While the positive argument you make in favor of girls education and increased access to family planning is solid, there is a sense of this post being more feelings-driven than factually-driven. This may reflect that I do not share your unease over the word population, which has long been neutral in its development usage among health professionals.

But there are some shortcuts in the logic that I hope are simply condensations of more complex facts. Specifically, it is a bit of a straw man argument to argue that because consumption drives emissions, population levels are not critical, or that (as you quote) countries with faster population growth have slower emissions growth. Unless you believe that the lower emissions levels in Africa or other poor regions reflect something essential about those people, you should know that the rate of consumption of individuals is constrained largely by their wealth. If you took individuals from those countries with high levels of income comparable to people in developed economies, would they have lower emissions rates? It transforms much of the discussion into an issue of allocating “blame” for emissions over national identities rather than a thoughtful dispute over the best means to address climate change.

Framing the discussion on climate change to focus around population rates misses the point, as that’s neither the key reason to work on women’s reproductive rights nor a sufficient step to mitigate climate change. I certainly agree with this core of your post.

However, in correcting such misapprehensions as regards drivers of climate change, please don’t rely on shortcuts and shorthand. Those do a disservice to the value of good population programs in their own right, and also neglect the potential contribution to climate change of every person, economic circumstances allowing; it gives the appearance of confusing poverty with essential preferences about how to live. Particularly as one considers rapid gains in wealth in China, it is a part of the discussion to consider future contributions to emissions of large, poor populations as they start to have the means to buy cars, bigger living space, etc.

I agree with your theme.

Many assume that “population” is a poor nations’ issue. But in rich nations big footprints are multiplied by big populations. For example the USA in 2009 had 4.2 million births, and 2.6 million deaths, giving a 1.6m “natural increase” (added to 300 million total) multiplied by 9 gha footprint.

But your relaxed suggestion that population is “self-correcting” troubles me. The UN projection of a peak (after 2050) depends on global average fertility (TFR) falling to 2 by 2050 (including “least developed” nations going from 4.39 to 2.41). As you know, advances in women’s empowerment, and in men’s culture, are needed.

The level of peak is important, because a plateau is likely. Governments (especially rich ones) do not like populations falling, for structural reasons.

Duncan> “South Korea is in a national panic about falling fertility rates and shrinking populations”

To clarify, “shrinking” is future fear not current reality. In 2009 there were 433,000 births and 288,000 deaths in South Korea.

Please don’t play into the hands of US and European natalists and the “depopulation panic”. Because future falls in fertility are already built in to the UN forecasts, there is no room for rising fertility now (or in the future).

best wishes,
John

And countries worrying about their falling populations probably should look at their patterns of consumption which would help them address climate change too!

Also, your comments about David Attenborough are a bit unfair. He supports the Optimum Population Trust because of decades of seeing the effects of huge population growth on the environment and for people not the other way around. And he’s not alone amongst experienced environmentalists. When, two years ago, Attenborough came out and supported the science behind climate change, he convinced many wavering members of the public. I believe he is on equally sure footing when it comes to population and the problems that it is causing and creating. It is the establishment that believes that there is no need to act that needs to reconsider.

High population growth can be an issue in development, and I also agree with many here that women’s rights, education and availability of contraception are keys to progress. As the previous comment states, we have to “do, or stop doing” certain things in developed nations to help with climate change. I am one of the offenders as well, but am becoming more and more aware of it.

I hope these climate talks are not distracted by concerns over population growth – but I do believe that this is an issue that needs more of our attention, quite possibly with a focus of improving womens rights, education and access to family planning.

And while you’re at it, can you solve corruption too please.

Actually, most of such regions are victims of climate change. First, the lagging behind economy make them impossible to consume and emit a lot. Also, their burden of overcrowding and inadequate resources makes them more vulnerable to climate change. So, authorities and international community should devise wise policy to minimize the effect of climate change by passing on the know-how to the locals.

And finally, props to identifying the importance of education for girls. Education = empowerment, which goes a long way in improving their quality of life and that of their future families.