It is my hope, however unreal, that people throughout the world will eventually have equality of opportunity wherever they are born; that the present apartheid which exists between rich and poor nations will cease to exist.

However Farida Akhter, presenting herself as representative of women from the less-developed world, seemingly would have it otherwise.

Perhaps there will always be a divide, where those presently existing in poverty will always do so – will always consume less, will always have a “smaller footprint” on the earth. Why should anyone want that to be so? Why should anyone want it to be perpetuated due to birthrates in excess of the parents’ capacity to provide from the limited resources available to them? Why should those parents not accept assistance, from wherever it is available, in the provision of education, maternal health, and ability to control their own fertility?

In 1994 Dr Taslima Nasreen was hounded out of Bangladesh in fear for her life, under declaration of a fatwah upon her, for daring to make a suggestion about the Koran being improved by updating it to the 20th century. It is unlikely that Farida Akhter will ever be confronted similarly by Bangladesh fundamentalists.

The author of this article is totally off the planet in her attitude to population.

There has been a massive population overshoot.It doesn't matter whether this overshoot is mainly in poorer countries with low carbon emissions.The population is still way far too much for the Earth to bear.

Like it or lump it,there will be a correction and most likely it will be by Nature herself.The carnage will be worse in extremely overpopulated nations like Bangla Desh.You bred yourselves into this hole and you are still digging yourselves deeper.

The first logical thing to do would be to stop digging.The second would be to stop expecting assistance from other nations.They will have more than enough to cope with themselves.Get used to it.

When will women and poor people learn to shut up and do as they are told by their betters?

Oh dear. We haven't yet realised that it isn't carbon dioxide that is controlling global warming!
It is amazing how educated people haven't yet understood that without carbon dioxide there is no life on earth.
The UN calls for less carbon dioxide and, at the same time, (November 17th, FAO meeting in Rome) calls for more food production to feed an expanding global population.
MORE CO2 equals more food. Less CO2 means less food.
The time is going to come when steps will have to be taken to stop further population growth.On our current course, wars to obtain food will break out and the problem will be solved with a great loss of blood.
Population is a problem. Blaming CO2 for climate change is just nonsense. Look what the experts at the Climate Research Unit have had to do to prove that the planet is warming>

Australia is a very dry continent with only small areas of land that have reliable rainfalls and good soils, and many other rural areas unsustainably farmed upon, particularly for cotton and rice by river irrigation in areas of low rainfall. We are already approaching overpopulation here, because the way people live here, our greenhouse emissions are very high. As people may not want to change, and in a free society we can't do too much to make them, we have to slow increasing emissions by reducing immigration. From certain countries, we know who they are, they have lower wages and lower living costs than Australia, representing a considerable incentive for economic migrants to come here. Also 'refugees' who stop-over in safe havens such as Indonesia or India, rather than staying there will press on not because they need to get away, but because we're the Emerald City.

Allowing people in from low per capita emitting countries increases the global emissions massively. While using bicycles, living crammed into tiny flats, walking or using mopeds back home and not having air conditioning or many consumer goods, it is naivety and stupidity to suggest that bringing them in has little impact. Immigrants, particularly economic immigrants come with an expectation of a vastly increased standard of living and that means 2-3 cars at home, air conditioned McMansions, a raft of disposable consumer goods, and daily electricity consumption of over 10 or even 20 kWh.

The population issue is relevant because many plead to come here because of famine etc. This is brought on by population being too high for everyone to have decent housing and reliable food supply. Rather than encouraging such overpopulation, by giving tonnes of food aid, perhaps we should give more family planning aid and information and reduce food aid. Then let nature take its course as a there would soon be a swift population reduction and then later less demand exceeding supply for food, water and housing.

Manorina just about sums up the post colonial anti-populationist position. Mad.

The author has written a well researched and considered piece - the first I think to link women in developing countries with population.

The anti-populationist doom and gloomers always focus on developing nations when the real culprits for carbon emissions are developed nations. The real problem for population is Africa with fertility rates of five or six children per family.

Having travelled extensively through India and Asia, it's not population that's the key problem. It's a lack of education for women and girls. A secondary problem is movement to cities, especially in India (Mumbai and Africa) which throws up a raft of attendant problems such as health.

