135NEW PUBLICATIONS, PAGES 97-148

Demographic and environmental changeare inextricably related at many scales—

that much can be said with relative ease. InPopulation and Environment: Methods ofAnalysis, Wolfgang Lutz, Alexia Prskawetz, andWarren C. Sanderson propose that researchinto these linkages is now sufficientlyadvanced to constitute a new and distinctinterdisciplinary field called “Population-Environment (P-E) Analysis.” To both supportthis theory and fulfill it, Lutz, Prskawetz, andSanderson have assembled eight chapters onaspects of P-E research, ranging fromliterature surveys to synthetic critiques to casestudies. This sample is too narrow to do thesprawling field justice; but Population andEnvironment, with its excellent and concludingintroductory chapters, is a cr iticalcontribution to the growing P-E literature.

The tangle of relationships amongenvironmental and demographic variables hascreated virtually infinite opportunities forscientific research and speculation over thethree decades since Paul Ehrlich, DonellaMeadows, and others revived the hypothesesand apocalyptic warnings of Robert Malthus.Lutz, Prskawetz, and Sanderson correctlyassert here that P-E research and thought hasthus far produced a “somewhat disappointinglack of consistent and generalizable findings”(page 1), which they attr ibute to thecomplexity of the issues and the lack ofaccepted methods and standards. WhilePopulation and Environment pointedly does notattempt to standardize P-E research or evendelineate its fuzzy boundaries, it does identifyand begin to address some of the considerablechallenges facing a field whose broad scopepotentially encompasses most human and non-human processes on the planet.

The editors begin by characterizing P-E analysis as a “chair with four legs” (page 5):population dynamics, environmentaldynamics, and the influences of each on theother. Lutz, Prskawetz, and Sanderson notethat the overwhelming majority of P-E studieshave focused primarily on the impact of

changes in the human population on theenvironment. Many of the studies includedin this volume follow or support that pattern,including “Demographic Determinants ofHousehold Energy Use in the United States”(written by Brian C. O’Neill and Belinda S.Chen), “Population Dynamics and the Declinein Biodiversity” (by C.Y.C. Chu and R.-R.Yu), and “Spatial Integration of Social andBiophysical Factors Related to LandcoverChange” (by Tom P. Evans and Emilio F.Moran).

Lutz, Prskawetz, and Sanderson suggestthat a full P-E study should ideally cover allfour aspects jointly. The goal is laudable intheory but may be a tall order in practice,perhaps even encouraging shallow breadthover depth for all but the extravagantly funded.Some of the field’s most celebrated studies todate have absorbed millions of dollars and yearsor even decades of research without venturingmuch beyond the effect of population on theenvironment (and not always effectivelycapturing even that relationship).

But Lutz, et al. are correct that P-Eresearch is rarely convincing unless theresearch team includes and fully utilizes bothdemographic and environmental or ecologicalexpertise. For ecologists, the temptation hasbeen to take off-the-shelf human populationdata and plug it into their models.Demographers have been equally guilty of“dumbing down” or “black-boxing”environmental and ecological data. Andeconomists who troll in the P-E waters havesometimes even managed to over-simplifyboth demographic and environmental data.The garbage-in, garbage-out results andconclusions of this kind of shortcut have notserved the P-E field or its reputation well.Population and Environment: Methods ofAnalysis seeks to avoid or reduce those pitfallsby suggesting a path to standards for the field.

The editors also make the importantobservation that many P-E researchers beginwith a “predefined normative goal” and thenemploy science to buttress it rather than fully

Population and Environment: Methods of AnalysisPopulation and Environment: Methods of AnalysisPopulation and Environment: Methods of AnalysisPopulation and Environment: Methods of AnalysisPopulation and Environment: Methods of AnalysisWolfgang Lutz, Alexia Prskawetz, & Warren C. Sanderson (Eds.)New York: Population Council, 2002. 251 pages.

