The Siren Song of Population Control as a Climate Solution that refuses to die!
Thanos' snap isn't genius at all, it's just very, very lazy.
Welcome to 16th issue of Climate Matters, a newsletter to help you make sense of this planetary crisis. Gentle reminder that this article is made possible only thanks to paying subscribers. You can help as well.
Someone forwarded you this? Why not sign up to receive weekly emails in your inbox!
Must a pristine world have fewer people?
Often when I open a conversation about what we can do about climate change, inevitably there will be one person who links the problem of climate change to over-exploitation of natural resources due to overpopulation, promptly and confidently then concluding population control is the only solution to this mess. It’s not just your random internet person who comes up this idea, but even eminently influential nature-loving people like Jane Goodall[*] or everyone’s favorite David Attenborough[*] have directly attributed overpopulation for rapid biodiversity loss and climate crisis, further cementing the contentious idea in the public consciousness.
On a surface level, this idea has some merit. Of course we are over-consuming, and have become so adept at surviving and thriving that humans may very well be called a pest in the grand scheme of things, seeing how much we’ve dominated, occupied and altered the earth’s ecosystem. But is population control a contrarian, bold and clever solution or just a lazy trope that fails to get to the root of the problem?
Dear reader, let me tell you it is a very lazy, inadequate response lacking both imagination and any grasp of the real problem. Here’s why.
This is going to sound gruesome but just for the sake of argument, let’s briefly consider we did a Thanos snap and a billion Africans turned to dust instantly. That’s about 13% reduction in world population. An entire continent wiped out and that’s a steep fall. How would the greenhouse gas emissions reduce then? By a mere 4%. Let’s now erase the continent of North America and see how the emissions reduce, shall we? North America that holds only 37% of population as compared to Africa, accounts for 17.3% of all emissions. Fewer people killed and much larger emission reductions here. If we’re insistent on killing people to solve climate change, wouldn’t it be more effective to — ermmm, pardon my candour — give the Thanos treatment to America or EU?
Image source: Global Carbon Project Interactive. Explore different countries’ current and historic emissions brilliantly visualised at this site.
So now we know all countries are not equal and wiping out only strategic populations will have the desired emission reductions if we want to curb climate change. However, not all people are equal either. We know the richest 10% of the world are responsible for 50% of the emissions. So if we’re once again back to killing people to save the planet, perhaps the world’s 10% whose annual household income is more than 38000 USD are the ones who should disappear.
Read: World's richest 1% cause double CO2 emissions of poorest 50%, says Oxfam
Now that is clear that many privileged folks are the ones who will have to do the disappearing act if we’re to save the planet, the population cull idea doesn’t seem like a very attractive option, does it? It’s an all round shitty idea to cull population anyway and now that we’ve got out of the way, let’s get to other important arguments.
What about biodiversity loss? Surely fewer people are better for the planet overall!
Last year when Amazon fires made global news for the first time, French President Macron and Brazil’s President Bolsonaro had a very public spat on whether the French, who destroyed their own forests in Europe are in any position to say what Brazil should do with the Amazon. Of course Bolsonaro’s rebuttal comes from a place of greed and not really from the idea of fairness in response to centuries of European colonialism and imperialism. But his idea here isn’t completely wrong though.
Is it fair that the colonisers who leeched off indigenous people’s lands and resources, ended up creating climate crisis and popularised the modern consumerist culture, instruct the rest of the world to not follow their footsteps and bear the brunt of the crisis the rest didn’t even create or perpetuate?
Conservation and over-exploitation of the world’s resources were born in the same time and place, Blanc argues – Europe during the Industrial Revolution – and have proceeded in parallel ever since. Both spring from Europeans’ search for Eden after they had destroyed it at home. And the myth of that other Eden has returned with a vengeance, now that we find ourselves in the midst of a pandemic. - from Time for some home truths about deforestation on The Guardian
It is easy to fall for the trap that expanding human habitats is the leading cause of shrinking forests but the rainforests of Amazon and Borneo aren’t being destroyed to make home for new people but rather to meet the growing demand of meat and palm oil among other things. Money brings us spending power and the more we indulge in material consumption, more our emissions rise and more we destroy the biodiversity of our planet. It is for a reason that affluence is directly linked to higher consumption that in turn translates to higher energy use, which by extension means higher carbon emissions. Reduction in consumption by the affluent, therefore, will have a significant impact on both protecting biodiversity and emission reductions. So once again, it is a not a matter of overpopulation but the lifestyle consumption of a small but influential group making matters worse for the whole planet.
What about Energy Poverty and future emissions from the billions in the Developing World then?
Energy access is most important for poverty alleviation and economic growth. But what happens when the current poor who do not have energy access yet, get access to electricity and the benefits of industrialization? Won’t the emissions spike dangerously in future? Isn’t overpopulation in the developing world a future threat to the planet then?
Source: The world’s energy problem | Our World in Data
As you can see in the image above, higher per capita income directly correlates with higher energy access/CO2 emissions. And it is not irrational to assume that without access to low carbon energy sources, the current energy poor countries will also go on to become major emitters when they develop, leading to more warming.
Valid scenario. So what do we do about that? Enforce strict and forced population control measures on them to nip the problem in the bud so to speak? Or how about we don’t turn into an evil super villain and share resources instead of hoarding wealth and energy.
