Humans are the real threat to the planet, Stephen Emmott informs us in this week’s Observer. This may be so, but unfortunately Emmott writes like a 19th century thinker who has just got his hands on an early print of Thomas Malthus. His views on population growth are not only highly inaccurate, but dangerously so. Consider the original image that fronted the story:

This conjures up rather questionable images of the black and brown skinned swamping the planet. Clearly, someone at the Observer decided this is of questionable taste, because it is now missing from the website version of the story, replaced by something rather more benign:

Yes, this is rather more accurate. The white and the rich pollute and screw the planet far more on a per capita basis than anyone else. But unfortunately the image of African and Asian babies is still to be seen on the Guardian environment home page.

OK, I can’t blame Emmott for fronting the story with questionable imagery. That’s probably the fault of a sub-editor at the Observer.

However the deeply misleading statements he makes about population growth are all down to him. Consider the following:

 I do just want to point out that if the current global rate of reproduction continues, by the end of this century there will not be 10 billion of us – there will be 28 billion of us.

The source of this figure is the United Nations Population Division, which produces the most respected (if at times questionably high) population projections. What Emmott fails to point out, and I assume he knows, is that fertility rates are in decline everywhere on the planet. And very quickly. This phenomenon is brilliantly visualized at the Gapminder website. Emmott’s suggestion that birth rates will stay at current levels is either uninformed or wilful scaremongering. Either way it does not help further an informed discussion about population growth.

Quite remarkably Emmott implies that reducing the number of children women have is not a very viable option:

Saying “Don’t have children” is utterly ridiculous. It contradicts every genetically coded piece of information we contain, and one of the most important (and fun) impulses we have.

Well, all Emmott needs to do here is look at the data. Women around the world are contradicting whatever genetically coded information Emmott is referring to. Consider Taiwan, a country where women have an average of 0.9 babies, something Emmott would have us think is impossible. Or how about that Islamic theocracy Iran, where women have on average 1.6 babies. And I could go on. There are 79 countries where women are having on average less than 2.1 babies. Not only is getting people to not have babies possible, it is happening on a widespread basis.

A greater problem is Emmott running through scary numbers about the future growth in populations of many modernising countries, which I guess is supposed to prompt images of human numbers overwhelming the planet. He cites the following countries, and how much their populations are expected to grow by:

Afghanistan by 242%.

Democratic Republic of Congo 213%.

Gambia by 242%.

Guatemala by 369%.

Iraq by 344%.

Kenya by 284%.

Liberia by 300%.

Malawi by 741%.

Mali by 408%.

Niger by 766%.

Somalia by 663%.

Uganda by 396%.

Yemen by 299%.

These statistics are rather frightening. However, like Emmott, I am a privileged westerner typing this sentence on a computer imported from China and writing a blog post saved somewhere in North Carolina or Norway. The people in the countries listed above mostly don’t have such privileges. So, instead consider how many people living in each of these countries it would take to produce the same amount of carbon emissions as the average American. This comparison puts these growth rates in perspective.

Afghanistan – 83

Democratic Republic of Congo – 34

Gambia – 66

Guatemala – 16

Iraq – 5

Kenya – 55

Liberia – 126

Malawi – 235

Mali – 419

Niger – 222

Somalia – 264

Uganda – 160

Yemen – 17

If it takes 420 people from Mali to screw up the climate as much as the average American, then I think we should not worry that much about a population boom in Mali. Assuming these projections are correct, Mali will go from 14 to 72 million people, an increase of 59 million people. But if we keep per capita emissions were they are this is like adding 140,000 Americans to the planet. Of course per capita emissions are likely to increase in Mali and other modernising countries, but these vast disparities in per capita emissions far outweigh differences in population growth.

So the statistics make it rather clear: population growth is largely occurring in countries that per capita aren’t damaging the biosphere at anywhere close to western levels. The impact the above increases in population will have on carbon emissions could probably be offset simply by Americans and Canadians driving sensible vehicles. I’m more worried about Americans driving Hummers instead of Honda Civics than I am worried about people from India or elsewhere “breading like rabbits” as Paul Ehrlich occasionally complains about:

What about my right to avoid a civilization collapse that kills my grandkids? No right to plan to breed like rabbits. http://t.co/O68pEVoA

— Paul R. Ehrlich (@PaulREhrlich) July 10, 2012

Of course such statements ignore an obvious reality: Ehrlich’s grand children are (I’m guessing) likely to contribute far more heavily to the civilization collapse he refers to than the poor of the world breeding like rabbits.