Reviewed by Frederick A.B. MeyersonFrederick A.B. MeyersonFrederick A.B. MeyersonFrederick A.B. MeyersonFrederick A.B. Meyerson

ECSP REPORT · ISSUE 9 · 2003136

exploring its validity. Julian Simon and theearly work of Paul Ehrlich come to mind asarchetypal examples of this trap, but there aremany instances of the rush to policyconclusions prior to (or ignoring) scientificresults and analysis. The melding of populationand environment and/or economics,particularly in making projections, has oftenbeen ruled by passion and politics rather thanstatistics.

There are many other landmines (or moreoptimistically, challenges) for P-E research,and the introductory chapter of Populationand Environment does a good job of brieflyreviewing them. For example, spatial andtemporal scale of both human activities andenvironmental causes and consequences varywidely across P-E studies. Linking these scaleswithin single studies (even well-funded ones)has not been easy, and synthesizing studiesconducted at different scales has been evenmore problematic. In addition, the disparatedisciplines that are part-time residents underthe P-E umbrella often use vastly differ-ent research, analytical, and statisticalmethodologies.

Varying approaches to uncertainty—acritical element of P-E analysis—are also amajor challenge to those envisioning a unified,coherent field. The editors of Population andEnvironment could have spent more timeaddressing this significant P-E issue,particularly the task of synthesizing qualitativeand quantitative data and analysis. Theimportant but perhaps irresolvable debateabout correlation and causality, touched uponin James C. Cramer’s “Population Growth andLocal Air Pollution” chapter, is an anotherarea that should be fully addressed in a follow-up effort to this volume.

The book seems to have a bias towardsquantitative approaches, and while this pathmay increase the probability of the field’sacceptance as a discipline, it may not achieveharmonization and full exploitation of the

r ich possibilities of P-E research. Theinteresting chapters “Migration, SocialCapital, and the Environment” by SaraCurran, “Managing Population-EnvironmentSystems” by Geoffrey McNicoll, and“Population and Environmental Services” byVaclav Smil delve into social science, values,ethics, and management issues, but collectivelythey also raise difficult questions. One concernis that only a tiny subset of scientists may beable to grasp the diverse range of P-Edisciplines represented in just this slim volume.Another question is who the “clients” are forP-E research—is there an identifiable set ofend-users, and how long will it be before thefield generates results useful to them (andtherefore stimulates additional funding)?

A related question—whether complex P-E models are better than simple ones—is posedby Lutz, Przkawetz, Sergei Scherbov, MariaDworak, and Gustav Feichtinger in theirchapter “Population, Natural Resources andFood Security.” Not surprisingly, their answeris that it depends on the research question.While this lawyerly conclusion is somewhatfrustrating and does not appear to clarify ornarrow the P-E landscape, it is the right one.Simple diagrams, spaghetti-like flowcharts ofunquantified boxes, and highly quantifiedexercises can all hide poor data quality, failuresto recognize essential variables, surrealequations, or the fact that we simply don’tknow enough yet. But they all can also unveilhidden truths and elegantly frame the rightquestions. As the authors put it, “both the forestand the trees matter” (page 219).

One of the best features of Population andEnvironment is that it does gesture to theenormous diversity and complexity of P-E’ssubjects and methods, which for me bothexcuses the discipline’s slow start and pointsto its promise and endless supply of fascinatingand critical research questions. But the book’seight solid chapters represent more of a Noah’sArk than a full debate on and harmonizationof the field. Few scientists, if any, can masteror even be conversant in all of the central P-E disciplines, and this interdisciplinarydilemma is unlikely to fade over time. P-Eresearch remains an elephant described by ablind committee—but it is a powerful,complex beast that science and policy wouldbe foolish to neglect or ignore. Population and

P-E research is rarely convincing unless the

research team includes and fully utilizes both

demographic and environmental or ecological

expertise.

137NEW PUBLICATIONS, PAGES 97-148

Environment is a valuable and important firststep towards gelling this fascinating field.

Frederick A.B. Meyerson, Ph.D., JD, is anecologist and demographer who specializes in the

The environment has always presenteddifficult problems for demographers. In

contrast to the easily conceptualized andmeasured categories of fertility, mortality, andage-sex distributions, the “environment”seems boundless, vague, and not easilyquantified.

