This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/apr/26/royal-society-report-consumption-population
The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 6 | Version 7 |
|---|---|
| Does consumption need tackling before population? | Does consumption need tackling before population? |
| (39 minutes later) | |
| 9.15am: The Royal Society has published today a landmark report - 21-months in the making - that it says is the "first substantive offering" in its 350-year history on the topic of the "impacts of human population and consumption on the planet". | 9.15am: The Royal Society has published today a landmark report - 21-months in the making - that it says is the "first substantive offering" in its 350-year history on the topic of the "impacts of human population and consumption on the planet". |
| The report (pdf, 5.7MB) lays out nine recommendations for, what it hopes, will "be a springboard for further discussion and action". In doing so, it appears to imply that rising consumption levels need tackling ahead of rising population levels: | The report (pdf, 5.7MB) lays out nine recommendations for, what it hopes, will "be a springboard for further discussion and action". In doing so, it appears to imply that rising consumption levels need tackling ahead of rising population levels: |
| In the short term it is of the utmost urgency to reduce consumption and emissions that are already causing damage, for example greenhouse gases, deforestation, and land use change amongst others. Furthermore, unless the goal is a world in which extreme inequality persists, it is necessary to make space for those in poverty, especially the 1.3 billion people living in absolute poverty, to achieve an adequate standard of living. | In the short term it is of the utmost urgency to reduce consumption and emissions that are already causing damage, for example greenhouse gases, deforestation, and land use change amongst others. Furthermore, unless the goal is a world in which extreme inequality persists, it is necessary to make space for those in poverty, especially the 1.3 billion people living in absolute poverty, to achieve an adequate standard of living. |
| The intertwined issues of consumption and population have, of course, long been cornerstones of the wider environmental debate. But, in recent years, the consensus among environmental commentators seems to have moved towards the view that over-consumption is, indeed, the more pressing concern. In 2011, when the human population reached 7bn for the first time, a major report by French national agencies concluded rather bluntly that "the rich must stop consuming so much". | The intertwined issues of consumption and population have, of course, long been cornerstones of the wider environmental debate. But, in recent years, the consensus among environmental commentators seems to have moved towards the view that over-consumption is, indeed, the more pressing concern. In 2011, when the human population reached 7bn for the first time, a major report by French national agencies concluded rather bluntly that "the rich must stop consuming so much". |
| But what are your views? If quoting figures to support your points, please provide a link to the source. I will also be inviting various interested parties to join the debate, too. And later on today, I will return with my own verdict. | But what are your views? If quoting figures to support your points, please provide a link to the source. I will also be inviting various interested parties to join the debate, too. And later on today, I will return with my own verdict. |
| 9.32am: Oxfam's chief executive Barbara Stocking has just issued this full statement: | 9.32am: Oxfam's chief executive Barbara Stocking has just issued this full statement: |
| The Royal Society rightly points out that it is dangerously misleading to focus solely on population growth or solely on consumption, as we struggle to work out how we can sustain a population of nine billion people on the planet in the future. A much broader approach is needed. The planet has sufficient resources to sustain a population of that size but we can only ensure a sustainable future for all if we address grossly unequal levels of consumption. Fairly redistributing the lion's share of the earth's resources consumed by the richest 10 per cent would bring development so that infant mortality rates are reduced, many more people are educated and women are empowered to determine their family size – all of which will bring down birth rates. The solutions are simple and achievable but political obstacles are huge. It would take just 0.2 per cent of global income to pull more than a billion of the world's poorest people above the poverty line. With a growing global middle class rapidly adding to the strain on the world's resources, it is crucial that we step up to the challenge. | The Royal Society rightly points out that it is dangerously misleading to focus solely on population growth or solely on consumption, as we struggle to work out how we can sustain a population of nine billion people on the planet in the future. A much broader approach is needed. The planet has sufficient resources to sustain a population of that size but we can only ensure a sustainable future for all if we address grossly unequal levels of consumption. Fairly redistributing the lion's share of the earth's resources consumed by the richest 10 per cent would bring development so that infant mortality rates are reduced, many more people are educated and women are empowered to determine their family size – all of which will bring down birth rates. The solutions are simple and achievable but political obstacles are huge. It would take just 0.2 per cent of global income to pull more than a billion of the world's poorest people above the poverty line. With a growing global middle class rapidly adding to the strain on the world's resources, it is crucial that we step up to the challenge. |
