With all the uproar over the current economic crisis and the proposed $700 billion bail-out, it seems to me a time of opportunity for broader discussion of the conservation implications of our bloated economy. Rather than throw the equivalent of 2000 McDonalds apple pies for every American (thanks Jon Stewart!) at the big bankers with no strings attached, couldn’t this be a time to try to steer the economy towards a more sustainable path? (although I admit that the thought of throwing pies at those CEOs is appealing!)

A new report from UNEP and the Worldwatch Institute suggests that millions of new “green jobs” can be created in the next decades as part of the market for environmental products and services, predicted to reach $2.7 trillion by 2020. Considering the extent and pace of degradation of the world’s ecosystem services driven by our ever-growing economy (see the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), perhaps such reports can help our leaders recognize the need for a ‘sustainability stimulus package’!

[For an unconventional take on the economy and economic growth, check out the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy.]

Aside from overconsumption, human population growth is another major driver of impacts to biodiversity (remember I=PAT?). The Worldwatch Institute also hasn’t shied away from this controversial topic, devoting the latest issue of World Watch magazine to its coverage. Included is an interesting article that explores American attitudes toward population growth, exposing mixed messages from the media and misunderstandings among the general public. Their survey suggests that only half of the U.S. population is concerned about the impact of overpopulation on the Earth. Interestingly, only 38% of those earning more than $75,000 believe that at the current rate of growth there will not be enough resources for today’s children when they reach adulthood, whereas that jumped to 63% among those earning $20,000-29,000. While 6 out of 10 respondents agreed that “having fewer children would increase their financial options”, only 39% agreed that having fewer children would help protect the environment. Conservation biologists tend to use human population growth (or density) as a proxy for threats to biodiversity, but it appears that many Americans do not share their assumption.