PopOffsets News
UN 'concerned' by world population growth trends
Fertility must drop below replacement level in order to stabilise the world population says a UN report.
Population concerns Royal Society
The world population growth rate must slow down significantly to avoid reaching unsustainable levels, says a new UN report. To have a reasonable chance of stabilising world population, fertility must drop to below "replacement level". It must then be maintained at that level for an extended period, says the report.
This replacement level is the fertility level at which a population replaces itself from one generation to the next. The world population is already poised to reach 7 billion later this year and this figure potentially could double to 14 billion by 2100 if action is not taken.
“Even countries with intermediate fertility need to reduce it to replacement level or below if they wish to avoid reaching unsustainable population levels” Hania Zlotnik, Director, UN Population Division. This is of particular concern for the least developed countries worldwide, which are growing at the fastest rate and are already the most vulnerable to famine.
The UN Population Division have produced six projections of potential future population change based on different changes to fertility level and other factors. In the medium scenario, world population peaks at 9.4 billion in 2070 and then starts to decline. However for this to happen, fertility needs to decline significantly in most developing countries.
No guarantee
In recent years, there has been widespread acceptance of the medium scenario as almost a certainty.
However Hania Zlotnik, the Director of the UN Population Division says there is "no guarantee that this scenario will become a reality because high-fertility countries may not reduce their fertility fast enough and countries with intermediate fertility levels may see them stagnate above replacement level. Even countries with intermediate fertility need to reduce it to replacement level or below if they wish to avert continuous population increases to unsustainable levels."
Replacement level is the level of fertility at which a population exactly replaces itself from one generation to the next. In high mortality countries it is 2.5 children per woman and in low mortality countries it is 2.1 children per woman. The high and low projections reveal how even relatively small deviations from replacement-level fertility can lead to dramatic changes in the size of the world population.
The high scenario, where fertility remains mostly between 2.2 and 2.3 children per woman, would lead to a world population of nearly 30 billion in 2300. The report says that "even with significant fertility reductions, Africa's population will likely increase by 150% by 2100 and many of its countries will see their populations increase four-fold or more".
It warns that although the reduction of fertility may be inevitable, considerable effort over the next few decades is required to make it a reality.
The "World Demographic Trends" report has been released by the UN Population Division today ahead of the UN Commission on Population and Development.
By Camille Ebden, BBC News
World Population to reach 7 billion in October
Source: UNESA & UNFPA
UNITED NATIONS, New York - The world's population is projected to reach 7 billion on 31 October 2011, and is likely to reach over 10 billion by 2100, the United Nations announced today.
These are the findings of the 2010 Revision of World Population Prospects, the official United Nations population projections prepared by the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs released today.
According to the medium variant of the projections, the current world population of close to 7 billion is projected to reach 10.1 billion by the end of the century, reaching 9.3 billion by the middle of this century. This marks a revision of previous projections, with the world's population long having been expected to stablize just above nine billion in the middle of the century. The division also raised its forecast for the year 2050, estimating that the world would likely have 9.3 billion people then, an increase of 156 million over the previous estimate for that year, published in 2008.
Much of the population increase is projected to come from the high-fertility countries, which comprise 39 countries in Africa, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and four in Latin America.
Small variations in fertility produce major long-term differences
The figures above present the medium variant of the projections, which is taken as reference for long-term trends. Yet the high projection variant, whose fertility is just half a child above that in the medium variant, produces a world population of 10.6 billion in 2050 and 15.8 billion in 2100.
The low variant, whose fertility remains half a child below that of the medium, produces a population that reaches 8.1 billion in 2050 and declines towards the second half of this century to reach 6.2 billion in 2100.
Fertility levels vary markedly among countries
Today, 42 per cent of the world’s population lives in low-fertility countries, that is, countries where women are not having enough children to ensure that, on average, each woman is replaced by a daughter who survives to the age of procreation. Another 40 per cent lives in intermediate-fertility countries where each woman is having, on average, between 1 and 1.5 daughters, and the remaining 18 per cent lives in high-fertility countries where the average woman has more than 1.5 daughters.
High-fertility countries are mostly concentrated in Africa (39 out of the 55 countries in the continent have high fertility), but there are also nine in Asia, six in Oceania and four in Latin America. Low-fertility countries include all countries in Europe except Iceland and Ireland, 19 out of the 51 in Asia, 14 out of the 39 in the Americas, two in Africa (Mauritius and Tunisia) and one in Oceania (Australia).
If the high-fertility countries of today do not achieve the reductions of fertility produced in the medium variant, they may well see their overall population increase four or five fold by the turn of the century, instead of just tripling. Even with the reductions of fertility produced in the medium variant, the population of 34 of the 58 high-fertility countries would triple by 2100.
Population growth in Africa remains so high that according to the medium variant the population of Africa is expected to more than triple by the end of the century, from today's one billion to 3.6 billion.
Increasing life expectancy
Life expectancy is projected to increase in all three groups of countries. Because declining fertility and increasing longevity lead to population ageing, population ageing is fastest in the low-fertility countries, and slowest among the high-fertility countries.
In high fertility countries life expectancy is expected to rise to 77 in 2095-2100, to 82 in intermediate fertility countries and to 86 in low-fertility countries during the same period. Globally, life expectancy is projected to increase from 68 years in 2005-2010 to 81 in 2095-2100.
UNFPA calls for urgent investment in family planning
Responding to the latest UN population projections, UNFPA Executive Director, Dr. Babatunde Osotimehin said;
"the population projections underscore the urgent need to provide safe and effective family planning to the 215 million women who lack it. Small variations in fertility – when multiplied across countries and over time – make a world of difference. We must invest the resources to enable women and men to have the means to exercise their human right to determine the number and spacing of their children."
The projections also remind us that it is vital to create opportunities for young people who constitute a majority in many of the least developed countries where much of the population increases are expected, added Dr. Osotimehin. "When young people can exercise their right to health, education and decent working conditions, they can improve the capacities of their nations to escape poverty," he said.
Dr. Osotimehin noted that the greater longevity projected for all regions, coupled with low fertility in many countries, means that many countries will be confronting the challenge of ageing populations. "We should plan in advance for the health care and social safety nets of the elderly at the same time we support the largest generation ever of youth," he said.
Further information
To access the full population projections dataset, the 2010 Revision of World Population Prospects, the official United Nations population projections prepared by the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs are available on the UN DESA website.
These latest projections echo concerns over population growth and calls for urgent investment in family planning, expressed recently by the UN in the World Demographic Trends report.
Growing world population needs investment in women and youth
Source: UNFPA
ISTANBUL - Investments in young people, women's empowerment and reproductive health, including family planning, are critical to boosting least developed countries' productive capacity and speeding their escape from poverty, according to a new report by the United Nations Population Fund.
Rapidly growing youth populations
The report Population Dynamics and Poverty in the LDCs: Challenges and Opportunities for Development and Poverty Reduction says that the world's 48 least developed countries (LDCs) have a large and rapidly growing youth population, with some 60 per cent of their population under the age of 25.
These young people, it adds, can drive economic growth and poverty reduction if they enjoy health, education and employment. Further, investments in young girls, often overlooked, could provide a significant development dividend, says the report.
"Women’s empowerment starts with reproductive health"
"Empowering women and girls starts with improved access to reproductive health care and family planning," said Dr. Babatunde Osotimehin, UNFPA's Executive Director.
