In assessing America's energy future, it's impossible to ignore the role that projected population growth and population distribution will play. U.S. population, currently 306 million, is projected to rise to 373 million by 2030 and to 438 million by 2050, with much of that growth expected to occur in the West and the South.

Currently, the United States is the world's leading consumer of oil at 20.6 million barrels per day and the second highest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions. Given U.S. population projections and consumption patterns, how realistic is it to talk of eliminating America's dependence on foreign oil in the next few decades or reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050?  That was the topic of a Capitol Hill roundtable that the Pension Rights Center hosted on January 13, 2009, and the answers were sobering, if not alarming, particularly with respect to efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Jeff Stewart, the Program Leader for the Western Region Energy Analysis Consortium at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, gave a PowerPoint presentation that showed U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, given current population and consumption patterns, are expected to increase by 25%  to 8 Gt (gigatons) per year by 2030, and by 2050, population growth drives projected carbon dioxide emissions to an estimated 9.19 Gt per year.  Stewart's analysis indicated that to reduce our carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050, as many have suggested, would require revolutionary changes to each energy producing  and end use sector. In one scenario he illustrated the magnitude of changes that would need to take place, doubling auto efficiency and mpg, vastly improved power plant efficiency, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at all coal-fired plants, tripling the number of nuclear power plants to 300, capturing the equivalent of the entire wind energy potential of North Dakota, and a massive conversion of automobiles to hydrogen fuel. 

On the question of U.S energy dependence, Paul Holtberg, representing the Energy Information Agency, unveiled the government's latest revised energy projections for 2030.  According to EIA's latest forecast, even with a very substantial increase in biofuels, the U.S. will remain heavily dependent on foreign oil by 2030, with foreign oil still providing 41 percent of our total liquid fuel consumption.

Robert Hirsch, a "peak oil" expert with MISI, painted an even more alarming picture of America's energy future, suggesting that global oil production has peaked, or will soon peak at about 87 million barrels per day and will begin, in a few years, a gradual decline of up five percent a year. If Hirsch's peak oil analysis is even close to being accurate, it suggests that America's energy future is substantially bleaker than the government estimates provided by EIA and it increases the challenge faced by lawmakers as they attempt to meet the energy needs of an expanding U.S. population.

Another presenter, Robert Gramlich of the American Wind Energy Association, suggested that wind could make a major contribution to meeting future U.S. energy needs, but realizing the potential of wind energy will require more than windmills. Much of the wind power that will be generated in the decades ahead will occur in rural parts of the West, far from the fast growing urban centers in places like California, Arizona, and Florida.   To make use of wind power, America will have to make a major investment in new transmission lines to get the power to where it needs to go. 

Nate Gorence, of the National Commission on Energy Policy, gave the audience an overview of the energy legislation likely to be debated in the new Congress, everything from new fuel economy standards, to energy tax subsidies, to investments in "green energy" technology.  If Members of Congress do nothing else in this Congress but debate and act on energy-related legislation, it looks like it could be a very full legislative calendar.  That makes it all the more imperative that Members of Congress look down the barrel of America's energy future before proceeding any further.  It's not an encouraging picture.

[For each of the presenters at our January 13, 2009 energy roundtable, PowerPoint presentations are available].

The swearing-in yesterday of President Obama signals, no doubt, a major shift in U.S. policy on international family planning.  It's widely believed that the President will act swiftly to repeal the Mexico City "gag rule" that was re-imposed by President George W. Bush eight years ago.  Less certain is what the Administration will do with respect to funding for U.S. international family planning assistance. 

As a Senator last year, Obama supported efforts to boost funding to $1 billion in FY 2009, up sharply from the $450 million appropriated in FY 2008.   Based upon his prior support for international family planning assistance, it's been widely anticipated that the new Administration would support a major boost in funding in the FY2010 budget.  But with a ballooning federal deficit and an urgent need for economic stimuli, it's possible that family planning could be accorded a lower than expected priority.

Last week, however, five former directors of the Population and Reproductive Health Program of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) issued a strong appeal for increased U.S. support for international family planning.  Noting that U.S. support for family planning has diminished, in real dollar terms, since 1995, they released a report ("Making the Case for U.S. International Family Planning Assistance") that argued that it is time to "reverse the decline."

After noting that USAID over the past four decades has been a "leader in efforts to both improve maternal and child health around the world and reduce high population growth rates," the authors recommended a "FY 2010 appropriation of $1.205 billion for international family planning assistance, rising gradually to $1.5 billion by 2014."  The report also urged the Obama Administration to "reassert U.S. leadership in family planning" and work more closely with UNFPA and other international agencies.