But in 1994 the Austrian demographerWolfgang Lutz of the International Institutefor Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) led ateam that produced a seminal work onpopulation, environment, and development(Lutz, 1994). Lutz and his team modeled thecountry of Mauritius to show how one wouldattack that country’s population-environment-development issues in asystematic manner. Lutz drew on the work ofthe 6th century BC Greek philosopherAnaximander in conceptualizing theenvironment as composed of earth, air, water,and fire (energy). When construed as modulesin a dynamic systems model, these four modespermitted that model to provide extensive andinsightful examination of their interactions.

For example, Lutz and his team showedhow reductions in fertility furtheredeconomic development by freeing women forthe labor force and reducing costs of childrearing. The study also demonstrated howproduction of commodities such as sugar andtextiles could obstruct the future developmentof Mauritius by destroying the marineenvironment on which its new tourismindustry depends.

Now Lutz has teamed up with an IIASAeconomist (Brian O’Neill) and a climatologistfrom Brown University (F. Landis MacKeller)to produce in the book under review what Iconsider the best single work to date on therelationships between population and climate

change. Indeed, I would argue that if onecould read only one work in this area, thiswould be the book.

Population and Climate Change is a slimvolume, with six chapters of dense argumentsand extensive summaries of the most criticalfindings on population, climate change, andhow the two are linked. The references citemore than 700 works. The best way to presentPopulation and Climate Change is tosummarize each of book’s six chapters.

Chapter 1 provides a brief primer onclimate change—including the “greenhouseeffect,” the rise of greenhouse gases (GHGs),and long-term increases in world temperature.Demographers are all too often unfamiliarwith biogeochemical cycles. This chapterprovides an efficient and useful lesson.

Chapter 2 is a pr imer on humanpopulation change. It notes the growth ofworld population, the demographic transition,and the recent shift of world population towardless developed countries. The chapter alsosummarizes recent population projections(which maintain that world population willrise by 2100 to between 8 and 12 billion)and discusses how policies (such as economicdevelopment, investment in education andhealth, and promotion of women’sempowerment) can help speed fertility declineand reduce population growth. The authorsend the section with an examination of howpopulations are aging and what are theconsequences of this trend. The moredeveloped countries all show slow or evennegative population growth rates and agingpopulations. This dynamic increases thedemand for labor (implying a need forimmigration) and results in rapidly increasinghealth costs for the aged.

Population and Climate ChangePopulation and Climate ChangePopulation and Climate ChangePopulation and Climate ChangePopulation and Climate ChangeBy Brian C. O’Neill, E. Landis MacKeller, & Wolfgang LutzCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 266 pages.

Reviewed by Gayl D. NessGayl D. NessGayl D. NessGayl D. NessGayl D. Ness

interactions between population and theenvironment. He has taught at Yale and BrownUniversities and is a Public Policy Scholar at theWoodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,where he is writing a book on American populationpolicy.

ECSP REPORT · ISSUE 9 · 2003138

Chapter 3 provides another primer, thisone on the links among population growth,economic development, and the environment.The authors of Population and Climate Changereview the neoclassical model of poverty’srelationship with environment—a model thatsuggests (among other things) a potentialvicious cycle of poverty environmentaldegradation more poverty in less developedcountries. But O’Neill, MacKeller, and Lutzalso explore how interventions can turn this

vicious cycle into a virtuous one. Theseinclude: population policies that emphasizeprimary health care; primary education,especially for girls; and family-planningprograms. Such measures immediatelyincrease human welfare, especially for womenand children, and also reduce longer-termpopulation pressure on the environment.

Next, Population and Climate Changeexamines the various ways that populationgrowth is linked to GHG emissions. Theauthors reach the basic conclusion thatreducing fertility and population growth(especially in the less developed regions) willhave only modest effects on reducing GHGemissions by the middle of this century, butsubstantial effects by 2100 (page 113). Theimplication is that current family-planningprograms will not produce immediateenvironmental benefits, but that currentpopulation growth has importantconsequences for decades hence.

