Real villain is increasing consumption in rich countriesThere is at most a weak link between population growth and rising emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change, says a study published in the journal Environment and Urbanisation.
The paper contradicts growing calls for population growth to be limited as part of the fight against climate change and shows that the real issue is not the growth in the number of people but the growth in the number of consumers and their consumption levels.
Dr David Satterthwaite of the International Institute for Environment and Development analysed changes in population and in greenhouse gas emissions for all the world’s countries found that between 1980 and 2005:
Sub-Saharan Africa had 18.5 per cent of the world’s population growth and just 2.4 per cent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions
The US had 3.4 per cent of the world’s population growth and 12.6 per cent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions
China had 15.3 per cent of the world’s population growth and 44.5 per cent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions. Population growth rates in China have come down very rapidly – but greenhouse gas emissions have increased very rapidly
Low-income nations had 52.1 per cent of the world’s population growth and 12.8 per cent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions
High-income nations had 7 per cent of the world’s population growth and 29 per cent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions.
Most of the nations with the highest population growth rates had low growth rates for carbon dioxide emissions while many of the nations with the lowest population growth rates had high growth rates for carbon dioxide emissions
Satterthwaite points out that contraception and sexual/reproductive health services are key contributors to development, health and human rights in poorer nations and communities.
But he adds that these are not a solution to climate change, which is caused predominantly by a minority of the world’s population that has the highest levels of consumption.
“A child born into a very poor African household who during their life never escapes from poverty contributes very little to climate change, especially if they die young, as many do,” says Satterthwaite. “A child born into a wealthy household in North America or Europe and enjoys a full life and a high-consumption lifestyle contributes far more – thousands or even tens of thousands of times more.”
“Of course, not all the world’s greatest consumers are in high income countries,” adds Satterthwaite. “The many millionaires from Mexico, China or South Africa may have just as large and damaging a carbon footprint as millionaires from Europe or North America. But, globally, most of the world’s high-consumers are in Europe and North America.”
The paper contradicts growing calls for population growth to be limited as part of the fight against climate change and shows that the real issue is not the growth in the number of people but the growth in the number of consumers and their consumption levels.
Dr David Satterthwaite of the International Institute for Environment and Development analysed changes in population and in greenhouse gas emissions for all the world’s countries found that between 1980 and 2005:
Sub-Saharan Africa had 18.5 per cent of the world’s population growth and just 2.4 per cent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions
The US had 3.4 per cent of the world’s population growth and 12.6 per cent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions
China had 15.3 per cent of the world’s population growth and 44.5 per cent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions. Population growth rates in China have come down very rapidly – but greenhouse gas emissions have increased very rapidly
Low-income nations had 52.1 per cent of the world’s population growth and 12.8 per cent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions
High-income nations had 7 per cent of the world’s population growth and 29 per cent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions.
Most of the nations with the highest population growth rates had low growth rates for carbon dioxide emissions while many of the nations with the lowest population growth rates had high growth rates for carbon dioxide emissions
Satterthwaite points out that contraception and sexual/reproductive health services are key contributors to development, health and human rights in poorer nations and communities.
But he adds that these are not a solution to climate change, which is caused predominantly by a minority of the world’s population that has the highest levels of consumption.
“A child born into a very poor African household who during their life never escapes from poverty contributes very little to climate change, especially if they die young, as many do,” says Satterthwaite. “A child born into a wealthy household in North America or Europe and enjoys a full life and a high-consumption lifestyle contributes far more – thousands or even tens of thousands of times more.”
“Of course, not all the world’s greatest consumers are in high income countries,” adds Satterthwaite. “The many millionaires from Mexico, China or South Africa may have just as large and damaging a carbon footprint as millionaires from Europe or North America. But, globally, most of the world’s high-consumers are in Europe and North America.”