For pete's sake, Farida Akhter can not seriously believe the picture painted by the graph below is sustainable. I can't accept for a second that you think it is sustainable either, Cheryl. Or you either Stezza, if you deign to turn up here:

http://j.mp/87vugj

This article (or its author?) is crackers!

OF COURSE the population size and rate of growth are major factors in climate change!

OF COURSE they need to be part of the discussion. It would be woefully remiss of COP15 to leave the population factor out of discussions or to address it only fleetingly.

Discussion on the population / climate change connection has not in any way diverted the debate. In fact, I think the opposite is true. The climate change debate had diverted energies away from the population and sustainability debate.

If population is discussed at Copenhagen or thereafter in relation to the climate change issue, then it will certainly help bring the climate change debate closer to the sustainability debate. And afterall, it is our overall sustainability that really matters, not just the fossil fuel consumption, felling of forests and farting of cows!

If population is not discussed at Copenhagen or thereafter in the climate change issue, we will basically be addressing only one of the big factors of sustainability, while another one, that is at least as enormous, will continue to go utterly inadequately addressed.

OF COURSE real commitments need to be made by the major polluting developed and developing nations. And as part of their commitments, they should be looking at their own population growth and what they can do to reach stable levels, not least Australia!

And OF COURSE we should all be thinking very hard about what can be done to reduce population growth in the third world.

Farida Akhter focuses on historical greenhouse gas emissions, for which the developed countries have an overwhelming responsibility to take action. It is also quite true that if we are going to prevent births (and immigration) to fight climate change, it is much more effective to do it in rich countries than poor ones. However, Akhter ignores deforestation, land degradation, and loss of biodiversity, for which the poor (and poor country elites) must bear much of the blame. Even with greenhouse gases, most of the emissions currently going into the atmosphere come from developing countries and not the developed world.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/developing-nations-outstrip-rich-on-greenhouse-gases/story-e6frg8gf-1225799158422

If there are sufficient caputs, it doesn't matter if per capita consumption is low. Even if all the developed countries disappeared, there are quite enough people in poor countries to trash the planet if they attain the developed country levels of affluence they aspire to. Although we should certainly do a lot more to reduce fossil fuel use and the senseless waste that goes on in rich countries, it is hard to take all those protestations from poor countries about overconsumption very seriously, when so many of their people struggle so hard to migrate to developed countries where they can partake of it.

This graph from the Oct. 6, 2007 New Scientist shows that it would take the resources of three Earths to give everyone a modest Western European standard of living.

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2624/26243101.jpg

Paul Harrison, the author of "Inside the Third World", once wrote that limiting population is the only real long term answer to environmental problems. This is because the bottom fifth of humanity need to increase their consumption, and the middle three fifths are not going to be satisfied with the odd bicycle or radio.

“It is a well acknowledged fact that developed countries and major emerging economy nations lead in total carbon dioxide emissions.”

Not quite true. Australia produces only 0.01% of TOTAL CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS, simply because it does have a relatively small population. It seems that some people do not like the fact that we have a small population, because they only ever mention the per capita output. The fact remains that we have less total emissions (and that’s what counts) because we have so far had a small population.

The author, while giving the developed countries a serve, seems totally unaware of the fact that ‘developing’ countries have made a pretty good contribution to the poor state of the earth by clearing forests and cutting and using every skerrick of wood they have for burning, thus degrading the countryside to an extent not seen in developed countries.

She also accuses us of eating too much. If, instead of mucking about with ‘feminism’, she advocated lower populations and, therefore, better land care, people in undeveloped countries would eat better.

And to think that our crackpot Prime Minister wants to transfer Australian wealth to people like this via his useless carbon tax!

You're only off by two orders of magnitude Leigh, Australia produces at least 1.3% of total CO2 emissions, with only 0.32% of the world population.

Weird when you consider that India with more than a billion people (17.6% of the worlds population), only emits 5.5% of the total carbon dioxide.

Funny old world innit.

After reading the comments above, I don't think I'll bother wasting my time reading this article. Often I find the comments and discussion much more interesting anyway. Thats the best thing about OLO.

In regards to rstuarts graph, it is interesting that the most prominent decline in population was due to the bubonic plague. I wonder if during this period anyone imagined that the world population would recover and grow so quickly? The next time an event such as this happens (whatever it may be) I believe the decline will be much more severe, and that humans will survive, prosper and multiply again until the next such event. Or not...

