Optimum Population Trust has set up a scheme to permit rich people to offset their CO2 emissions by paying for birth control in poor nations. The Guardian UK reports 1 birth in Kenya offsets a flight from London to Sydney:
Calculations based on the trust’s figures show the 10 tonnes emitted by a return flight from London to Sydney would be offset by enabling the avoidance of one unwanted birth in a country such as Kenya. Such action not only cuts emissions but reduces the number of people who will fall victim to climate change, it says.
Reading this, I can’t help I wondering how many flights equal the carbon equivalent of a birth in London or Sydney?
Oddly, I’m all for increasing access to birth control in both poorer and richer nations. I’m a big queasy about the notion of connecting the notion to climate change.
I think that the greenies, though being true believers in their cause, are not seeing the “natural” progression of the carbon economy. In my opinion, humankinds desire to lift itself out of poverty is a built in feature deep in our genetic make-up. As we pull ourselves out of the morass of hunger, lack of shelter, heat, etc. another genetic feature then kicks in to self-limit the size of our families/population. No longer needing to produce 5 to …. kids per family to get the balancing survival of 2 or 3 descendants, as per the “natural” order, most technologically advanced societies actually start to see a decline in their nations poulations.
Instead of focusing on the basic needs of the less tech advanced societies, i.e. – basic food, medicine, rudimentary education, I posit that if the last 60 yeas of aid had been directed towards building an efficient energy supply system, based on the carbon-stored available energy that is available in most areas, we would have already seen the peak of world population. The result of which would be, in turn, the peak of CO2 release would be a matter of a few years away.
I agree with the theory, that all forms of natural ruination that occurs to our planet from humankind is generated more from runaway population then any kind of wanton disregard of the enviroment from the evil west.
I now step off the soapbox…..
Morally equal to indulgences granted by the Church of Rome, and the whipping boys of English princes.
So the rich get to feel better about themselves by paying some poor person to change his/her behavior. Hypocrisy in it purest and most offensive form. I offer a simpler approach: the rich can “reduce their carbon footprint” by paying poor people to kill themselves.
GoldSacks and he who was almost POTUS knew it already for loooong time, there’s a HUGE amount of money to be made with CO2. First create a guilty conscience and then sell them indulgences. It has happened before…
Indulgentia Plenaria Perpetua Quotidiana Toties Quoties
It’s not a matter of paying poor people to change their behaviour but of providing access to birth control that they want.
According to the following, 88% of US Catholic women have used contraceptives –
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/reform/documents/2004worldview.pdf
This compares with 19% in Uganda (which has the highest % of Catholics of the African countries surveyed), although 76% of married Ugandan Catholic women would approve of its use. It (and other country statistics therein) calls into question the notion that poor people see children as an asset and so have more – at least as far as the women are concerned! It’s far too easy to underestimate the extent of unwanted pregnancies, including within marriage, in countries with high population growth (of which Uganda is one of the very highest).
The issue is one of access to family planning facilities, and of the fact that this is trivially simple for rich people but not for many poor. At the same time health care – and thus the infant mortality rate – is improving in many areas, or we should hope for that in the future. If improved mortality rates do not go hand in hand with developing ‘family planning’ then the consequent population growth is inevitable.
It’s a very weird notion to think in terms of ‘offsets’, but controlling population growth is surely key to well being in the future (somewhat regardless of what is thought about AGW).
Simon,
Are you Catholic? Catholicsforchoice is not a good place to go to learn the teachings of the church.
“2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).”
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm
Andrew
Andrew_KY– How does posting RC teachings contradict the study Simon published? Do you happen to have any surveys indicating American Catholics adhere to the churches teachings on birth control?
When Jim and I attended pre-Cannan, one night was devoted to natural family planning. A couple explained the notion, their experiences and then asked the 20 or so couples if we had any questions. Or wanted information about courses one could attend to better learn the method.
The silence was deafening.
Lucia,
It doesn’t. But I want to make sure people don’t get the behavior of some Catholics confused with the church’s actual teaching.
Andrew
Andrew,
No, I am not Catholic. I agree that ‘Catholics for Choice’ does seem to be something of an oxymoron.