Support from the five former directors of the Population and Reproductive Health Program (J. Joseph Speidel, (1978-83), Steven Sinding (1983-86), Duff Gillespie (1986-93), Elizabeth Maguire (1993-99), and Margaret Neuse (2000-06)) is expected to bolster Congressional support for international family planning assistance. The authors argued that USAID continues to have a "technically strong core of professionals" and the capacity to rapidly scale up its operations. 

Later this year, the Population Resource Center will be conducting a series of briefings for Congress on the status of U.S. support for international family planning assistance. The briefings will look at this report and others that have attempted to quantify the unmet demand in developing countries for modern methods of birth control. 

Tomorrow, PRC is hosting an exciting and informative Capitol Hill Roundtable on one of America's greatest challenges: energy. Come join us!

Between now and 2030, U.S. population is projected to rise by nearly 60 million, a jump of almost 20 percent.  While per capita energy consumption may be gradually declining, total U.S. energy consumption is continuing to rise. What does that mean for America's energy future?   Given the rising U.S. demand for energy, is it possible to eliminate, or even reduce, U.S. dependence on foreign oil?  Can the U.S. successfully reduce carbon emissions?   Can "green energy" fill the void?  Will fast-growing states in the South and the West be able to meet the rising demand for electricity from renewable sources?  These and other questions will be explored tomorrow by  a group of experts that will give us a wide range of perspectives on America's energy future.

2030:  Looking Down the Barrel of America's Energy Future 

Tuesday--January 13, 2009, 2168 Rayburn House Office Building (Gold Room) , 10:30am-12:15pm

Panelists:

Mr. Paul Holtberg, Representative of the Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy 

Dr. Robert Hirsch, Senior Energy Advisor, MISI   

Mr. Robert Gramlich, Policy Director, American Wind Energy Association

Mr. Nate Gorence, Policy Analyst, National Commission on Energy Policy

Mr. Jeffrey Stewart, Program Leader for the Western Region Energy Analysis Consortium, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

The next decennial census is now less than 16 months away and preparations are well underway, but questions still linger whether Congress is providing enough funding for the 2010 Census.  Obama's transition team reportedly has given the 2010 Census a high priority, but the New York Times editorial board and others have expressed concern about whether the incoming Obama Administration will move swiftly enough to appoint a Census Bureau director. 

Given the vital importance of the decennial census, in the next few weeks we will be taking a look at what's at stake. While there are many reasons while a full and accurate census is important to the country, reapportionment is the one that strikes closest to home for many Members of Congress.  The data collected by the 2010 Census will be used to adjust the number of House seats that each state is entitled to.  Last month, Election Data Services released a report indicating that population shifts last year could shift more seats between four states than what was reported by EDS in 2007.  EDS reported that:

The states of Michigan and New Jersey have lost or not gained as much population as earlier in the decade, and now have lost a congressional seat in the new study. The two seats shift to Missouri (to eliminate their loss reported last year) and Texas (which now would be adding three seats to their delegation). Overall, the new 2008 estimates show that eight congressional seats in 14 states have already changed at this point in the decade, if a new apportionment was made with the updated numbers. Five states-Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, and Utah-would each gain a seat and Texas would gain three seats if the U.S. House of Representatives were reapportioned with census population estimates for July 1, 2008, according to Election Data Services' analysis. Eight states would lose seats-Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Let's hope that Members of Congress from these states and others are paying attention:  The Census is coming.

This past week I attended a plenary session at the annual conference of the Southern California Grantmakers at which Kristen Lewis made a presentation about a new report that gives an eye-opening view of human development in the U.S. 

Published recently by the Columbia University Press, The Measure of America, reveals large disparities in health, education and living standards in the U.S.  Applying the same methodology that has been used in the international arena to evaluate the status of human development in developing countries, the researchers turned the microscope on the U.S all the way down to the congressional district level.

Since the United Nations Development Programme published the first Human Development Report in 1990, more than 500 national and regional reports have been made.  The UNDP reports have prodded governments in many developing nations to take steps to boost education and health programs in underperforming areas.  Now, with this first ever close up look at the state of human development in the U.S., maybe U.S. policymakers will be goaded into action. 