| 9.37am: The Royal Society has produced this video in which its working group chair Sir John Sulston explains why it has published the report. | 9.37am: The Royal Society has produced this video in which its working group chair Sir John Sulston explains why it has published the report. |
| 9.55am: I have received this reaction from Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist: | 9.55am: I have received this reaction from Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist: |
| John Sulston's committee argues that the more people there are and the richer they are, the more resources they consume. True. But it does not follow that the damage they do to the planet is greater. In important ways it gets less. Why are many ecological and conservation problems worst in poor countries? Haiti is 98% deforested, and parts of Africa are seeing the devastation of wildlife populations, whereas in Europe and North America, forests cover is increasing, rivers and lakes are getting cleaner and deer numbers are rising. It is now more than 150 years since a native European bird species went globally extinct. Some of that is because rich countries export their problems. But more of it is because economic development leads to a switch to using resources that no other species needs or wants (iron ore, oil, uranium, radio frequencies), instead of taking resources from living nature. Above a certain average level, income correlates negatively with many kinds of ecological damage as countries can afford to devote money to conservation. (China just passed that level and is reforesting again.) Contrast Haiti, which relies on biomass (wood) for cooking and industry, with its much (literally) greener neighbour the Dominican Republic, which subsidises propane for cooking to save forest. Contrast the spasm of megafaunal extinction caused by early hunter-gatherers in America with the resurgence of deer, wolves, beaver and bald eagles there today made possible by the fact that people don't need to eat them or wear their skins. Above all, economic growth leads to a more sparing use of the most important of all resources - land. As Helmut Haberl has shown, fertilizer and irrigation can vastly increase the productivity of ecosystems in rich countries sometimes more than compensating for the theft of calories for human consumption and thus not just sparing land for wildlife, but potentially enhancing wild ecosystems. It is entirely possible that this century will see ecological restoration gradually get the upper hand over ecological destruction, but only if people move to cities, further intensify farm yields, use oil instead of biofuels, un-dam rivers to replace hydro with gas or nuclear, build with steel and glass rather than timber and so forth. Seven billion people going back to nature would be a disaster for nature. Remember: no non-renewable resource has yet run out, whereas several renewable ones have: great auks, for example. Of course, if human populations were smaller there would be less impact on the planet's resources. But since voluntary mass suicide does not appeal to people, the key question is: what level of economic activity leads to lowest birth rates? The surprising answer from all continents over 200 years is: the higher the better - though of course other factors also matter. As babies stop dying, people have fewer of them. | John Sulston's committee argues that the more people there are and the richer they are, the more resources they consume. True. But it does not follow that the damage they do to the planet is greater. In important ways it gets less. Why are many ecological and conservation problems worst in poor countries? Haiti is 98% deforested, and parts of Africa are seeing the devastation of wildlife populations, whereas in Europe and North America, forests cover is increasing, rivers and lakes are getting cleaner and deer numbers are rising. It is now more than 150 years since a native European bird species went globally extinct. Some of that is because rich countries export their problems. But more of it is because economic development leads to a switch to using resources that no other species needs or wants (iron ore, oil, uranium, radio frequencies), instead of taking resources from living nature. Above a certain average level, income correlates negatively with many kinds of ecological damage as countries can afford to devote money to conservation. (China just passed that level and is reforesting again.) Contrast Haiti, which relies on biomass (wood) for cooking and industry, with its much (literally) greener neighbour the Dominican Republic, which subsidises propane for cooking to save forest. Contrast the spasm of megafaunal extinction caused by early hunter-gatherers in America with the resurgence of deer, wolves, beaver and bald eagles there today made possible by the fact that people don't need to eat them or wear their skins. Above all, economic growth leads to a more sparing use of the most important of all resources - land. As Helmut Haberl has shown, fertilizer and irrigation can vastly increase the productivity of ecosystems in rich countries sometimes more than compensating for the theft of calories for human consumption and thus not just sparing land for wildlife, but potentially enhancing