AS THE world desperately looks to COP27 for solutions to the climate crisis, on 15 November 鈥� in the very midst of the conference 鈥� the UN will symbolically mark the point when our global population reaches 8 billion people. The timing may be a coincidence, but the two are undeniably connected.
Earlier this year, a key report from the UN鈥檚 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change unequivocally 鈥淕lobally, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita and population growth remained the strongest drivers of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the last decade.鈥� Unsurprisingly, then, a major study into climate solutions called Project Drawdown 鈥渇amily planning and education鈥� 鈥� two critical factors in lowering fertility rates and population growth 鈥� as the in limiting warming to 2掳C by 2100, and the seventh most effective in limiting warming to 1.5掳C, with potential CO2 savings of 68.9 gigatonnes by 2050.
Advertisement
This shouldn鈥檛 be a surprise. Every climate change mitigation measure we employ will bring greater gains when contending with the emissions of fewer people overall. Population action is one essential pathway, but isn鈥檛 alone.
The average UK person produces the CO2 of someone living in Benin. The world鈥檚 richest 1 per cent of people double the emissions of the 50 per cent of the world鈥檚 citizens who fall into the lowest income level 鈥� with the top 10 per cent producing around half of total emissions. A closer perspective is required, however. Grotesque as the inequity is, the top 1 per cent only contribute , and those in the top 10 per cent aren鈥檛 all plutocrats, but those earning more than (拢32,400). Cutting overconsumption and tackling inequality is morally and environmentally essential 鈥� but it isn鈥檛 enough.
Population growth traps people in poverty. In some of the world鈥檚 lowest-income countries, population growth has seen the , despite a reduction in the proportion of those affected. Investing in reproductive health and ensuring greater access to family planning will help combat climate change and both tackle inequalities and address the population growth that contributes to inequality.
So why is population so rarely discussed in this context? There have been some hideous examples of governments using it as a proxy for state suppression and control, but, , most population policies haven鈥檛 been coercive. Commentators default to those negative past policies, ignoring or unaware of the many examples -from Thailand to Costa Rica 鈥� of policies such as investment in family planning that prioritised human rights and women鈥檚 choice, while also slowing population growth.
This really matters because the numbers involved are staggering. A seemingly small change, such as people on average having 鈥渉alf a child鈥� fewer, would have a profound, positive impact on people and planet.
While the is for an additional 2.4 billion people by 2100, it also recognises the possibility of a population lower than today鈥檚 by the end of the century (see page 14). Investment in family planning, gender equality and education fundamentally improves people鈥檚 lives, particularly those of women and girls, and helps bring all the advantages of ending and reversing population growth. Tackling climate change demands some tough choices 鈥� so why wouldn鈥檛 we also make the easy decisions that support positive solutions?
When the 8 billionth person is born on 15 November, let鈥檚 invest in measures that will give them the best chance of a long and decent life on a healthy planet.
Robin Maynard is executive director at Population Matters, a writer and a campaigner