They are cheek to cheek in Dhaka, but perhaps Cheryl never did
make it to the slums.

I note that the Bangaladesh Govt seemingly disagrees with the author,
for they have already put their hand up for other countries to
take climate refugees, if water levels should rise and something
like 20 million seek a new home.

What surprises me is that a so called feminist is not pushing
for better family planning to be available for third world women,
so that they actually get to choose how many kids that they have.
This would be a great opportunity to do so and the West might
just cough up. Most women, given choice, grab the opportunity,
its usually men standing in the way.

So I am not sure of the author's agenda. Is she a Catholic perhaps?

Cheryl seemingly doesen't need contraception in her life, perhaps
finding a boyfriend in the first place, is the real problem :)

Let me tell you Cheryl, most women, once they have popped out
a few, do in fact value family planning and millions in the
third world, simply don't have the options that you have.

The least that the West could do, is pay for third world women
to have better family planning

Yabby, I think you are right with your assertion that maybe this author is Catholic, and thus against contraception.

Poor women churning out child after child who they can't properly feed or house are not going to thank feminists like Ahkter, that's for sure.

She is not doing Bangladeshi women any favours by suggesting that developing countries are trying to control the poorer countries by proposing they practice better population control.

Although there is no point suggesting the West provides large family planning clinics in poor countries when their more pressing needs are food, fresh water and housing.

I really don't know what the answer is.

Regardless of Farida Akhter's seemingly silly general objection to population stabilisation and birth control, the bigger point I think she makes is that the developed countries don't want to change their own behaviour, but they want everybody else to change theirs.

She is clearly correct in saying that a country like a Australia that is doing all it can to susbtantially increase it's population, has no right whatsoever in telling Bangladesh or any other country to reduce it's population. Australia has no hope of achieving any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions with a rapidly increasing population. It would have been a big challenge if our population was stable.

I applaud Online Opinion for publishing this article. It is clearly from the heart. It is important to understand that Bangladeshi's and probably people from poor countries all over the world feel that the rich world kicks them when they are down and then lectures them about how to improve.

I suppose this is the long version of my friend clownfish's comment.

Good on yer Yabby, you've not only offended women but Catholics as well. That's more than 50 percent of the world's population in one comment. They miss you at Copenhagen for your diplomatic skills.

If you can't make any contructive comments, head over to another blog and vent your sexist prejudices.

I'm for the pill but I'm also for health and sex education. When I worked in India for an NGO and we went to the slums in Mumbai, the problem wasn't population, it was education. Let me say that again, it's education.

Population is one factor but as birth rates will decline from 2050, the most crucial social and economic service we could give to developing nations is education and micro-loans.

None of this has figured in any of these blogs. It's as if Oxfam, World Vision, the UNHRC never existed.

What I am picking up is that people like Yabby would willingly support forced sterilisation programs on women in developing nations. And they'd do it from Australia. Education isn't a cure-all but it's a start - too late for Yabby and his right wing Brave New World mates.

Bugsy,

You are entitled to believe whatever information you choose to believe.

Yes, I can see that's your attitude Leigh.

*What I am picking up is that people like Yabby would willingly support forced sterilisation programs on women in developing nations*

We would? Cheryl, read my previous post really slowly so that it
sinks in, its all about availability and choice. In fact go through
my whole history of posting on this topic on OLO, you will not find
a single post where I support forced sterilisation, so either
you are not the brightest of buttons, or you are inventing a
strawman argument on purpose.

Education indeed is an important part of family planning, but so
is the required paraphernalia that goes along with it.

If you tried to take these things away from women in the first
world, as the Catholic Church would do, women would in fact
revolt and be demonstrating in the streets!

But for some reason you don't seem to think they matter for women
in the third world. Let me tell you, crossing your legs for
Jesus does not have the best record, when it comes to effective
family planning, as George Bush found out.

So my argument has always been that women in the third world should
have the same options as women in the first world have. The
drop in population growth in the West, happened because of that
choice.

Hear, hear Yabby. The tragedy is that our Govenment cannot see that the natural population decline of developed countries is a really good thing, and persists with nonsense like the baby bonus.

I don't see why population control should ever be seen as a them or us question. We need to because we are massive carbon emitters and are hogging the worlds resources. Developing countries need to (via education, and giving women choices about their fertility) to combat poverty and appalling living conditions. We all need to because wars fought over water and food and fuel will be very, very ugly.

