Work by Brian, Leiwen and other colleagues shows that the relationship between population and climate change is complex and that age structure, household composition and urbanization are important demographic factors, in addition to population size. Within this complexity, members of our field (broadly defined as those working on family planning, reproductive health and sexual and reproductive health and rights) are discussing the pros and cons of engaging in the discussion on population and climate change.

In her work on developing a justice framework for addressing population and environment issues, Laurie Mazur, who is currently editing a book titled Population, Justice and the Environmental Challenge, has noted that some colleagues, "even those concerned about the carrying capacity of the planet - want to silence the talk about population and the environment, for fear of what it might unleash." She called the space between the reproductive health and rights and environmental movements "something of a demilitarized zone."

Some argue that linking population with climate change should not include discussion of family planning as part of the solution, for fear of reversing gains made at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo towards programming based on a rights framework rather than on a demographic rationale. This group worries about tendencies towards coercion in setting population targets. In an online discussion of population and climate change conducted by the webBulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Betsy Hartmann, director of Hampshire College's Population and Development Program, argued that "when population control is the objective, the quality of [family planning] service suffers and coercive methods often override freedom of choice." But Suzanne Petroni, Program Officer at the Summit Foundation, who also cautions about making the population-climate change connection, notes that "we must engage the discussion, if only to prevent a return to the days of coerced sterilizations, forced abortions and two-child per family mandates."

And others say that acknowledging the link between population and climate, and the role family planning can play, won't automatically lead to coercive policies. In the Atomic Scientists discussion, John Guillebaud, emeritus professor at University College, London, and Martin Desvaux, trustee of the Optimum Population Trust in Britain, wrote that this argument "perpetuates some infamous myths about people who have a qualitative concern about human population... [including] that being concerned about population leads intrinsically to coercion."

This latter group argues that voluntary family planning is critical to meeting the needs of millions of women (PDF) who express the desire to space or limit pregnancy and yet are not using contraception. Meeting this need for contraception at the individual level, by providing universal access to family planning and reproductive health (a goal set in Cairo), will ultimately have a positive effect on population stabilization. Fred Meyerson, assistant professor at the University of Rhode Island, in the same online discussion, emphatically states that "stopping emissions growth and climate change will be unattainable without universal effective [family planning] programs and population stabilization..." but adds that "There is agreement..about the need to provide FP/RH...and related education to everyone on the planet in a non-coercive way."

As someone who has been involved in population, family planning, reproductive health and sexual reproductive health and rights work for over two decades, I am in the "let's talk about it" camp. We are the ones who know the history of our field and understand that Cairo reaffirmed the need for voluntary, rights-based sexual and reproductive health services, including, but not limited to, family planning.

We should also remember that the Cairo Programme of Action was generated at the Conference on Population and Development and that we have win-win language from the Programme of Action:

"...recognizing that the ultimate goal is the improvement of the quality of life of present and future generations, the objective is to facilitate the demographic transition as soon as possible in countries where there is an imbalance between demographic rates and social, economic and environmental goals, while respecting human rights." (Emphasis mine.)

This is language that nearly 180 countries signed on to in Cairo in 1994.