Using census and other U.S. government data from 2005, The Measure of America provides several measures of human development disaggregated by state and congressional district, as well as by gender, race, and ethnicity.  Every member of the U.S. House of Representatives will now be able to compare the level of human development in their district to the levels in every other Congressional district, and policymakers at all levels will have a better grasp of disparities by gender, race and ethnicity. Policymakers will also be able to see how the U.S. or their district stacks up against levels of development in other nations. Here are some of the key findings from the report and index:

• In Washington, D.C., the average life expectancy is 73.8 years; in Hawaii, it is 81.7 years, a difference of almost 8 years.
• Kentucky's Fifth Congressional District, encompassing the southeastern part of the state, is at the bottom of the rankings with an average life expectancy of 72.6 years. Virginia's Eighth District, covering urban northern Virginia, is at the top of the table with a life expectancy of 82.9-a difference of more than a decade. Residents of Kentucky's Fifth District have an average life expectancy equal to that of the average American three decades ago.
• Asian females live on average to 88.8 years; African American females live to 76.3-a difference of more than 12 years.
• Among males, Asians live, on average, to 83.6; African Americans to 69.4-a difference of 14 years.
• The U.S. infant mortality rate is on par with that of Croatia, Cuba, Estonia, and Poland. If the U.S. rate were equal to that of first-ranked Sweden, twenty-one thousand more American babies would have lived to celebrate their first birthday in 2005.
• The top 1 percent of households possesses a full third of America's wealth. Households in the top 10 percent of income distribution hold more than 71 percent of the wealth, while those in the lowest 60 percent possess just 4 percent of wealth.
• Fifteen percent of American children-10.7 million girls and boys-live in families with monthly incomes of less than $1,500 per month.
• White males, the highest earners, make more than $37,000 per year, on average; at the low end of the scale, Latino females earn little more than $16,000.
• California's Thirtieth Congressional District (from the Malibu coast east to Beverly Hills and West Hollywood) tops the list on the Education Index: 57 percent of adults over twenty-five have at least a bachelor's degree, and only 5 percent failed to graduate high school. In the lowest-scoring U.S. congressional district, Texas's Twenty-Ninth (predominantly eastern Houston city neighborhoods), only 6 percent of adults have earned a bache lor's degree, and 46 percent did not complete high school. In terms of high school completion rates, the Twenty-Ninth Congressional District in Texas is today roughly where the whole country was in 1970; in terms of bachelor's degree attainment, this district is behind the 1960 national average.
• High levels of educational attainment among Asians drives their number-one HD Index ranking by race/ethnicity. Half of all Asians have at least a col lege degree, compared to roughly 30 percent of whites, 17 percent of African Americans, 14 percent of Native Americans, and 12 percent of Latinos.
• By the end of fourth grade, African American and Latino children, and chil dren of all races who are living in poverty, are two years behind their more affluent, predominantly white peers in reading and math. They have fallen three years behind by eighth grade, and four years behind by twelfth grade.

While much of this information is available elsewhere, this report brings it all together in a form that should educate, and hopefully motivate, federal and state legislators.  Congratulations to Sarah Bud-Sharps, Kristen Lewis, and Eduardo Borges-Martin for giving us all a clearer picture of human development in America.

Americans are living longer, but will they be able to work longer?  That was an important question for policymakers before the precipitous drop in the stock market; it’s even more critical now. 

A new study (Are Older Men Healthy Enough to Work”) released this week by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College sheds new light on that question, at least as it applies to men. And the study concludes that it depends.  If you are white and college-educated, the prospects look good for a slightly longer working life; not so good for other demographic groups.

Using data indicating that life expectancy for a 50-year old man increased from 23.2 years to 27.5 years between 1970 and 2000, the authors calculated a “disability-free life expectancy” using data on disability from the National Health Interview Survey, which is conducted by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics.  Between 1970 and 2000, the disability-free life expectancy at age 50 increased by 2.7 years.  That’s good, but it’s less than the jump in life-expectancy (4.2 years) over that same period.

Then, taking into account the ratios of the mortality of each education-race group relative to the general population mortality, the researchers, led by Alicia H. Munnell, calculated a breakdown of the “disability-free life expectancy at age 50” according to education and race.

The results are rather startling.  While whites with a college degree showed a significant jump (19.2 years to 22.8 years) between 1970 and 2000, blacks did not fare as well.  For blacks with less than a high school degree, the “disability-free life expectancy” increased from 10.3 years to 11.4 years for the same period, while for blacks with a high school degree or more, it actually declined from 15.4 to 14.8 years.

The study found a similar disparity when adjusting only for education levels: men in the top quartile showed substantial improvement in “disability-free life expectancy at age 50,” with a jump from 17.8 to 22.8 years between 1970 and 2000, while for the lower quartile the number of year increased from 12.5 to 14.1 over that period.  The report notes:

Two important points emerge from this analysis. First, since relatively little improvement has occurred in disability-free life expectancy within individual race and educational groups, most of the overall improve¬ment has occurred because people have moved up the educational ladder. Second, enormous disparities exist in disability-free life expectancy between those in the bottom and the top quartiles of the population. Thus, people vary enormously in terms of their ability to continue working.

