But as I was reading the candidate statements this year, I noticed something that left me wondering. Out of seventeen candidates, only four mentioned population stabilization. There could be any number of reasons why 13 of the 17 candidates did not even give passing reference to population. But I doubt that ignorance is one of the reasons. People of the caliber of these candidates unquestionably well understand the linkage between expanding population and environmental degradation. Why then did a large majority of the candidates ignore population? Does this truly represent their priorities?

In wondering why most candidates were silent about population, it wasn't long until I began wondering about the club membership as a whole. What priority do club members place on population stabilization? To use a phrase from the March/April Chesapeake, are we ready to participate in a two front war? Are we ready to work as hard for population stabilization as we are for thwarting environmentally abusive practices of industry, developers, and government?

It is more emotionally satisfying to thwart industrial malfeasance than it is to work for population stabilization. The 'enemy' is readily identified; the object to be protected, be it forest, river, or living creature, is often something which we know well and love, and when we are successful, the satisfaction is immediate. When we are successful, we know that we made a difference. In contrast, the return on our efforts to stabilize population is more distant in time, and it is more difficult to see the difference that we make.

Yet how will our grandchildren benefit if we win many battles, but ultimately lose what we are trying to protect to a tide of 9 billion or more people? One hundred years ago, John Muir worked to save local areas of immense beauty from those who would exploit them for personal riches. The Sierra Club is vigorously continuing the work begun by Muir, but a new, more difficult era is our lot.

Greed is no longer the primary human characteristic leading to environmental destruction. In his recent book, Earth Odyssey, Mark Hertsgaard illustrates with vivid clarity how the basic human desire to live with even moderate comfort is leading to massive environmental destruction in the developing countries. And we can no longer think locally. Air pollution in one country causes acid rain in another country a thousand miles away. Habitat destruction in tropical areas endangers birds that seasonally grace temperate regions. But perhaps most troubling of all, no country can protect itself from the climate change that may ensue from relentless dumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Today we in the U.S. are the leading producers of greenhouse gases. It is within our means to drastically cut these gases, but what about other countries? The Worldwatch Institute reports that the greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries are on a trajectory that will eclipse emissions from industrial countries by 2020. Many Maryland Chapter Sierrans have read Turning the Tide by Tom Horton and William Eichbaum. There is a quotation in Chapter 5 of this book which speaks eloquently to the linkage between population and environmental degradation. In 1977, the speaker chosen to summarize the first bi-state conference on the health of the Chesapeake Bay ended his talk with the following: "One theme has run like a thread through all the papers and discussions in this conference, as it does in all discussions of environmental management. It is an issue that is almost always evaded, and certainly never addressed seriously. Yet this is the root problem of the environment, the basic cause of all the other problems; the human population explosion. If we cannot cope with it, maybe everything else will be in vain."

Edwin Stennett
9416 Whetstone Drive
Gaithersburg, MD 20886
301-948-0168

Postscript