I know the Catholic Church’s teaching on this, Andrew. I was pursuing the point that this not a matter of “poor people” wanting/needing to have large families. As health care improves there seem to me to be only three outcomes: i) population must rise unless ii) birth control measures are employed or iii) people change their sexual practices. Personally I don’t rate the church’s chances of success in changing behaviour in Uganda any more highly than its success in the US, say, though it can certainly have more influence on the availability of contraceptives in Uganda.
Are we really discussing preventing poor people whenever we fly? I agree that helping to make choice available seems a good thing, but this particular combination is really nasty.
There is a strong correlation between family size and length of life, my hope is that people in African countries will live longer.
http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=2;ti=2007$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0TAlJeCEzcGQ;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=lin;dataMin=0.842;dataMax=8.7$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=18;dataMax=83$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=
Simon– As I said, I support increased access to birth control. I’m just a big queasy about connecting it to carbon offsets even though I know that at a constant level of economic and technilogical development, more people will consume more resources, and create more emissions.
Harold – great Gapminder presentation!
Lucia – yeah, I know. It doesn’t sound right! I think the problem comes largely from framing it in terms of the ‘offset’ being made in poor countries. Actually, the full report behind this looks at the impact in the US and UK too – fewer unwanted births prevented but greater per capita ‘saving’ of emissions –
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/reducingemissions.pdf
Note the projected population increases for the UK from 61.6m to 72.4m by 2050 and for the US from 314.7m to 403.9m (table 4.1.2). It’s not just an issue for poor countries.
I don’t like the whole cap’n’trade/offset caboodle anyway, but I think it’s interesting to consider the benefits the report suggests.
Simon,
I too am all for giving people access to birth control, and there is not doubt a substantial unmet demand in poor countries.
But I take offense at considering donations toward this very reasonable goal as any kind of an offset of someones carbon footprint. I think whoever figured this analysis was a good way to motivate donations has a pretty twisted view of morality, and is not able to perceive hypocrisy.
Lucia – If you dont’ want to be queasy, just purchase Yooper Carbon Credits 😉
(LUN)
Simon–
The ‘offset’ being in poorer countries is part of the problem. The other is simply that better access to birth control is something we need irrespective of climate change.
On the one hand, I’m not going to go on a rampage insisting that it would be a horrible thing to do the right thing (i.e. improve access to birth control) for the wrong reason. On the other hand, I do worry that liking doing the right thing to the wrong reason could make it more difficult to get support for the right thing (i.e. birth control). So, it makes me rather queazy.
This seems just like a lot of the dubious carbon offset scams, where there is no actual reduction, just some sort of theoretical what if. It seems to me that rather than reduce the population by a mythical baby that may never have been conceived in the first place, you would have to kill a real child (or pay for someone else to kill it) and document the body. Of course there would have to be some sort of registration scheme so people wouldn’t be able to reuse previous kills.
And before people get all upset, this isn’t my idea, this is just an slight adaption of a modest proposal by Jonathan Swift, so channel your outrage at him. And I’m not the one saying that climate change requires drastic action either.
Kazinsky–
Oh my… Ick.
This disgusts me. Right idea, wrong motivation. Access to birth control is important, but I find the connection to offsetting very disturbing. Good comment in the Guardian article-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/03/carbon-offset-projects-climate-change?showallcomments=true#CommentKey:aa041928-0399-4c02-ae84-ca36e652e775
—
UK CO2 emissions: 9.39 tonnes CO2 per year per capita
Chad CO2 emissions: 0.037 tonnes CO2 per year per capita
The UK has 250 times greater CO2 emissions per capita than Chad
—
Perhaps Western ‘greens’ should get their members to sterilise themselves first to set a good example?
Lucia: Your
.
Simon– As I said, I support increased access to birth control. I’m just a big queasy about connecting it to carbon offsets even though I know that at a constant level of economic and technilogical development, more people will consume more resources, and create more emissions.
.
The converse is also true. The more GDP and personal wealth, the lower the birth rate.
Swift was being satirical, of course – he was satirising the English attitude that the Irish were worthy of no more consideration than animals.
I agree, this is ill-conceived – but I think the whole concept of offsets is ill-conceived anyway.