The report also cites various studies indicating that “improvements in the health of the older working-age population may not continue.”  While they acknowledge that a reduction in smoking may improve health outcomes, the authors express concern about the growing trend toward obesity. 

They warn that:  

These conclusions have implications for policy¬makers who may be seeking ways to encourage longer work lives, particularly in light of the current financial crisis. Physical limitations should not inhibit the bulk of older Americans from working at least until their mid-sixties. However, at least a quarter of the popu¬lation may find continued employment extremely difficult. And employment prospects are unlikely to improve given the plateauing of educational achieve-ment and the growing incidence of obesity.

This study will certainly not settle the question of whether men (and women) will be able to work longer and postpone retirement. That question is far too important to be settled by one study, but it raises some very important concerns about extending the retirement age for Social Security and private pensions.  It also raises equally serious questions about the continued disparities in life expectancy and health outcomes between blacks and whites and between educational attainment levels. 

More research and debate are needed.

One of the greatest challenges facing nations, like the United States, that are both rapidly growing and rapidly aging is keeping up with the demand for health care services.  This month's edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) contains a report issued earlier this summer that indicates that the U.S. could face a shortage of 44,000 primary care physicians by 2025.

The report noted that the number of adults in the U.S. will increase 21 percent by 2025, and the number older than 65 will rise by 73 percent.  The researchers calculated that adults over the age of 65 tend to visit their primary care physician about three times a year--twice the rate of those under age 65.  The researchers concluded that the number of visits to primary care doctors, as a result, will rise 29 percent by 2025.

On the supply side, the researchers project that the number of primary care physicians will decline five percent by 2025. Dr. Jack Colwill, a professor emeritus at the University of Missouri School of Medicine and the director of the study, noted that the number of generalists graduating from medical school declined by 22 percent over the past decade.  Another concern is that a growing number of primary care physicians are sharply reducing the number of patients they are seeing, a trend that could further exacerbate the doctor shortage.

This week's JAMA study is just the latest in a series of reports in recent years indicating that the U.S. is not keeping up with the growing demand for health care workers.  This week's edition of Newsweek has a story ("ER Overload")about the overcrowding of emergeny rooms that cites another JAMA study. Dr. Manya Newton, an emergency physician at the University of Michigan and the chief author of tbe JAMA study on the problem, was interviewed for the article.  She identified a shortage of primary care physicians as one of the causes of overcrowding in the ER.    

Earlier this year, the Institute of Medicine released a report ("Retooling for an Aging America: Building the Health Care Workforce") that raised alarm about a growing shortage of doctors and nurses certified in geriatrics. At present, there are only 7,100 geriatricians (physicians) in the United States - one per every 2,500 older Americans - and less than 1 percent of registered nurses are certified in geriatrics. 

While health care coverage for the uninsured has dominated the political debate this year, policymakers at the federal and state levels should also be looking at the future of America's healthcare workforce. The Association of American Medical Colleges, for example, has recommended that medical schools increase their enrollment by 30 percent, but are the policies in place to support that recommendation?  And what about the continuing shortage of nurses?  Also, an expansion of health care insurance coverage will help more people pay for doctor bills, but will they be able to find a doctor? These and other questions about our future health care workforce need to be answered...soon.

There's an important new blog on the block.  The Population Reference Bureau this week launched "Behind the Numbers," a blog that tell us what their researchers and scholars are thinking about...behind the numbers.  A welcomed addition to the debate about demographic trends and their implications, two blogs have already appeared this week. 

In his first blog posting "Four Steps to Fewer Poor People," PRB's President, Bill Butz, lays out--based upon his experience at PRB, RAND, the Census Bureau, and the National Science Foundation--what he would do reduce poverty in the world if had $1 billion to spend.  He divides his hypothetical $1 billion among efforts to: 1) improve education in poor countries, 2) increase the availability of effective and affordable contraceptives, 3) teach disadvantage U.S. children age 4-6 cognitive and non-cognitive skills; and 4) eliminate child nourishment in the world.  He asks, at the end what others would do with $1 billion to reduce poverty.  I urge you to read his column and respond to his question.

Charles Teller, a Bixby Visiting Scholar, asks the "Is Africa Being Eaten by the Malthusian Dragon?"  The answer he says "...depends on where, when and who!"  He notes that there are several trends at work in sub-Saharan Africa, including declining fertility and mortality rates in many countries.  He cautions, however, that despite some improvement in dietary intake, "persistent and chronic stunting" remains a serious problem.  He also notes that,  "African research on poverty, hunger, and the demographic transition has demonstrated a need to look beyond rapid population growth and large families as the overarching factors, and to incorporate other factors such as geographic and age distribution, land density and environment, migration and urbanization, family and marriage, as well as socio-economic, cultural, and gender disparities."

