (INGOs). From as early as the nineteenth century, organizations like the International Committee ofthe Red Cross and Oxfam International have worked to tackle global health problems and poverty. More recently,human rights advocacy organizations, like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have had a majoreffect on how people understand their role in the world. These organizations have allowed many more people seethemselves as global citizens participating in an international community. Environmental activist organizations likeGreenpeace have had a similar effect. That’s because these groups have increasingly used media campaigns toraise awareness. These campaigns promote a feeling of global responsibility.This belief in the importance of common action highlights the ways these institutions shape people’s communities.When you think about it, this is a powerful—and effective—belief. INGOs2like Amnesty International have beeneffective by building upon the United Nations’ human rights efforts. They’ve called attention to abuses and pushedfor violent acts like rape to be defined as war crimes. They also helped mobilize world opinion against things like nuclear testing and the racist system of Apartheid in South Africa.How did they accomplish this? By changing world opinion. And that’s no small thing. It creates a powerful feeling of connectedness and shared responsibility. It’s so powerful that American President Dwight Eisenhower once said,when asked to continue nuclear testing, “the new thermo-nuclear weapons are tremendously powerful; however,they are not… as powerful as is world opinion today in obliging the United States to follow certain lines of policy.”Some conclusionsThe world is now connected in unprecedented ways because of international political and economic institutions and global NGOs. They’ve created broader, more fluid networks. And they’ve also created greater, more encompassing senses of community.But these connections have not always been even. The effects have been partial, inconsistent, short-lived, or even negative in some cases. They haven’t always managed to prevent crises. Many people get left behind. Also, in pushing economic liberalization, these institutions have resulted in fewer social protections. In many cases, in order to receive debt relief, loans, or other investment, countries have been forced to reduce social protections like healthcare. Collectively, these changes have created more uniformity on a global scale—for better or for worse.Summarize the effects of globalization History World History HIST 24100 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)