Population growth is often referred to as the elephant in the room. It is not. The facts indicate that the population bomb is being defused, and that continued worries about population are simply one thing: the deflection of the cause of a problem away from those who have caused it.

Carbon Counter

18 Comments on "Population Growth and Pollution: the Facts Continue to be Ignored"

dsula on Wed, 3rd Jul 2013 11:03 am 



What a stupid, stupid article. I didn’t even know that people that stupid existed.

rollin on Wed, 3rd Jul 2013 12:53 pm 



Humans are the major threat to life on earth, even not considering global warming.

rollin on Wed, 3rd Jul 2013 1:27 pm 



Mali (from Wikipedia) a country in the western Sahara desert that produces gold and cotton.

In July 2009, Mali’s population was an estimated 14.5 million. The population is predominantly rural (68% in 2002), and 5–10% of Malians are nomadic.[73] More than 90% of the population lives in the southern part of the country, especially in Bamako, which has over 1 million residents.[73] In 1960, the population of Mali was reported to be about 4.1 million.[74]

In 2007, about 48% of Malians were less than fifteen years old, 49% were 15–64 years old, and 3% were 65 and older.[54] The median age was 15.9 years.[54] The birth rate in 2012 was 45.2 births per 1,000, and the total fertility rate was 6.4 children per woman.[54] The death rate in 2007 was 16.5 deaths per 1,000.[54] Life expectancy at birth was 53.06 years total (51.43 for males and 54.73 for females).[54] Mali has one of the world’s highest rates of infant mortality,[73] with 106 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2007.[54]

So despite the high death rate, poverty and short lives, they continue increasing population at a high rate.

BillT on Wed, 3rd Jul 2013 2:49 pm 



And the beat goes on. The race is between population explosion and the coming mass deaths. I don’t see us getting to 8 billion. Look at the world with open eyes and you can see war coming. The drums are drowning out the cries of suffering and starvation.

Kenz300 on Wed, 3rd Jul 2013 3:27 pm 



Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm

DC on Wed, 3rd Jul 2013 3:42 pm 



Another fundy xtian trying to make the old, only ’emissions’ matter, not population. Well this moron should move to India, they dont ’emit’ near as much as the average bloated amerikan either, but sure they would like to….

Well, both matter, but this fool would have people believe something as abstract as ’emissions’ is the only criteria that should be looked at when considering population impacts, while suggesting swarms of hindus, blacks whatnot, get a free pass because they are poor and dont ’emit’ near as much. He clearly prefers a ‘blame whitey’ approach. I dont even have a problem with that really, its a valid point after all, but giving the 3rd world a pass-no. For example I would love to see the # of white, bible-thumping, un-educated white amerikans fall by 2/3. Well actually, I wouldn’t mind 100%, but I realize that is somewhat unrealistic so, I would happily settle foe 70% reduction in there numbers.

Well, both the ‘rich’ and the ‘poor’ are pushing the planet to the brink, just from opposite directions. No one is entitled to a free pass, not rich jewish shoppers in NYC, or the billions in the 3rd world that are stripping their own lands bare like so many leafcutter ants.

Kenz300 on Wed, 3rd Jul 2013 4:35 pm 



The worlds poorest people are having the most children. They have not figured out the connection between poverty and family size.

If you can not provide for yourself you can not provide for a child.

Access to family planning services needs to be available to all that want it.

Endless population growth is not sustainable.

ricardomarin2211 on Wed, 3rd Jul 2013 5:28 pm 



why do they always use pictures of white people to show overpopulation problems?, why don´t they post pictures of Asia and Africa? who are causing the problems we have today.

rollin on Wed, 3rd Jul 2013 8:13 pm 



Some high density population countries may not have high carbon footprints but ecological destruction is more than carbon. High populations destroy the local ecology far faster than global warming, burning off the forests for agriculture and hunting all the animals for food. Then they sit in an agrarian loop, never able to leave even when people discover oil or other minerals.

How do you divide a small farm among six children and expect them to eat or make a living? Farms just get smaller and smaller until they fail and are taken over.

kervennic on Wed, 3rd Jul 2013 10:45 pm 



This guy is mentally stranded in some 19th century world.