We will be adding "Behind the Numbers" to our blogroll.  You should as well. 

Congressional passage of a stop-gap, omnibus funding measure late last month has put preparations for the 2010 Census back on track for now, but as the Census Bureau gears up for the decennial census, challenges remain.

As part of a "continuing resolution" that will allow federal agencies to continue spending  at 2008 budget levels until March of next year, Congress approved an exception for the Census Bureau, boosting funding from $1.3 billion to $2.9 billion.  The increase will allow the Bureau to ramp up preparations for the 2010 Census. Without the boost in funding, the Census Bureau would have been forced to curtail plans to begin opening field offices in preparation for the decennial census.

But despite the funding boost, concern is growing that it will be difficult to obtain a full and accurate count in 2010.   The 2000 decennial census was widely regarded as a success, but participation could lag this time around. An Associated Press story ("2010 Census Faces Challenges in Responses") this past week quotes Steve Murdock, the director of the Census Bureau, as saying that in the wake of 9/11, "We have a lot of fear about government intrusion; we have a very contentious debate going on about immigration. It is a very different environment." 

Historically, minority groups are undercounted in the decennial census.  To ensure an accurate count, it's always been necessary to boost outreach to African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans, Native Americans, and other minority groups. That's particularly true this time.

Responding to this challenge, the Census Bureau is mounting an ambitious campaign.  In addition to plans for a major media blitz, the Census Bureau is working in partnership with more than 100,000 local government agencies and nonprofit organization to build public awareness.

The data collected by the 2010 Census will be used to allocate more than $300 billion a year in federal funds, and will also used for political reapportionment and redistricting. Recognizing the critical importance of a full and accurate count, the Population Resource Center is educating the foundation community about what it can do at the local level to boost awareness of, and support for, the 2010 Census. In partnership with foundations and regional associations of grantmakers, it is preparing to host more than a dozen field briefings in the next year.

While the Census Bureau provides free materials to local organizations working on the decennial census, no cash support is given.  In prior decennial censuses, many local and community foundations have stepped in to provide small grants to local "complete count committees" and organizations working on the census in their communities. With the continuing uncertainties surrounding the 2010 Census that foundation support is more critical than ever.

Any foundation desiring more information about how they can support the Census should contact our office at (202) 467-5030.  Or e-mail me at rwalker@prcdc.org

With nearly 200 million people in the world living outside their country of birth, international migration patterns are a matter of great interest to planners and policymakers around the world. 

Although the causes of international migration are varied and complex, persistent economic disparities between the areas of origin and destination have been at the root of most migration flows in the past half century.  Due to low fertility in many major industrialized countries and much higher fertility rates in many developing nations, international migration of workers is expected to increase, but by how much?  Oil rich countries in the Persian Gulf have been attracting large numbers of workers from South Asia and other countries in the Middle East, but will this trend persist?  Will India and China, despite their growing economies, continue to export workers?  We may be getting closer to some answers.

Four researchers, led by Joel Cohen at Rockefeller University and Marta Roig of the United Nation’s Population Division, have developed a statistical model for predicting international migration patterns.  The new model, published this week in the online early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, analyzed 43,653 reports from 11 counties of migration from 1960-2004.

Cohen, the chief author of the study, is quoted in news reports as saying, “From year to year, it has been difficult to calculate how the world's population ebbs and flows between countries other than guessing that this year will resemble last year. But that is critical information in so many ways, and this model offers a new and unified approach that, we hope, will be of global benefit.”

So how accurate is the new model?  Cohen says "Our model accounts for roughly 60 percent of the variation in annual numbers of migrants from any country or region to any other, based on historical data, and nothing has come close to this.”

Cohen emphasized in the article that, "This is only a first step, but it is a step that had not been made before. I hope this stimulates countries to come together and improve the standards by which they collect migration data. The data available to us are incomplete, inconsistent and in some cases contradictory. Better data in the future will help to improve models like this."

An abstract of the new study is available on-line on the NAS website.  A copy of the full study can be downloaded for a fee.   For more background on international migration, see our earlier (2003) executive summary.

With Congressional attention squarely focused on the Wall Street financial crisis, it would be easy for Congress to overlook the funding needs of the 2010 Census, but that would be a serious oversight.  Unless Congress acts promptly to provide the necessary funding, the 2010 Census could be in jeopardy.

