Population is at the root of the problem because more people means more greenhouse gases.
Credit: iStockphoto
PARIS: Slowing population growth would help battle global warming, says an unprecedented U.N. report that links demographic pressure and climate change.
"Slower population growth... would help build social resilience to climate change's impacts and would contribute to a reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions in the future," the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) says.
Its 104-page document emphasises that population policies be driven by support for women, access to family planning, reproductive health and other voluntary measures.
Root of the problem
"It really is the first time that a United Nations agency has looked hard at the connections between population and climate change," said Bob Engelman of the green group Worldwatch Institute and lead researcher of the report. "People are at the root of the problem and at the solution of it, and empowerment of women is the key."
The report, the 2009 State of World Population, paints a grim tableau of the peril of climate change and the likely impact on humans, in terms of floods, drought, storms and homelessness.
But it notably puts distance between a decades-long tradition in the U.N. arena whereby population growth and its part in environmental destruction were rarely - if ever - evoked.
Population control
"Fear of appearing supportive of population control has until recently held back any mention of 'population' in the climate debate," the document admits.
Things, though, are starting to change. More than three dozen developing countries have already included population issues in national plans on climate, it says.
Negotiators, including the European Union (EU), have tentatively suggested that the question be considered in talks, designed to culminate in Copenhagen next month, for a 192-nation post-2012 global climate pact.
Today, the world's population stands at around 6.8 billion. By mid-century, it will range between 7.9 billion to 10.4 billion, with a mid-estimate of 9.2 billion, according to U.N. calculations.
Different conclusion on same subject
From George Monbiot:-
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/
luxury yachts
This article doesn't convince me that exponential population growth isn't a problem - but I'm glad to see that someone else has been appalled by the fuel usage of those yachts. At 750 litres per hour, one hours worth of fuel would get my car to work and back for 3+ months - very discouraging for those who are making every effort they can to reduce fuel consumption.
Slowing human population growth?
Slowing human population growth is a laughable way to address the problem. If human population growth is merely slowed, the logical question arises, When will there be too many humans?
The problem is that the average standard of living for humans has been declining precipitously for hundreds of years due to the population growth made possible by science. Greater populations literally equate to the necessity of more laws, more disease and more pestilence, and increased deaths due to micro and macro strife.
Standard of living is equated with diversity of experience. Humanity is crushing diversity. The world of humans is being made over to look like the back lot of the John Travolta - American movie, Saturday Night Fever, -or worse.
I'm sorry, mates, -I'm in the U.S., and if you are following our model, you are in for a real shocker, -when it comes time to pay the piper... The U.S. is the gold standard for the destruction of its own natural opulence. We may be number one, but we really suck too.
The thing that needs attention is to ask the question of every human endeavor, Where will this lead?
And be realistic in your answers. Human competence is a myth, unless you're talking about making babies, war, trash, or spreading venereal disease and ignorance.
And people, don't be afraid to say it, Women are over-sexed.
-We all are, and it's simply not worth finding out where that malady is going to lead.
“Fear of appearing
“Fear of appearing supportive of population control has until recently held back any mention of population in the climate debate”
“Fear”? It was fear that held back scientists from admitting the facts and truth? Oh my, that’s such terrible news. Whatever am I to tell my kids? They do, after all, admire scientists so. I suppose next we will hear from scientists that, thanks to new technology, they really do support eugenics; and that it was fear of appearing supportive of eugenics that led them to deny it for all these years. You know what? I really do think that will be the case.
At last! Someone has finally
At last! Someone has finally admitted what every thinking person has known for many years - that the exponential growth in human population is making this planet unfit for habitation. But where is the solution?
Would you volunteer to die / agree to eugenics / agree to a limited lifespan, or other population control measures to ensure an 'ideal' population figure. I would! I've had a great life, am over 60 and would do it to ensure the survival of my grandson. And I know I am just an intricate collection of atoms of different substances that will dissipate eventually anyway. I'm sure many others feel this way too, but there will never be enough of us. And how would you even begin to make laws that allow for this?