The book’s fifth chapter deals with thecomplex issues of adaptation to climatechange—specifically, how agriculture and thefood supply, human health, and environmentalsecurity might be threatened by future climatechanges. O’Neill, MacKeller, and Lutz alsolook here at how societies might adapt to thesechanges. Increased population growth willrequire increased agricultural output, whichis possible but may have very high costs.

Unfortunately, the future impacts ofclimate change on agricultural output areuncertain: adaptation is possible, but the need

to adapt to both population growth andclimate change will be highly challenging. Asin the two previous chapters, the authors arguethat population policies that help reducefertility and population growth can reducepopulation pressures on natural resources andmake societies more resilient to the negativeimpacts of climate change.

Finally, Chapter 6 of Population andClimate Change takes on the issue of policyimplications. The authors note that the officialpolicy literature in both population andclimate change has done little to translatereviews into policy implications. What is tobe done in view of the likely impacts ofclimate change on food production, health,and environmental change? The policyimplications of such changes and challengesare too often unexplored in the scientificliterature. Modern population policies, on theother hand, are clearer. They can lead tofertility reduction and increased humanwelfare: such policies promote primaryeducation and health care, increaseempowerment of women and girls, andpromote family-planning programs.

But in addition to their significant positiveimpact on human welfare, sound populationpolicies can also mitigate long-term trendsin GHG emissions and thus reduce the extentof likely climate change. O’Neill, MacKeller,and Lutz also note, however, that populationpolicies may not be the key strategies toreducing GHG emissions and climate change.Other, more direct policies (e.g., to producea cleaner technology or to reduce fossil fuelconsumption) may well have a larger impacton climate change. Nonetheless, a moreeffective portfolio of climate-change policiesshould certainly include consideration ofpopulation dynamics.

One could quibble with parts of theanalysis in Population and Climate Change. Inexamining the food supply, the authors citethe more pessimistic reviews and omit thatof Vaclav Smil (1994), who sees the possibilityof feeding 10 billion people. And while it isdifficult to argue with the authors’ use ofearlier IIASA population projections—whichLutz authored (1996)—it is worthwhilepointing out that almost all of the UnitedNations population projection revisions of thepast three of four decades have been revised

If one could read only one work on the

relationships between population and climate

change, this would be the book.

139NEW PUBLICATIONS, PAGES 97-148

downward. There have been more positivedemographic changes than mostdemographers have anticipated.

The authors might also have given moreconsideration to how temperature increaseswill affect the natural reservoirs of fresh waterin the form of mountain snowpack. Adaptingto this problem by replacing snowfields withman-made reservoirs would entail immenseand probably prohibitive expenditures. Notadapting would imply massive disruptions inseasonal water flows, with serious impacts onfood production. But these are all minor pointsthat do not in the least distract from thisexcellent summary and analysis.

The IIASA group has always excelled inputting together interdisciplinary teams todeal with fundamental issues. Population andClimate Change strengthens this record.Readers can now hope for anotherinterdisciplinary approach that exploreseffective policy and program approaches tothe links between population and climatechange.1

We know much about the social,economic, and political conditions that haveled to low population-growth rates. (Therevolution in population policies, for example,has certainly been one of the most dramaticin improving human welfare.) But whataccounts for the dramatic variance in GHGemission rates among the low population-

Lutz, Wolfgang. (Ed.). (1994). Population, development, environment: Understanding their interactions in Mauritius.Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Lutz, Wolfgang. (Ed.). (1996). The population of the world: What can we assume today? London: Earthscan.

Smil, Vaclav. (1994). “How many people can the earth feed?” Population and development review 20, 255-292.

growth countries? It would be most usefulfor IIASA and its associates to tackle thisquestion, which would seem to have practicalimplications for the future of population andclimate change.