In less than a week, the current fiscal year will end. Rather than risk an election-year battle with the Administration over FY2009 appropriation bills, Congress is expected to pass a single Continuing Resolution (CR) that would continue funding federal agencies at FY2008 levels until early next year.

While a CR may not pose a significant threat to most federal agencies, it could be a major setback for efforts to gear up for the 2010 Census.  The Administration earlier this year submitted a revised budget request of $3.2 Billion for the Census Bureau to enable it to ramp up preparations for the decennial census. 

Right now, the Census Bureau is in the process of printing and addressing 130 million census forms, and opening hundreds of Local Census Offices across the country.  By next spring, it needs to canvas every block and road in the country.  If the Census Bureau is forced to operate at FY2008 levels ($1.3 billion) for several months, it won’t be able to keep the constitutionally-mandated census on track. 

In writing the upcoming CR, Congressional appropriators could insert a provision (a budget “anomaly”)that would make an exception for the Census Bureau, allowing it to operate at the proposed FY2009 level until such time as Congress approves a permanent Commerce Department appropriations bill.  But with Congress and the country gripped by a major financial crisis, it might not happen.

That would be an enormous mistake.  Researchers, corporations and governments at all levels rely heavily upon census data.  Earlier this month, a large group of stakeholders, including the National Association of Counties and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, signed a letter to Congressional appropriators to approve a funding anamoly for the 2010 Census.

Earlier this week, I picked up a wire story about a government official vowing that the government would work for the “smooth implementation” of the 2010 Census.  The official said that while a decennial census is expensive, reliable census data was essential for “informed decision-making” and “policy formulation.”

The government official was Kwadwo Baah-Wiredu, the Finance Minister for the government of Ghana. If a poor West African country can dedicate the resources needed to conduct a full and accurate decennial census, so can the world’s wealthiest nation.  Congress should act swiftly to provide the necessary funding.

Yesterday, the Population Reference Bureau (PRB) released its 2008 World Population Data Sheet. Required reading for anyone interested in how population trends are changing our world, this year’s publication focuses renewed attention on the growing “demographic divide” between the rich and poor areas of the world. 

In releasing the report, Bill Butz, PRB’s president, observed that “Nearly all of world population growth is now concentrated in the world’s poor countries.”  Mary Mederios Kent, one of the co-authors of the report, noted that on one side of the “demographic divide” “are mostly poor countries with high birth rates and low life expectancies.  On the other side are mostly wealthy countries with low birth rates and rapid aging.”

The PRB report looked at several population trends.  Highlights include discussion of:

• Increased urbanization:  More than half the world now lives in a city, town or village;
• Education and nutrition:  Mothers in developing countries who have low educational status are more likely to have malnourished children whose growth is stunted.
• Declining fertility rates:  In the past half centuries fertility rates have dropped sharply in many countries, but not all.  In countries like Yemen and Niger women, on average, still have six or more children during their lifetimes.
• World population growth:  Due to high fertility rates in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South Asia, world population is expected to grow from 6.7 billion in 2008 to 9.3 billion by 2050.

To illustrate the impact of the demographic divide, PRB looked at the demographic profiles of Italy and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), two countries that are very close in terms of population size (60 million and 67 million respectively), but on opposite sides of the “demographic divide.”  Most importantly, 74% percent of children in the DRC are undernourished, compared to less than 2.5 percent in Italy.  Despite high mortality rates, the population of the DRC could nearly triple by 2050, reaching a projected population of 189 million, while Italy’s population in 2050 will remain largely unchanged (62 million).

Numbers alone, of course, do not paint a complete picture of life on the other side of the “demographic divide.”  As it happens, the BBC just completed a short documentary piece (“Why They’re Dying in the Congo”) looking at life in the DRC, where despite the end of a bloody civil war, 45,000 people a month are still dying, the vast majority from conditions like malaria and malnutrition.

Having worked on two presidential campaigns, I know that presidential candidates read voluminous amounts of information in the form of briefing papers, newspapers and the occasional report.  It’s probably safe to assume that PRB’s data sheet will not make it on to McCain or Obama’s reading list. Too bad.  U.S. elections don’t turn on global population trends, but the world does.

The U.S. Census Bureau last week released its latest population projections for 2050. In releasing the new numbers, the Census Bureau noted that, “The nation will be more racially and ethnically diverse, as well as much older, by midcentury.”  It will also be significantly larger.

