Loading ...
The "astonishing" refusal of climate activists to discuss the impact of population growth on emissions was criticised by environmentalist Jonathon Porritt at a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change in the Palace of Westminster this week.
Given that the thrust of climate debate was to talk about emissions per person on the planet, he said, it was mystifying why activists were so nervous about discussing population numbers.
“People get hot under the collar,” he commented. “Why are we so resistant to discussing population as a contributor to the climate debate? I am completely baffled.”
Porritt is a patron of Optimum Population Trust, which backs a “Stop at Two” campaign.
He dismissed as “specious” the argument that discussion of population would muddle the climate issue. Also worrying was the argument that the population debate came with a raft of controversy that was difficult to steer a way through.
Porritt said promotion of reproductive health was one of the most progressive forms of intervention available. It was at the heart of every development organisation’s prescription for development.
He pointed to the success of population management in China, Iran, the Indian state of Kerala and Thailand. If China’s one-child policy had averted 400 million births, even with the country’s low level of per capita emissions that amounted to some 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide that had not been put into the atmosphere.
“That explains why Chinese politicians get a bit shirty when Western politicians claim China hasn’t done enough,” he noted.
* Porritt’s on population
I wrote a piece about this on the 10th June. I'm glad this issue is tarting to be forced onto the agenda:
After having watched the documentary "The End of The Line" on Monday evening I feel we have been presented with yet another tale of resource depletion which fails to mention one of the main issues surrounding all forms of resource depletion; population.
Yes, almost everyone who campaigns in some shape or form on behalf of the planet avoids the mention of overpopulation for fear of the F-word - and I'm not talking Gordon Ramsay here!
Overpopulation is a problem that just won't go away. The human race has engineered an exponential growth in human population through technological advance without considering the impact of this growth on people and the planet. We are seeing those effects now.
Take a single argument;
If, at current levels of fishing, it is predicted that most fish stocks will be virtually gone by 2050, and by the same time the global population is expected to grow by around 3billion people, then does that not mean that the next 40 years of fishing will NOT continue at current levels, but will in fact increase massively to compensate for all these extra mouths? Does this then not equate to fish stocks disappearing much earlier than 2050? The same could be said for almost any resource.
Technological advance has increased our ability to use resources giving us a false perception of how many people the planet can actually sustain. We may be able to improve our technology, but if there is no basic product to make more productive then it will prove rather difficult; i.e. we can't be more productive at fishing if there are no fish.
Where do we begin to tackle the overpopulation issue?
Poverty is proven to promote population growth as well as increase environmental degradation. The Global North needs to get serious in tackling poverty - even if in their own interests given the anti-immigration stance of the majority of Western states - a more prosperous Global South would reduce migration to the Global North. How many migrants would actually want to leave their homeland given a decent choice?
Religion has a lot to answer for in their stance regarding contraception. For the Catholic Church to remain basically on the fence regarding contraception is, I think, a moral outrage, especially in countries in the Global South where educational and medical facilities are in desperate need of massive investment.
I don't profess to have all the answers, if any, but I am extremely tired that the debate on this critical issue being constantly kept away form the political agenda for fear of the F-word. This is probably even more pertinent given last week's results at the ballot boxes, but if we are going to get serious on tackling the growing environmental crisis this can no longer be kept off the agenda.
www.ryanscott87.blogspot.com