"Too many teenage girls become mothers, too many die giving birth, too many drop out of school, too many are abused and discriminated against in their daily lives."
"When girls are educated, healthy and can avoid child marriage, unintended pregnancy and HIV, they can contribute fully to their societies' battles against poverty," said Dr. Osotimehin.
"In a world of 7 billion, every person, especially women and girls, should enjoy human rights and human dignity, and have the opportunity to make the most of their potential."
"Investing in reproductive health services would empower women to decide the spacing and number of their children and increase their opportunities for employment, thereby helping their national economies." said Dr. Osotimehin.
"The investments would also reduce maternal death and lead to smaller families with more resources to pour into the health and education of each child. This virtuous cycle helps families, communities and nations escape poverty."
Population growth presents development challenges
According to the latest UN population projections, the world population is projected to reach 7 billion on 31 October, of which 855 million will be living in the least developed countries, many of which continue to face large challenges in achieving internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
The LDCs are lagging in reducing infant, child and maternal death and HIV prevalence. This is strongly related to lack of reproductive health care, including family planning, according to the report.
Due to high fertility, the population of the LDCs is expected to double to 1.7 billion between now and 2050. Rapid population expansion in the LDCs makes it harder for countries to increase or maintain per-capita spending on essential services, such as health and education, according to the new report.
UN Conference on LDCs
The report was launched at the United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries that is taking place in Istanbul this week.
Every ten years since 1981, world leaders have gathered to discuss measures that would respond to the special needs of the poorest countries. This week, more than 50 heads of state and government are attending the meeting in Istanbul with representatives of civil society, private sector, non-governmental organizations and others from around the world to assess the results of the action plan adopted at the last LDC conference (Brussels, 2001), and agree on new measures and strategies to boost these countries' development during the next decade.
"This is probably the last conference we will hold before our world reaches its significant milestone that is the birth of the 7 billionth baby later this year," said UNFPA Executive Director Babatunde Osotimehin, speaking at the conference.
Read the report
Population Dynamics and Poverty in the LDCs: Challenges and Opportunities for Development and Poverty Reduction is available to download from the UNFPA website.
Human rights upheld at 44th UN Commission
Source: Women Deliver and various NGOs
The 44th annual session of the Commission on Population and Development has concluded, adopting a resolution on fertility, reproductive health and development safeguarding the rights of women and young people to access education and lifesaving services.
The outcome document of the Commission on Population and Development which concluded last week reaffirms the landmark International Conference on Population and Development Program of Action and brings the international community one step closer to ensuring that all people have access to necessary reproductive health services.
Members of the United Nations Commission on Population and Development safeguarded the rights of women and young people to access education and lifesaving services.
“The negotiations were tough, but we stood strong and in the end we were able to reach a resolution that guarantees women access to essential reproductive health services and information, including access to effective modern contraceptives” said Dr. Gill Greer, Director General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
Reaffirming commitments to MDG 5
The Commission defended the progress made in advancing women’s rights and access to lifesaving health services, and reaffirms the commitment of an overwhelming majority of governments to reaching a key Millennium Development Goal (MDG).
The MDG 5b target, universal access to reproductive health, is the most off track of all the MDGs. Strong measures to improve the availability of reproductive health services and supplies are crucial to getting it back on track.
Tough negotiations
Despite pressure from a vocal minority of hard line member states led by the Vatican and supported by North American anti-choice non-governmental organizations, the world has repeated once again that the rights of women and young people are central to reducing poverty, inequity and promoting the rights and dignity of all peoples.
“A small minority are intent on ignoring the facts on the ground and the need of working on measures to save the lives of women” said an African Delegate.
A large group of governments from around the world, united in their conviction that young people need access to comprehensive sexuality education and sexual and reproductive health services, came together to defend attacks on the rights of young people around the world.
Universal access remains a priority
The commitments made by Member States in the outcome document make it clear that governments must continue to focus their efforts on the achievement of universal access to sexual and reproductive health. In addition, it recognizes that health services, including family planning and safe and accessible abortion as allowed by the law, are essential in order to successfully address fertility, reproductive health and development, the theme of this year’s Commission.
Making the ICPD Program of Action a reality
In the lead up celebration of the twentieth anniversary of the ICPD Program of Action, civil society will continue to build effective partnerships with governments to ensure that the development goals laid out in the ICPD, including universal access to reproductive health, are a reality for all women and young people.
Food Security and Population Growth
"If we’re serious about food security, we have to tackle population growth,” says Porritt
Jonathon Porritt finds the Government’s response to food security “creative” – but can’t forgive its failure to address population issues
People listen to the UK’s Chief Scientific Advisor – especially when his careful analysis reflects their own intuitive angst. So it’s not surprising that Sir John Beddington’s “perfect storm” hypothesis – that rising demand for energy, water and food will have a massively damaging effect on the global economy by 2030 – has had a huge impact.
But setting the convergence point for his perfect storm way out there in 2030 never made much sense to me. The dramatic spike in oil and food prices in 2008 indicated a near-term emergency rather than a potential medium-term crisis.
Three years on, prices are spiking again in ways that have got the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) twitching with barely concealed panic. In February, oil went back through the $100-a-barrel threshold. Grain prices (as well as other food commodities) soared to new highs. Two-thirds of China’s wheat-growing areas are seriously affected by drought – with a massive potential impact on this year’s harvest. When the FAO announced this news, it sent tremors through the governments of all those countries where bread remains the staple food. These include Egypt and other North African states, where rising food prices were one of the triggers for mass unrest.
Not so much a perfect storm perhaps, but yet another curtain-raising gale. Which makes it a compellingly good moment for the UK’s Government Office for Science to launch its blockbuster report on The Future of Food and Farming. Its aim: “to identify the decisions that policymakers need to make today, and in the years ahead, to ensure that a global population rising to 9 billion or more can be fed sustainably and equitably”. In other words, it’s all about food security.
And a very good job the report does too. It’s strong on food waste: if we can sort out the fact that anywhere between 30% and 50% of the food grown doesn’t get onto people’s plates, we’ll be much better placed to do the rest. And it’s strong on science and technology – although campaigners against genetic modification will be aggrieved that the report endorses the potential contribution that GM crops could make to delivering food security.
Most creatively, it proposes that we should start thinking about “sustainable intensification” as the overarching policy driver. Most people today see ‘sustainable agriculture’ and ‘intensive agriculture’ (based on ever-increasing applications of fertilisers and pesticides) as polar opposites. But in a world where very little new land is going to be available for food production, yields are going to have to be raised by increasing the efficiency with which inputs are used and by reducing negative environmental impacts. The case studies it provides of sustainable intensification in Africa are truly inspirational.
But the report doesn’t get a clean bill of health. It’s very weak on the need to balance global supply chains with local self-reliance, embarrassingly naïve about the dangers of concentration in the food industry (with fewer and fewer global operations calling the shots) – and it’s pathetic on meat. Having asserted that “the demand for the most resource-intensive types of food must be contained”, its policy recommendations in this area could have been written by the most irresponsible of the world’s beef barons.
All this is forgivable – and relatively small beer in comparison to the report’s considerable strengths. Unforgivable, by contrast, is its wilful failure to address population issues. Its authors will claim otherwise, given that the very first of its “Driver Reviews” is about population. But this is made up almost entirely of analysis (historical and current), with very little editorial comment – let alone policy recommendations. On that score, its authors clearly want to be seen as agnostic as to the impact of continuing population growth on food security – which is fairly startling in the year which will see human numbers rise above 7 billion.