In summarizing its findings, the Census Bureau reported that:

• Minorities, now roughly one-third of the U.S. population, are expected to become the majority in 2042, with the nation projected to be 54 percent minority in 2050. By 2023, minorities will comprise more than half of all children.
• In 2030, when all of the baby boomers will be 65 and older, nearly one in five U.S. residents is expected to be 65 and older. This age group is projected to increase to 88.5 million in 2050, more than doubling the number in 2008 (38.7 million).
• Similarly, the 85 and older population is expected to more than triple, from 5.4 million to 19 million between 2008 and 2050.

Other findings, as summarized by the Census Bureau, include:

• By 2050, the minority population — everyone except for non-Hispanic, single-race whites — is projected to be 235.7 million.
• The non-Hispanic, single-race white population is projected to be only slightly larger in 2050 (203.3 million) than in 2008 (199.8 million). In fact, this group is projected to lose population in the 2030s and 2040s and comprise 46 percent of the total population in 2050, down from 66 percent in 2008.
• The Hispanic population is projected to nearly triple, from 46.7 million to 132.8 million during the 2008-2050 period. Its share of the nation’s total population.
• The black population is projected to increase from 41.1 million, or 14 percent of the population in 2008, to 65.7 million, or 15 percent in 2050.
• The Asian population is projected to climb from 15.5 million to 40.6 million. Its share of the nation’s population is expected to rise from 5.1 percent to 9.2 percent.
• American Indians and Alaska Natives are projected to rise from 4.9 million to 8.6 million (or from 1.6 to 2 percent of the total population). The Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population is expected to more than double, from 1.1 million to 2.6 million. The number of people who identify themselves as being of two or more races is projected to more than triple, from 5.2 million to 16.2 million.

Most significantly, perhaps, the report indicates that the U.S. is on track to break the 400 million mark in 2039, just 33 years after the nation’s population passed the 300 million mark.  By 2050, U.S. population is projected to reach 439 million, a jump of more than 40 percent from today’s level (304.8 million).

The percentage of the population in the traditional “working ages” of 18 to 64 is projected to decline, but not as much as many might expect. The percentage is projected to decline from 63 percent in 2008 to 57 percent in 2050.  If life spans continue to expand and people work longer, the percentage of people actually working might be very close to what it is today.

Virtually all of the trends cited above have important implications for policymakers.

A few weeks ago, the Population Resource Center had a roundtable discussion on the issue of rapid population growth and water scarcity in the West.  Our two fastest growing states, Nevada and Arizona, are grappling with severe water shortages that are likely to be made worse by climate change.  California, which is already under a drought emergency, is expected to grow from a population of 37 million today to 60 million by 2050.

Previously in this blog, we have looked at how population trends, particularly the aging of America, are likely to put special demands on the future health care workforce.  Many areas of the country are already suffering from a nursing shortage, and an Institute of Medicine report issued earlier this year warned that too few nurse and doctors are specializing in geriatric care.

Given the importance of demographic trends to America’s future, it’s a shame that the Census Bureau’s release occurred during the August Congressional recess when lawmakers are back in their districts.  Policymakers at all levels, but particularly the federal level, should be more familiar with population trends and what they portend for public policy.

The Beijing Olympics has refocused world attention again on China’s coercive “one-family, one-child” policy. Instituted thirty years ago in a desperate bid to slow China’s burgeoning population, the policy has been widely condemned as an abuse of human rights. But lower fertility rates have contributed, no doubt, to China’s economic miracle, just as they have in other East Asian countries like Japan and South Korea.  It’s difficult to conceive that standards of living in China would be what they are today if fertility rates had remained at or near their historic rates.

Still, despite China’s booming economy, the “one-family, one-child” policy remains highly controversial.  Critics have charged, among other things, that the policy would be harmful to the children.  The July/August issue of Psychology Today takes a new look at the issue (“Plight of the Little Emperors”). The article notes that: 

When China began limiting couples to one child 30 years ago, the policy's most obvious goal was to contain a mushrooming population. For the Chinese people, however, the policy's greater purpose was to turn out a group of young elites who would each enjoy the undivided resources of their whole family—the so-called xiao huangdi, or "little emperors." The plan was to "produce a generation of high-quality children to facilitate China's introduction as a global power," explains Susan Greenhalgh, an expert on the policy. But while these well-educated, driven achievers are fueling the nation's economic boom, their generation has become too modern too quickly, glutted as it is with televisions, access to computers, cash to buy name brands, and the same expectations of middle-class success as Western kids.

Without question, the policy puts extraordinary pressures on the children.  As the article points out:

"In this generation, every child is raised to be at the top," says Vanessa Fong, a Harvard education professor and author of Only Hope: Coming of Age under China's One-Child Policy. "They've worked hard for it, and it's what their parents have focused their lives on. But the problem is that the country can't provide the lifestyle they feel they deserve. Only a few will get it." China's accomplished young elites are celebrated on billboards as the vanguard of the nation, yet they're quickly becoming victims of their own lofty expectations.

