PopOffsets News
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.”
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.
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