Ironically, the report eloquently emphasises the role that women will play in this brave new world of sustainable intensification. In Africa, and much of the developing world, women make up the largest share of the agricultural workforce. And they are far more vulnerable both to policy failure and to the impacts of accelerating climate change. The report’s principal recommendations in that regard are “the eradication of gender-based discrimination (such as land ownership and user rights) and steps to actively promote women’s status”.
Fair enough. But what about a woman’s right to manage her fertility – including the timing, spacing and number of children? What about guaranteed access to a choice of contraception? What about a reliable source of improved reproductive healthcare?
This is harsh criticism. But the report so skilfully joins up the other factors relating to food security, that to perpetuate the deception that there’s no relation between food security and continuing population growth speaks volumes about thedegree to which this remains taboo territory.
- Jonathon Porritt is Founder Director of Forum for the Future, and author of Living Within Our Means.
Public opinion survey shows support
Population Matters
In May Population Matters repeated the survey of UK attitudes to population first conducted in 2009. Most people thought the UK and world populations were too high. They agreed that population numbers contributed to a number of current problems and that people should take the environment into account when deciding how many children they should have. They also agreed with a number of Population Matters' policy proposals. A summary and the full results are on the web site.
www.populationmatters.org
Sea life under threat
Marine life is facing extinction according to a report by international scientists. The study cited the causes as climate warming, sea-water acidification, widespread chemical pollution and overfishing.
Co-author Professor Ove Hoegh Guldberg said that a growing human population was to blame for many of the changes. Co-author Dr Alex Rogers added “The changes that people had been predicting would happen in the lifetime of our children, or our children's children, are happening really now before our eyes”.
The International Program on the State of the Oceans report brought together coral reef ecologists, toxicologists and fisheries scientists.
Aid for universal access to family planning
While the UK government has made reproductive, maternal and newborn health a priority for its overseas aid, this isn’t the case for the EU as a whole. Ask your MEP what they are doing to make reproductive health aid a focus of EU support for developing countries.
More information is available here: www.countdown2015mnch.org/
National Geographic launches series on population
National Geographic has long been regarded as a valuable source of scientific and cultural enrichment for all ages. In a special year-long series entitled ‘7 Billion’ this award-winning organisation is collaborating with PBS Newshour and the Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting to highlight population issues around the globe.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/7-billion
www.pbs.org/newshour/
The world at seven billion
The world's population is expected to hit seven billion in the next few weeks. After growing very slowly for most of human history, the number of people on Earth has more than doubled in the last 50 years.
Over the next week the BBC News website will be looking at the issues raised by the growth in the world's population. You will be able to find out how many people were alive on the day you were born, plus there will be an analysis of the troubled history of population control as well as a tour of population projection data.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15368276
The following link will take you to the BBC webpage where you can see where you fit into the seven billion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15391515
LUNCH HOUR LECTURE: Stabilising the global population
Where next for the Millennium Development Goals for health and nutrition?
University College London - 25 January
The above lecture is free and open to anyone on a first-come first-served basis. Lectures are also streamed live online or can be downloaded after the event. For further information please visit http://events.ucl.ac.uk/event/event:gg-gfsbpdyi-6mmp4o/
Royal Society Study
People and the planet: The role of global population in sustainable development.
In the run-up to the December 2009 Copenhagen conference on climate change, a number of academics and NGOs called for a fresh look at the factors affecting and affected by changing population.
In recognition that the population issue is moving back up the agenda the Royal Society, in July 2010, convened a working group of experts, to revisit some of the issues and analyse how population variables will affect and be affected by economies, environments, societies and cultures over the next forty years and beyond. The group, chaired by Sir John Sulston FRS, the Nobel prizewinner who led the UK branch of the publicly funded Human Genome Project, includes two OPT patrons Sir David Attenborough and Jonathon Porritt as well as a range of other eminent academics.
The aims of the study are to provide policy guidance to decision makers and inform interested members of the public based on a dispassionate assessment of the best available evidence. The scope of the study will be global. It will explicitly acknowledge regional variations in population dynamics. It will look at the implications of population decreases, and increases that are observed and predicted in different parts of the world. It will consider how scientific and technological developments might alter the rate and impact of population changes and affect human well-being.
The study will be completed by early 2012, when the world’s population is expected to exceed 7 billion. The report will be aimed at national and international policy makers, donors and funders, the media, scientific bodies and NGOs. It will be a high profile contribution to the 2012 ‘Rio+20’ UN Earth Summit and also mark the 40th anniversary of ‘The Limits to Growth’.
The study will acknowledge that a wide range of factors affect population dynamics, such as cultural values, economic development, environment, gender and income equality, government policies and human rights. These will be reflected in the study’s selection of experts and disciplines that the study draws upon, but its primary focus will be what new insights and policy guidance the latest scientific evidence can offer to these debates.
Huffington Post article 1.9.10
Stimulating thoughts from a contributor to the 'Huffington Post' - see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/cap-and-trade-population_b_702350.html
While we may agree or disagree with the views expressed about a Cap and Trade on population it is refreshing to see the issue of population being more openly debated;
We are all aware of the Cap and Trade idea being promoted as a solution to reduce carbon emissions and thereby global warming. Once you put a price on carbon, then you must properly assess the varied sources of carbon and incentivize change as effectively as possible, which usually involves monetary motivation such as tax breaks or rebates to spur action. Aside from the pollution of large corporations, we as individuals are sources of carbon emissions, depending on our activities. For instance, by choosing not to eat meat, you are effectively not supporting an industry that is one of the most carbon-intensive. But above all the things we can do to impact global warming, the simple act of reproduction does more harm than any other activity we do, including driving a car and, well, eating a steak.
So if it holds true that the biggest negative impact each of us can have on carbon emissions is to reproduce, wouldn't it make sense to give tax credits to those who abstain from reproducing to offset their positive impact? Then they could sell those credits on the open market to couples who wanted to have, say, more than two kids, which could be a max limit for receiving a tax credit. You wouldn't be barred from having as many children as you wanted, as long as you had more than two kids, you bought the tax credits to offset your carbon-negative decision. Just like corporations who want to emit more carbon would buy credits from green companies on some sort of market or exchange, so could potential parents buy credits from childless couples to offset their carbon footprint. I must confess, I don't know how this would be implemented or enforced in this country but that doesn't stop it from being a promising idea. If we are to objectively examine sources of carbon and decide to give the most attention to changing the worst among them, then an idea like this would be the best compromise between China's one-child-per-couple policy and the 19-child-per-couple Duggars, whose incessant rutting has produced more carbon than a lifetime of P. Diddy flying his Gulfstream jet to Aruba. Daily. To burn virgin rainforest.
From a great article in Grist, I culled these excerpts to put some figures on this issue:
We're on track to hit a global population of 7 billion people next year or the year after--3 billion more than when Mills got all riled up four decades ago. We've spewed enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to push it past the safe point, which many climate scientists agree is 350 parts carbon dioxide per million; we're already at about 390 and rising fast. And Americans are among the most carbon-intensive people on earth. The average American generates about 66 times more CO2 each year than the average Bangladeshi--20 tons versus 0.3 tons.
According to a 2009 study in Global Environmental Change [PDF] that took into account the long-term impact of Americans' descendants, each child adds an estimated 9,441 metric tons of CO2 to a parent's carbon legacy--that's about 5.7 times his or her direct lifetime emissions.
