Filed under : Scitizen >> Earth & Environment >> Climate Change >> Let's talk (carefully) about climate and population
Key words :
a pivotal moment
,center for american progress
,climate change
,consumption
,global poverty
,human rights
,overpopulation
,sustainability
Let's talk (carefully) about climate and population
18 Nov, 2009 05:21 pm
Enlarge text
Reduce text sizeHave you heard that we're getting new neighbors? Demographers expect that the number of people living on earth - now about 6.8 billion - will grow to between 8 and 11 billion by 2050. Whether population tops out at the high or the low end of those projections will have a huge impact on climate change. So population control is again claiming a place on the environmental agenda.
 |
| Nairobi slums |
Yet the conversation is worth having, which is why I went to a discussion today at the Center for American Progress in Washington featuring Laurie Mazur, the editor of a new book called A Pivotal Moment: Population, Justice & The Environmental Challenge (Island Press, $30).
Mazur argues that we are at a pivotal moment, not just environmentally, because of the lethal overheating of the planet, but demographically, because, as she writes,
the ultimate size of the human population will be decided in the next decade or so.
That’s because right now the largest generation of young people in human history is coming of age. Nearly half the world’s population—some 3 billion people—is under the age of twenty-five. Those young people will, quite literally, shape the future.
Like it or not, population is an environmental issue. Although many of our new neighbors will live in such poor countries as India, Bangladesh and Indonesia, they will have carbon footprints, too, albeit much smaller ones that those we make here in the U.S.
“Does population, per se, matter for the environment?” Mazur asked at the Center for American Progress. “Yes, it does.” It will matter even more as poor people improve their standard of living, gaining access to automobiles, electricity, computers and big-screen TVs. “Our planet can’t sustain 7 billion people consuming as we do, much less 9 or 11 billion,” she says.
What is to be done? It’s no mystery. “Over the last 50 years, we’ve learned a huge amount about how to slow population growth,” Mazur says. Quite simply, the goal should be to provide people with the means and the power to make their own decisions about when to have children. Women first need access to family planning and reproductive health services. Beyond that, they need to be able to determine their own fate. That means confronting gender inequality, providing girls with education, ending child marriage and reducing global poverty.
It’s a daunting agenda but the first step–providing reproductive health services for every woman on earth—is surprisingly inexpensive. The developed countries’ share of that cost is about $20 billion, according to Mazur, and she pegs the U.S.’s share at about $1 billion, less than the daily price tag of the war in Afghanistan.
The benefits are significant. Stabilizing world population at 8 billion, rather than 9 billion or more, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one gigaton or more by 2050, the equivalent of one or more of the “wedges” in the well-known analysis of climate mitigation by Princeton professors Stephen Pacala and Robert Sokolow, according to Brian C. O’Neill, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who contributed a chapter to A Pivotal Moment.
Nevertheless, environmentalists tiptoe around the population issue for a couple of reasons, says Andrew Light, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. The first is that the apocalyptic warnings about overpopulation that were sounded in the late 1960s when the Sierra Club published Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb proved unfounded.
The other reason for trepidation is political sensitivity. Environmentalists don’t want to be seen as caring more about nature than people. The word “misanthropic” came up during the discussion, as did the names of Edward Abbey and David Brower. Whatever you think of Abbey, he was not a social animal.
Environmentalist are also aware of the ugly history of “population control.” While the international family planning movement brought contraceptives to the developing world and drove down fertility rates down between the mid-1960s and mid-1990s, family planning programs were controversial, as Mazur notes:
Some–notably in India and China–flagrantly abused human rights with coercive practices such as forced sterilization and abortion (which continue to this day in China). And many first-generation programs focused more on demographic “targets” than on individual needs.
In the U.S., the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, an organization seen by many as hostile to immigrants, was founded by members of the Sierra Club and John Tanton, then president of Zero Population Growth, which advocated birth control and tax incentives to limit population growth, according to A Pivotal Moment. In 2007, an Australian medical journal advocated a $5,000 carbon tax per child for families with more than two children. And, just a few weeks ago, Rush Limbaugh suggested, facetiously, that Andrew Revkin, the distinguished climate change reporter for The New York Times, kill himself after Revkin mused in print about the possibility of awarding carbon credits for avoided children, much like they are awarded for avoided deforestation. So, yes, talking about population is a tricky business.
Two final thoughts. First, while curbing population will help mitigate global warming, that is not the same thing as saying that population growth caused the climate crisis. Overconsumption is by far the bigger culprit, with Americans way out in the lead. The Washington, D.C., area, Mazur said, produces 25% more CO2 than all of Sweden, which has nearly twice as many people.
Second, the idea of “population justice,” which emphasizes individual freedoms to make decisions about sexuality, reproduction and family, should help avoid the future use of coercive tactics. As Light put it: “Any method you want to use for decreasing population has to pass some obvious moral tests.” Better yet, providing parents with access to family planning, educating girls and dealing with gender inequality are all steps worth taking for their own sake, regardless of their impact on population. You can read more at The Population Justice Project and at the Women’s Environment and Development Organization.