Reminds me of Gordon Lightfoot’s “Rich Man’s Spiritual”.
Les,
The more GDP and personal wealth, the lower the birth rate.
That’s somewhat true, but bear in mind that the US birth rate is much the same as China’s and way above, fro example South Korea’s! Actually, I think there’s a pretty good correlation between being FSU or otherwise former communist and having a low birth rate! –
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2054.html
I’d agree that some of the really high birth rates could be expected to fall as GDP increases in those countries, but there is more to it than that. Look at Israel’s rate, which is not far away from India’s! Meanwhile the US population, with its very high per capita emission of GHGs, is projected to rise 28% by 2050…..
Click on this for ranks. Note that the upper portion (high birth rate) is almost totally populated by developing nations. The lower section is mostly of developed nations.
.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html.
.
The US is 153rd. The projected US population growth is almost entirely due to immigration. Something about increasing personal wealth, if the immigrants are to be believed.
.
China has its birth rate legislated, at 1 per couple, or 0.5 total fertility rate (TFR) per woman.
.
Israel’s total fertility rate is 2.7 per Jewish woman, while non-jewish women are 4.8. At a guess, I would bet that Israel encourages a high birth rate in jewish couples, to delay becoming a minority.
.
If guilty rich people want to convince others to not have kids, just use a little imagination.
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/2370900/7406051
(Ok, the punch line’s not as effective as if you were getting hit with this cold, since it’s pretty obvious what’s coming, given the subject of this thread.)
I betcha next to get on the AGW gravy train is PETA: “FOR EVERY DOLLAR YOU GIVE US YOU CAN EAT ONE HAMBURGER” or some stupid shit like that. You saw it here first.
In the year 2020, the last cow on earth is exterminated, to prevent CO2 emissions caused by cattle farming. Humans start reverting back to cannibalism… KFC opens up new branch called KFA, Kentucky Fried Africans: because all those damn starving Africans got to go somewhere.
Not really a shock – an organization that wants to stop population growth wants to use global warming as an excuse to stop population growth.
PETA did a similar thing – stop eating meat and save the planet.
Not really my area but I think that the appropriate statistic is female offspring surviving to maturity per woman, when projecting far into the future.
In the short term reducing the number of male births surving to maturity lessens the population, but in the long run it is the female per female survival rate that dominates.
Survival to maturity is obviously very important so judgments based on the raw birth rate can be misleading. And there is no getting away from the importance of the female births per woman statistic. Any country that has a surprisingly high male/female birth or survival ratio needs to be considered carefully to see what this implies for demographic changes in the long term.
As an aside, my local rural areas had quite extraordinarily high births/father ratios. Commonly higher than 10 but very low births/mother ratios. Basically the rural area around here (think Pips Graves) imported large numbers of women by marriage only to see them dead within a few years. Also infant mortality was extraordinarily high. Trying to figure out how that affected the demographics of the county as a whole would I expect be very difficult.
In general the impact of birth rates on consumption is not a simple matter of place of birth but a complex one that is affected by migratory behaviour amongst over things.
The decline in birth rates does seemed to be tied to a rise in survival rates allied to effective birth control other than abstinence. It does also seemed to be tied to increasing affluence but I am not sure how one teases out the strength of each effect as increasing survival rates also seem to be tied to affluence.
As far as the scheme in question goes, it has just so many unfathomables in it, plus a whiff of that particular horror that sometimes leads an overclass to seek to influence the demographics of an underclass by rational means, that I would suggest extreme caution.
Alex
“Perhaps Western ‘greens’ should get their members to sterilise themselves first to set a good example?”
Well, they indeed try. At least in Britain they already officially pontificate to prospective parents about contemplating the carbon pitter-patter of their future babies’ little feet when planning the size of their family. It is asumed that especially the kids of the rich North are those harming the planet the most – the lil’uns from Africa have much smaller carbon footprint…
Perhaps these enemies of population growth in the developed countries should talk a bit with the economists, who on the other hand go about the necessity of importing more Third World immigrants to fill in for the low birth rates in the said countries. It can be safely assumed that the immigrants certainly enlarge their carbon footprint after their move.