"Many people are unaware of the power of exponential population growth," said study coauthor Paul Murtaugh, a professor of statistics at Oregon State University. "Future growth amplifies the consequences of people's reproductive choices today, the same way that compound interest amplifies a bank balance."
In the developing world, where a majority of the population growth is happening, one of the biggest causes is lack of access to birth control. Women in Uganda have three times the children on average that women in the US or Canada have. But since "the average American generates about 66 times more CO2 each year than the average Bangladeshi" as I quoted above, the impact of one less child in the US far outweighs the impact of any third world child by a long shot. A new organization called PopOffsets has tried to bridge the gap between carbon offsets and contraception, which is a great start. Even a small dent in the growth of global population is a positive thing. But it is important to address the root causes of our problems rather than applying salve to the symptoms, which never really go away.
In order to get serious about carbon emissions, there is no way to avoid the subject of population growth. By incentivizing behavior, we can make a difference where it counts and avoid the dangerous trajectory that our species is on.
New Statesman Article 30.8.2010
An article by Mary Fitzgerald, assistant and on-line editor of Prospect magazine had an interesting article published in the New Statesman on 30th August.
It is reproduced in full below - for comments from New Statesman readers visit http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/08/world-population-family-women#reader-comments
Politicians of western countries avoid talking about population control, but if we invest in family planning we might just save our planet.
Leucadia Quispe, a 60-year-old mother-of-eight, was born and raised in Botijlaca, a settlement that sits in the foothills of the Chacaltaya and Huayna Potosí mountains in Bolivia. High above, the Chacaltaya glacier is retreating at an unexpected pace: three times as fast as predicted ten years ago. It will be gone in a generation.
Seven out of her eight children have already migrated to other parts of the country, Leucadia says, "because there is no way to make a living here". Because of the dwindling water supply, she must spend hours hauling water in five-litre containers, one in each hand. The scarcity of this precious resource makes it hard to find fodder for her llamas and sheep, and some of her llamas have starved to death.
Women such as Leucadia are on the front line of the struggle against climate change, according to Robert Engelman of the Worldwatch
Institute. But her plight as a mother dramatises an issue that was largely ignored at the UN summit in Copenhagen last December and is also missing from the agenda of the UN summit in Mexico (COP16), scheduled for late this year. It is the problem of human numbers.
It is predicted that, if the global population continues to grow at the present rate, the world will need the resources of a second earth to sustain it by 2050. Today, there are 6.9 billion people on the planet; in 40 years, this figure will reach 9.2 billion. Most political leaders, however, are reluctant to examine the matter. The term "population control" has connotations too sinister for many, even though it can simply mean sensible family planning.
It is estimated that nearly 40 per cent of all pregnancies around the world are unintended; addressing this could make a vital difference. Research from the Optimum Population Trust, whose patrons include the environmentalists David Attenborough, James Lovelock and Jonathon Porritt, suggests that, for every $7 (£4.50) spent on basic family planning services over the next 40 years, global CO2 emissions could be reduced by more than a tonne. It would cost a minimum of $32 (£20.50) to achieve the same result with low-carbon technologies.
Between now and 2050, meeting the world's family planning needs could save up to 34 gigatonnes of CO2 - nearly 60 times the UK's annual total. As Unicef reported as far back as 1992: "Family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology available to the human race."
This hasn't escaped the notice of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), whose latest State of World Population report - written by Engelman - revealed that there are more than 215 million women across the world wanting but unable to get contraception. The logic goes that if more resources were poured into fixing this, fewer unwanted babies would be born - and it would be better both for the women involved and for mankind as a whole, because it would lead to lower carbon emissions.
Wrong multiplication
So far, so uncontroversial. However, the world's poorest billion people (who account for very many of the 215 million women without adequate contraception) produce only 3 per cent of the global carbon footprint. In other words, focusing exclusively on this group is not particularly efficient. If change is to be made through family planning, it follows that richer countries must be involved: by current estimates, the average British child has a heavier carbon footprint than 30 children in sub-Saharan Africa.
Yet when I asked the head of the UNFPA's population and development branch about the need to introduce policies encouraging women throughout the world - and particularly in the west - to have fewer children, he would not endorse it. "We're not promoting any particular policy to increase or decrease fertility," José Miguel Guzman explained to me on the phone from New York. "Our main goal is to give women the power to decide how many children they have, and to pressure governments into introducing policies that reduce per-capita emissions." The focus, in other words, should be on reducing human consumption rather than human numbers.
This seems logical for wealthy countries such as Britain, which is among the world's highest per-capita energy consumers but has just two children per family, on average. Yet due in part to immigration, the UK's population is projected to rise from the current 61 million to 70 million by 2029, and 77 million in 2050. That's more than another two Londons. If the Tories and the Lib Dems manage to agree on an immigration policy, this could have an impact, but no one can say how much. And no matter how "green" the coalition says it is, this volume of extra people will add substantially to the UK's already heavy carbon footprint. If British families have two children on average, at least some women must be having three children or more. Given Britain's disproportionate consumption patterns, can the world afford this?
The question drifts dangerously into the arena of women's autonomy. Initiatives encouraging smaller families - such as child benefits, or tax breaks for families with two children or fewer - could be seen as unfairly weighting a woman's reproductive choices. When does an incentive become something more sinister? What, in policy terms, amounts to coercion?
It is an area fraught with difficulty and efforts to tackle it invariably meet with opposition. Oxfam's head of research, Duncan Green, has been critical of the Optimum Population Trust's PopOffsets initiative, which invites people to offset their carbon emissions by funding family planning services in the developing world. The scheme, he said, is tantamount to blaming the victims. "I'm all for supporting women's reproductive rights," Green explained to me, but, in his view, PopOffsets puts "the wrong people in the frame". This kind of attitude, he says, tries to make light of the harm to the environment done by the developed world and by emerging-market economies such as China. "Would you have more population control in China?"
At its heart, the debate exposes a worrying paradox: the fundamental contradictions in the goals aimed at helping poorer countries. The UNFPA, along with many major charities, advocates reducing carbon emissions and promoting investment and education. Yet, as nations get wealthier, they pollute more. This means that helping countries to develop - at all - sits awkwardly with the goal of reducing CO2 emissions.
It is argued that, with enough support committed to helping countries grow sustainably, a damaging jump in pollution can be avoided. (It's also true that, as nations become richer, their fertility rates drop.) But most experts concede that, even with the best-laid development plans, there will be a time lag during which emissions will rise. And given that one of the few agreements at Copenhagen was that Planet Earth's temperature cannot rise beyond 2°C in the coming decades, this could be the worst possible time for such a blip.
In the mincer
Thinking about population numbers is important for many reasons - many of them basic and uncontentious. The UNFPA used this year's World Population Day in July to drive home a message about the importance of governments gathering good demographic data, in order better to predict where resources will be needed and to mitigate, for example, the effects of India's swelling cities. So, why are the consequences of birth trends not being considered more seriously?
“Population growth is the kind of area that gets ignored because people want to ignore it," says the environmental scientist James Lovelock. "But it can't be wished away." He points out that humans and animals contribute 25 per cent of global emissions by "just existing on the planet, [even] before you add cars or anything".
What can be done? No one would suggest that we should hold back on helping countries to get richer or their citizens healthier in order to cut down human numbers. Nor is China's one-child policy palatable to most western voters or policymakers, even if it has produced between 300 and 400 million fewer people on the planet. Likewise, population control should not be seen as the catch-all solution to climate change: technological innovation, political co-operation and meaningful social change will all have important roles to play if, as Lovelock puts it, we are to give our descendants a chance, "instead of letting them get ground up in the mincer".
