Special Report

SPECIAL REPORT An Ethical Approach to Population and Climate Change limate change has finally grabbed the ily planning back decades. Ethically, we must be attention of the U.S. public and poli- exceedingly conscious of what we are asking, and Ccymakers, yet the role of population why, before we hitch a ride on the climate change has been all but overlooked until very recent- train. Only by framing the connections between ly. Today, interest in the relationship between population and climate change in their full con- global population growth and climate change is text can we move forward in an ethical and helpful growing, as demonstrated by a spate of recent manner. Done well, a thoughtful and deliberative articles (e.g., Lahart et al., 2008). Many popu- dialogue around voluntary family planning’s con- lation experts see the world’s focus on climate tribution to mitigating climate change can help us change as an opportunity to make population better understand the significant role the United relevant again (e.g., PHE Policy and Practice States plays in the world, not only as a consumer Group, 2008; Smith, 2008). By getting gov- and polluter, but also as an important member of ernments and donors to recognize that climate a global commons, and as a beneficent donor. change might be partly alleviated by addressing population growth, they believe they can help A Brief History of Population secure long-promised and sorely needed funding for international family planning. From Thomas Malthus in the 1790s to Paul For both practical and ethical reasons, we must Ehrlich and Garrett Hardin in the 1960s, demog- think very carefully before developing advocacy raphers and ecologists have raised concerns arguments linking global population growth and about the planet’s ability to sustain exponentially climate change. Politically, an overstated argument increasing human populations. These arguments could invite disaster by triggering backlashes from helped place population and family planning on all sides of the issue, setting international fam- the U.S. development agenda. Today, however, Suzanne Petroni is a senior program officer at the Summit Foundation SUZANNE PETRONI in Washington, D.C., and is also working on her Ph.D. in gender and social policy at the george Washington university. She worked on population, environment, and science issues at the u.S. State Department from 1997-2001 and served as the u.S. government’s “Officer in Charge” for the iCPD+5 processes. the views expressed here are her own. (Photo courtesy Summit Foundation) 57 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND SECURITY PROGRAM Figure 1: Population-emissions relationship 3000 Note: the x-axis marks the global Same population, population size in 2100 for each of the 2500 iPCC scenarios (A1, A2, B1, and B2), higher emissions while the y axis measures the cumulative A1 emissions of carbon from 2000-2100, 2000 which are dependent on scenarios’ A2 economic and technological assumptions. in general, a higher population is 1500 associated with higher emissions, but B2 lower population will not guarantee a low 1000 emissions outcome on its own. B1 Higher population, Source: O’Neill (2008). higher emissions 500 Cumulative Fossil Fuel Emissions, GtC 0 57911131517 Global Population, 2100 (billions) Malthusian alarmism has, for the most part, assistance for the ICPD agenda. But today, while been left behind. Despite the massive growth of U.S. assistance for family planning remains the the world’s population since 1798 (and since the highest in the world, U.S. funding has declined 1960s, for that matter), technology and human significantly in real terms over the past decade innovation have kept famines and food shortages (Population Action International, 2007). from causing the devastation and mass starvation Since 1994, advocates for increased funding that Malthus and Ehrlich presaged. have used many arguments and tried many ways For years, many of the programs supported to get the United States to meet its commit- by the United States and others around the ments, to no avail. And so here comes climate world were geared toward achieving specific change—yet another avenue for advocacy and demographic targets, often using heavy-handed, perhaps, some hope, the grand solution to the top-down schemes to reduce fertility. The 1994 funding challenge. If only policymakers accept International Conference on Population and the argument that climate change cannot be Development (ICPD) was a significant cross- resolved without stemming global population roads for the population field, turning the focus growth, government funding for international of population programs away from demograph- family assistance will be secured. ic targets and incentives and toward volunta- Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. rism and individual rights, while also launching a more comprehensive approach to reproduc- How Population Affects Climate tive health and women’s empowerment. Change Feminists and human rights activists played a key role in forging a consensus with environmen- Climate change is primarily driven by three fac- talists at the ICPD, agreeing that individuals and tors (Davidson et al., 2007): couples who had the information and means with which to plan their families would likely choose • Greenhouse-gas emissions; to have smaller ones, thereby leading, from the • Economic growth that fuels energy bottom up, to more sustainable development. consumption; and Donor countries agreed to provide increasing lev- • Population growth that fosters increased els of funding through international development greenhouse gas-emitting activities. 