Why we need to address population growth's effects on global warming

[bemildred]

Earlier this month, Pope Francis made news when he said that not only was climate change real, but it was mostly man-made. Then, last week, he said that couples do not need to breed “like rabbits” but rather should plan their families responsibly — albeit without the use of modern contraception.

Though the pope did not directly link the two issues, climate scientists and population experts sat up and took notice. That's because for years, they have quietly discussed the links between population growth and global warming, all too aware of the sensitive nature of the topic. Few of them can forget the backlash after then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in 2009 that it was strange to talk about climate change without mentioning population and family planning. Critics immediately suggested that she was calling for eugenics, thus shutting down the conversation and pushing the issue back into the shadows. The pope's support of smaller families might help that discussion come back into the light, where it belongs.

Sensitive subject or not, the reality is that unsustainable human population growth is a potential disaster for efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. These days, the biggest population growth is occurring in developing nations, which is why any discussion must be sensitive to the perception that well-off, industrialized nations — the biggest climate polluters, often with majority-white populations — might be telling impoverished people of color to reduce their numbers. In fact, person for person, reducing birth rates in industrialized nations has a bigger impact on greenhouse gas emissions because affluent people use more of the Earth's resources and depend more heavily on fossil fuels.

In other words, population is not just a Third World issue. More than a third of the births in the United States are the result of unintended pregnancies, and this month the United Nations raised its prediction of population growth by the year 2050 because of unforeseen, rising birth rates in industrialized nations. So even though the highest rates of population growth are in the poorest and least educated countries — Africa's population is expected to triple by the end of the century — any attempt to address the issue will have to target the industrialized world as well.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-population-and-climate-change-20150125-story.html

[TheMastersNemesis]

1. Population Issues Are Too Toxic For Any Politician.

It is not likely that population issues will ever be addressed because of their toxicity. They cross very sensitive cultural, religious and political and economic lines that are almost impossible to talk about.

[4139]

2. There was more talk of it in the late 1960's

https://m.

[bemildred]

4. I thought they were going to do something about it in the 1970s.

But then Raygun came in and I knew we were fucked.

[KoKo]

3. Since "Global Warming" Floods & other Disasters (and Wars) will kill many millions

it would seem that "Population Control" is a very minor issue these days.

In the days of "Peace and Prosperity" it was thought that reduction in Birth Rates would be necessary to deal with declining food and resource supply.

Things have changed since that Movement was so popular. We may need to rethink that, imho.

[The Stranger]

5. Overpopulation is the biggest issue we face on this planet. You, me, everyone.

Yet it elicits the strangest fucking responses.

And religions are still locked into a primitive, horrifyingly short-sighted view of human population growth and nature.

[azmom]

6. Isn't this why we have wars?

[yurbud]

9. You can blunt population growth with education and higher standard of living

No forced abortions or sterilization required.

However, doif either of those quite humane things will when the control of the already very wealthy, so we can't have that.

[raccoon]

10. This jumped out at me:

In fact, person for person, reducing birth rates in industrialized nations has a bigger impact on greenhouse gas emissions because affluent people use more of the Earth's resources and depend more heavily on fossil fuels.