2 while a British person living in food poverty
is likely to have low emissions compa red to
their compatriots.
The poorest half of the global population is
responsible for only around a one-tenth of global
emissions attributed to individual consumption,
according to a 2015 report from charity Oxfam.
The richest 10 per cent globally, meanwhile, are
responsible for around 50 per cent of the emissions,
and have carbon footprints 60 times as high as the
poorest 10 per cent.
CARBON CHILDREN
These stark figures show why the climate impact
of population size simply cannot be thought about
in a silo, according to Dr Katharine Wilkinson,
co-author of Drawdown, a book which highlights the
most effective solutions to tackle climate change.
“If we had just a billion people on Earth but
people were wildly consuming fossil fuels and
industrial agriculture was growing and people
were eating beef five meals a day, you can imagine
a scenario where the population’s very small and
actually the impact is still really significant,” she
says. “Similarly, if we have a large population but
consumption comes way down then that’s also a
different scenario.”
Those in the rich world who have decided to
have fewer or no children for climate reasons often
make this argument. “The impact of our children
is considerably more than the impact of children
in areas where the birth rate is so much higher,”
says Olliff. This argument is supported by an
oft-cited scientific study published in the journal
Environmental Research Letters in 2017. The study
reviewed the available research on the actions that
people in rich countries could take to reduce their
climate impact.
“Basically we wanted to know, as an individual in
an industrialised country, what can I do that really
makes a difference for climate change, that would
most reduce my carbon footprint,” says Nicholas,
who co-authored the study.
The study found that four choices were consistently
high impact in cutting emissions: eating a plant-
based diet, living car-free, avoiding flying and having
one fewer child. The biggest impact choice of these?
Having one fewer child, which would save 58.6
tonnes of carbon per year. The next most effective
was living car-free for a year, which would save 2.4
tonnes. “That was basically showing every child
that we would choose to create in a high-emitting
country has a huge carbon legacy,” says Nicholas.
Assigning responsibility to a parent for a child’s
emissions in this way is contentious. Some say a
child’s emissions aren’t part of their parents’ ‘carbon
FEATURE OVERPOPULATIONfootprint’, while others note the risk of framing things in
terms of ‘too many people’. “There are certainly many deeply
problematic and racist and xenophobic and horrible human
rights violations that have happened, or been proposed, in the
name of ‘solving’ overpopulation,” says Nicholas.
It also puts an emphasis on personal lifestyle choice, which
some say comes at the expense of a focus on more systemic
changes to tackle climate change. Effort should go instead to
tackling the underlying issues of reliance on fossil fuels and
overuse of resources, according to this perspective.
“I’m not a fan of burdening global care to the choices of
individuals, who must often make personal choices against
their personal self-interest,” says Deonandan. “To me it makes
more sense to create economic incentives and disincentives
to guide populations into making more sustainable choices.”
But others argue individual action can scale up to bigger
changes. “I think you need individuals to feel engaged and
empowered in their sphere of influence that what they can do
actually makes a meaningful difference, to get enough people
activated to actually solve the problem,” argues Nicholas.
Still, as Wilkinson adds, the climate crisis will absolutely
not be solved by individual behaviour change alone. “To the
degree that people are thinking about individual behaviour
change, I think it’s really good to have a rigorous grounding
for that,” she says.
The average emissions per person remain highest in rich,
industrialised countries like the US. But population growth
has also tended to level off in these countries.
In poorer countries earlier along the ‘demographic transition’,
such as India and much of Nigeria, rising populations and a
growing middle class increasingly need – and, many argue,
deserve – increasing resources. But if these economies develop
in a high carbon way, this could lead to rising emissions.
This is why many see supporting people in poorer countries
who want to have fewer children as key to reducing emissions
globally. Educating girls and family planning are two of the
most effective measures for tackling climate change, according
to Project Drawdown. Research also shows that women and
girls are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change
because their roles as caregivers, and providers of food, fuel
and water puts them particularly at risk if drought or flooding“THERE ARE MANY HORRIBLE
HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS THAT
HAVE HAPPENED IN THE NAME OF
‘SOLVING’ OVERPOPULATION”