Video - The Miniature Earth . 2010 edition . Official version

"What if the world's population were reduced to 100 people community?"

Hopeful signs but still missing the low hanging fruit.

While Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) works with other senators from the coal states to get more money allocated to carbon capture and storage, a move that may save the Waxman Markey bill in the senate if all these senators beholden to dirty coal vote for the bill, and research by the New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity shows that the bill will benefit the economy to the tune of $1.5 trillion between 2012 and 2050 while only costing $660 billion to implement, where is the debate surrounding population and it's effect on Climate Change?

A new study produced by the London School of Economics found that family planning is the most cost effective way to address CO2 emissions. As reported over at WorldChanging by Adam Stein,

"Specifically, the report claims that the world can spare 34 gigatons of CO2 emissions — the amount the entire U.S. produces in six years — over the next four decades at a cost of $7 per ton. According to the report, these reductions can be achieved simply by fulfilling the current “unmet need” for family planning, an ungainly phrase that refers to the population of couples who are married or “in union” and want contraception but lack access. Because unmarried people experience unwanted pregnancy as well, presumably demand for contraception is even greater than the study suggests.

If all this unmet need is filled, the projected population in 2050 drops from 9.1 billion to 8.7 billion. 8.7 billion, of course, still represents substantial growth from today’s level. That’s always been the problem with focusing overly much on population as the key driver of climate change: the number of people on the planet seems likely to hit roughly 9 billion no matter what we do, so ultimately clean energy and efficiency are going to be the primary way we solve the resource puzzle.

Nevertheless, 34 gigatons is a lot of gas, and $7 is a nice price, and providing family planning services to people who want them has meaningful humanitarian benefits, so this seems like a fruitful (ha!) area to explore. Of course, family planning is also an insanely fraught topic, so don’t expect much progress on this front anytime soon, at least in the U.S."

The P word - by Robb

According to an article in the Telegraph two UK doctors are urging GP's to talk to patients about climate change and encourage reducing the number of children they are planning to have.

"The Optimum Population Trust calculates that 'each new UK birth will be responsible for 160 times more greenhouse gas emissions . . . than a new birth in Ethiopia'."

If that is the difference in the UK imagine the contrast in the US where the typical impact relative to energy is 50% higher for the same level of lifestyle.

This approach seems rational to me. It involves a voluntary educational effort as opposed to draconian policy efforts and should raise awareness to some small degree. However, the main issue is still the level of lifestyle. If the UK can have a similar level of lifestyle for 50% less personal energy use then it follows that the US could do much to curb it's consumption and still maintain a level of comfort and health that far surpasses that of the typical Ethiopian.

Yes we should address the population issue but at whatever degree of population we find ourselves we urgently need to scale back general consumption, become more self sufficient within local economy, and most importantly do all we can both at a personal level and as nations to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. We must leave them in the ground.