Hello, wake up ! Today there are planes, motor boats, cars and trains. Those who are born in places like Nigeria or Mali can move to the US or to France. This is what they do. Otherwise, how would you explain that in Paris in the north east metro line you see more black than white people ?

Once these people emigrate, they become heavy consummers and carbon emiters. They do not milk goats roaming in arid grassland in the center of paris. They use heating oil, microwave, cars, mobile phones, travel by plane home…

This is utterly dishonnest to attribute the population increase to a fix low carbon emission.

Look at the US. Its population increases via asian and mexican emigration. Are they intrinsically better ? No after one or two generation they have exactly the same emission pattern, or superior in some case than those of the WASP rebel kids that play the little hippie and stick to their bike.

The horrible truth is that african people are no better than rural european when they embraced industrial revolution and begun to multiply like bugs. This was wrong and we have to have the gut to tell that this can not continue any further.

Ricardo on Thu, 4th Jul 2013 1:17 am 



Anti white article, whoever wrote this is a sick lestist!

dashster on Thu, 4th Jul 2013 2:42 am 



“Population growth is often referred to as the elephant in the room. It is not. The facts indicate that the population bomb is being defused, and that continued worries about population are simply one thing: the deflection of the cause of a problem away from those who have caused it.”

Population growth is something that unites virtually all of us. Republicans and Democrats, rich and poor, sick and healthy, young and old, Peak Oilers and Cornucopians – it is nothing to worry about. All is well. We will peak 90 years from now with only 2 billion more people. And we have the resources for those people. Even the Peak Oilers seem to believe that another 2 billion will be no problem.

GregT on Thu, 4th Jul 2013 3:27 am 



We can all point fingers at whatever ethnic, religious, or socio-economic group that we choose. The fact of the matter is, we all share the same planet, and none of us have more of a right to be here than anyone else.

dashster,

You are either too afraid to look at reality, or you are living a life in denial,

BillT on Thu, 4th Jul 2013 4:57 am 



GregT, there are a lot of deniers here that want to shift the blame or not even consider the facts.

Yes, colors do out number whites, but, stack up the energy/resource use and you find that the ~1 billion ‘whiteys’ use more than the other 6 billion combined. The US consumes more than China and has 1/4th the numbers. Europe Consumes more than India and has 1/2 the numbers.

And total immigration (3rd to 1st) is less than 1/20% of the world’s population per year. Only the educated/advantaged can actually survive after they immigrate and the others often return home.

TonyPrep on Fri, 5th Jul 2013 12:36 am 



Population growth rate stalled, even increased, in the mid part of the last decade (for several years). The UN projections were recently increased. I don’t think it’s possible to accurately project population growth, so this article is as ridiculous as the one it criticises. What we can be absolutely certain of is that population will not play out as anyone thinks it will. However, it’s clear to me that the sheer size of the human population is one of the factors in our wanton destruction of the environment that supports us; activities which might have been sustainable with 500,000 people, spread across the globe, are completely unsustainable with 7 billion of us, never mind 10 billion.

Frank Kling on Fri, 5th Jul 2013 12:46 pm 



It’s factually inaccurate articles like this that provide the politicians with just enough cover to do nothing.

Regardless of whether “the population bomb is being diffused” or not, every 24 hours the world human population bloats by 219,000 while during this same time period 200 animal and plant species are driven extinct. These are verifiable facts.

Frank Kling on Fri, 5th Jul 2013 1:06 pm 



It’s factually inaccurate articles like this that provide the politicians with just enough cover to do nothing. Meanwhile, mankind continues his relentless assault on the natural world. The signs are everywhere that we are destroying the Earth’s life support system-Chytrid is wiping out amphibians the world round, White Nose Syndrome is responsible for killing millions of bats, Mother Nature’s most critical insectivore, and Colony Collapse Disorder resulted in the loss of 50% of all honey bee hives in the US over this last winter. The proximate cause for all these problems is that taboo of topics-human population overshoot. There I said it.

Regardless of whether “the population bomb is being diffused” or not, every 24 hours the world human population bloats by 219,000 (births minus deaths) while during this same time period 200 animal and plant species, on average, are driven extinct. These are verifiable facts and it’s madness.

Kenz300 on Fri, 5th Jul 2013 11:00 pm 



The world adds 75 million more mouths to feed, clothe and provide energy for every year……….

This is not sustainable and only leads to more poverty, suffering and despair. .