Cheryl and Yabby,
Not too long ago lowering birth rates was discussed here and one poster put a link about Iran's success in this regard.

I forget the details but they lowered the birth rate dramaticly through education and government/religous support. Maybe if one googled Iran+ birth control or such you would find it.

If Iran can do it so can others as we must prevent people from starving. I think over population is a far greater threat than CO2 emmissions. Of course we should drop that stupid baby bonus.

Come to think of it, would not lowering the population stop people from starving and lower emmissions of CO2.

Banjo,

Here is the link on Iran that I posted on another thread. I think that it is the one you mean

http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2001/update4ss

Their success was due to an entirely voluntary program. See the Gutmacher Institute site for information on the enormous global unmet demand for family planning and how family planning can save lives and reduce poverty. For example

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2009/12/03/index.html

Yabby is entirely right about where our aid priorities should be.

Bugsy

Re: .”You're only off by two orders of magnitude Leigh, Australia produces at least 1.3% of total CO2 emissions, with only 0.32% of the world population”

One of the things that’s intriguing is most times AGWers talk about emission figures as if they're absolutes, or near enough to --but any such figures have to be estimates.

For example: how would you measure the out put of all the volcanoes, all over the world, many of then the under sea, 365 days a years, with accuracy?!

What is your sides –estimated-- margin of error here ?

Divergence,
Yes, that is the link. Thanks for that. Iran deserves to be given credit for their work here.

Ludwig takes a keen interest in population matters, so i hope he has the link.

I will post the link on other blogs when I get the opportunity. It gives some hope of curtailing spiraling population.

One wonders why the UN is not pushing such action, and putting presure on Rome to change.

Of course they're estimates Horus, but they are estimates made by multiple different agencies independently.

Here are some of the sources:

International energy agency

http://www.iea.org/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=2143
http://www.iea.org/stats/countryresults.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=AU&Submit=Submit

Carbon dioxide Iformation analysis center
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/trends.htm

UNFCCC

http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/time_series_annex_i/items/3814.php

I cannot give you a margin of error, but you can estimate the variance in the different estimates if you like.

One thing I am reasonably certain of though, is that Australias emissions are far higher than 0.01% of the total. Why not take Leigh to task on this, and ask where he got his estimate from and what are his margins of error? If there's good data to back that number up, I am willing to change my stance.

Horus: "If we are to rubbish/discredit Tim Ball (& others on the sceptics side) because some of their views are unorthodox."

My discrediting of Tim Ball had nothing to do with his unorthodox views. Everyone is allowed unorthodox views.

What they aren't allowed to do is claim they are a Professor of Climatology, when they if fact _never_ held that title and have not published a single peer reviewed paper on the subject. Nor are they allowed to represent themselves as someone presenting a thoughtful, personal analysis of the subject when they are in fact paid mouth pieces for corporations who are conducting a propaganda war against AGW.

This doesn't necessarily mean that Tim Ball is wrong of course. But is does mean that if you are interested in canvasing opinions on whether AGW is correct or not, Tim Ball and his ilk aren't the people to ask. They will give you the same answer regardless of whether AGW is right or wrong. It is like the old story of the broken clock. It is not that it is always wrong - it isn't. It is that is isn't even trying to give you the right answer. Tossing a dart board blind folded would give you just as reliable answer, particularly so in Tim Ball's case as he is paid to ensure there is only one number on it.

In light of Ericc’s comment that this article is clearly from the heart, I have re-read it.

I come to the same conclusion as expressed in my earlier post – that it is crackers!

<< Once the Copenhagen conference brings population into the climate change equation, fingers will be pointed at the poorer countries and in particular at poorer people. >>

NO! Come on Farida. We need holistic discussions that take into account all significant factors.

<< This will allow rich countries to turn attention away from their responsibilities of reducing carbon dioxide emissions towards easy ways of funding family planning programs to reduce the population. >>

Of course a big part of the discussions is to put all the factors into perspective and to not accept attempts from any countries to divert their own responsibilities.

However, if it helps raise the issue that the developed countries are not doing enough to help to poor countries and that much more international aid is needed, well isn’t that a good thing?