But just as in the past not enough attention was paid to the effects of polluting gases on our atmosphere, now too little thought is going into what multiplying human numbers will mean for future generations. We must ask ourselves tough questions. Although we cannot deny women the right to choose how many children they have, does offering tax breaks for smaller families in richer countries amount to the same thing? Or does it, in fact, grant the poorest citizens of the developing world, people such as Leucadia, the right to a better life?
UK population to be highest in Europe by 2050
The UK population will increase to 77million by the middle of the century with France, which has more than double Britain’s land area, in second place with 70million inhabitants. The figures from the Population Reference Bureau also show the world population will hit 7billion next year - just 12 years after it reached 6billion.
In a separate report Forum for the Future state that Britain will struggle to handle 'catastrophic' population growth in future unless urgent action is taken. The predicted increase to 70million by 2029 will put unsustainable pressure on housing, schools and hospitals as well as natural resources such as food and water, experts said. Current trends will see a city the size of Bristol added to the population of the UK every year for the next two decades. Forum for the Future said vast growth would cause huge rises in pollution and waste and called for urgent action to stop numbers reaching the expected highs and causing a fall in quality of life levels. Director Sara Parkin warned the debate about population had been hijacked by 'extremist' groups but was a key environmental issue "Britons deserve a serious debate about population and politicians need to start planning now to achieve a sustainable future,' she said. "By recognising population as a vital element in strategies to achieve low-carbon and satisfying lifestyles, politicians can reclaim the issue from the extremists. Only through good leadership and sensitive long-term planning can we make sure that UK population growth falls short of today's high projections and that we are prepared to cope effectively with any growth that does happen. We'll need to have more attractive and effective family planning services, and we'll also have to get the right infrastructure into the right places. A step change in investment, innovation - and imagination - is essential too so any rise in numbers of people does not mean a rise in CO2 emissions or a fall in quality of life." The report, entitled Growing Pains, called for more zero-carbon homes, better water efficiency, more renewable energy and better public transport. It also called for an 'objective discussion' on immigration to understand its value to UK society and the economy. The report stressed that case "Policy-makers should reclaim immigration from 'extremist' groups and not ignore it because it is controversial".
New Index highlights most over populated countries
Singapore is the world’s most overpopulated state, followed by Israel and Kuwait, according to a new league table ranking countries by their degree of overpopulation. The UK is 17th in the table.
The Overpopulation Index, published by the Optimum Population Trust to mark World Population Day, July 11, is thought to be the first international “league table” to rank countries according to the sustainability of their populations – the extent to which they are living within their environmental means.
It examines data for over 130 individual countries and concludes that 77 of them are overpopulated – they are consuming more resources than they are producing and are dependent on other countries, and ultimately the Earth a whole, to make good the difference.
Middle Eastern and European countries dominate the index, with nine and eight respectively among the 20 most overpopulated. China and India, despite being bywords for overpopulation, rank lower, at 29th and 33rd respectively. The world as a whole, meanwhile, is overpopulated by two billion – the difference between its actual population and the number it can support sustainably, given current lifestyles and technologies.
The calculations have been made possible by advances in the methodology of ecological footprinting, which measures the area of biologically productive land and water required to produce the resources and absorb the waste of a given population or activity and expresses this in global hectares - hectares with world-average biological productivity.
The index uses data contained in the latest Ecological Footprint Atlas, produced last year by the Global Footprint Network and based on figures for 2006. Data were available for over 130 states. The atlas assesses the ecological footprint and biocapacity (renewable biological productivity) of a country on a per capita basis. The index measures the proportion of a country’s average per capita footprint not supplied from its own biocapacity to determine how dependent it is on external sources.*
A UK citizen, for example, has an average ecological footprint of 6.12 global hectares but because of the size of the population, their “share” of national biocapacity is only 1.58 global hectares. This gives the UK a self-sufficiency rating of 25.8 per cent – the proportion of its footprint it derives from its own resources –and a corresponding dependency rating of 74.2 per cent. If it had to rely on its own biocapacity, the UK could therefore sustain only a quarter of its population – around 15 million – and, at current consumption levels, is “overpopulated” by more than 45 million (see index).
The population of Africa as a whole, while not exceeding its biocapacity share, has both higher levels of fertility and poverty than any other continent. OPT chair Roger Martin described this as “a stark illustration of the unfortunate trade-offs between growing populations and sustainable livelihoods which we are currently seeing”.
He said: “Some people may argue that in a world of international trade, national self-sufficiency doesn’t matter. We think that’s a very short-sighted view. You don’t have to be a little Englander or an eco-survivalist to conclude that in an era of growing shortages - food, energy, water - being so dependent on the outside world puts us in a very vulnerable position. With the rest of the world, including many countries much poorer than the UK, supplying three-quarters of our overall needs, it’s also morally questionable.”
“ ‘Overpopulation’ is a much used and abused word, but we believe the index helps to anchor it firmly in the realm of sustainability – of people living within the limits of the place they inhabit. I think the index also clarifies what we really mean by sustainability and how important human numbers are to the concept.”
“To reduce our impact on the planet, we need to think about both numbers of consumers and how much they consume, and the UK is doing exceptionally badly on both fronts. Had we published this calculation last year, my understanding is that the UK would have been in 19th position. In terms of numbers - and therefore in terms of sustainability - we are still moving in the wrong direction, both in the table and in reality. It’s about time we woke up to the fact that the UK has a real population problem.”
Mr. Martin added: “There is a long history of estimating how many people the world can support, some of it extremely fanciful. Ecological footprinting has developed rapidly in recent years and is now beginning to produce probably the best data we have ever had. The index uses this data to provide a compelling picture of not only where we are but where we need to be. And where we need to be, both globally and nationally, is clearly supporting significantly fewer people than we are.”
OPT PopOffsets Press Release
PRESS RELEASE
Carbon offset scheme funds family planning projects
Helping women, young people, fisheries, and the planet
Following the November launch of their unique carbon offset scheme, ‘PopOffsets’, the Optimum Population Trust has announced funding for two family planning projects.
OPT’s first project is based in the UK where education is the key issue rather than access to family planning services. Young people’s sexual health charity Brook provides free and confidential sexual health advice and services specifically for young people under 25. Simon Blake, the National Director of Brook, commented: “ We really welcome this £5000 contribution from OPT which will go towards updating and modernising our popular “Roll with it” booklet for young people on condom use.”. OPT Chair Roger Martin responded: “Our contribution underlines our recognition of the far greater carbon footprint/environmental impact of each additional unwanted birth in the UK than in any developing country - hence our policy of dividing our funding between rich and poor countries. Our carbon offset scheme, PopOffsets, does not let developed nations ‘off the hook’. We simply must reduce both our own excessive carbon emissions, individually and nationally, and – by voluntary means - the number of our own carbon emitters. But we also have to help over 200 million women in the world, many with no access to family planning, to take control of their own fertility”.
