Family planning averts global warming

Posted on November 4, 2009
Filed Under 1 |

“Global warming and a woman’s right to decide whether and when to have a child are inextricably linked.”

That was the message of Prof. David Malcolm Potts in his talk titled “Linkage between Population, Environment, Resource Consumption, Climate Change and Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights” at the 5th Asia Pacific Conference on Reproductive and Sexual Health and Rights held in Beijing recently.

Malcolm is a human reproductive scientist. Born in Cambridge, UK, since 1993, he has been the holder of the Fred H. Bixby exchange chair in Population and Family Planning in the School of Public Health, University of California, and Berkeley.

He premised his talk with the observation that climate change is “driven primarily by high per capital consumption in the North.” The poorest one billion people living on a dollar or two a day only contribute 3 percent of the world’s total carbon footprint, he said. “Yet, while the North has contributed most to global warming, the South is least well adapted to change. The loss of healthy life years resulting from global warming could be several hundred times greater in Africa than in Europe.”

“It is also true that 99 percent of the projected one to four billion increase in global population that will occur between now and 2050 will take place in the least developed countries with the smallest carbon footprints.

“The inequity that the nations of the North have caused over 90 percent of global warming but suffer fewest of the adverse effects, combined with the asymmetry in population growth among the nations of the South creates a seemingly insoluble policy dilemma. Clearly, at a national level, the countries of the North could not ask the people of the South to either slow economic growth, nor have fewer children in order to slow global warming.”

At the level of individual needs and rights, Malcolm said, a totally different picture emerges.

“Surveys demonstrate that there is a large unmet need for family planning in both developed and developing regions, and analysis shows that meeting the unmet need for family planning and preventing unintended pregnancies is one of the most cost-effective ways of slowing global warming. Over a lifetime, even a poor person has a measurable carbon footprint. And in the US, where half the pregnancies are unintended, averting a birth by improved access to contraception and safe abortion would significantly reduce CO2 emissions.

“In short, family planning has the potential to benefit hundreds of millions of individuals and to help the whole planet slow greenhouse gas accumulation and adapt to climate change. Investment in family planning could prove one useful ‘wedge’ among many in any overall strategies to slow global warming.

“A huge opportunity exists for the North to earmark a ‘wedge’ of carbon credits for the goal of making family planning universally available for those who want it by 2015. A recent study from the London School of Economics shows that better family planning could reduce CO2 output by 34 gigatonnes between now and 2050 at a cost of $7 per tonne for family planning, compared with $24 for wind power and 51% for solar power.”

But, Malcolm emphasized, “if destructive arguments are to be avoided, they should not begin with global warming, but with the human rights obligation to enable all individuals to make voluntary decisions on whether and or when to have a child.”

Malcolm said that scientists believe his generation is “probably the one that has crossed the threshold where human activity exceeds the capacity of the natural world to renew the natural resources we fish and harvest, or to absorb the pollution we put out. We are running out of atmosphere to absorb greenhouse gases more rapidly than we are running out of oil or coal.”

He suggests, “Our ethical obligation to our children and grandchildren must include slowing rapid population growth by meeting the unmet need for family planning.”

He substantiates his call as he recalled a forum held at UC Berkeley earlier this year including experts from many fields and continents, that concluded that “Ready access to contraception and safe abortion has decreased family size, even in illiterate communities living on less than a dollar a day.”

The International Conference on Population Development Program of Action had explicitly warned about the danger of continued rapid population growth. Tragically, Malcolm said, ignoring this key ICPD message, some enthusiasts “continue to frame any discussion of population dynamics as politically incorrect.” By choosing the path of inaction, the ICPD warned about the difference between the high and low demographic projections is no longer 0.7 billion but 3 billion.”

Going back to the Berkeley forum, Malcolm said, “In Kenya, as a result of diminished focus on family planning the projected population in 2050 has been increased from 54 to 83 million . . . an increase of this magnitude may lead to food scarcity and crumbling infrastructure, and potentially, to violent conflicts.”

“Anyone with a commitment to human rights should recognize that population growth is one factor linked to environmental change,” said Malcolm. “Family planning is not telling people what to do; it is listening to women’s needs.”

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=520461&publicationSubCategoryId=64