Hello all - I've been following the discussion(s) in Ecolog on both population and climate with great interest.
So I thought you might be interested in reading my lead-off article for the population and climate roundtable (The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists), that was published on-line on Monday (Dec. 3), to coincide with the first day of the Bali climate talks (U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change). I would love to hear your thoughts and comments**. Here's the link (the text is also below): http://www.thebulletin.org/roundtable/population-climate-change/ The roundtable will continue among the four other "experts" and me for the next three months or so (for a few rounds), with about one new article published each week. Joe Chamie (former head of the UN Population Division) will be the next to publish in the roundtable - next week. Best - Fred Meyerson p.s. And here's the roundtable intro. piece and the text of my lead-off article, though it may be easier to read on-line: * Population and climate change * *In Progress: 3 December 2007* A larger global population means a larger demand for everything--most urgently, energy. And although Earth's resources have apparently stretched further than Paul Ehrlich infamously predicted four decades ago in his book *The Population Bomb*, the mounting climate problem suggests that the consequences of overconsumption (namely of coal and other fossil fuels that produce heat-trapping greenhouse gases) may still be inevitable. Joseph Chamie, former director of the U.N. Population Division and now director of research at the Center for Migration Studies; Martin Desvaux, a retired physicist and trustee of the Optimum Population Trust<http://www.optimumpopulation.org/>(OPT); John Guillebaud, former OPT co-chairman and emeritus professor of Family Planning and Reproductive Health at University College London; Elizabeth Hartmann, director of the Population and Development Program<http://popdev.hampshire.edu/>and associate professor of Development Studies at Hampshire College; and Frederick A. B. Meyerson <http://www.nrs.uri.edu/Fred_Meyerson.fmeyerson.0.html>, an ecologist at the University of Rhode Island and board member of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, discuss how population growth relates to our spiraling energy needs and whether addressing it can help provide a solution to the climate problem. * Rising carbon emissions call for a population policy* Response: 3 December 2007 Posted by: *Frederick A. B. Meyerson* Human population continues to grow by more than 75 million people annually. Since the first Earth Day in 1970, global population and annual carbon dioxide emissions have both increased by about 70 percent. As a result, per capita emission rates remain steady<http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/climateupdate02/climateupdate02.html>at about 1.2 metric tons (mt) of carbon per person per year. Unfortunately, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol has had little measurable effect on per capita emissions, even in the countries that have agreed to national targets. Emissions in Western Europe reached 2 mt per person back in 1970 and have fluctuated just above that level ever since. The same plateau phenomenon, which appears to be related to stages in development, happened<http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.htm>in the early 1970s in "centrally planned Europe," which includes Russia and the former Soviet republics. Per capita carbon emissions in the United States also leveled off around 1970 at a much higher rate--above 5.5 mt per person--and have barely budged since, through recessions, economic booms, and swings in energy markets. >From 1970 to 2004, U.S. population and emissions both rose by 43 percent. More than any another factor, population growth drives rising carbon emissions, and the U.S. Census Bureau and United Nations both project that global population, currently 6.6 billion, will surpass 9 billion before 2050. It is, of course, possible that per capita emissions could decrease in the future, but a number of factors make this difficult. First, emission patterns are "sticky" due to slow turnover in our energy-intensive infrastructure, including power plants, housing, and vehicle fleets. Established consumption behavior is hard to change, by either individuals or nations. Second, while global per capita emissions have been relatively flat for decades, there is now more risk that they will rise, not fall, in the near future. Coal (which releases the most carbon per unit of energy when burned) is more abundant and less constrained than petroleum and gas. As oil becomes scarce and expensive, and population growth and development drive up energy demand, coal use has grown dramatically<http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5508>in recent years, particularly in China, but also in the United States and India. Finally, many developing countries that are experiencing explosive economic growth have not yet reached per capita emissions plateaus and also have rapidly rising populations. All these factors more than wipe out the minor savings associated with my family (and others) switching to compact fluorescent bulbs and efficient front-loading washers. The implication is that one of the best strategies for reducing future greenhouse gas emissions is population stabilization, as quickly as can be achieved by non-coercive means. But is stabilization likely or possible? The United Nations projects that global population will eventually peak well above 9 billion, based on the assumption that fertility rates in every country on the planet will converge at 1.85 children per woman (below the 2.1 replacement fertility level), and that most countries will achieve this target, or close to it, by 2050. This critical assumption, adopted relatively recently by demographers, is based only on a mathematical formula, and perhaps some wishful thinking. It is quite possible that global population could surge well beyond even current projections. Unfortunately, given our current trajectory, the disruptions, hardship, and conflict caused by climate change and variability may well increase death rates (and decrease life expectancy) before declining fertility stabilizes population. So, I believe the best course of action for both human well-being and climate policy is to quickly devote as many resources as possible to reducing unwanted pregnancy, so that we reach stabilization. Almost half<http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3809006.html>of all pregnancies in the United States, and one-third globally, are unintended. We can do better than that, and several countries already have<http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3324401.html> . This will require rehabilitation of the population policy and family planning fields, which have been attacked, shunned, and splintered in recent decades. Conservatives are often against sex education, contraception, and abortion, and they like growth--both in population and the economy. Liberals usually support individual human rights above all else and fear the "coercion" label, and therefore avoid discussion of population policy and stabilization. The combination is a tragic stalemate that leads to more population growth. We need to get over it. And certainly population policy should be front and center at the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting <http://unfccc.int/2860.php>, which begins today in Bali. -------------------------------------------------------- Frederick A. B. Meyerson, Ph.D., J.D. The University of Rhode Island The Coastal Institute at Kingston Department of Natural Resources Science 1 Greenhouse Road, Room #109 Kingston, RI 02881 Tel: 401-874-4580 Fax: 401-874-4561 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nrs.uri.edu/Fred_Meyerson.fmeyerson.0.html