Regarding climate change, O’Neill,MacKeller, and Lutz note that popular andelite concern for GHG emissions and climatechange potential has only emerged in the pasttwo or three decades, and that some usefulpolicies have in fact emerged. Since the 1960s,there has also been extensive political supportfor policies and programs to address povertyand promote economic development. Whileresistance has been relatively slight to thesepolicies (especially in comparison withpopulation or GHG emission policies), thefailure of both these policies and programshas been legion and has attracted a great dealof attention. It would be most useful now forsomeone to write a systematic assessment ofpopulation, development, and climate-changepolicies that parallels this fine volume—to giveus a better sense of what is needed and whatis possible in moving us toward a moresustainable future.

Gayl Ness is professor emeritus of sociology at theUniversity of Michigan. He has written onpopulation and environment issues and currentlyworks on those issues with reference to worldwideurbanization.

NotesNotesNotesNotesNotes

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences

1 Such an approach might investigate, for example, the consequences of the radical difference betweenpopulation and climate-change dynamics of the world’s 25 richest and 25 poorest countries. The 25 poorestcountries show a narrow range of relatively high population growth rates (2-3 percent per year) andexceptionally low GHG emission rates (100 to 800 kilograms per capita)—neither of which is difficult toexplain. The 25 richest countries show a narrow range of population growth rates (1 percent or less) buthigh and highly variable GHG emission rates, running from 5 tons for Sweden and Hong Kong to 24 tonsfor Singapore. High emissions are found in large land-mass countries (20 tons for the United States, 15 forCanada, and 18 for Australia) as well as tiny countries (18 for Luxembourg and 24 for Singapore, forexample). This poses a challenge for researchers. We need (a) to understand what policies are responsible forthe highly efficient and the highly inefficient consumption processes of wealthy nations, and (b) target thosepolicies for change.

ECSP REPORT · ISSUE 9 · 2003140

Aimed at a lay reader, The CrowdedGreenhouse is the collaborative effort of

John Firor, director emeritus of the NationalCenter for Atmospheric Research, and hiswife, population expert Judith Jacobsen. Thefirst three chapters (written by Jacobsen) dealwith population issues, and the second threechapters (written by Firor) assess climatechange. This volume proceeds from theassumptions that the earth is finite, that humanpopulation cannot grow indefinitely, and thathumans must act now to avoid negativeenvironmental consequences from populationgrowth.

Jacobsen presents an interesting synopsisof the modern population movement thatbegins with an outline of two contrastingarguments (Malthus versus economics) madeby the first population activists. TraditionalMalthusian theory argues that the earth has afinite carrying capacity and that humans willexperience an ecological dieback if theycontinue to use resources faster than they canbe replenished. For Malthusians, the best wayto limit population growth is to controlfertility. The economic argument, on theother hand, holds that the best way to limitpopulation growth is to promote economicdevelopment.

This philosophical division has promptedcontinual debate within the populationmovement over how to frame populationinitiatives, policies, and their implications.Jacobsen points out that, while the Malthusianimperative is the baseline ecological argumentfor limiting population growth, successfulpopulation policies may include any or all ofthese points of view. To illustrate such aninitiative, Jacobsen takes us through theinspirational story of Chief Bisi and thewomen who work with her in Nigeria toaffect reproductive and economic choices onthe community level. Well ahead of the famousGrameen Bank, Bisi founded the CountryWomen’s Association of Nigeria (COWAN)for rural women to raise the necessary resources

to change their standard of living. COWANstar ted with $45 and now has 1300cooperatives across Nigeria. Its ability tointegrate women’s health, family planning,and economic development highlights thelevels of policy change that can beaccomplished with local grass-roots initiativesand sufficient funding from developedcountries.

Jacobsen then outlines six principles shebelieves will best guide future work onpopulation issues. She asserts that theecological principles underlying the concernabout rapid population growth are complexand non-linear, and that population issues mustbe approached in tandem with other issuessuch as peace and poverty. Jacobson alsorightly points out that legislation—such as lawsrestricting immigration—can only solve partof the problem, and that non-legislativeinitiatives (such as providing immigrants withaccess to reproductive-health care) can helpgain voluntary cooperation where lawscannot. Finally, Jacobson argues that there aremany roads to Mecca regarding populationpolicy; while activists cannot always changetheir opponents’ minds, they must attempt tosucceed without unanimity of belief.

