Global ChangeIntersection of Nature and Culture

Thoughts on addressing population and climate change in a just and ethical manner

Tuesday, January 12th, 2010

That’s the title of a new article¹ by Suzanne Petroni in the latest issue of Population and Environment (subscription required). She begins by acknowledging the complex history between these issues:

There is, in the field of population and reproductive health, a present debate around the merits and deficiencies of bringing the issue of global population growth back to the public agenda. Many see the current attention to the issue of climate change as an opening in which to make the case that global warming can not be alleviated or reversed without slowing population growth. They believe that linking population growth and climate change will help governments to see the exigency of the matter, and will place family planning back into the political realm as an urgent matter of national and environmental security….

But others worry that focusing on the environmental impacts of demographic change places at risk the hard-fought and long-developed global consensus that individual rights and empowerment are what matters most in fostering just and sustainable development. They fear that a renewed focus on the impacts of the growth of our global population poses a risk of drawing the international community back to numbers-driven policies and programs, which have not always prioritized individual interests…

• [D]oes the right of the community to live on a healthy planet trump the right of the individual to decide for him or herself, without external pressure, their own desired level of fertility?
• Does the United States, which emits a hugely disproportionate amount of greenhouse gases, have a right to suggest that other countries reduce their rates of population growth in order to somehow compensate for our profligate and consumptive lifestyles?
• How can we best balance a duty to future generations with the values of individual freedom and equality among the planet’s current occupants?
• And, while coercive means of population control have been widely condemned in most parts of the world, does making the ‘‘population-climate change connection’’ run the risk of countries seeing population control as an ‘‘easy fix’’ to the environmental challenges we face?

In light of these huge questions, what are her recommendations?

She begins with implicit reference to Commoner’s and Ehrlich’s I = P * A * T tool, where impacts (I, in this case greenhouse gas emissions) equal population (P) times Affluence (A) times technological impact (T, in this case the carbon intensity, or the amount of carbon emitted per dollar spent on economic activity).

If we want to reduce environmental impact I (greenhouse gas emissions and warming in this case), she argues that we have so far done so by focusing primarily on reducing T through new technology.  Why?  Because reducing A is not an easy proposition when three billion people live on less than $2 per day.  And reducing P has been politically difficult.  She describes how the current mode of thinking leads to difficulties but that if we try to be a bit more creative, we can work around the challenges:

Undeniably, if the IPCC or others were to approach the population issue with any suggestion of coercion as a means to limit population growth, they would likely find near-unanimous support for their decision to avoid the issue. But is there room for an ethical argument to slow population growth through voluntary family planning as a way to lessen climate change? Can we speak of environmental preservation, individual rights, justice and slower population growth in the same breath?

Some excerpts:

• While consumption is clearly the primary driver of environmental degradation, including climate change, it appears evident that population growth, both in industrialized or developing countries, is a contributing factor. If population growth is proven to be destructive to public health and the natural environment, then governments have an obligation to intervene to lessen this damage.
• Engendering support among the American public and policymakers for voluntary family planning—at home and abroad—is indeed a worthy and important task. Contrary to the arguments of Malthus and Hardin that providing assistance to those in need will lead to greater population growth, rampant starvation, declining health outcomes and environmental degradation, the consequences of voluntary family planning over time have rather been quite the opposite. Given adequate information and access to services, couples around the world have chosen to have fewer children, thereby contributing to better health outcomes and diminished negative impacts on the environment…It is thus quite morally acceptable to promote greater investments in international family planning, with appropriate caution. Most critically, population and family planning policies must prioritize freedom and justice, and must be made with the individuals at the core, because in the end, it is individuals—not abstract millions—with whom we share the planet.
• Further, population policies must advance a broad range of social needs, and not be adopted in isolation. As the nation’s top ethicists concluded in 1971, ‘‘The ultimate goal of a population policy should be human welfare, and not only such proximate goals as a reduction of population growth rates’’ (Institute of Society, Ethics, the Life Sciences 1971)
• Investing in the education of girls, the conservation of natural resources and in other socio-economic programs aimed at improving the quality of life of individuals and families around the world will contribute to the outcomes we want: a healthy planet that can be sustained for generations to come. And it will do so by contributing to the general welfare in an ethical and principled manner.
• Moving the discussion forward in a just and ethical manner also requires emphasizing first and foremost a responsibility on the part of Americans to act to mitigate the harm that we ourselves are doing to the global environment. If we take seriously a duty to leave a healthy planet for future generations, our current patterns of consumption must change. Such a focus has not only practical benefits, but political ones as well. Namely, if we wish to be a credible voice for solving the challenge of climate change, we must give primacy in our dialogue to reducing our own country’s production of emissions.
• Done well, a thoughtful and deliberative dialogue around the contribution of voluntary family planning to mitigating climate change can help Americans to better understand the significant role that the United States plays in the world; not solely as consumer and polluter, but also as an important member of a global commons, and yes, as a beneficent donor. If embarking upon such a discussion leads to greater support for renewed US contributions in this area, it will achieve a great deal of good.

She also cautions that connecting population and climate change has its risks:

Perhaps of greatest concern is the prospect of somehow enabling a return to the coercive policies of the past (and present, as in the case of China), which have been proven unjust and damaging to the rights of many individuals, couples and communities. Articulating a close interrelationship between rates of population growth and greenhouse gas emissions poses the prospect of countries which are under pressure to reduce their emissions to consider a ‘‘simple’’ solution to climate change: reducing their rates of population growth. If done without proper regard for human rights, such policies could turn coercive and prove devastating to individual rights and well-being, all in the name of environmental stewardship.

Perhaps more subtly, making this argument in the United States could encourage individuals in this country to blame—wrongly—population growth in the developing world for the problem of climate change…It would be highly unethical to enable the transference of responsibility to the poorest people in the world for a problem towards which the United States has been the primary contributor. Wealthy nations, including the United States, must resist the temptation to shift such culpability, just as they must resist pressuring poorer countries to remain so in order that those living in rich nations do not suffer.

It cannot be left unstated that raising the issue of population growth in the United States would inevitably provoke the similarly controversial issue of immigration.

The risk of alienating a key base of supporters in the form of feminists and human rights advocates around the world is very real if advocacy arguments are not tendered cautiously.

¹Petroni, S. (2010) Policy review: thoughts on addressing population and climate change in a just and ethical manner. Population and Environment DOI 10.1007/s11111-009-0085-1

_____

Photo credit:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/infrogmation/ / CC BY 2.0