Rising Population, Consumption, and the Ecological Footprint

DEMOGRAPHIC PRESSURES AND UNSUSTAINABLE LIFESTYLES CAUSE GLOBAL TEMPERATURES TO RISE. SO WHY IS THE WORD POPULATION NEVER MENTIONED IN THE CLIMATE AGREEMENT?

by Letizia Mencarini, Dept. of Management and Technology, Bocconi
Translated by Alex Foti

Scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have no doubt that more than 95% of the increase in average mean temperatures recorded in the last decades was caused by an increase in the greenhouse effect (i.e. amplification of the thermal effect of solar radiation) resulting from the release into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other gases resulting from the burning of fossil fuels and other anthropogenic activities. The increase in emissions thus depends on two factors: the increase in the number of human inhabitants on Earth, and the growth in the ecological footprint of every person in the world, resulting in rising levels of goods consumption, and, ultimately, energy consumption.

Yet if we read the Paris Climate Agreement of December 2015, the word population is never mentioned. Why? The reason is, perhaps, the lack of consensus between developed and developing countries on what is worse for the environment: overpopulation of the poorest areas of the planet or, rather, the unsustainable affluent lifestyles and energy consumption of the richest areas of the world? Countries like the United States (and most EU countries) have strongly negative ecological footprints (they consume more than the biological capacity of their land would allow) thanks to sizable imports of goods, food and energy. This is an unsustainable model at the planetary level. For the time being, total emissions are higher in developed countries, but in the short run, even with a much lower level of per capita consumption, poor countries could, just because of their fast population growth, well surpass them.

The current world population of 7.4 billion people, in spite of falling birth rates, will be increased by more than 2 billion people before 2050, 98% in developing countries, areas that are already environmentally fragile, such as certain regions in Africa. No wonder, then, that the Ethiopian government has launched policies to reverse the depletion of topsoil, land fertility having already been damaged by drought, to facilitate access to voluntary birth control to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and monitor the country’s carbon footprint.

Science has developed technologies that make sustainable development possible, but the rate of introduction of zero- or low-carbon energy installations fails to keep up with population growth, and larger numbers of people on the planet necessarily imply additional consumption of non-renewable, high-carbon fossil fuels. This is the reason why the Paris Agreement provides for a stronger commitment by developed countries which consume 80% of world resources, and a lower commitment for the rest of humanity that already lives off the remaining 20%, with the provision that the countries of oldest industrialization (which thus have most contributed to the stock of carbon dioxide in the air) contribute $100 billion a year (starting from 2020) to promote the green economy and technologies lessening environmental impact worldwide.

The debate between neo-Malthusian doomsayers and incurable techno-optimists is more alive than ever. Keeping in mind that we all live on the same, increasingly hotter planet, which is ever more crowded with people and losing the diversity of its flora and fauna at alarming rates, we should all consciously make the transition toward consumption lifestyles that can warrant individual and global survival, and are the best hope for the future of humankind. The question remains why this is not happening. Why, for example, around the world the growth in purchasing power has led to the adoption of a more carnivorous diet? This has caused great damage to individual health (e.g. obesity), and also to the environment: a daily consumer of beef, just because of his/her choice about quantity and quality of protein intake, causes CO2 emissions that are more than double than those of a vegetarian.