The second project is based in Madagascar where the Velondriake community is seeking to achieve sustainability through family planning and protection of its traditional fishing grounds, which are in danger of over-exploitation. Dr Vik Mohan, a voluntary worker with the project, has hailed the contribution. “This is great news,” he said. “The £5000 contribution will help our community-based distribution of contraception this year, and increase our community education and awareness-raising work.” Dr Mohan added “While the carbon emissions of the average Madagascan are low compared to those in the west, we cannot expect people to continue to live in poverty; but as we work to improve the standards of living of the poor, we must also recognise the impact of affluence, not only on creating greenhouse gases but directly on the environment – and more people have more impact. We are experiencing a growing demand for family planning services, and we welcome the funding from the Optimum Population Trust to help us to deliver them to those who need it. Their families benefit, the fish stocks benefit, and the planet benefits – it’s a win, win, win situation” Roger Martin commented, “All poor people rightly aspire to become richer; and the evidence is now conclusive that slowing the pace of population growth contributes to national development. Conversely, all other development programmes are doomed ultimately to fail if human numbers, rich and poor, keep rising indefinitely on our fragile and finite planet. As UNICEF* said, “Family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology” - it is indeed the ultimate "win, win, win" for women, their communities, their countries, and the planet. It both helps nations develop, and lowers their collective carbon footprint as they do so – very cost-effectively
. To quote Kofi Annan**, “Population stabilisation should become a priority for sustainable development”. Carbon offsetting naturally has many critics; but the fact is that it is now a multi-billion dollar business; and the unmet need for family planning is huge and rising. Individuals or organisations considering offsetting their carbon emissions can do this on the PopOffsets website at
www.popoffsets.com.
*UNICEF Annual Report 1992
**Key Recommendations of Global Humanitarian Forum 2009
-----------------------------------ENDS---------------------------------------
The Optimum Population Trust is the leading environmental charity in the UK concerned with the impact of population growth on the environment. It campaigns for non-coercive policies to stabilize and reduce populations to sustainable levels, globally and in the UK. OPT research covers population in relation to climate change, and other environmental, social and economic issues. It is a registered charity and is financed by its members, and by donations. It receives funding neither from the government nor from any political or business interests, and is not affiliated to any other organization, except as a partner in the Global Footprint Network.
MAIN AIMS
To advance environmental protection by promoting policies in the UK and globally,
aiming at stable populations in all countries at environmentally sustainable levels.
To promote public education on population and the environment.
To conduct and disseminate research on optimum sustainable population levels.
PATRONS
Sir David Attenborough OM CH CVO CBE, Naturalist, broadcaster and trustee of the British Museum and Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew; and a former controller of BBC Two.
Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta, Frank Ramsey Professor of Economics, University of Cambridge
Professor Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies, Stanford University
Dr Jane Goodall DBE, Founder, Jane Goodall Institute, and UN Messenger of Peace.
Susan Hampshire OBE, Actress and population campaigner
Professor John Guillebaud Former Co-chair of OPT, Emeritus Professor of Family Planning and Reproductive Health, University College, London. Former Medical Director, Margaret Pyke Centre for Family Planning.
Dr James Lovelock CBE Scientist and environmentalist known for proposing the Gaia theory that Earth functions as an organism, and author of 'The Revenge of Gaia'.
Professor Aubrey Manning OBE, President of the Wildlife Trusts and Emeritus Professor of Natural History, University of Edinburgh
Professor Norman Myers CMG, Visiting Fellow, Green College, Oxford University, and at Universities of Harvard, Cornell, Stanford, California, Michigan and Texas
Sara Parkin OBE, Founder Director and Trustee of Forum for the Future and Director of the Natural Environment Research Council and the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education and Head Teachers into Industry.
Jonathon Porritt CBE, Founder Director of Forum for the Future and former Chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission.
Sir Crispin Tickell GCMG KCVO, Chancellor of Kent University, Director of the Policy Foresight Programme at the James Martin Institute, and former UK Permanent Representative on the United Nations Security Council
For further information on the PopOffsets project contact David Burton (skype – 0044 (0)121 288 6236) or email info3@popoffsets.com
For further information on the Optimum Population Trust contact: info@optimumpopulation.org
For further information on Brook contact Natalie Collyer on 0044 (0)20 7284 6062 or e mail
press@brook.org.uk
For further information on the Velondriake Community project contact Dr Vik Mohan on mohanvik@hotmail.com or visit www.livewiththesea.org.
For information about sexual and reproductive health worldwide, contact Professor John
Guillebaud on 0044 (0)7779 180 188
Group give 100,000 Endangered Species Condoms on Valentines
Educational Project Highlights Impact of Human Overpopulation on Wildlife
Five People to Win Lifetime Condom Supply
TUCSON, Ariz.— With 3,000 volunteers operating in all 50 states, the Center for Biological Diversity will distribute 100,000 free Endangered Species Condoms beginning on Valentine’s Day and has launched an educational Web site – www.EndangeredSpeciesCondoms.com – chronicling the devastating impact of human overpopulation on endangered species. Additional free condoms will be distributed through the site, and five people will win a lifetime condom supply.
Six different packages with original artwork and edgy slogans feature the polar bear (“Wrap with care, save the polar bear”), jaguar (“Wear a jimmy hat, save the big cat”), American burying beetle (“Cover your tweedle, save the burying beetle”), snail darter (“Hump smarter, save the snail darter”), coquí guajón rock frog (“Use a stopper, save the hopper”), and spotted owl (“Wear a condom now, save the spotted owl”). All six species are listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
“Human overpopulation is destroying wildlife habitat at an unprecedented rate,” said Randy Serraglio, a conservation advocate leading the Center’s overpopulation campaign.
“All of the major threats to the earth’s biodiversity – sprawl, logging, mining, dams, pollution, and climate change – are driven by human overpopulation. Our Endangered Species Condoms are designed to capture peoples’ attention, get them laughing, and get them talking about the impact of overpopulation on our small and fragile planet.”
The Endangered Species Condoms will be distributed in bars, supermarkets, schools, concerts, parties, and other public events by grandmothers, college students, university professors, health-care providers, ministers, rock bands, and people from all walks of life.
“We’ve been overwhelmed with volunteers,” said Serraglio. “We expected 100, but got over 3,000 in just a month. The demand far exceeded our first run of 100,000 condoms. We’ll be producing another 100,000 as soon as the first batch hits the streets.”
The human population stands at 6.8 billion and is projected to reach at least 9 billion by 2050. “Without universal access to free birth control and engaging public education about the serious consequences of overpopulation, the global population could reach 15 billion by mid-century,” said Serraglio. “The Earth simply can’t sustain that many people and provide a high-quality life for all species, including humans.”
The current extinction rate is about 1,000 times the normal background rate that has existed for hundreds of millions of years. “Unlike previous mass extinctions, which were the result of cosmic or geologic catastrophes, this one is being caused by a single species: human beings,” said Serraglio. “With a little more thoughtfulness and responsibility for our reproductive behavior, we can ensure future generations inherit a world that’s still full of a diversity of life.
“Through the empowerment of women, universal, free access to birth control for everyone who wants it, and education of all people, we can stabilize global population at a sustainable level,” said Serraglio. “The United States, which has the highest population growth of any developed nation and extremely high consumption levels, is a key factor in this problem. We should be taking the lead in promoting policies that will stabilize global population.”
The Center’s new Web site – www.EndangeredSpeciesCondoms.com – has images of the six colorful condom packages, information on how overpopulation is impacting climate change, global fisheries collapse, public lands, and the extinction crisis. It allows people to sign up to become Endangered Species Condom distributors in their own neighborhoods and to enter a contest to win free condoms for life.