So is paying people not to have children moral? Comments, anyone?
Originally published on Marc Gunther.com
Add to Facebook
Add to Yahoo ! MyWeb
Add to Furl
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Digg
Add to Google Bookmarks
Add to Newsvine
Although apparently brief, the suspension of the Copenhagen climate conference after a walkout by the Group of 77 developing countries confirms that the talks are as much about money as about healing the world's climate. It's not just that the G77 wants the Kyoto limits on the emissions of developed countries enforced, while leaving their own emissions uncapped; it also wants the developed world to kick in sizable sums--much bigger than the 2.4 billion Euros per year offered by the EU--to cover the improvements in energy efficiency and renewable energy that would enable them to tackle the growth of their own emissions. There's a solid argument there, though it is not the guilt-based logic of "carbon debt" that I explored a few weeks ago.
In spite of the recent weeks of roller coaster-like expectations for a positive outcome from the COP15 climate conference that got underway Monday, the sense of urgency is keenly felt here at the Bella Center, home of the climate negotiations and exhibitions for dozens of NGO's and observer organizations.
Forget 80% by 2050 and 17% by 2020. Time to stop fixating on 450 ppm vs 350 ppm. As UN climate talks kick off today in Copenhagen, Denmark, there's only one number really worth the world's attention: $10.5 trillion. That's the additional investment required between now and 2030 to put the world's energy system on a lower-carbon path, according to the world energy watchdog, the International Energy Agency.
I'll discuss the willingness of developing countries to undertake significant emissions reductions on their own that tangibly reduce the growth of their emissions in the near-term (e.g., to 2020) and lay the foundation for even deeper cuts in the medium-term.
Last Thursday, an editorial in the Wall St. Journal referred to a paper in the latest issue of Science entitled, "Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error", which concludes that the manner in which the greenhouse gas impacts of biofuels are currently assessed fails to account for significant emissions that occur outside the envelope normally drawn around an ethanol or biodiesel plant and the farms that supply it with feedstock. And if that omission weren't glaring enough, I ran across another instance in which regulators appear to be turning a blind eye to the full impact of another popular option for addressing climate change, electric vehicles.
The two-week global warming negotiations in Bangkok, Thailand are just wrapping up. There are five key elements to the Copenhagen Agreement.
Even "moderate" cuts in greenhouse gas emissions may be sufficient to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change, says new MIT study. But only if those moderate cuts start now, not in 2020, where many emissions targets take initial aim. Without swift action, even more aggressive cuts may not be enough to stop extreme climate disruption.
I feel like an idiot for not seeing this one coming from either China or India. It's so painfully obvious, in hindsight, that I have to wonder how anyone who follows energy and environmental issues closely could have failed to predict it. What am I babbling about? China is now saying that the endlessly discussed target of keeping global warming below 2C is not such a big deal.
Yvo de Boer closes Bonn talks with stark warning that the current pace of the Copenhagen negotiations remains far too slow.
A recent survey found that there was a significant interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but that investment decisions were made without close attention in the emissions trading scheme market. Rather, investment decisions were guided by expectations about the long term development of overall energy costs.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported late last week that research by Australian National University scientist Andrew Macintosh indicates that, based on most industrialized nations' stated mid-term commitments, limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius simply "won't work."
Researchers working on a joint World Agroforestry Centre-United Nations Environment Programme project suggest that integrating agroforestry in farming systems on a massive scale would create a vital reservoir for carbon storage. No less than a billion hectares of developing country farmland is suitable for conversion to carbon agroforestry projects, according to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates.
An important recent paper looked at the links between economic prosperity and carbon footprint.[1] It compared the average emissions per head in 73 different countries at all different stages in development. Unsurprisingly, it showed that richer countries have much higher greenhouse gas outputs. The interesting and somewhat depressing finding is that a country with 10% higher GDP per head than another will generally have emissions about 8% higher. The correlation is strong - very few countries diverge much from the norm for their level of income.
Proposals to reduce global warming through giant engineering projects or so-called geoengineering abound. Almost all are in the idea stage. But even if they were ready to deploy today, they would be dangerous for the planet, counterproductive for our energy future and unfair to the public.
Yesterday the International Energy Agency (IEA) released their much anticipated (and previously leaked) World Energy Outlook 2008.
-
25/02/10
Sacks gardening in urban and rural areas
-
25/01/10
Good News for Himalayan Glaciers, Bad News for the IPCC
-
11/01/10
Microalgae Producing Energy Through Emissions
-
31/12/09
Ecosystem Shift Accelerating From Changing Climate New Research Says
-
28/12/09
Google, Jane Goodall, forests and the cloud
Read more