Here’s an idea, how about everyone utilizes only 2.1 tons of CO2 per year? The rich and comfortable give up their extra emissions till we find low carbon alternatives and the poor rise up meanwhile. Image Source: United Nations Emission Gap Report 2020.
A new study titled “Providing decent living with minimum energy: A global scenario” finds that in countries that are today’s highest per-capita consumers, cuts of ~95% appear possible while still providing decent living standards to all. The researchers find that global final energy consumption in 2050 could be reduced to the levels of the 1960s, despite a population three times larger. However, such a world requires a massive rollout of advanced technologies across all sectors, as well as radical demand-side changes to reduce consumption – regardless of income – to levels of sufficiency. But what exactly does this decent living for all entail?
Decent living is of course a subjective concept in public discourse. However, the current work offers a response to the clichéd populist objection that environmentalists are proposing that we return to living in caves. With tongue firmly in cheek, the response roughly goes ‘Yes, perhaps, but these caves have highly-efficient facilities for cooking, storing food and washing clothes; low-energy lighting throughout; 50 L of clean water supplied per day per person, with 15 L heated to a comfortable bathing temperature; they maintain an air temperature of around 20 °C throughout the year, irrespective of geography; have a computer with access to global ICT networks; are linked to extensive transport networks providing ~5000–15,000 km of mobility per person each year via various modes; and are also served by substantially larger caves where universal healthcare is available and others that provide education for everyone between 5 and 19 years old.’ And at the same time, it is possible that the amount of people’s lives that must be spent working would be substantially reduced. — Read the important paper here: Providing decent living with minimum energy: A global scenario
By developing low carbon societies, and decoupling material excesses and over-consumption from prosperity, seems we can have a better world for all where the indulgences of few don’t endanger the present and future of the majority. However, if the nagging feeling of an impending population explosion where finite resources are catastrophically and irrevocably mined doesn’t let you be in peace, there’s a fair and fine way to stop population growth.
What’s the easiest way to handle population growth then?
It’s actually very simple - 1) improve economic conditions, 2) provide access to healthcare and 3) most importantly, just educate the girl child and allow women autonomy on their bodies by giving them full access to birth control and safe abortion practices. Seriously! Here’s a case study from Egypt where the researchers show that female education significantly reduces the number of children born per woman. Below is another case study from Africa which arrives at the same conclusion.
Source: Female Education and Childbearing: A Closer Look at the Data | WorldBank
In fact, due to increased access to education and contraceptives, there has been a jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born, as reported by BBC.
Why are fertility rates falling? It has nothing to do with sperm counts or the usual things that come to mind when discussing fertility. Instead it is being driven by more women in education and work, as well as greater access to contraception, leading to women choosing to have fewer children. In many ways, falling fertility rates are a success story.
This means the problem of overpopulation that is “supposedly causing” climate change and biodiversity loss can be easily solved by decreasing wealth inequality, reducing resource consumption and promoting gender equality. What a beautiful, socially just world it could be where no one ever talks of *culling people* ever again!
***
Without solving the problem of inequality and over consumption, if the first instinct is to go straight after the lives of the poor, innocent and unborn, then it is not done in the interest of the betterment of the world and ecosystem. It is just a last ditch effort to maintain the status quo so their privilege isn’t affected in any way.
And after reading all this, if someone still eagerly espouses the ridiculously low-hanging fruit of population control as a climate solution, it’s probably best for the world if they don’t procreate with such unimaginative thoughts maybe? That said, I fully support all people’s right to have or not have children. Both are completely valid choices and that right should never be revoked under the pretense of garbage eco-fascism.
Fin.
Would love to hear your thoughts and comments on this supremely contentious and persistent idea. Let me know!
Essential reading before uttering a single word about Population Explosion:
These three longreads will give you all essential context and data on overpopulation, the persistence of this unfounded fear, if the planet can support billions more of us and what we really need to do if we want to have a resource abundant earth in future. Please pour yourself a coffee, tea or beer and sit with these data heavy articles to understand what’s going on with our population numbers.
Why we should be wary of blaming ‘overpopulation’ for the climate crisis on The Conversation
We’ve worried about overpopulation for centuries. And we’ve always been wrong on Vox
Holiday season/End of year Fundraising Drive:
First things first, my deepest thanks to the paid subscribers who kept this publication going in 2020 despite the crashing economy and general turmoil. Thank you all for helping me continue doing this essential work on raising awareness of climate change, and I cannot be more glad that so many of you also think this is essential work worth supporting. If not for public contributions, there is no way I can spend hours every week reading up and writing these explainers.
If you’d like to see more of this in the coming year or have found any of my posts useful, please do consider becoming a paid subscriber. Here are all the ways you can contribute to help this publication running.
// Make a one time contribution of any amount
// Become a paid subscriber taking either a monthly or annual subscription
// Buy a fine art print to contribute to my climate crisis reporting fund
Watch: Historical context on the absolutely skin-crawling ideology of Population Control that was co-opted by Thanos
Thanos was a bad guy btw. If his idea had any merit, the Avengers wouldn’t have won the final battle. The filmmakers would’ve left it at that - Kill people, Save the planet. But that’s now how things work, as expertly argued in this video below.
As always, very informative and useful! Thanks