Forget Population Growth: Unfettered Consumption is Killing the Planet

Traffic in Lagos, Nigeria. Nigeria is the 8th most populous country in the world.

Much attention has been paid as of late to the world's growing population. According to the United Nations, the global human population is on the verge of surpassing seven billion people. We inch closer to this milestone amidst some very troubling environmental trends. In 2010, CO2 emissions reached record levels. All hopes of limiting the global temperature increase to 2°C have been dashed, as little headway towards an international climate accord has been made and investments in alternative energy projects by western nations have slowed. 

Prominent individuals like Al Gore, Ted Turner, and Paul Ehrlich have advocated stabilizing the global population as a way to curb CO2 emissions. A focus on overpopulation as a way to address climate change, however, is misplaced. There are valid reasons to address population growth: preserving forests and wildlife habitat; empowering women; and warding of the rapid depletion of natural resources. The world's growing population has certainly had an effect on our ecosystem. Yet its role in the climate crisis is minor when compared to other causes.


In its recent report, the United Nations Population Fund estimated that curbing population growth would yield less than one-fifth of the emission reductions necessary by 2050, to avoid irreversible and catastrophic climate change. It found that "even if zero population growth were achieved, that would barely touch the climate problem—where we would need to cut emissions by 50 per cent to 80 per cent by mid-century . . . ." 

The real problem isn't population growth. It's consumption.

Population growth is occurring primarily in developing countries, where poverty is high and per capita CO2 emissions are low. Per capita emissions estimate the carbon dioxide emissions from consumption and fossil fuel use. According to the UN, the top-three countries with the highest population growth rates are Liberia, Burundi, Afghanistan. Their respective per capita emissions are 0.2, 0.0, and 0.0. The United States,' whose population growth is low and slowing,  is 19.3. 

Heavily-consuming countries like the U.S. emit far more CO2 emissions on a per capita basis than countries with high rates of population growth. Their per capita emissions also greatly exceed the most populated countries. China is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. It is also the most populous country in the world with 1.3 billion people. The United States is the second-largest polluter, yet has only 300 million people. Per capita, the average American's carbon footprint is four times that of a Chinese citizen. Compared to India, the world's second-most populous country with 1.2 billion people (and a distant fourth on total emissions), the U.S.' per capita emissions are fifteen times as much.

People from the U.S. and other western nations are simply veracious consumers of everything, and a much more environmentally-destructive force compared to people from virtually every other country in the world. Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculated that the richest half-billion people in the world, just 7% of the global population, are responsible for half of all carbon emissions. Conversely, the UN found that the poorest one billion people on earth constitute just 3% of all emissions. 

In its report, the UNFPA stated that "[s]ustaining the life of the average American takes 9.5 hectares of the earth’s space, compared to 2.7 hectares for the average person worldwide, and only about one hectare for the average person in India and most of Africa." The report quotes the Global Footprint Network, which states that "[i]f everyone lived the lifestyle of the average American, we would need five planets . . . .”

There is also a strong correlation between lower birth rates and rising affluence, which leads to more consumption. Slowing population growth may, in fact, result in more CO2 emissions. 

In America, the "green" movement is a ruse which requires no sacrifice on behalf of businesses and citizens, and has created no discernible impact on reducing emissions. Instead of changing our consumptive habits, we simply buy the "eco-friendly" product and call it a day. Our fears of climate change (for those who believe in it) have been assuaged. We continue to consume unrestrained, while businesses operate as usual and seek rollbacks in environmental regulations. As many in the U.S. begin pointing to population numbers as the cause for climate change, they do so irrespective of fact, and to absolve themselves from any responsibility for the crisis or obligation to change. 

When we consider solutions for climate change, if in fact we still have time to act, let's not be distracted by people who are essentially blaming the poor for our environmental crisis. If a small percentage of the global population refuses to change their consumptive ways, we're doomed no matter how many of us there are.