The Crowded Greenhouse then shiftsabruptly to the issue of climate change. JohnFiror takes us through the basic argumentsfor the existence of global warming, fromthe calculations of Svante Arrhenius (theSwedish chemist who first predicted climatechange in 1899) to a clear and succinctdiscussion of the benefits and liabilities ofcurrent global climate models. Firor goes onto draw an interesting parallel between thecontroversy over whether climate change isactually occurring and the continuing flapover Darwin’s theory of evolution. He arguesthat, since both Darwinism and prevailinganalyses of recent climate change challengewell-entrenched social, relig ious, andeconomic interests, both theories continue toengender controversy in spite of overwhelming

The Crowded Greenhouse: Population, Climate, Change andThe Crowded Greenhouse: Population, Climate, Change andThe Crowded Greenhouse: Population, Climate, Change andThe Crowded Greenhouse: Population, Climate, Change andThe Crowded Greenhouse: Population, Climate, Change andCreating a Sustainable WCreating a Sustainable WCreating a Sustainable WCreating a Sustainable WCreating a Sustainable WorldorldorldorldorldBy John Firor & Judith E. JacobsenNew Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002. 237 pages.

Reviewed by Elizabeth ChaleckiElizabeth ChaleckiElizabeth ChaleckiElizabeth ChaleckiElizabeth Chalecki

141NEW PUBLICATIONS, PAGES 97-148

amounts of supporting evidence. His synopsisof the international negotiations leading upto and including the Kyoto Protocol is alsoclear and informative.

Firor closes the climate-change sectionof the book with some general economicprescriptions to ensure that the U.S. economytruly reflects energy prices. He espouses arevenue-neutral tax shift, whereby the taxburden is shifted away from desirableeconomic sectors such as employment andonto undesirable sectors (e.g., those that emitpollutants and use raw materials wastefully).Firor also recommends (a) a new method ofnational economic accounting that wouldrecord “withdrawals” of raw materials, and(b) campaign-finance reform to pry open thedisproportionate gr ip that resource-consuming industr ies have on the U.S.political process.

The final chapter of The CrowdedGreenhouse outlines two revolutions—an equityrevolution and an efficiency revolution—thatthe authors argue Western society mustundergo to solve the issues and ramificationsof both population growth and climatechange. The equity revolution, Firor andJacobson stress, would address population issuesby ensuring that women and girls around theworld have adequate access to health care andparticipation in democratic government. Theefficiency revolution would maintain oureconomic development and standard of livingwhile using less energy. Firor and Jacobsenconclude both by noting the gains that thepopulation and climate-change movementshave made and by encouraging those whowish to work in the population and/orenvironmental movements not to give up inthe face of continuing obstacles.

The Crowded Greenhouse is quite readablefor environmentally minded newcomers tothese issues. But Jacobsen and Firor may bepreaching to the converted, as exemplified bytheir admonishment at the end of Chapter 8to “Have a thought. Join the insurrection”(page 202). Their book is also heavy ongeneral advice and extremely light onconcrete proposals. At the risk of soundingtoo much like Sun Tzu, there is very little inThe Crowded Greenhouse that will helppopulation and climate-control activistsoutwit their enemies.

While Jacobsen’s principles regardingpopulation are reasonable and conciliatory,they are also very broad. Her section lacksthe benefit of her years of work in thepopulation movement—namely, some specificrecommendations of policies that would helpstabilize population growth here and abroad.Firor’s section also suffers from similar non-specificity. While he rightly points out thatclimate change may have positive effects andthat studies of the impacts of climate changeare hindered by great complexity, these

uncertainties have already been welldocumented by researchers in theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeand the U.S. Global Change ResearchProgram. What the climate-change debateneeds is a roadmap for implementing specificpolicy recommendations to reducegreenhouse emissions—or, at the least,concrete recommendations on how to movethe Bush administration toward theprecautionary principle when dealing withglobal environmental matters. Firor fails toprovide such a roadmap.