wild ecosystems. It is entirely possible that this century will see ecological restoration gradually get the upper hand over ecological destruction, but only if people move to cities, further intensify farm yields, use oil instead of biofuels, un-dam rivers to replace hydro with gas or nuclear, build with steel and glass rather than timber and so forth. Seven billion people going back to nature would be a disaster for nature. Remember: no non-renewable resource has yet run out, whereas several renewable ones have: great auks, for example. Of course, if human populations were smaller there would be less impact on the planet's resources. But since voluntary mass suicide does not appeal to people, the key question is: what level of economic activity leads to lowest birth rates? The surprising answer from all continents over 200 years is: the higher the better - though of course other factors also matter. As babies stop dying, people have fewer of them. |
| 10.31am: Here's is how the Royal Society is ordering its recommendations: | 10.31am: Here's is how the Royal Society is ordering its recommendations: |
| 1) The international community must bring the 1.3 billion people living on less than $1.25 per day out of absolute poverty, and reduce the inequality that persists in the world today. This will require focused efforts in key policy areas including economic development, education, family planning and health. | 1) The international community must bring the 1.3 billion people living on less than $1.25 per day out of absolute poverty, and reduce the inequality that persists in the world today. This will require focused efforts in key policy areas including economic development, education, family planning and health. |
| 2) The most developed and the emerging economies must stabilise and then reduce material consumption levels through: dramatic improvements in resource use efficiency, including: reducing waste; investment in sustainable resources, technologies and infrastructures; and systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact. | 2) The most developed and the emerging economies must stabilise and then reduce material consumption levels through: dramatic improvements in resource use efficiency, including: reducing waste; investment in sustainable resources, technologies and infrastructures; and systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact. |
| 3) Reproductive health and voluntary family planning programmes urgently require political leadership and financial commitment, both nationally and internationally. This is needed to continue the downward trajectory of fertility rates, especially in countries where the unmet need for contraception is high. | 3) Reproductive health and voluntary family planning programmes urgently require political leadership and financial commitment, both nationally and internationally. This is needed to continue the downward trajectory of fertility rates, especially in countries where the unmet need for contraception is high. |
| 4) Population and the environment should not be considered as two separate issues. Demographic changes, and the influences on them, should be factored into economic and environmental debate and planning at international meetings, such as the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development and subsequent meetings. | 4) Population and the environment should not be considered as two separate issues. Demographic changes, and the influences on them, should be factored into economic and environmental debate and planning at international meetings, such as the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development and subsequent meetings. |
| 5) Governments should realise the potential of urbanisation to reduce material consumption and environmental impact through efficiency measures. The well planned provision of water supply, waste disposal, power and other services will avoid slum conditions and increase the welfare of inhabitants. | 5) Governments should realise the potential of urbanisation to reduce material consumption and environmental impact through efficiency measures. The well planned provision of water supply, waste disposal, power and other services will avoid slum conditions and increase the welfare of inhabitants. |
| 6) In order to meet previously agreed goals for universal education, policy makers in countries with low school attendance need to work with international funders and organisations, such as UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF, IMF, World Bank and Education for All. Financial and non-financial barriers must be overcome to achieve high-quality primary and secondary education for all the world's young, ensuring equal opportunities for girls and boys. | 6) In order to meet previously agreed goals for universal education, policy makers in countries with low school attendance need to work with international funders and organisations, such as UNESCO, UNFPA, UNICEF, IMF, World Bank and Education for All. Financial and non-financial barriers must be overcome to achieve high-quality primary and secondary education for all the world's young, ensuring equal opportunities for girls and boys. |
| 7) Natural and social scientists need to increase their research efforts on the interactions between consumption, demographic change and environmental impact. They have a unique and vital role in developing a fuller picture of the problems, the uncertainties found in all such analyses, the efficacy of potential solutions, and providing an open, trusted source of information for policy makers and the public. | 7) Natural and social scientists need to increase their research efforts on the interactions between consumption, demographic change and environmental impact. They have a unique and vital role in developing a fuller picture of the problems, the uncertainties found in all such analyses, the efficacy of potential solutions, and providing an open, trusted source of information for policy makers and the public. |
