Reducing carbon emissions is actually three separate but related challenges: reducing global emissions, slowing population growth through voluntary efforts, and meeting the needs of half the world that now suffers from "carbon starvation."

As pressure to address climate change increases, long-simmering debates

on the connections between population and environment have been

renewed. Historically, concerns have been expressed about the impact of “population” policies on human rights. Rewire welcomes open debate on these

issues and encourages both comments on this and other articles as well

as submissions from other authors.

Recent interest in the role of family

planning in climate change mitigation is long overdue. Efforts to combat global

climate change must include universal access to voluntary family planning to

reduce population growth. Brian O’Neill, the scientist who has done the most

serious research on this topic, projects that 1-2 billion tons of carbon

emissions could be averted each year if women worldwide were able to fully

exercise their reproductive wishes.

President Obama is taking a bold first step in Copenhagen by putting forward an

ambitious emissions target for the United States. Yet global population growth

threatens to undercut – even cancel – all proposed progress. World population

may grow by 18% or more from 2005 to 2020, according to UN projections.

Reducing carbon emissions is actually three separate but related challenges.

First, we must reduce global emissions. Second, we must slow population growth

by supporting programs such as voluntary family planning and reproductive

health. Third, we must recognize that about half the world now suffers from

"carbon starvation" and needs to increase emissions.

Sex. Abortion. Parenthood. Power. The latest news, delivered straight to your inbox. SUBSCRIBE

Most emissions reductions must occur in wealthier countries since that’s where

they are highest. At the same time, in order to give billions of poor people a

reasonable quality of life, emissions in some parts of the world must increase

significantly. Rapid population growth makes this balancing act even more

difficult.

Given available technology, the often-tiny carbon footprints of billions of

people are both a cause and an effect of impoverishment. The one billion people

who struggle to survive on less than $1/day use very little in the way of

fossil fuels (They do, however, contribute to climate change through

deforestation, which is responsible for 20% of global carbon emissions.

Deforestation is a direct result of local population growth and the increased

cropland needed to feed more people). And the additional 1.6 billion living on

less than $2/day hardly use more. In order to have decent lives, they must

increase their emission levels substantially, despite advances in green

technology.

Much of sub-Saharan Africa is mired in the most desperate, grinding poverty

imaginable. Governments there are already unable to meet the most basic needs

of their citizens. And it is these people – who contribute least to climate

change – who will suffer most from the problems that climate change brings.

Women especially will face new challenges to their health, livelihoods, and

even their lives, for they are the ones who must walk to fetch the water and

who must tend to their families’ crops.

Africa’s per-capita emissions must increase. But, if Africa’s population grows

by the 39% that is projected by 2020, it will be nearly impossible to create a

healthy quality of life for people in that part of the world.

Population growth will undermine all efforts to achieve lower carbon emissions

unless investments in clean energy are matched by equally comprehensive

investments in universal access to contraception, along with other health and

development programs.





Unfortunately, for too long, population has been ignored as

part of the climate change equation. Some consider the topic to be toxic.

That’s tragic, but at the same time, it’s easy to understand, because too often

the population connection to climate change is oversimplified, and overhyped.

In recent weeks, there have been a number of examples of

this. Most disturbingly, a widely circulated opinion piece in a Canadian

newspaper resurrected the nasty notion of population control by urging

mandatory limits on child-bearing. That such a chilling thought made it to

publication in a mainstream publication is deplorable.

In addition, an August 2009 report issued by the

UK-based Optimum Population Trust (OPT) incorrectly claimed that meeting the

worldwide unmet need for family planning is a more cost effective way to reduce

current carbon emissions than other "green" technologies. They followed

this up with a plan to allow citizens of wealthy industrial nations to “offset”

their emissions with donations to make birth control available to women in poor

countries.

By assuming erroneously the main cause of unplanned births in every

nation on earth is lack of access to contraception, the OPT rendered its entire

study meaningless. Most high carbon emitters live in developed nations where

contraceptives are generally available. Reducing carbon emissions through

universal access to contraception is essential. But the quick carbon fix

championed by OPT is a fairy tale.

It’s true that many women in developing nations cannot obtain or afford

modern methods of birth control. Meeting their unmet needs is critically

important for a variety of reasons. But doing so won’t significantly reduce

current fossil fuel emissions. The annual per capita fossil fuel emissions in

many such countries are less than a single week of such emissions in the US and

many other developed nations.

The simple fact of the matter is this: climate change is

largely caused by the high emissions from wealthy industrialized nations. These

are places where population is growing slowly if at all. To claim that we can

solve climate change solely by addressing population growth in countries where

emissions are low is silly. And to suggest that people in the high emitting

countries can contribute birth control to poor people instead of cutting back

on their own consumption is offensive.

This is one of those times – and one of those issues – where we need to keep

our eye on multiple goals. Reducing emissions is an energy issue. But it is

also in equal measure a human rights challenge, one that must include

unprecedented investments in a full spectrum of reproductive health services

for women and couples. Worldwide, 200 million women have an unmet need for

family planning. And demand for contraception is projected to increase by 40%

in just 15 years.

As we develop hybrid cars and the like, what about the other

half of the world? Will they be left to sweat and starve while we glide forward

into a century of renewable energy? Their carbon footprint needs to grow. That

can only work if we are willing to meet the population growth challenge.

The White House has already made great strides in reversing the pernicious

policies of the Bush Administration, which turned a blind eye to the needs of

billions. But additional bold action is needed.

No doubt President Obama is keenly aware of the multiple dimensions of the

climate challenge. Yes, it’s about energy. But, more than that, it is about

meeting the basic human needs of soon-to-be seven billion people. Universal

access to family planning must be a centerpiece of the climate change agenda in

Copenhagen and beyond.