It would also have been helpful to readhow Firor would approach the task ofdisarming or disproving the cr itics ofevolution and climate change. Instead, Firorargues that these critics assume that climatechange is already occurring. This is mistaken:many opponents of climate-changemitigation measures such as the KyotoProtocol, clean air legislation, and carbon taxesdo not proceed from this assumption. Giventhat the present U.S. administration haseffectively dropped climate change as an issue,strong arguments for the fact and fullconsequences of climate change would seemessential to the agenda to reduce globalwarming.

Firor and Jacobsen do encourage thoseworking in population and environment tostudy the values and beliefs of those who

Jacobsen and Firor may be preaching to the

converted. Their book is heavy on general

advice and extremely light on concrete

proposals.

ECSP REPORT · ISSUE 9 · 2003142

oppose their efforts and to use any commonground to advance their own agendas. This isexcellent advice, since much anti-environmentalist sentiment is grounded ineither religion or economics, both of whichare often seen as absolutes. But the advice isagain very general. For example, Firorrecommends the removal of natural-resourceextraction subsidies in an effort to make theU.S. economy account fully for the cost ofusing them. However, he does not specifywhich ones should be removed or how thismight be achieved in the face of almost certainindustry opposition.

Finally, the bilateral structure of the bookeffectively and unhelpfully segregates the twoissues of population and climate change, andthe final chapter fails to bring them together

sufficiently. By simply prescribing tworevolutions that Western society mustundertake, Firor and Jacobsen do no morethan outline the many ways in which solvingone problem can make an impact on the other.

But The Crowded Greenhouse is a goodexplanation of these issues for those whoalready acknowledge their importance. Thebreadth of Jacobsen and Firor’s passion onthese topics is impressive, and one hopes thattheir work in these fields continues well intothe future they envision.

Elizabeth Chalecki is a research affiliate with thePacific Institute for Studies in Development,Environment, and Security. She is also an adjunctprofessor at California State University atHayward.

Life Support: The Environment and HumanHealth provides a comprehensive review

of a vitally important—yet still imperfectlyaddressed—global priority: the connectionsbetween health and the environment. Thebook is an update to the 1991 publicationCritical Condition: Human Health and theEnvironment, which was developed inpreparation for the 1992 United NationsConference on the Environment andDevelopment in Rio de Janeiro.

Life Support’s 2002 publication aptlycoincided with the year of the ten-year follow-up conference to Rio—the World Summiton Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.Addressed to “informed lay readers,”“trainees,” and “professionals,” this secondbook lists three objectives: “to update theoriginal work, to expand the coverage, andto focus on solutions or prescriptions” (pageviii-ix). In my view, despite inaccuracies andoccasional political biases, Life Support largelyaccomplishes its objectives.

In the preface, editor Michael McCallyprovides relevant history leading to the currentpublication and notes the role of the healthsector in addressing issues of the environment

and human health. One can only agree withhis call for “health-trained professionals…tobecome central figures in environmentalpolicy discussions” (page ix).1 Chapter 1 ofLife Support, McCally’s “Environment, Health,and Risk,” provides a nice overview of thethematic nexus. The chapter makes severalimportant points, including: (a) stressing theimportance of a multidisciplinary (and byextension multisector) approach to addressingthe range of environmental health issues; and(b) suggesting revisions to medical curriculato include explicit environmental healthcontent. However, I have some alternativeviews to a few of the chapter’s points.

First, my own view of implementing themultidisciplinary/multisector approach is towork across institutions rather than includingall relevant expertise within a giveninstitution. Health expertise can come fromthe health sector, and environmental scienceand regulatory expertise can come from theenvironmental sector; working together bringsthe best of both to policy and programs.Second, I believe McCally’s suggestion to shiftfrom pollution control toward pollutionprevention is not a matter of either/or, but

Life Support: The Environment and Human HealthLife Support: The Environment and Human HealthLife Support: The Environment and Human HealthLife Support: The Environment and Human HealthLife Support: The Environment and Human HealthMichael McCally (Ed.)Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002. 326 pages.

Reviewed by Melinda MooreMelinda MooreMelinda MooreMelinda MooreMelinda Moore