Ten reasons why population control is not an answer to climate change

By Simon Butler

June 1, 2009 -- Climate change is the greatest challenge humanity has ever
faced. The scientific evidence of the scale of the threat is overwhelming,
compelling and frightening. Climate tipping points -- points which if
crossed will lead to runaway global warming -- are being crossed now.

We live in a time of consequences. So it.s crucial that the climate
justice movement -- made up of those determined to take a stand now to win
a safe climate future -- campaigns for the changes that can actually make
a difference.

A discussion has surfaced about whether population-control measures should
be a key plank in the climate action movement.s campaign arsenal. Below
are 10 reasons why such a decision would hinder, rather than help, the
necessary task of building a movement that can win.

1. Population does not cause climate change

Advocates of population control say that one of the most effective
measures we can take to combat climate change is to sharply reduce the
number of humans on the planet. This wrongly focuses on treating one
symptom of an irrational, polluting system rather than dealing with the
root causes.

People are not pollution. Blaming too many people for driving climate
change is like blaming too many trees for causing bushfires.

The real cause of climate change is an economy locked into burning fossil
fuels for energy and unsustainable agriculture. Unless we transform the
economy and our society along sustainable lines as rapidly as possible, we
have no hope of securing an inhabitable planet, regardless of population
levels.

Population-based arguments fail to admit that population levels will
impact on the environment in a very different way in a zero carbon
emissions economy. Making the shift to renewable energy -- not reduction
in human population -- is the most urgent task we face.

2. The world is not .full up.

The world is not experiencing runaway population growth. While population
is growing, the rate of this growth is in fact slowing down. This is
mostly due to rising urbanisation and marginal improvements in women.s
access to birth control technology. The rate of population growth peaked
at 2% annually in the 1960s, and has fallen consistently since then[1].

According to the United Nations the average number of children born per
woman fell from 4.9 in the late 1960s to 2.7 in 1999[2]. A December 2008
assessment from the US Census Bureau predicts a steady decline to 0.5%
annual population growth by 2050[3].

Between 1950 and 2000 world population increased by 140%. Experts predict
a rise of 50% between 2000 and 2050 and just 11% in the 50 years following
that.

In contrast, the rate of greenhouse gas emissions is rising out of
control. Polluting technology, rampant consumerism and corporate greed are
driving this increase -- not population.

Can we feed this many people? Studies by the UN.s Food and Agriculture
Organisation insist it is possible to feed well over 10 billion people
sustainably -- but only if we move to a very different food system. A
diversified and organic farming system which produces a balanced mix of
plant foods, along with small amounts of meat, could, according to British
biologist Colin Tudge, sustain 10 billion people without farming any new
areas[4].

A shift to sustainable farming is also desperately needed to cut
greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Social justice and women.s equality is the best contraception

Larger population growth rates in the Third World are a consequence of
dire poverty and restrictions on women.s ability to control their own
fertility. The evidence for this can.t be challenged.

The latest UN population report released on March 12, 2009, predicts
population will exceed 9 billion people by mid-century. Almost all of this
growth will occur in the global South.

The 49 poorest countries in the world will have by far the biggest
increases. In the richest countries, however, population will decline from
1.23 billion to 1.15 billion if projected net migration is left aside. (It
will increase to only 1.28 billion including net migration.)[5]

Raising living standards globally, eradicating hunger and poverty,
improving health care, providing access to education and achieving greater
equality for women are all necessary if we are to win a safe climate with
global justice. They will also result in lower birth rates.

4. The climate emergency demands immediate, transformative action now

Even if they could work in the long term -- a dubious proposition .
population-control schemes are plainly inadequate as a response to the
climate emergency.

The well-known Australian environmental writer Tim Flannery is also one of
the patrons of Sustainable Population Australia -- a group that argues
population reduction should be the number one priority to avert climate
change.

Yet in a recent survey of the latest climate science in Quarterly Essay
even Flannery had to conclude: .The truth is that if we wish to act
morally, we can influence population numbers only slowly. So, while it.s
important to focus on population decrease as a long-term solution, we
cannot look to it for answers to the immediate crisis..[6]

5. Population arguments wrongly downplay the potential to win

Left unchecked, climate change threatens life on the planet.

Recognition of this fact is the major impetus for the movement demanding
that governments take serious action on climate change without delay.

Populationists, however, try to turn this fact on its head. Climate change
will lead to a world so harsh, uncertain and polluted, the argument goes,
that it.s more .humane. to prevent future generations from being born at
all[7].

This .humane. population reduction argument is couched in terms of
containing, or mitigating, the apparently inevitable effects of
environmental destruction. Instead, the struggle for an alternative model
of development, based on meeting the needs of people and planet, should be
our main concern.

6. Population control is an old argument tacked onto a new issue

Climate change is just the latest in a long list of issues that has been
seized on by advocates of population control.

For centuries, simplistic population theories have been advanced to
explain the existence of poverty, hunger, famine, disease, war, racism and
unemployment.

In each case, the real social and economic causes of these social ills
have been glossed over. Time is running out to avert global warming -- we
need to take serious action that tackles the problem at the root.