| 8) National Governments should accelerate the development of comprehensive wealth measures. This should include reforms to the system of national accounts, and improvement in natural asset accounting. | 8) National Governments should accelerate the development of comprehensive wealth measures. This should include reforms to the system of national accounts, and improvement in natural asset accounting. |
| 9) Collaboration between National Governments is needed to develop socio-economic systems and institutions that are not dependent on continued material consumption growth. This will inform the development and implementation of policies that allow both people and the planet to flourish. | 9) Collaboration between National Governments is needed to develop socio-economic systems and institutions that are not dependent on continued material consumption growth. This will inform the development and implementation of policies that allow both people and the planet to flourish. |
| 10.39am: I've just received the thoughts of Chris Goodall, author of Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, Green Party candidate and host of the Carbon Commentary blog: | 10.39am: I've just received the thoughts of Chris Goodall, author of Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, Green Party candidate and host of the Carbon Commentary blog: |
| What an astonishingly weak, cliché ridden report this is. Who let the miserabilists into Carlton House Terrace? 'Consumption' to blame for all our problems? Growth is evil? But in the UK and other similar countries, water use is down, travel and car ownership down, metals use down, cement use down, calorie consumption and meat eating is falling. We're going to run out of minerals, they imply? Total rubbish. With the exception of copper, there is easily enough to last infinitely. 5% of earth's crust is iron, for goodness sake, and 7% aluminium. 'Rare earths' are more abundant in the crust than copper. We want people to be rich if we are stop stressing the planet, not poor. A rich economy with technological advances is needed for radical decarbonisation. I do wish scientists would stop using their hatred of capitalism as an argument for cutting consumption. | What an astonishingly weak, cliché ridden report this is. Who let the miserabilists into Carlton House Terrace? 'Consumption' to blame for all our problems? Growth is evil? But in the UK and other similar countries, water use is down, travel and car ownership down, metals use down, cement use down, calorie consumption and meat eating is falling. We're going to run out of minerals, they imply? Total rubbish. With the exception of copper, there is easily enough to last infinitely. 5% of earth's crust is iron, for goodness sake, and 7% aluminium. 'Rare earths' are more abundant in the crust than copper. We want people to be rich if we are stop stressing the planet, not poor. A rich economy with technological advances is needed for radical decarbonisation. I do wish scientists would stop using their hatred of capitalism as an argument for cutting consumption. |
| 11.09am: Here are the thoughts of Aubrey Meyer, the architect of "contraction and convergence", the idea - which seems to be implied in the Royal Society report - that the developed world reduces it consumption/emissions in order to allow the developing world continued development with the ultimate goal being equalised, sustainable per capita "entitlements" throughout the world: | 11.09am: Here are the thoughts of Aubrey Meyer, the architect of "contraction and convergence", the idea - which seems to be implied in the Royal Society report - that the developed world reduces it consumption/emissions in order to allow the developing world continued development with the ultimate goal being equalised, sustainable per capita "entitlements" throughout the world: |
| The recent Royal Society report addresses population and consumption. It sets this in the increasingly critical context of the greenhouse gas emissions driving global climate change. Noting what it describes as the injustice of over-consumption and under-consumption, it calls for a framework to address this. This is a sensible message. It has been repeated with increasing urgency for many years. It is now increasingly listened to and that is encouraging. The report omits reference to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] where - still with more heat than light - these matters are negotiated. However, it has several recommendations and since one of the principal authors of the report is Professor Tim Jackson, it is welcome to see that his long-term advocacy of the pragmatic Contraction and Convergence [C&C] framework for greenhouse gas emissions so clearly informs these. That said, I have two major reservations about the report: [1] The framework envisaged for 'economic-governance' is price-led. This is what we already have and why we are in such jeopardy. While attempting to price 'natural capital' and 'species' is not irrelevant, from the viewpoint of 'economic-governance', this is an 'economics response'. The tough fact is that it is economics per se that now is - and must be - governed by the very limits which the report seeks to address. This is not