58 ECSP REPORT • ISSUE 13 • 2008–2009 As population size has increased over the past decades, so, too, have emissions, both in the United States and globally (O’Neill, 2008). But while the trend lines run in parallel, the connec- tion is far from unequivocal; in fact, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the precise impacts of Future population growth in the united States population size and dynamics on climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate will have a hugely disproportionate impact on Change’s (IPCC) future scenarios vary greatly depending on a number of factors, including pop- greenhouse gas emissions compared to the ulation dynamics. For example, if high consump- rest of the world. tion and emissions continue, the world will likely face significant climate change, even if population grows at a low rate. Alternatively, significant technological advances, such as renewable energy Ethics and the Life Sciences, 1971). Those development or carbon sequestration, could coin- hoping to place population back on the policy cide with rapid population growth to produce a agenda through the climate change discussion relatively healthy climate (see Figure 1). are attempting to create an alliance in support of The “stabilization wedge” concept puts increasing family planning assistance to develop- forward a range of some 15 interventions or ing countries. But is this effort ethical? “wedges,” seven or eight of which could work While consumption is clearly the primary together to prevent the doubling of emissions by driver of environmental degradation, including 2050 (Pacala & Socolow, 2004). Most of these climate change, it appears evident that popu- wedges require changing patterns of production lation growth is a contributing factor to some and consumption—the vast bulk of which are degree. And if population growth is proven to 1 driven by the industrialized world. Speaking at be destructive to public health and the natural the Woodrow Wilson Center in March 2008, environment, then governments have an obliga- IPCC author Brian O’Neill hypothesized that tion to intervene to lessen this damage. slowing population growth might potentially But we must first recognize that, unlike cli- act as one wedge. But despite the likelihood mate change, population growth is not a con- that slowing population growth would have a sistently global phenomenon. Nearly all of the somewhat limited impact on climate change, he world’s future population growth is expected to argued the topic should be on the table, saying, take place in developing countries, which current- “We need all the wedges we can get, and some ly produce the least amount of greenhouse gases, wedges are harder than others to do. And if this but whose contribution is expected to increase as is a wedge that also has lots of individual-level their economies develop (Bongaarts & Bulatao, benefits, is a kind of win-win policy for other 2000). Ethically, those of us in the developed reasons, then it maybe should be one of the world cannot ask the people of these countries, ones that’s done first. But it’s not going to solve many of whom struggle to subsist on a dollar or the problem on its own” (O’Neill, 2008). two a day, to slow their economic development for the sake of improving the global climate. So is Some Ethical Concerns it appropriate to ask them to slow their population growth to achieve the same end? Ethicist Ralph Potter wrote about U.S. popula- Consider this: The United States contains tion policy in 1971 that “alliances are formed by four percent of the world’s population, but pro- those who converge at any given moment in sup- duces 21 percent of its greenhouse gases (EIA, port of particular policies” (Institute of Society 2007). Cumulatively, residents of the United 59 ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND SECURITY PROGRAM for environmental purposes without first mention- ing the growth of their own population, whose impact on the environment is immensely more significant.2 While continued economic growth in countries like India, China, and Brazil might drive their total CO2 emissions higher—according to While the growing Indian some estimates, China has already surpassed the population’s demand United States—it is highly unlikely that they will for energy is predicted approach U.S. per capita consumption levels in to double its total CO2 emissions by 2030, the the near term (see Figure 3).

Load more