7. Arguing for tighter migration restrictions is a dangerous policy

Reducing immigration intake into Australia is the current policy on the
anti-environmental Labor government[8]. As the climate crisis deepens, we
can expect the government and the big polluters will want to divert
attention from their own inaction. Migrants could be a convenient
scapegoat. Migrants are already being falsely blamed for adding to
unemployment. We can.t allow them to be blamed for corporate Australia.s
addiction to fossil fuels.

Supporting cuts in migration avoids the real burning issue -- Australia is
the highest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita in the world. Migrants
who come here should be welcomed and invited into our movement for a safe
climate. They are not responsible for the policies of past governments or
the greed of the big polluters.

8. Population control has a disturbing history

In practice, there has never been a population-control scheme that has had
acceptable environmental or humanitarian outcomes. Columbia University
professor Matthew Connelly has thoroughly documented this disturbing
history in his 2008 book, Fatal Misconception[9].

China.s one-child policy has been hailed as an environmental measure by
prominent population theorists such as Britain.s Jonathan Poritt..[10] But
he and others ignore that China.s population control has hardly solved
that country.s growing environmental problems.

The human costs of the policy, however, are shocking. Until 2002 Chinese
women were denied any choice of contraceptive method -- 37% of married
women have been forcibly sterilised[11]. Female infanticide has reached
epidemic proportions. The global ratio for male to female births is
106:100. In China today, male .births. outnumber females by 120:100[12].

9. People in the global South are part of the solution, not the problem

At its worst, population-control schemes put the blame for climate change
on the poorest people in the global South -- those least responsible for
the problem in the first place.

It.s a major mistake to see the masses of the global South as passive
victims of climate change. In truth, they are the pivotal agent in the
campaign to avert global warming.

We need a strategy of building stronger links and collaboration with
movements for climate justice in the global South -- not draw up plans to
reduce their numbers.

10. Who holds political power is the real `population. issue

There is one part of the world.s population that poses a genuine threat:
the small group of powerful, vested interests who profit most from
polluting the biosphere and are desperately resisting change.

The real .population change. we need to focus on is not artificially
reducing human numbers. Rather, it is about winning real democratic
change, i.e. dramatically increasing the numbers of ordinary people who
can participate in making decisions about investment in green industries,
agriculture, global trade and military spending.

Population control narrowly looks only at the quantity of human beings to
find a solution to climate change. Ultimately, its narrow vision makes it
a divisive policy.

The climate action movement, however, is really concerned with improving
the quality of human life.

On that basis we can build a movement of hope and solidarity strong enough
to penetrate national borders and restore a safe climate for future
generations.

[A shorter version of this article first appeared in Green Left Weekly.
Simon Butler is a climate change activist in Australia, and a member of
the Democratic Socialist Perspective, a Marxist organisation affiliated to
the Socialist Alliance.]

[1] US Census Bureau, International Data Base, December 2008,
http://www.census.
<http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopchggraph.html.>
gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopchggraph.html.

[2] The World at Six Billion, UN Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, Population Division,
http://www.census.
<http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopchggraph.html.>
gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopchggraph.html.

[3] US Census Bureau, International Data Base, December 2008,
http://www.census. <http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldgrgraph.html.>
gov/ipc/www/idb/worldgrgraph.html.

[4] Tudge, Colin. ``Can organic farming feed the world?..,
http://www.colintud <http://www.colintudge.com/articles/article06.php.>
ge.com/articles/article06.php.

[5] UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
.World population to exceed 9 billion by 2050., March 12 2009.
http://www.un.
<http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2008/pressrelease.pdf.>
org/esa/population/publications/wpp2008/pressrelease.pdf.

[6] Flannery, Tim. ``Now or Never.., Quarterly Essay, issue 31, p 9.

[7] Sustainable Population Australia makes this deeply pessimistic
argument explicitly. See
http://www.populati
<http://www.population.org.au/images/stories/documents/gpr_spa_2007.pdf.>
on.org.au/images/stories/Documents/gpr_spa_2007.pdf.

[8] ``Kevin Rudd targets skilled workers to protect jobs..,
http://www.news.
<http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,27574,25191742-2682,00.html.>
com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,27574,25191742-2682,00.html.

[9] The preface of this important work is available online at
http://www.matthewc <http://www.matthewconnelly.net/fm_page.html.>
onnelly.net/FM_page.html.

[10] See http://www.sd- <http://www.sd-commission.org.uk.>
commission.org.uk.

[11] Quoted in Ward, Phil. ``Population Control and Climate Change, Part
One: Too Many People.., March 2, 2008,
http://climateandca <http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=348.>
pitalism.com/?p=348.

[12] Davidson, Shannon; Bunnell, Jennifer and Yan, Fei, ``Gender Imbalance
in China.., October 27, 2008,
http://aparc.
<http://aparc.stanford.edu/news/gender_imbalance_in_china_20081027/>
stanford.edu/news/gender_imbalance_in_china_20081027/.



60percent listserve:

Send 60percent mailing list submissions to
60percent@lists.hst.org.za

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.hst.org.za/mailman/listinfo/60percent
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
60percent-request@lists.hst.org.za

You can reach the person managing the list at
60percent-owner@lists.hst.org.za