The human time bomb

To cut emissions we have to curb world population. So why isn’t this Copenhagen’s top priority?

by Alex Renton / October 21, 2009 / Leave a comment

Rio das Pedras shantytown in Rio de Janeiro: population control is a vital but ignored part of cutting carbon emissions

Here is a proposition. The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children. If they behave as the average person in the rich world does now, they will emit some 11 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) every year of their lives, and they are likely to have more carbon-emitting children who will make an even bigger mess. If Britain is to meet the government’s target of an 80 per cent reduction in our emissions by 2050, we must start reversing our rising population growth immediately.

So why not start cutting population everywhere? Are condoms not the greenest technology of all? The world population is forecast to peak at 9.2bn by 2050; according to environmentalists, if 9.2bn people live as we do today, they’ll need the resources of a second Earth to sustain them. Compared to the pain and expense of the other carbon reduction ideas, population control looks like a winner. Doesn’t it?

A September report by the LSE for the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) suggests that if the world’s “unmet need” for contraception was tackled, there would be half a billion fewer human beings on the planet by 2050, preventing the emission of 34 gigatonnes of carbon. Providing the condoms, or other acceptable methods, would cost just $220m (£138m); the introduction of low-carbon technology to produce an equivalent saving would cost over $1 trillion.

The calculation is simplistic, as is any “fewer people = a greener planet” equation. And it doesn’t argue for population control in the developing world. Ninety-five per cent of the extra population in 2050 will be poor, and the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit. By today’s standards, a cull of Australians would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis.

Nonetheless, it seems obvious that population stabilisation should be intrinsic to any climate-change strategy. Many figures outside NGO-land advocate it, from David Attenborough to Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society. So does Anthony Giddens, who in his book The Politics of Climate Change (2009) writes about “the vital importance of a renewed drive on the part of the international agencies to help bring the [population growth] rate down.”

So why does population control hardly feature on the agendas of the…

YOU’VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
But don’t worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we’ll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we’ll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

19508163225e29be68d07aa6.30483984

Go to comments

Ten per cent of the world's population should worry about flooding in Venice

Bill McGuire / November 19, 2019

Around 10 per cent of the world's population live in coastal zones at risk from rising...

The UK will be remembered for success or failure at the Glasgow climate summit

Isabel Hilton / December 29, 2019

Next year’s COP26 offers Britain a chance to show global leadership. Will it take it?

Share with friends

Comments

Chris
December 8, 2009 at 09:08
Finally, an article which recognises you cannot talk about population without associated consumption. People who call for population regulation don't realise it is most needed in developed countries and therein lies the problem because consumption is hidden in a way people, even if they are dirt poor, consume nothing and sleep on the street, are not. The best contraceptive is economic development but that means fewer people consuming much more. Population in the developing world is bad for future potential consumption but right now, it is the OECD countries who should limit their offspring if we go down that route. Ultimately we need to revolutionise our entire energy system, all the other options are apparently just too hard to consider because they require limits on the populations of the following: Farm animals Machines Ourselves As humans, we hate placing limits on what we can consume but seem to have no problem talking about limiting our own species so we can consume others or enjoy the benefits of machines.
mark
December 10, 2009 at 05:02
Who cares about how nice the planet is if there aren't humans around to enjoy it? Who do you want to live on this earth, just you and a bunch of mates? Love the photo by the way, you couldn't put in an image of a crowded part of England, it's those dirty terrible third world people we need to stop from reproducing. Lastly, while Rio and Sao Paolo are bloody crowded, vast areas of South America have been left to the cattle. Rio isn't crowded because of Brazil's high population or birth rate, it is crowded because people want to live in the city. Brazil's birth rate has been dropping for decades and is no higher than replacement rate now. Is EVERYTHING that comes out of climate activists mouths a lie?
Simon Paul Jenkins
December 10, 2009 at 17:32
mark said: 'Love the photo by the way, you couldn’t put in an image of a crowded part of England, it’s those dirty terrible third world people we need to stop from reproducing.' Did you actually READ the article, mark? Anyway, this article is great because it properly recognises that prevention is better than cure. In a recent talk about climate change, Matthew Liao talked about 'upstream' and 'downstream' solutions, the former being ones that tackle the problem at its heart (like population control), and the latter being ones that try and deal with problems that are merely attendant on the former (like limiting the emissions of already existing people). Clearly we need to limit the population, and though Ehrlich's book is here described as a 'shocker', his dream of compulsory sterilisation is one that might not be as grim as the consequences that failure to act will bring about.
Rob
December 14, 2009 at 19:09
When i lived in Kenya in the mid-sixties the population was about 6 million. Last year, when there was all that violence, the population was about 38 million. Most of the violence was caused through a shortage of land for people to grow food. Most of the best land is owned by the urban elite, who make hard currency from the export of flowers. Kenyan women at one once had about 8 live births per 1,000, the world's highest. It is not all about combating the birth control deniers, but also about feeding the existing population. There is not enough land in Kenya to do this. Trees have been used to provide fuel, as the corrupt administrations have not extended infrastructure, or used intermediate technology. The USA refused aid if birth control was a government policy. Much of Africa suffers from similar problems, allied to degredation of soil quality and loss of aid from the west. At one time the Brandt commission recommended 1% of GDP for aid. The "Poujadist" west with its mantra of "reduce taxation", has continually cut taxes to stop income redistribution thus putting this target further away than ever, so what do we get? Economic migration, of famine at home. Fewer and fewer take part in democratic elections in the west because it is all a swindle. "The Emperor's New Clothes", "weapons of mass destruction". Nationalise the banks and privatise the Post Office!
Miguel Guanipa
December 23, 2009 at 23:11
Did you perchance work fo rthe University of Anglia's email servers team?
greg penner
January 9, 2010 at 16:24
Totally right but i dont understand why the rest of the world cant figure it out,i have been saying that for yrs.We had stopped at one child not 2 the pop will actually go downhill with having only one.It is religion that has messed this whole world up from the first caveman that prayed to the sun to the christians that slayed so many,to paying for your crimes as a catholic ect.Maybe we have to get rid or religion first so we can think with our heads.
DEREK_FANCETT
January 25, 2010 at 20:06
The big mistake in this article is to focus on just climate change. Behind climate change are a whole raft of other 'environmental' problems that will be made much worse by the increase in population ie depletion of finite resources, increased demand on limited 'renewable' resources (eg water and soil), increased levels of pollution, and a reduction in biodiversity leading to the collapse of eco-systems. All of these will either reduce or restrict both the potential standard of living and the quality of life for human beings living towards the end of this century. To tack the problems of overpopulation onto the climate debate seems like leaping onto the noisiest bandwagon when the main adverse effects of too many people are likely to be elsewhere.