REVIEW RSS FEED
POPULATION: THE ISSUE COPENHAGEN DOESN'T WANT TO DISCUSS
Tom Levitt, The Ecologist, September 2009 -According to the UN, population growth is a driving force behind emission increases yet it will not be on the agenda at any of the upcoming climate talks.
. . . But while environmental lobbyists remain reluctant to tackle it, reports continue to cite population growth as a grave ecological issue. WWF's Living Planet report, published last year, said continued growth in population and per person footprint was unsustainable.
'With the world already in ecological overshoot continued growth in population and per person footprint is clearly not a sustainable path,' said the report.
It said population growth was not only an environmental issue but also affected development.
"Rapidly growing populations create barriers to achieving development goals in many low-income nations,' write the authors of the 2008 Living Planet report. . .
The Optimum Population Trust says family planning is cheaper than many other methods of reducing carbon emissions.
A report they commissioned from London School of Economics estimated a $7 cost of abating a ton of CO2 using family planning compared with $24 for wind power, $51 for solar and $57-83 for coal plants with carbon capture and storage.
In his book on tackling CO2 emissions, Kyoto 2, Oliver Tickell estimates that figure could be even lower for countries like the USA. . .
Tickell says $500 million should be allocated to the United Nations Population Fund to achieve its goal of universal access to reproductive health services by 2015. Under the Bush administration, the USA refused to fund any of the UNFPA's work.
OPT chairman Roger Martin said it was time for the taboo on discussing the issue to end.
"Each additional person, especially each rich person in the OECD countries, reduces everyone's share of the planet's dwindling resources even faster. Non-coercive population policies are urgently needed in all countries," he said.
. . . But while environmental lobbyists remain reluctant to tackle it, reports continue to cite population growth as a grave ecological issue. WWF's Living Planet report, published last year, said continued growth in population and per person footprint was unsustainable.
'With the world already in ecological overshoot continued growth in population and per person footprint is clearly not a sustainable path,' said the report.
It said population growth was not only an environmental issue but also affected development.
"Rapidly growing populations create barriers to achieving development goals in many low-income nations,' write the authors of the 2008 Living Planet report. . .
The Optimum Population Trust says family planning is cheaper than many other methods of reducing carbon emissions.
A report they commissioned from London School of Economics estimated a $7 cost of abating a ton of CO2 using family planning compared with $24 for wind power, $51 for solar and $57-83 for coal plants with carbon capture and storage.
In his book on tackling CO2 emissions, Kyoto 2, Oliver Tickell estimates that figure could be even lower for countries like the USA. . .
Tickell says $500 million should be allocated to the United Nations Population Fund to achieve its goal of universal access to reproductive health services by 2015. Under the Bush administration, the USA refused to fund any of the UNFPA's work.
OPT chairman Roger Martin said it was time for the taboo on discussing the issue to end.
"Each additional person, especially each rich person in the OECD countries, reduces everyone's share of the planet's dwindling resources even faster. Non-coercive population policies are urgently needed in all countries," he said.
Labels: POPULATION
5 Comments:
Tom is right on! And is not just climate change. Population growth is the main cause of all of our environmental problems. It is long past time for environmental leaders to acknowlege this truth and begin to deal with the causes of our problems and not just the symptons.
George Plumb
Executive Director
Vermonters for a Sustainable Population
We have known about the population problem for a long time, but it is overshadowed by the racial issue. Most of the increased in population comes from poorer countries with dark-skinned people. Shall they be punished for being last to develop, or shall we establish a quota system for births?
It's not one or the other: both population and consumption are important. George Monbiot recently discussed the former as a favored cause of the rich...because they're outrageously overboard on the latter.
Off the mark.... the best control of population is the middle-class economy which liberals say is so consumerist, happy motoring suburbia. The terrible life of 2.4 children in the cul-de-sac with an suv. Well that's 2.4 children, not 7-10 children in an undeveloped country.
The Wanting Seed by Anthony Burgess
Just sayin'...
Post a Comment
<< Home