Still, the article finds that the psychological harm that flows from being an only child might not be as great as critics claim:

Yet despite the stereotype, the research has revealed no evidence that only kids have more negative traits than their peers with siblings—in China or anywhere else. "The only way only children are reliably different from others is they score slightly higher in academic achievement," explains Toni Falbo, a University of Texas psychology professor who has gathered data on more than 4,000 Chinese only kids. Sure, some little emperors are bratty, but no more than children with siblings.

The biggest problem, perhaps, is that China’s colleges and universities, with the anxious backing of the parents, are cranking out more graduates than the economy can currently absorb:

The number of Chinese college graduates per year has nearly tripled in the last half-decade—from 1.5 million in 2002 to 4.1 million in 2007—which means more than 2 million grads a year end up with expensive diplomas, but no job. With so few top positions available and so many seekers, urban only children must study constantly just to have a shot.

A few months back it suddenly looked like China might change its “one-family, one-child” policy after a high-level Communist Party official said the government was reviewing the policy.  Just as suddenly, a more senior government official squashed the rumor, insisting that no change is anticipated. In the wake of the horrible Sichuan earthquake, the government dropped its "one-child" policy for the parents of children who died or who were disabled or seriously injured.

The great unknown, however, is what would happen to China’s fertility rate if the “one-child” limit was lifted or relaxed for everyone. While there would be some inevitable increase in birth rates, fertility rates might not rise that much.  The total fertility rate in China today ( 1.6) is actually higher than in South Korea (1.1) and Japan (1.3), and only slightly lower than Mongolia’s TFR (2.0). Almost certainly, China's fertility rate would have dropped significantly over the past thirty years, with or without government sanction, as it did in other parts of East Asia.

More, perhaps, than at any other time in human history, population trends are reshaping our world. Whether it’s population growth, population decline, ‘youth bulges’, or aging societies, population matters.  Looking at the world through the population prism gives us a better understanding of recent history and valuable insight into our future, but until recently there has been far too little discussion of population trends and what they mean for U.S. security. 

That may be changing.  In recent months, a growing number of security experts have openly acknowledged the challenges posed by current population trends.

Three months ago, in a speech delivered at Kansas State University, CIA Director General Michael V. Hayden warned that:

Today, there are 6.7 billion people sharing the planet. By mid-century—by mid-century, the best estimates point to a world population of more than 9 billion. That’s a 40 to 45 percent increase—striking enough—but most of that growth is almost certain to occur in countries least able to sustain it, and that will create a situation that will likely fuel instability and extremism—not just in those areas, but beyond them as well.

There are many poor, fragile states where governance is actually difficult today, where populations will grow rapidly: Afghanistan, Liberia, Niger, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That group—the population is expected to triple by mid-century. The number of people in Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Yemen is likely to more than double. Furthermore—just beyond the raw numbers—all those countries will therefore have, as a result of this, a large concentration of young people. If their basic freedoms and basic needs—food, housing, education, employment—are not met, they could be easily attracted to violence, civil unrest, and extremism.

And through the fact of global migration, this impact of rapid population growth in Africa or Southeast Asia and elsewhere is not going to be confined to those places. It will be felt in the developed world as well. Millions of young people from fast-growing, poorly developed countries will emigrate—legally and illegally—in search of economic opportunity, security, or political freedom.

Earlier this month, the Defense Department publicly released its 2008 National Defense Strategy.  Echoing the comments made earlier by the CIA Director, Defense Secretary Robert Gates reported that:

Over the next twenty years physical pressures – population, resource, energy, climatic and environmental – could combine with rapid social, cultural, technological and geopolitical change to create greater uncertainty. This uncertainty is exacerbated by both the unprecedented speed and scale of change, as well as by the unpredictable and complex interaction among the trends themselves. Globalization and growing economic interdependence, while creating new levels of wealth and opportunity, also create a web of interrelated vulnerabilities and spread risks even further, increasing sensitivity to crises and shocks around the globe and generating more uncertainty regarding their speed and effect.

Current defense policy must account for these areas of uncertainty. As we plan, we must take account of the implications of demographic trends, particularly population growth in much of the developing world and the population deficit in much of the developed world. The interaction of these changes with existing and future resource, environmental, and climate pressures may generate new security challenges. Furthermore, as the relative balance of economic and military power between states shifts, some propelled forward by economic development and resource endowment, others held back by physical pressures or economic and political stagnation, new fears and insecurities will arise, presenting new risks for the international community