fundamentally therefore an issue of the 'monetary unit' and 'pricing', it is an issue of realism, regulation and demand-management. The report calls for a 'stable socio-economic structure' for generations to come', which is sensible. However, the monetary-unit is increasingly unstable and periodically chaotic. Particularly at these times, the monetary-unit is increasingly divorced from the real and concrete resources on which we depend, from any limits to the liquidation and consumption of these resources and completely divorced from any notion of the 'equitable consumption' of these resources. Pricing per se will not limit human demand to the extent needed to get us out of the global double-jeopardy of inequity and collapse that we are in. The report could have addressed this more clearly. [2] Following from that the report states that, "it is indeed possible to imagine an unequal yet sustainable world, but such a world would deny many people the opportunity to flourish." This limits inequality to being merely a 'moral issue' about which a choice to continue or to correct can be made, with either option providing a 'sustainable world'. It is this view that makes possible the price-led response option identified above. It mimics the shibboleth that 'the poor will always be with us' and believing this is like booking a passage on the two-tier Titanic. The driver of reconciliation within the limits that govern us now is the realization that if we're going down, we're all going down. | The recent Royal Society report addresses population and consumption. It sets this in the increasingly critical context of the greenhouse gas emissions driving global climate change. Noting what it describes as the injustice of over-consumption and under-consumption, it calls for a framework to address this. This is a sensible message. It has been repeated with increasing urgency for many years. It is now increasingly listened to and that is encouraging. The report omits reference to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] where - still with more heat than light - these matters are negotiated. However, it has several recommendations and since one of the principal authors of the report is Professor Tim Jackson, it is welcome to see that his long-term advocacy of the pragmatic Contraction and Convergence [C&C] framework for greenhouse gas emissions so clearly informs these. That said, I have two major reservations about the report: [1] The framework envisaged for 'economic-governance' is price-led. This is what we already have and why we are in such jeopardy. While attempting to price 'natural capital' and 'species' is not irrelevant, from the viewpoint of 'economic-governance', this is an 'economics response'. The tough fact is that it is economics per se that now is - and must be - governed by the very limits which the report seeks to address. This is not fundamentally therefore an issue of the 'monetary unit' and 'pricing', it is an issue of realism, regulation and demand-management. The report calls for a 'stable socio-economic structure' for generations to come', which is sensible. However, the monetary-unit is increasingly unstable and periodically chaotic. Particularly at these times, the monetary-unit is increasingly divorced from the real and concrete resources on which we depend, from any limits to the liquidation and consumption of these resources and completely divorced from any notion of the 'equitable consumption' of these resources. Pricing per se will not limit human demand to the extent needed to get us out of the global double-jeopardy of inequity and collapse that we are in. The report could have addressed this more clearly. [2] Following from that the report states that, "it is indeed possible to imagine an unequal yet sustainable world, but such a world would deny many people the opportunity to flourish." This limits inequality to being merely a 'moral issue' about which a choice to continue or to correct can be made, with either option providing a 'sustainable world'. It is this view that makes possible the price-led response option identified above. It mimics the shibboleth that 'the poor will always be with us' and believing this is like booking a passage on the two-tier Titanic. The driver of reconciliation within the limits that govern us now is the realization that if we're going down, we're all going down. |
| 11.29am: As @wilsonrobertj points out via Twitter, it is noteworthy that the report highlights the environmental advantages of people migrating to cities. Here's what the report says on page 96 on this issue: | 11.29am: As @wilsonrobertj points out via Twitter, it is noteworthy that the report highlights the environmental advantages of people migrating to cities. Here's what the report says on page 96 on this issue: |
| Urbanisation can be an engine for economic growth and, if well planned, cities have the potential to offer many benefits. Urbanisation can produce efficiencies in energy, transportation, housing and distribution of foods. The net effect on efficiency savings depends on the efficacy of political and institutional arrangements in regulation and remediation, and the pace of urban growth. Denser concentrations of populations are associated with greater use of public transport so energy consumption may be reduced. | Urbanisation can be an engine for economic growth and, if well planned, cities have the potential to offer many benefits. Urbanisation can produce efficiencies in energy, transportation, housing and distribution of foods. The net effect on efficiency savings depends on the efficacy of political and institutional arrangements in regulation and remediation, and the pace of urban growth. Denser concentrations of populations are associated with greater use of public transport so energy consumption may be reduced. |
