Feminist Looking Glass

In September, I wrote that “Fewer Kids = Less Global Warming.”  At that time, the London School of Economics had just issued a study suggesting that, in order to fight climate change, “governments should focus on another pollutant: us.”  And the study was the first time that statistics were provided to show exactly how much each life, especially each American life, adds to the world’s emissions.

According to the study’s sponsoring group, Optimum Population Trust, “birth control could be one of the world’s best tools for fighting climate change. By preventing the creation of new polluters, the group says, contraceptives are a far cheaper solution than windmills and solar plants” and:

There is no possibility of drastically reducing total carbon emissions, while at the same time paying no attention whatever to the drastic increase in the number of carbon emitters.   For reasons of an irrational taboo on the subject, [family planning] has never made it onto the agenda, and this is extremely damaging to the planet.

I also wrote that lowering the birth rate (specifically the subjects of the provision of contraceptives and abortions) was, indeed, a taboo subject and that an official of the United Nations “wrote in response to a query that ‘to bring the issue up . . . would be an insult to developing countries,’ where per-capita emissions are still so low compared with those in the United States.”  The Obama administration had declined to comment when asked about the family-planning idea.

Now, it appears that population control may not even be discussed at the Copenhagen summit on global warning.  The Telegraph reports that “[t]he global population is currently at 6 billion and could rise to 11 billion by 2050 if fertility rates continue, not only threatening the climate, but food shortages and conflict as well.”  It provides quotes such as “I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more,” “[m]edical journal the Lancet also found greater use of contraceptives to reduce the global impact of climate change,” and”a study by the London School of Economics found contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green solutions such as investing in green technology.”

And, yet, no one at the Copenhagen summit is willing to discuss population growth, including “[t]he UN [,which] has insisted the issue does not become part of the negotiations at Copenhagen, pointing out that the population will control itself as countries develop, women become better educated and families shrink.”  Obviously, that is the point: there should be discussion as to how women should become better educated and families should shrink.  As is common, much of the “taboo” against discussing ways to slow population growth comes from “religious groups who see it as a Government push to control individual fertility.”

While I agree that a huge part of the problem is “consumption in the rich world,” Copenhagen is missing a great opportunity.  Hopefully, some group will at least protest loudly enough to get some discussion of a solution that should be obvious.

Filed under: Health, International, Reproductive Rights Tagged: | Birth Control, contraception, Copenhagen, Global Warming, Population Growth, United Nations