Let's Give Out Free Condoms to Stop Climate Change... Maybe Not as Daft As It Seems

"They're hope flavored"...photo: Matthew McDermott

Here's the latest salvo in the ongoing population growth-climate change debate: The latest UN Population Fund report says that an important component in combatting climate change is limiting population growth. Explicitly stating that limits on number of children should not be considered, the report instead says improving women's access to family planning services and contraceptives, and assuring that low income is no barrier to access, is crucial:We Need to Bring Population to Fore
State of the World Population 2009 [PDF] also recommends: 1) bringing a better understanding of population dynamics, gender, and reproductive health into the climate change discussion; 2) prioritize research of the connections between population dynamics and climate change; 3) prepare now for increases in population movements because of climate change; and 4) integrate gender consideration into global efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

World's Poverty-Stricken Women First Hit by Climate Change
Towards that last item, the report once again highlights the fact that the majority of the 1.5 billion people in the world living on less than $1 a day are women and children, and that these people will the be among the first and worst hit by climate change.

photo: International Rice Research Institute via flickr.
Will Condoms Really Stop Climate Change?
But will reigning in population growth really stop climate change? Quickly, in itself, no. Can it help, yes, though the situation is far more complex that a quick-grabby, twitter friendly headline can ever portray it.

Though the report says "the linkages between population and climate change are in most cases complex and indirect," this is the connection as basically as it can be put: It's about consumption of natural resources & ecological limits.

In the developed world we could probably consume a whole lot less, without decreasing quality of life... photo: Lyza via flickr.
Developed Nations = Rampant Resource Consumption
In developed nations, where population is generally growing only slightly or actually declining, consumption of natural resources of all sorts far exceeds the carrying capacity of the planet. Considering that fossil fuels literally and figuratively drive that consumption and that there's lots of greenhouse gas emissions associated with that, a comparatively small population has a disproportionately large global warming contribution.

In these places -- the US, Europe, Australia, Japan, parts of SE Asia, Israel -- the real issue isn't having fewer children but rather radically constraining the amount of resources consumed, the ecological throughput.

Efficiency in production and energy uses, as well as clean power generation can help a great deal, but I personally have grave doubts that it will be enough to create sustainable consumption levels (those which could be extended to an increasing world population more or less equitably) without also reevaluating what a 'normal' level of 'stuff' to own, use, and buy is in current high consumption areas.

WATCH VIDEO: Focus Earth - No More Children

All these kids could benefit from increased natural resource consumption... photo: khym54 via flickr.
Developing Nations = Lots of People With Low Consumption
On the other hand, in places where population growth is highest -- in Africa in particular, but also in South Asia, Latin America and China -- the issue isn't personal resource consumption, but sheer numbers of people. In fact, a modest increase in per capita resource consumption could do wonders for both personal well-being and controlling population growth.

Several billion people have a lot of carbon emissions even when personally consuming at globally sustainable levels; and slowing population growth would take pressure off the natural environment, take pressure off rural-to-urban migration, ease some public health and pollution issues, and generally make dealing with environmental problems and climate change easier.

It's Not an Either/Or Situation
So, in short, despite arguments trying to saying the problem is resource use not population, or it's population that's the main issue not resource consumption, it's really both.

While it's true that direct line between free access to contraception and climate change prevention is dotted, with several intermediate steps, the connection is there.

It is also entirely true that there is a solid connection between increasing prosperity and lowering birth rates, as there is with increasing women's education levels, and access to family planning.

How to Lift People from Poverty, Without Destroying Planet?
But the crucial issue right now is how to lift people out of $1/day, $2/day absolute poverty without at the same time increasing the rate of climate change and ecologically bankrupting the planet. Clearly the answer isn't just free condoms, but it's also not rampant pursuit of a consumer goods-driven economy that doesn't respect ecological limits.

Those of us that have plenty have to meet the multitude who want more somewhere in the middle, which well may be farther past the middle towards the low end of the scale than any one of us would like...

Read the original report: State of World Population 2009 [PDF]

Population Growth, Resource Consumption, Climate Change
Resource Overconsumption Not Population Growth the Real Environmental Problem: Fred Pearce
When Population Growth and Resource Availability Collide
It's Not Them, It's Us: Developing World Population Growth Not Adding Much CO2