Study shatters myth that population growth is a major driver of climate change
There is at most a weak link between population growth and rising emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change, says a study published last Tuesday in the journal Environment and Urbanization.
The paper contradicts growing calls for population growth to be limited as part of the fight against climate change and shows that the real issue is not the growth in the number of people but the growth in the number of consumers and their consumption levels.
Dr David Satterthwaite of the International Institute for Environment and Development analysed changes in population and in greenhouse gas emissions for all the world’s countries and found that between 1980 and 2005:
Sub-Saharan Africa had 18.5% of the world’s population growth and just 2.4% of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions The United States had 3.4% of the world’s population growth and 12.6% of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions.
China had 15.3% of the world’s population growth and 44.5% of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions. Population growth rates in China have come down very rapidly – but greenhouse gas emissions have increased very rapidly.
Low-income nations had 52.1% of the world’s population growth and 12.8% of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions.
High-income nations had 7% of the world’s population growth and 29% of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions.
Most of the nations with the highest population growth rates had low growth rates for carbon dioxide emissions while many of the nations with the lowest population growth rates had high growth rates for carbon dioxide emissions.
Satterthwaite points out that contraception and sexual/reproductive health services are key contributors to development, health and human rights in poorer nations and communities.
But he adds that these are not a solution to climate change — which is caused predominantly by a minority of the world’s population that has the highest levels of consumption.
“A child borne into a very poor African household who during their life never escapes from poverty contributes very little to climate change, especially if they die young, as many do,” says Satterthwaite.
“A child born into a wealthy household in North America or Europe and enjoys a full life and a high-consumption lifestyle contributes far more – thousands or even tens of thousands of times more.”
“Of course, not all the world’s greatest consumers are in high income countries,” adds Satterthwaite.
“The many millionaires from Mexico, China or South Africa may have just as large and damaging a carbon footprint as millionaires from Europe or North America. But, globally, most of the world’s high-consumers are in Europe and North America.”
Worry not, developing countries are “improving” that they will join the ship of consumerism, and then they will come again with another report that population growth is a drive in climate change.
From this report, it shows that developed countries contribute more to climate change and any additional child in developed country means more climate change. Come out with more reports that some countries have no good environment for business that they can still lag behind, but we have no medicine, the trend is spreading like cancer, it’s just a matter of time and if anything, we will face the future together whether it’s good or bad.
Where do they put the wars they are fighting all over in connection with these greenhouse gases, where do they put the number of submarines in oceans with nuclear head which all uses energy? Talk of this climate change and say how much you want to protect your industries? People who have gone to extremes will still want more. They talk of investing on clean energies, but how much will African nations who cannot afford electricity do those investments on their own? People selling these ideologies should come with best practices; share the resources in investing and save the world not from one angle but as a whole because we will sink almost together.
I wish they can introduce somewhat called “Global liability Tax” to tax those who contribute more and use those monies to invest in clean energies. If US alone had 12.6% growth in carbon emissions and Sub-Sahara Africa was having 2.4%, and if Sub-Sahara Africa is one of places being affected by these climate change as we hear about more droughts and unreliable rain pattern, hope those contributing “more” should be Taxed! Quota system can work well here.
Pope said materialism is harming Africa, but he never saw/say how much materialism is in the west. One will notice that Africa is desperate for developments, and yes, the future is uncertain because one cannot stop this trend but maybe we can improve it.
Life goes on
There is one factor which the scientists do not want to accept; this is the fact that the western lifestyle as we know it today is very consuming of the world resources but is also very polluting. One has only to see the wastage that goes on in the first world. A normal child in the west consumes maybe ten times what a kid in Africa would use. Who pays for this excessive opulence? One goes into supermarkets stocking up and dumping food and groceries, farmers pouring millions of litres of milk into the sea in protest for low prices. The West needs to learn to live simply if we are ever going to cut these green house emissions. This may sound like moralising, after all africans envy the western lifestyle and see it as a model of prosperity and happiness. We waste time connecting population growth climate change. I am happy that the study has finally exposed the lie behind this long held fallacy. President Yoweri Museveni recently at the United Nations asked a very tough question ‘ If the whole world were to have access to the western lifestyle, would the planet be able to support us? I see that in the years to come the concept of development needs to be seriously reviewed and changed. Maybe to develop may mean living healthily and not necessary having everything
This study is dangerous, why? Because the ignores the fact that in the developing world, deforestation is taking place so that people can grow more food for the internal population and also to export to the external population. Deforestation means less oxygen in the air and no recycling of carbon dioxide (photosynthesis of trees, when humans produce carbon dioxide). Other than the space being cleared for crops it is being cleared for housing, infrastructure, shops (consumerism).
Therefore any expansion in population has a knock on effect on the climate.
I agree that the the nexus between the two factors should be very minimal(it is there though)The biggest driver of the climate change is the stage in economic development. Please note that all western countries and now China emit huge amounts of carbon but at their stage of development its just inevitable and that is why they give a blind eye to international treaties like Kyoto. I have noted that the model to development that is currently pursued in the world is this where pollution takes place carelessly until when you have really transformed the economy and then you demonstrate “chinyenga mphunzitsi”(on the surface) reparatory proceseses and yet make a lot of noise about them.
Totally disagree with this study,or is it the reporting? Overpopulation leads to environmental degradation and that in turn leads to climate change. That is a FUNDAMENTAL truth. The US and Western Europe now are contributing more to climate change than they did 10 years ago. Africa now is contributing more to climate change that 10 years ago, and the common thread in both is population growth. It is erroneaous to make conclusions by comparing two different populations that don’t have access to the same opportunity. It is like comparing apples with oranges!