Population and Climate Change: Complex Connections

As pressure to address climate change increases, long-simmering debates on the connections between population and environment have been renewed. Historically, concerns have been expressed about the impact of “population” policies on human rights.  RH Reality Check welcomes open debate on these issues and encourages both comments on this and other articles as well as submissions from other authors. 

Recent interest in the role of family planning in climate change mitigation is long overdue. Efforts to combat global climate change must include universal access to voluntary family planning to reduce population growth. Brian O’Neill, the scientist who has done the most serious research on this topic, projects that 1-2 billion tons of carbon emissions could be averted each year if women worldwide were able to fully exercise their reproductive wishes.

President Obama is taking a bold first step in Copenhagen by putting forward an ambitious emissions target for the United States. Yet global population growth threatens to undercut - even cancel - all proposed progress. World population may grow by 18% or more from 2005 to 2020, according to UN projections.

Reducing carbon emissions is actually three separate but related challenges. First, we must reduce global emissions. Second, we must slow population growth by supporting programs such as voluntary family planning and reproductive health. Third, we must recognize that about half the world now suffers from "carbon starvation" and needs to increase emissions.

Most emissions reductions must occur in wealthier countries since that's where they are highest. At the same time, in order to give billions of poor people a reasonable quality of life, emissions in some parts of the world must increase significantly. Rapid population growth makes this balancing act even more difficult.

Given available technology, the often-tiny carbon footprints of billions of people are both a cause and an effect of impoverishment. The one billion people who struggle to survive on less than $1/day use very little in the way of fossil fuels (They do, however, contribute to climate change through deforestation, which is responsible for 20% of global carbon emissions. Deforestation is a direct result of local population growth and the increased cropland needed to feed more people). And the additional 1.6 billion living on less than $2/day hardly use more. In order to have decent lives, they must increase their emission levels substantially, despite advances in green technology.

Much of sub-Saharan Africa is mired in the most desperate, grinding poverty imaginable. Governments there are already unable to meet the most basic needs of their citizens. And it is these people - who contribute least to climate change - who will suffer most from the problems that climate change brings. Women especially will face new challenges to their health, livelihoods, and even their lives, for they are the ones who must walk to fetch the water and who must tend to their families’ crops.

Africa's per-capita emissions must increase. But, if Africa's population grows by the 39% that is projected by 2020, it will be nearly impossible to create a healthy quality of life for people in that part of the world.

Population growth will undermine all efforts to achieve lower carbon emissions unless investments in clean energy are matched by equally comprehensive investments in universal access to contraception, along with other health and development programs.

Unfortunately, for too long, population has been ignored as part of the climate change equation. Some consider the topic to be toxic. That’s tragic, but at the same time, it’s easy to understand, because too often the population connection to climate change is oversimplified, and overhyped.

In recent weeks, there have been a number of examples of this. Most disturbingly, a widely circulated opinion piece in a Canadian newspaper resurrected the nasty notion of population control by urging mandatory limits on child-bearing. That such a chilling thought made it to publication in a mainstream publication is deplorable.

In addition, an August 2009 report issued by the UK-based Optimum Population Trust (OPT) incorrectly claimed that meeting the worldwide unmet need for family planning is a more cost effective way to reduce current carbon emissions than other "green" technologies. They followed this up with a plan to allow citizens of wealthy industrial nations to “offset” their emissions with donations to make birth control available to women in poor countries.

By assuming erroneously the main cause of unplanned births in every nation on earth is lack of access to contraception, the OPT rendered its entire study meaningless. Most high carbon emitters live in developed nations where contraceptives are generally available. Reducing carbon emissions through universal access to contraception is essential. But the quick carbon fix championed by OPT is a fairy tale.

It’s true that many women in developing nations cannot obtain or afford modern methods of birth control. Meeting their unmet needs is critically important for a variety of reasons. But doing so won’t significantly reduce current fossil fuel emissions. The annual per capita fossil fuel emissions in many such countries are less than a single week of such emissions in the US and many other developed nations.

The simple fact of the matter is this: climate change is largely caused by the high emissions from wealthy industrialized nations. These are places where population is growing slowly if at all. To claim that we can solve climate change solely by addressing population growth in countries where emissions are low is silly. And to suggest that people in the high emitting countries can contribute birth control to poor people instead of cutting back on their own consumption is offensive.

This is one of those times - and one of those issues - where we need to keep our eye on multiple goals. Reducing emissions is an energy issue. But it is also in equal measure a human rights challenge, one that must include unprecedented investments in a full spectrum of reproductive health services for women and couples. Worldwide, 200 million women have an unmet need for family planning. And demand for contraception is projected to increase by 40% in just 15 years.

As we develop hybrid cars and the like, what about the other half of the world? Will they be left to sweat and starve while we glide forward into a century of renewable energy? Their carbon footprint needs to grow. That can only work if we are willing to meet the population growth challenge.

The White House has already made great strides in reversing the pernicious policies of the Bush Administration, which turned a blind eye to the needs of billions. But additional bold action is needed.

No doubt President Obama is keenly aware of the multiple dimensions of the climate challenge. Yes, it's about energy. But, more than that, it is about meeting the basic human needs of soon-to-be seven billion people. Universal access to family planning must be a centerpiece of the climate change agenda in Copenhagen and beyond.