No, as much as I would love to be optimistic, I fear we are doomed to destroy our beautiful home and ourselves with it. And we have the gall to claim 'intelligence' for ourselves. We have only ourselves to blame.
Jim
Back to basics
Of course it is the root answer; decrease the population would save the planet but how do you do it; the numbers needed would be huge? I can't agree to terminating people once they reach their supposed sell-by date. I know that we need to decrease the number of children born, but we all know how the world religions put a stop to that sensible debate. Gaia will shake off some of the teeming masses? Not my idea of wishful thinking; just horror. We will head for the stars? We've left that one a bit late. New intelligence tests for politicians? Even the believers are scared to make the hard choices and get voted out.
Looks like it is the band aid again....a lot of us knew this would be the end result years ago...doesn't make me feel any better for failing those that didn't - However the odd thing is, that I have come across bright people who just can't grasp it; even the basics; built in extinction genes?
Am I sorry that we look like we are about to die out or change in a way that makes me shudder; and should I be - yes. There may be people that are of no real use for the possible bright future some dream about should we delete them ...NO. We shouldn't "delete" anyone; we are all in this together; all we can do is keep trying to educate and hope we change some of those minds...those that aren't hard wired that is.
At last a bit of common sense
Good to see the link between rising human populations and increasing levels of climate change and environmental degradation being recognised and talked about in a sensible manner. Lets hope this results in positive and urgent action to reduce population growth via voluntary measures as outlined in the article.
With a proven link between rising economic prosperity and declining fertility rates, the focus should be on increasing the wealth of developing countries and ensuring that this is fairly distributed amongst their people. This can be aided by developed countries trading more fairly and at increased levels with developing nations and with the provision of more assistance, both financial and non financial. Rising prosperity in the developing nations will result in improved medical provision, lower levels of infant mortality, improvements in the provision of family planning services, in the education and empowerment of women and ultimately in falling birth rates.
With the majority of developed countries’ populations stabilising or (in the absence of net immigration) falling, their role should be to:
• set an example on population management, by having policies encouraging women to stop at 2 children;
• have balanced migration policies, which maintain the economic potential of the country whilst permitting sustainable levels of immigration; and
• Provide both financial and non financial assistance to developing countries.
With regard to the provision of financial assistance, in the same way that taxes are used within countries to redistribute wealth from the relatively rich to the poorer sections of society, a Planet Enhancement Tax (PET) should be put in place to do this at an international level. The richest nations, starting with the G20 countries, should pay a PET of 1% of GDP which is used to fund projects in developing nations. Based on G20 GDP for 2008, a PET of 1% would raise approximately $500bn per annum. Focusing and spending this money in the right manner would make a significant contribution to improving the planet for all people and life on earth, both now and in the future.
It’s time we got to grips with this problem and we need to act NOW to avoid an otherwise inevitable catastrophe which will cost hundreds of thousands of lives, bring starvation and misery to millions and cause irreparable damage to the planet, its habitats and biodiversity.
You can help by:
1. Leading by example and limiting your own family size to 2 children;
2. Campaigning to support the policies set out above;
3. Supporting charities which provide aid and financial assistance to people in developing nations; and
4. Supporting charities such as the Optimum Population Trust, who campaign for policies to achieve a sustainable population.
Ted Williams
Damn, you mean they won't unfreeze me?
The "Cure" is Worse than the Disease
What's wrong with you people?
What you're all cheering on is nothing short of the Statist Wet Dream: total control over all the populace of the world!
If centralized government works as well as you Greenies seem to believe, the 20th Century wouldn't have seen the murder of at least 100 million people under fascism and communism. The former Soviet bloc nations would have been an ecological paradise, rather than the filthy squalor we found when the Wall came down.
And all of this to support what has now been PROVEN to be phony science! Any doubts, just read all about it in the AGW proponents' own words here: http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php
I will fight you noodniks with all the fiber of my being. My Liberty and the Liberty of my children are far more important than any so-called "climate emergency" or Al Gore's bank account!
Liberty, my Statist Friends, is the answer. Not the tyranny of the Eco-Fascists!
Australia's contribution
makes Australia's policy of providing "baby bonuses" to encourage population growth appear to be very irresposible