Farida, you just don’t seem to place any significance in the great urgency to which population growth needs to be addressed or the fact that even if we are amazingly successful in addressing climate change, we’ll still be in very deep poo if we don’t address population growth.

RStuart,
“My discrediting of Tim Ball had nothing to do with his unorthodox views”

Ah, but it was part of your barrage. Remember this:
“ He has also argued the hole in Ozone layer was caused by the Sun's activity, not CFC's”
Translation: look how out of touch he is.

Personally I have never met the man, nor read his pieces –But, you, obviously know him intimately –even to the extend of being able to read his mind!
“I think it is fair to say Dr Ball's primary concern when making a statement about science is not whether it is true or not, but rather how much he will be paid for making it.”.

And, you find him incapable of being thoughtful & analytical because of his employment history :
“Nor are they allowed to represent themselves as someone presenting a thoughtful, personal analysis of the subject when they are in fact paid mouth pieces for corporations who are conducting a propaganda war against AGW.”
I wonder though, do you apply the same measure to Greenpeace employees, associates & fellow travellers?

Farida, population is a serious issue, increasingly so as the planet's capacity to support ever growing numbers diminishes and climate change threatens agricultural production. Yes, the bulk of climate change in the pipeline to date is down to the wealthy West. No, the poor are not to blame but the world is coming up against the limits of what it can support and famine is the inevitable consequence of continued population growth and it will be people in nations that are high population, poor and vulnerable to climate change impacting agriculture that will bear the brunt. No matter how the problems arose refusing to make an effort on population looks unwise.

The Developed West needs to do the most and has to support low emissions sustainable development everywhere. For the most part they aren't and don't. Australia, shamefully, is one of the worst in that respect.

It's understandable that the developing nations aren't happy with nations like Australia - the world's biggest coal exporter and getting bigger and doing the least it can get away with rather than the most it's capable of - but you offer no particular solutions and seems to be more intent on assigning blame. High population growth plus development based on high emissions growth can only lead to disaster for nations like Bangladesh.

Horus: "Translation: look how out of touch he is."

No. Translation: look, anti AGW isn't the only contrarian opinion he is paid to espouse by his masters.

Horus: "But, you, obviously know him intimately –even to the extend of being able to read his mind!"

Odd that it is obvious to you, as it is wrong. I do however know do to use a search engine. I presume you do too, but just in case you don't I gave the links I found supporting what I said.

Horus: "do you apply the same measure to Greenpeace employees"

Yes, I do. I have learnt to look up the background of the writer of most of the stuff I read, and follow up references. There is just too much junk out there to do anything else.

Farida, I just wanted to add that failure of the Wealthy West to act responsibly is the worst excuse for developing nations to act irresponsibly. In a world where governments of nations act to put their own national interests first, often at cost to others, often with only shortsighted goals, following the Wealthy West's example looks irresponsible.

Australia will sell developing nations more fossil fuels, as much as you want, but it will be nations like Bangladesh that will find the prosperity it brings shortlived and the added impacts of climate change irreversibly damaging.

Demand more from countries like Australia but don't use us as an excuse for taking a path that gives short term prosperity and leads to long term disaster.

Horus, that neither you nor I can estimate the CO2 exhalation rates of volcanoes, does not mean it has not been done nor cannot be done. In fact the CO2 flux (and other gases too) for many volcanoes has been measured and from these gas concentrations the outputs calculated. Just as we don't directly measure all the exhaust fumes from cars and factories, we know how much fuel they burn, we can certainly measure that and calculate how much gas they produce, we also know how many volcanoes there are and what their average CO2 emissions are.

Ian Plimer certainly thinks it can and has been done, as evidenced by his unsourced statement about it and his question for Monbiot about calculating them.

Surely he wouldn't ask questions that he knew could not be answered?

One thing's for sure, he doesn't want to answer questions on his own statements.

I think that tactic of asking specific scientific questions you don't expect to be answered so as to make your opponent look unqualified to even discuss the subject with you will likely in future be known as "pulling a Plimer".

the author of this article clearly shows that how much less carbon food print is produced in poor countries compare to the rich ones. we the people who are living in develope countries should change our behaviou as well well putting pressure on our governments to take more responsibility to reduce carbon emissions rather then seeing the issue only family panning.

it is also ridiculous that seeing the family planning as lack of education of women/young girls. what about men?