| 11.49am: Mark Lynas, the author of The God Species, which explores the issue of "planetary boundaries", has now blogged on the Royal Society report. Here's a taster: | 11.49am: Mark Lynas, the author of The God Species, which explores the issue of "planetary boundaries", has now blogged on the Royal Society report. Here's a taster: |
| Whilst using a lot of dark language about increasing numbers of humans globally, the report nowhere acknowledges that the current median level of total worldwide fertility has fallen dramatically from 5.6 in the 1970s to only 2.4 today. In other words we are already close to natural replacement levels in terms of total fertility – the reason that the absolute population will continue to grow to 9 billion or more is that more children are living long enough have their own children. To my mind a reduction in infant mortality and an increase in life expectancy are self-evidently good and desirable – and their impact on world population levels should be celebrated, not bemoaned. Secondly, the report seems to be largely predicated on a neo-Malthusian version of economics, where resource use is a zero-sum game, and therefore the rich need to get poorer if there is to be any increase in consumption for the poorest...In actual fact the stock of natural resources (natural capital) change both both because of consumption patterns and technology... To conclude: I would love to see a much more positive approach from scientists on these issues, one acknowledging human development as a much more positive prospect, and treating environmental resources not as a fixed quantity but as a dynamic part of a rapidly-changing (and in many ways improving) world. This does not mean denying biophysical limits ('planetary boundaries') insofar as they can be scientifically determined, but it does mean taking a radically-different, and much more human-centred, approach to tackling them. | Whilst using a lot of dark language about increasing numbers of humans globally, the report nowhere acknowledges that the current median level of total worldwide fertility has fallen dramatically from 5.6 in the 1970s to only 2.4 today. In other words we are already close to natural replacement levels in terms of total fertility – the reason that the absolute population will continue to grow to 9 billion or more is that more children are living long enough have their own children. To my mind a reduction in infant mortality and an increase in life expectancy are self-evidently good and desirable – and their impact on world population levels should be celebrated, not bemoaned. Secondly, the report seems to be largely predicated on a neo-Malthusian version of economics, where resource use is a zero-sum game, and therefore the rich need to get poorer if there is to be any increase in consumption for the poorest...In actual fact the stock of natural resources (natural capital) change both both because of consumption patterns and technology... To conclude: I would love to see a much more positive approach from scientists on these issues, one acknowledging human development as a much more positive prospect, and treating environmental resources not as a fixed quantity but as a dynamic part of a rapidly-changing (and in many ways improving) world. This does not mean denying biophysical limits ('planetary boundaries') insofar as they can be scientifically determined, but it does mean taking a radically-different, and much more human-centred, approach to tackling them. |
| 12.01pm: Paul Ehrlich, the Stanford professor who authored the Population Bomb in the late 1960s and who gave evidence to the Royal Society for its report, has been interviewed today by the Guardian's John Vidal. It's not an uplifting read: | 12.01pm: Paul Ehrlich, the Stanford professor who authored the Population Bomb in the late 1960s and who gave evidence to the Royal Society for its report, has been interviewed today by the Guardian's John Vidal. It's not an uplifting read: |
| How many you support depends on lifestyles. We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage. The question is: can you go over the top without a disaster, like a worldwide plague or a nuclear war between India and Pakistan? If we go on at the pace we are there's going to be various forms of disaster. Some maybe slow motion disasters like people getting more and more hungry, or catastrophic disasters because the more people you have the greater the chance of some weird virus transferring from animal to human populations, there could be a vast die-off. | How many you support depends on lifestyles. We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage. The question is: can you go over the top without a disaster, like a worldwide plague or a nuclear war between India and Pakistan? If we go on at the pace we are there's going to be various forms of disaster. Some maybe slow motion disasters like people getting more and more hungry, or catastrophic disasters because the more people you have the greater the chance of some weird virus transferring from animal to human populations, there could be a vast die-off. |
| 12.06pm: And here's the audio recording of John Vidal's interview with Paul Ehrlich. | 12.06pm: And here's the audio recording of John Vidal's interview with Paul Ehrlich. |