On the web:
www.EndangeredSpeciesCondoms.com
www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/overpopulation/index.html
Danish Government approves €4.4million for MSI support
Marie Stopes International (MSI) today announced that the Danish Government has decided to support MSI with a grant of €4.4million (DKK 33million). The grant will support MSI’s voluntary contraception and safe abortion services through September 2011.
Approximately 215 million women want an effective method of contraception but cannot access it. Today, an estimated 67,000 women, almost all of them in developing countries, die each year as a direct result of an estimated 20 million unsafe abortions. Many thousands more are left injured, disabled or infertile due to unsafe procedures. Nearly all of these deaths and injuries could be prevented through adequate access to sexual and reproductive health and safe abortion services.
Speaking from the European Parliament, Michael Cashman MEP said “Within the European Union there are many countries with different views on sexual and reproductive health. Denmark, however, is at the forefront of women’s rights as demonstrated by its funding of non-government organisations that focus on this area. It is time that Governments throughout the world follow the example set by Denmark.
Climate Change Question at the House of Lords
On the 20th January 2010 a question was raised in the House of Lords in the UK by the Lord Lea of Crondall in asking whether Her Majesty’s Government has investigated if increased expenditure on contraceptive services globally would produce a greater reduction of carbon dioxide emissions than many green technologies. Lord Lea of Crondall debated whether it is “cowardice on the part of the industrial democracies post-Copenhagen to refuse to put a public spotlight on this critical agenda item” (whereby he is referring to meeting the demand for contraceptive services). He goes on to question whether ignoring this topic would be very short sighted and unsustainable. In response to this, a number of the residing Lords and Baronesses discussed the issues raised.
This question sparked a number of interesting responses, and counter arguments , implementing a system of increased contraception services in the developed world could have just as much of an impact on decreasing our future carbon dioxide emissions due to much higher consumption rates per person than in the developing world. Lord Brett spoke in depth on the subject and pointed out that “an individual’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions depends on the goods and services consumed over their lifetime. Countries with the highest population growth are among the poorest in the world. However, they also have the lowest consumption.” While such a statement is valid it ignores the fact that individuals mainly aspire to achieve ‘western’ lifestyles and one cannot predict any individual’s CO2 output from birth he did, however, go on to state that he believes more research is still required to assess the long term impact of population growth on carbon dioxide emissions, taking into account economic growth.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve, in contributing to the debate stated that “Contraceptive services are good for women, good for their children, good for countries and, if we look at the projections for greenhouse gas emissions, good for the world climate.”
PopOffsets Press Release
Ground-breaking carbon offset project will put population on the Copenhagen agenda
Family planning is eight times cheaper as a way of tackling global warming than solar power and four times less costly than wind power, according to the sponsors of a radical new carbon offset initiative.
UK-based charity, the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), says its research reflects the conclusions of the recently published UN Population Fund Report, and will give added impetus to calls for the population issue to be to the fore of the global environmental debate ahead of next week’s climate summit in Copenhagen.
OPT is launching the ‘PopOffsets’ project which has the backing of the charity’s influential Patrons including naturalist and broadcaster Sir David Attenborough, Jonathon Porritt, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Professor John Guillebaud, Susan Hampshire, Professor Aubrey Manning, Sara Parkin, Professor Chris Rapley, and Sir Crispin Tickell.
The project has a dedicated website, www.popoffsets.com, enabling people to offset their carbon footprint by making on-line donations to OPT to support the huge need for family planning around the world.
The impetus for the project was a major OPT research project showing that meeting the otherwise unmet demand for family planning could be the most cost effective means of achieving CO2 reductions.
OPT estimates every £4 spent on family planning saves one tonne of CO2. A similar reduction would require an £8 investment in tree planting, £15 in wind power, £31 in solar energy and £56 in hybrid vehicle technology.
The same broad conclusions have now been given authoritative endorsement by the UN Population Fund report.
OPT Director Roger Martin said: “It has been acknowledged for many years the current level of human population growth is unsustainable and places acute pressure on global resources. Human activity is exacerbating global warming, and higher population levels inevitably mean higher emissions and more climate change victims.”
“PopOffsets is an original and radical initiative that understands this connection and offers a practical and sensible response. For the first time ever, individuals, companies and organisations will have the opportunity to offset their carbon emissions by supporting projects to provide family planning services where there is currently unmet demand.”
The project’s sponsors have made it clear they are opposed to any initiatives that advocate any form of coercion, with all potential projects subject to a rigorous checking process as a pre-condition for financial support.
The PopOffsets launch is being timed to highlight the CO2 / population link ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit which starts next week.
The launch campaign includes a targeted mailing graphically illustrating the core PopOffset message to UK government ministers and politicians, policy makers and key influencers.
OPT Patron, Professor John Guillebaud said: “Politicians have evaded the population dimension to global warming and now it’s vitally important Copenhagen recognises this crucially important issue. The PopOffsets initiative is evidence this can be done in a sensible, mature, practical and compassionate way, by empowering people to make sustainable choices.”
Climate Change Connections
A Resource Kit on Climate, Population and Gender
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) have developed a comprehensive resource kit on gender, population and climate change. Learn how gender equality can reduce vulnerability to climate change impacts and how women are uniquely positioned to help curb the harmful consequences of a changing climate.
Climate change is already impacting populations and ecosystems around the globe. Exacerbating poverty and leading to infrastructural breakdown, it threatens to set back development efforts by decades, profoundly affecting all of us.
But the impact won’t be felt equally. Those with the fewest resources will be most susceptible to its negative effects – particularly women, the majority of the world’s poor. At the same time, women’s vulnerability can obscure the fact that they are an untapped resource in efforts to cope with the effects of climate change and reduce the emissions that cause it. As innovators, organizers, leaders, educators and caregivers, women are uniquely positioned to help curb the harmful consequences of a changing climate. Incorporating a gender perspective into climate change policies, projects and funds is crucial in ensuring that women contribute to and benefit from equitable climate solutions.
This publication can be viewed from http://www.unfpa.org/public/site/global/lang/en/pid/4028
Optimum Population Trust Carbon Offset Project
Statement of Support by OPT Patrons and Supporters
Endorsed by: Sir David Attenborough; Professor Paul Ehrlich; Professor John Guillebaud; Susan Hampshire; Professor Aubrey Manning; Sara Parkin; Jonathon Porritt; Professor Chris Rapley; Sir Crispin Tickell.
We, Patrons and Supporters of the Optimum Population Trust, commend this OPT initiative. It is the world’s first voluntary Carbon Offset scheme enabling all those who understand the intimate link between population growth and climate change to channel their offset funds directly into improving family planning services in needy countries. It will thus give practical help: both to the poorest women in the world to enable them to control their own fertility; and to humanity, now and in future generations, by tackling the threat posed by human-induced climate change to supplies of food, water and to social stability world-wide.
As we said in our statement in July, all environmental and developmental problems become more challenging with ever more people on the planet. Thus population restraint in all countries is a key, but often un-acknowledged, component of any world initiative to limit global warming. The OPT report “Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost” vindicates our position, not only on environmental but
economic grounds; while the humanitarian and developmental case for meeting the need of all women for access to family planning services is irrefutable.
We ask our negotiators at the Copenhagen Summit in December to recognise the fact that world population growth increases the number both of carbon emitters (especially, indeed, in rich countries with large carbon footprints) and of future victims of climate change, thus exacerbating all problems of both “mitigation”and “adaptation”; and we ask that they consider the implications, and find solutions.
