We are coming into interesting times. A new climate change deal might be signed by the end of this year and most Governments in the developed world are reconciling themselves to mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases, (it is not just about carbon dioxide), while the environmental lobby continues to say it is not enough. Interestingly, countries like China are saying that they will take a lead on greenhouse emissions and it is looking to rapidly develop renewable technology. China is positioning itself as a leader but the reality is very different, emissions reductions for China are not about climate change, they are about a political and economic imperative. China's development is poisoning its people.
Speaking with many commentators and the growing fleets of experts in the climate sector, there is more talk of population growth in the context of climate change and the environment than ever before. This is not before time. Population is not really debated seriously in the context of debates on emissions reduction. The biggest threat to climate is not carbon dioxide, but the world's growing population and urbanisation. By 2050 and within a century the world's population will have quadrupled and urbanisation will move from 25% of the population to 75% of the population. It is this development with its attendant expectation of higher living standards, (no politician will risk that), that is putting pressures on our environment. In any debate, population needs to be at the centre of the climate debate.
The Australian Government, under its diplomat Prime Minister, is desperately looking for a bigger role in the climate debate. It has called for a "grand bargain", but it is really not clear what is meant by that. The current thinking in the climate debate is that developing countries for a period of time have a right to increase their emissions because they haven't polluted as much in the past and that developed countries, which have polluted, have a responsibility to reduce their emissions, because they have polluted too much in the past. This is considered to be a fair solution for the immediate future and over time developing countries will too reduce their emissions. Developing countries are resisting targets, so soft or voluntary targets are being suggested for the next round of climate talks at Copenhagen, so an agreement with the developing world can be put in place. In the meantime, the developed world will compensate the developing world if it overspends its carbon allocations. This really is messy.
Kevin Rudd, the Australian Prime Minister, is right in concept but not detail. There needs to be a grand bargain, but not the one he is touting to get attention. The grand bargain must be a commitment by the developed world to reduce emissions against whatever thresholds are set, for limits on population growth globally. As it happens, the burden on limits on population growth will fall on the developing world. Perhaps the trade off is quite simple, the developed world would accept mandatory emissions targets and soft targets for population growth while the developing world will accept at Copenhagen soft emissions targets and mandatory population targets. This may be unrealistic but we do need to start factoring these concepts into or thinking. Otherwise population growth could well drown any success in emissions reduction. China in particular could show further leadership in this way and for it, which too might be a political and economic imperative.
A forum on this subject can be found on http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/population-and-climate-change and this article will be of further interest http://www.prb.org/Publications/PopulationBulletins/2009/worldpopulationhighlights2009.aspx
