ENVIRONMENT

Social Justice Can Support Sustainability

New Science, New Approaches to Population and the Environment

The great population debate has raged for centuries. It usually begins with a dire, Malthusian warning: “The sky is falling! Rapid population growth is the cause!” In 1968, for example, Paul Ehrlich famously declared that “The battle to feed all humanity is over.” He urged nations to excise the “cancer” of population growth or endure a “race to oblivion.”

Dire warnings like these cue the chorus of population deniers, who assert that growing human numbers pose no problem at all. They point out that Paul Ehrlich’s predictions have not come to pass, and that human ingenuity can keep pace with our growing numbers.

For some, population denial springs from fear that the Malthusians will trample human rights in their pursuit of lower birthrates. Such fears are well founded, as current policies in China and the history of population control in India and elsewhere vividly illustrate. Others are concerned that a focus on human numbers will distract us from bigger issues, like inequality and unsustainable consumption. And then there are the religious conservatives who fear (again, rightly) that family planning and women’s empowerment will upend traditional gender roles.

Now the Malthusians and the population deniers are duking it out about climate change. It’s not hard to understand why this is such a volatile issue—population touches on some of the most intimate and value-laden aspects of life: sex, gender, religion, and culture, as well as questions of equity and social justice. But viewing population in such all-or-nothing terms does little to advance understanding—or action—on this important issue.

So, before we settle in to another round of polarized, self-defeating debate, let’s try to separate ideology from evidence. New research has given scientists a more sophisticated understanding of population dynamics and their environmental impact—which could be the basis for sound and effective policy.

Scientists have learned that population dynamics (not simply fertility rates, but population composition—age and gender, and distribution—patterns of migration and urbanization) have a significant impact on the natural environment. A wide range of mediating factors, including technology, consumption patterns, economic policies and political choices shape that impact, however, and it is neither linear nor uniform.

Americans, for example, comprise only 5 percent of world population, but produce a quarter of all carbon emissions. In developing countries, urbanization is associated with rising per-capita emissions; as populations age, their per-capita emissions decline.

Does that mean human numbers, per se, are irrelevant? Not exactly.

First, remember that population is still growing rapidly. While the rate of growth has slowed in most parts of the world, our numbers still increase by 75 million to 80 million every year. Choices made today will determine whether human numbers climb from today’s 6.8 billion to anywhere between 8 billion and 11 billion by mid-century.

Almost all of that growth will take place in the developing countries, which is also where rapid development must occur so that the three billion people who now live on less than $2 a day can escape from poverty. For us in the affluent countries, the problem is overconsumption—our bankrupt economic system devours natural resources, yet fails to meet human needs. For people in the developing world, the problem is underconsumption; that same economic system fosters poverty and inequity that deprives people of the resources they need to survive. So we need to consume less, they need to consume more, and we all need to consume differently—to find ways to meet human needs without destroying the natural systems that sustain life.

If we take seriously the need to protect the planet and distribute its resources more equitably, it becomes clear that it would be easier to provide a good life—at less environmental cost—for 8 billion rather than 11 billion people.

Take climate change, for example. An analysis of climate studies by Brian O’Neill at the National Center for Atmospheric Research shows that slower population growth could make a significant contribution to solving the climate problem.

Imagine a pie divided into slices—each representing an action begun today that would eliminate 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2050—for example, widespread implementation of energy efficiency measures and the adoption of renewable energy sources. Seven slices are needed to avert disastrous climate change. O’Neill estimates that stabilizing world population at 8 billion, rather than 9 billion or more, would provide one “slice” of emissions reductions. That would eliminate as much carbon dioxide as completely ending deforestation.

Of course, slowing population growth is not all we must do. Current consumption patterns are unsustainable, regardless of our growing numbers, and continued reliance on fossil fuels could easily overwhelm any carbon emission reductions from slower growth. Still, slowing population growth is a piece of the “pie.”

But if we seek to address population growth, we have to do it right. That is, we have to learn from the history of bad population policies, which have veered between top-down “population control” schemes that violate human rights, and ideology-driven “abstinence only” programs that ignore the reality of human sexuality.

We have to focus on what works—and what we should be doing anyway as a matter of basic human dignity and social justice: making sure that all people have the means and the power to make real choices about childbearing.

What does this mean? It means expanding access to voluntary family planning and other reproductive-health information and services. It means promoting education and employment opportunities, especially for women and girls. And it means tackling the deep inequities—gender and economic—that prevent people from having and acting on meaningful choices about childbearing. Each of these interventions is vitally important in its own right as a matter of human rights and social justice.

Today, we have an extraordinary opportunity to make progress on these issues. After eight long years, we finally have a president—and a secretary of state—who are willing to make policy decisions based on evidence, not ideology.

But that opportunity will pass us by if progressives remain stuck in the tired debates of the past. The Malthusians and the population deniers are both wrong. Rapid population growth is not the primary cause of our environmental crises, and slower growth is not a panacea. But addressing population growth by the ethical means outlined above is part of what we must do to build a sustainable, equitable future. It’s time to have a new conversation about population and the environment—one that is grounded in science and guided by values of human rights, equity, and social justice.

Laurie Mazur is the director of the Population Justice Project and editor of A Pivotal Moment: Population, Justice, and the Environmental Challenge. Shira Saperstein is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and the Deputy Director and Program Director for Women’s Rights and Reproductive Health at the Moriah Fund.

Tags: population, sustainability

Comments on this article

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.