We wish to highlight that this project will, for the first time, enable all those who recognise and accept the population/climate change link to make a practical contribution towards resolving the problems it causes, while contributing greatly to poverty-reduction in the poorest countries.
“Family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race” UNICEF Report 1992.
30/11/2009
State of the World Population 2009 UNPF Report
This year's United Nations Population Fund report argues that reproductive health care, including family planning, and gender relations could influence the future course of climate change and affect how humanity adapts to rising seas, worsening storms and severe droughts. Women, especially impoverished women in developing countries, bear the disproportionate burden of climate change, but have so far been largely overlooked in the debate about how to address problems of rising seas, droughts, melting glaciers and extreme weather, the report concludes. The report shows that investments that empower women and girls—particularly education and health—bolster economic development and reduce poverty and have a beneficial impact on climate. Girls with more education, for example, tend to have smaller and healthier families as adults. Women with access to reproductive health services, including family planning, have lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse-gas emissions in the long run. Visit http://www.unfpa.org/public/publications/pid/4353
Environment Agency to propose individual carbon ration cards
Controversial debate re-opened as government watchdog argues carbon rationing would prove more effective than carbon taxes
The Environment Agency will argue today that carbon rationing is the fairest and most effective way for the UK to meet its legally binding targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The Agency’s chairman, Lord Smith, will propose at the organisation's annual conference in London that every citizen be provided with a "carbon account" and unique number that they submit when buying carbon-intensive items such as petrol, electricity or airline tickets.
Individuals would then periodically receive statements that show the carbon impact of each purchase and how much of their annual ration has been used up. If they exceeded this ration, they would need to buy extra credits from those people that have not used their full allowance, in a similar fashion to existing emission cap-and-trade schemes.
Lord Smith, former culture secretary under the Blair Government, is expected to say that carbon rationing will help citizens "judge how they want to develop their own quality of life in a sustainable way".
He believes that the scheme will boost demand for low-carbon goods and services and encourage people to think more about the carbon cost of their purchases. It will also reward those who live less carbon-intensive lives, allowing them to generate income by selling unused credits.
In Lord Smith's opinion, rationing is a fairer option than carbon-related taxation because additional tax burdens could make activities such as air travel prohibitively expensive for those on low incomes.
It should also make it easier for the UK to hit its target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050, which will require annual per capita emissions to fall from current levels of about nine tonnes to closer to two tonnes.
The move is likely to reopen the debate over carbon rationing, which was shelved by the government last year despite a Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) feasibility study, which indicated that rationing was technically possible and had the "potential to engage individuals in taking action to combat climate change".
However, the study also concluded that the idea was "ahead of its time", would be expensive to implement, and was unlikely to secure widespread public support. As a result, the research programme was dropped, although Defra said it would continue to monitor third-party research and may still "introduce personal carbon trading if the value of carbon savings and cost implications change".
The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee last year called on the government to resume its research in the area, however, and to be "courageous" in attempting to overcome likely public hostility to the concept.
It also concluded that: "Widespread public acceptance, while desirable, should not be a pre-condition for a personal carbon trading scheme. The need to reduce emissions is simply too urgent."
Business Green.com - 9th November 2009
Additional Benefits of Family Planning
The OPT report with LSE, "Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost", in September 2009 showed that it would be nearly five times more cost-effective per carbon tonne abated to invest a modest proportion of climate change funding in meeting unmet need for family planning than in conventional technology. But the approach recommended would, by directing more resources to the improvement of family planning services in the poorer countries, achieve a large number of indirect benefits which, even though unquantifiable, are clearly extremely significant. These include:
a) taking a major step towards stabilising human numbers at, and/or reducing them to, a level our only planet can sustain in the long-term;
b) fully mitigating the carbon and other environmental impacts not only of the additional people whose unwanted conception or birth will be prevented, but of all their non-existent descendants in perpetuity;
c) empowering the poor women of the world to take control of their own fertility, as a necessary pre-condition for any wider empowerment;
d) alleviating poverty through improvements in health, nutrition and education for women and children;
e) reducing the scale of all environmental problems, including: the effects of peak oil; deforestation; freshwater shortages; soil erosion and desertification; the mounting food crisis; declining fisheries; loss of biodiversity; rising waste and pollution; ocean acidification; and depletion of all finite resources - all of which would be easier to solve with fewer people, and ultimately impossible to solve with ever more;
f) reducing the pressures contributing to: growing conflicts over land and ever more scarce resources; mass migration; under- or unemployment; urban stress; crime; mental health problems;
g) reducing the number of future victims of climate change, and the costs of adaptation for them;
h) freeing more capital from investment in renewable energy generation to invest in energy conservation technology, marine and other research, social adaptation to lower energy consumption, and all other adaptation programmes.
i) encouraging OECD countries, with their vastly higher per capita emissions, to introduce (clearly non-coercive) population restraint policies too, as an additional cost-effective way of abating their own carbon tonnage in their own long-term interests.
In any case, on a finite planet human numbers must stop growing at some point, either earlier through fewer births (contraception backed by sound policy), or later by more deaths (the natural controls of famine, disease, and predation/war). Indefinite growth is not an option.
"Family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race..." UNICEF Report 1992
Optimum Population Trust - 15 September 2009
Population Growth and Climate Change
Statement by the Optimum Population Trust July 2009
1. Background Facts:
All environmental problems, and notably those arising from climate change, would be easier to solve with a smaller future population.
Population restraint in rich countries and communities would reduce the future number of major carbon emitters (who will also be victims). Restraint in poor countries and communities would reduce the number of minor emitters and likely major victims. The gap between the extremes of the UN (2008) population range for 2050 is 3 billion people. Current trends, with less aid for family planning, point towards the higher end - 11 bn with no change in fertility; (the UN median projection, at 9.2 bn, assumes a considerable reduction). Just meeting known, unmet need for family planning services, however, would point them near the lower end - 8 bn.
The recent Global Humanitarian Forum on the Human Impact of Climate Change in Geneva accepted OPT's position that population growth is a major environmental problem, making equitable mitigation and adaptation policies harder - and ultimately impossible - to solve.
2. OPT recommends that climate change negotiators:
a) recognise that population restraint is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for the solution of the problems caused by climate change;
b) accept the need for all countries to adopt non-coercive population policies;
c) accept programmes to implement such policies in poorer countries as legitimate candidates for climate change funding;
d) give immediate priority to meeting the existing unmet demand for family reproductive health care in the poorest countries;
e) recognise that programmes educating and empowering women to control their own fertility are also essential for the success of population restraint programmes;
f) take account of the major humanitarian benefit of lower fertility in relieving the suffering of many of the poorest women and children in the world.
3. OPT also recommends:
That the principle of "contraction and convergence" (rich and poor converging towards a common per person emissions target) be accepted as an equitable starting point for distributing total tolerable carbon emissions, provided that this is allocated to states on the basis of their population size at a specific date. This would encourage the adoption of population restraint policies; whereas allocation on a simple per person criterion would encourage continued population growth, thus continuously reducing every person's carbon entitlement.
"Family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race..." UNICEF Report 1992.
www.optimumpopulation.org July 2009
This statement is endorsed by OPT Patrons: Sir David Attenborough; Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta; Professor Paul Ehrlich; Professor John Guillebaud; James Lovelock; Professor Aubrey Manning; Sara Parkin; Jonathon Porritt; and OPT supporter Dr. Chris Rapley.