Why don't leaders address population growth before trying to reduce global emissions?

Question

Surely by restricting offspring to 2, a practical and more effective way to curb emissions is created?

Answer 1

This is something I've thought about a lot recently and I'm glad others think about it too. It's interesting that people find it "sick" and that "governments should not be interfering in people's bedrooms".

At the end of the day its the job of elected government to run the country to the benefit of the people. Okay I'm not totally naive, a lot of governments don't operate like this and some politicians are just out for themselves, but Its the ideal and I refuse to be a total cynic.

We do not have control over our neighbours (and who wants it?)- but this is why so little happens at climate change conferences - no one wants to take the plunge unless everybody else does. To mobilize masses of people into action on climate change and population size control requires government input at many levels - raising consciousness, taxing excesses, perhaps even prohibitive legislation.

Having many more billions of people on earth will obviously have important implications for the environment, social order etc. which will affect the quality of people lives over the next few hundred/thousand years.

I personally would be embarrassed by the human race if we allowed many of the consequences of unchecked population growth (global warming, ecosystem destruction and a mass extinction) simply because 'we couldn't keep it in our pants'!!

Its in our collective best interests to keep the natural world in good health (think water recycling, medicine discovery etc - a lot more expensive to do artificially!)

I'm aiming for 1 or 2 kids, then adoption! ;)

Answer 2

Exponential population growth is definitely a problem that needs to be addressed for many reasons. I've read everyone's answers and they bring up so many valid and interesting points. However, no one has addressed the fact that, though population growth is a problem in developing and underdeveloped countries, the majority of the populations in those countries are poor. Thus, their carbon footprints are fairly small compared to developed countries. In the U.S. for example, the majority of people have cars, use electricity and other fossil fuel sources, etc. So though Americans have comparatively fewer children per household than some other countries, our carbon footprint is far greater. The US and China alone make up for most of the global emissions.

So, even though population control is one factor in the fight to curb global emissions, it is not a real solution. As the others have said, implementing such control, politically or otherwise, would be very problematic. The government can, however, legislate controls for the reduction of global emissions. Emissions standards can be set for industrial and automotive products. A push in funding for alternative sources of energy and incentives to consumers who adopt them can be implemented (as is already being done, as to tax credits for hybrid cars, upgrading home insulation, etc.). The focus should not be on how many people there are, but how can we (the people and the government) reduce the overall environmental impact of each person.

That said, overpopulation is and will continue to be a big social, economic and environmental problem. We are now 6 billion, what happen when we are 10 billion, 20 billion?? It is not feasible for the Earth to sustain these numbers. It is like the guy above said, if we don't address this, nature will. Hopefully, people will wake up and take personal responsibility for this before disaster strikes.

Very relevant and thought provoking question.

Answer 3

It's all connected one effects the other which effects the other. I
agree largely with Tom. We somehow got the idea that people are a static entity, they're born and then they're resource neutral, absolutely nothing could be further from the truth, humans, especially in the industrialized world, but also in the poor countries, where people are wiping out endangered species and leveling forests, and governments need to get involved, China has had to impose some severe restrictions and even those aren't enough simply because 1.3 billion people have so many children simply by virtue of their sheer numbers that the effect of even the Chinese effort isn't having that much of an impact because of that, and while we're pointing fingers at each other year after year the problem worse and worse and we'll all pay the price for our stupidity and lack of forsight.

Answer 4

We should be doing both.
Curbing emissions is probably the more achievable goal.

Public resistance to the idea of Govt. interfering with their choice as to how many children they had would be immense, particularly in western countries. The only country that does this is China because of its immense population, they can only do it because Chinese philosophy is more about the collective good rather than individual rights.

Other countries that attempt it by voluntary means (contraception, inducements to have a vascetamy after so many childen etc) such as India can only do so through pursuasion, not legislation.

The other big obstacle are the organised religions. Catholic & Islamic are the two biggest in the developing world, but most Christian churches would have diffculty with this too.

Answer 5

We need to address both issues urgently. It should be illegal to have more than two children; condoms and other Birth Control should be mass distributed in 3rd world countries; we cannot feed, or house the current world population which is expanding at a dangerous and frightening rate. This issue ties in with global warming as it is causing extreme weather such as droughts, floods and excessive temperatures, which seriously damage farming and the ability to provide food and water for the ever expanding population.

Answer 6

because then everyone would have to be accountable. this is the easy way out and thus so talked about, cuz no one is doing anything else. with education and community services available to all in a community/society population growth will slow down within a generation or so, and then we wouldnt have to promote the "Save the World" slogan so much, since our resources wouldnt be depleted as fast nor our lifestyles (whether in huts or in townhouses) wont affect the environment so much.

however, personal (bountry-by-country basis) responsibility is key and that's a hard one to sell to the all powerful countries like Russia, England, USA, where businesses rule more than an average person.

Answer 7

In the study of population dynamics there a three recognised factors which control populations.

starvation
disease
Predation (war and crime are the human equivalent)


If we do not find some sort of equitable political solution to population control, then nature will do it for us.

Answer 8

It is very simple. Poor countries are largely responsible for high population. The purpose addressing of global warming is for the purpose of charging money from capitalist nations for all economic activity. There is no money that can be extracted from the third world and the socialist anti-human leftists don't want to blame the poor even though they are the biggest victims of their plans. They want to prevent development in underdeveloped nations and keep them in poverty.

Answer 9

Why would you think the government (of ANY country) should be interfering in people's bedrooms??? Governments are notoriously inept at solving problems, but incredibly apt at CREATING them... The easiest way to decrease births is to increase education and access to comprehensive medical care. Women who don't view childbearing as their sole purpose in life, AND who have reason to believe the children they do bear will survive, have fewer naturally.

Answer 10

What a good excuse for ignoring pollution.

I can just hear it now.

"We are to busy trying to put family planning in place to do anything about all the pollution we are spewing out. We will just have to keep spewing it out until we get our population under control, and then we can think about reducing pollution."

Actually, that sounds like China. China has a draconian one child per family law but they are increasing their CO2 output faster than any country.