| 1.23pm: On its website, the Royal Society is hosting a supplementary interactive chart which allows you to view various levels of global carbon dioxide emissions from 2010 to 2050 based on these different population, income and carbon variables: | 1.23pm: On its website, the Royal Society is hosting a supplementary interactive chart which allows you to view various levels of global carbon dioxide emissions from 2010 to 2050 based on these different population, income and carbon variables: |
| * Population: Follows the low, medium or high variants to United Nations models. * Income: Converges to $20k per capita or $50k per capita or moves according to historical trend. * Carbon: Declines to 20g/$2005PPP or 40g/$2005PPP or moves according to historical trend. | * Population: Follows the low, medium or high variants to United Nations models. * Income: Converges to $20k per capita or $50k per capita or moves according to historical trend. * Carbon: Declines to 20g/$2005PPP or 40g/$2005PPP or moves according to historical trend. |
| 1.32pm: Here's Dr Eliya Msiyaphazi Zulu, working group member, executive director of the African Institute for Development Policy and president of the Union for African Population Studies, talking about the importance of family planning in the developing world. | 1.32pm: Here's Dr Eliya Msiyaphazi Zulu, working group member, executive director of the African Institute for Development Policy and president of the Union for African Population Studies, talking about the importance of family planning in the developing world. |
| 2.32pm: Dr Eliya Zula has also penned a comment piece for New Scientist, with the heading, "How to defuse sub-Saharan Africa's population bomb": | 2.32pm: Dr Eliya Zula has also penned a comment piece for New Scientist, with the heading, "How to defuse sub-Saharan Africa's population bomb": |
| The Royal Society report suggests that offering family planning through appropriate clinical, commercial and community channels could cost about $6 to 7 billion per year. It would cost perhaps another $1 billion to keep half of 15 to 19-year-old girls in the fastest-growing least developed countries in school instead of entering into child marriage. An overall investment of $10 billion a year today could begin to move global population towards 6 billion in 2100. Taking no action will cost many times more. The pace of technical change, global warming, competition for resources and short-term national rivalries point to problems in the future. There is no way to guarantee a safe future, but the commonsense view is that a world of 6 or 7 billion people with reasonable living standards for most is a better bet than one with 12 to 16 billion in which 5 to 6 billion struggle to survive on a few dollars a day while the richest continue to consume too much, and women are still denied their freedom. | The Royal Society report suggests that offering family planning through appropriate clinical, commercial and community channels could cost about $6 to 7 billion per year. It would cost perhaps another $1 billion to keep half of 15 to 19-year-old girls in the fastest-growing least developed countries in school instead of entering into child marriage. An overall investment of $10 billion a year today could begin to move global population towards 6 billion in 2100. Taking no action will cost many times more. The pace of technical change, global warming, competition for resources and short-term national rivalries point to problems in the future. There is no way to guarantee a safe future, but the commonsense view is that a world of 6 or 7 billion people with reasonable living standards for most is a better bet than one with 12 to 16 billion in which 5 to 6 billion struggle to survive on a few dollars a day while the richest continue to consume too much, and women are still denied their freedom. |
| 2.45pm: Over on the Telegraph blogs, an Adam Smith Institute senior fellow and "global expert on the metal scandium" called Tim Worstall says the Royal Society should withdraw its "appallingly bad" report and "work on fixing both the factual and logical errors before trying to tell the rest of us how to live our lives". On his own blog, he makes much the same point but - you have been warned - with added heavy swearing. | 2.45pm: Over on the Telegraph blogs, an Adam Smith Institute senior fellow and "global expert on the metal scandium" called Tim Worstall says the Royal Society should withdraw its "appallingly bad" report and "work on fixing both the factual and logical errors before trying to tell the rest of us how to live our lives". On his own blog, he makes much the same point but - you have been warned - with added heavy swearing. |
| 3.40pm: I've just been on the phone to Simon Ross, chief executive of Population Matters, which campaigns for "environmentally sustainable populations in the UK and worldwide". Its patrons include Sir David Attenborough, Jane Goodall, James Lovelock and Jonathon Porritt. He said: | |
| We accept all the recommendations of the report and we like it. At present, growth in consumption is having a greater impact [on the environment] than population growth, but population is much easier to address. It is much cheaper to provide free contraception around the world and it has been proven to work. There is no resistance to this and it is popular. We should be thinking about the long term. Preventing population growth now is much easier than dealing with a world in 30 years' time, say, with a much larger population. But it is not an either/or situation when it comes to consumption and population. We shouldn't create false oppositions. We should address both of them. But family planning should be near the very top of the list of priorities. |