Climate Change and the Overpopulation
Argument
John Molyneux
This article first appeared in Irish Marxist Review 26
The idea that the world is, or will shortly become, ‘overpopulated’
has been around long time. It can be traced back to Thomas Malthus and his 1798
Essay on the Principle of Population.
Its most famous modern articulation was in Paul Ehrlich’s best selling book The Population Bomb in 1968 and it has
always been a component of the ideology of a wing (largely the more conservative
wing) of the environmental movement as exemplified by James Lovelock, the
founder of Gaia theory, Jonathan Porritt, erstwhile Director of Friends of the
Earth (UK) and personal advisor to Prince Charles, and by some of the British
Green Party.[1]
Pioneer ecosocialist, Joel Kovel, has described how, driving round California
in 2000 in his campaign for the Green Party Presidential nomination, he was
left with a bitter taste in his mouth by the undercurrent of racism in the
party maskedby concern about ‘population’.[2]
In the 1960s the claim was mainly that overpopulation was
the cause of world poverty but as time passed the popularity of this argument
faded; recently, however, the overpopulation argument is making something of a
comeback in relation to climate change as evidenced, for example, by the
increasing activity and presence of the ‘charity’ Population Matters. Moreover,
some people on the left seem to have to have bought into the idea, for example
the long standing Marxist and ecosocialist, Alan Thornett who, in his Facing the Apocalypse: Arguments for
Ecosocialism insists that the left should see ‘the rising human population
as a problem to be addressed’.[3]
In this article I propose to reject all of this and argue
against the whole idea that overpopulation or population growth should be seen
either as a driver of climate change or as some kind of general ‘problem’.
Climate Change and
Population Growth.
When it comes to attempts to present overpopulation as a
cause or exacerbator of climate change there are a number of straightforward and
politically convincing arguments that socialists should understand and advance.
First,we know very precisely what are the causes of climate
change: the projection into the atmosphere of greenhouse gasses- primarily CO2
and methane – as a result of the burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal, and
natural gas) and the release of methane (from cattle and the melting
permafrost). This is not done by ‘humanity as a whole’ and is not caused by the
size of the world’s population. It is the responsibility of a relatively small
minority of humans engaged in very specific activities.
There are many ways that this fact can be expressed. There
is the fact that the carbon foot print per capita (measured in metric tons per year)
varies enormously from country to country : in Afghanistan in 2018 it was 0.3;
Albania 1.6; Brazil 2.4; Ethiopia 0.2, Australia 16.8; China 8.0; US 16.1;
India 1.9; Ireland 7.7;Germany 9.1.[4]Here
it is interesting to note that Canada, Australia, Iceland and Greenland are
among the least densely populated countries on earth (4,3,3 and 0.1 people per
sq.km respectively) yet all have very high per capita carbon foot prints (16.9,
16.8, 12.1, 9.4 respectively) compared to a global average of about 5.0. Among
the countries with the highest per capita carbon footprints are Bahrain (21.8),
Kuwait (23.9), Saudi Arabia (18.6), UAR (22.4) and Qatar (38.2). Again, this
has nothing to do with population size or density: Kuwait has 200.2 per sq.km;
UAR 99 per sq.km and Saudi Arabia only 15 per sq.km. There are no prizes for
guessing what it has to do with.
As it happens Ireland is also a good example here. Ireland,
at 7.1, is above the global average in terms of its per capita carbon footprint
and as Leo Varadkar has conceded
‘Obviously, climate emissions and
greenhouse gas is an area where we’re laggard and falling way behind’.[5]
Yet Ireland has a relatively low population density and, crucially, a smaller
population than it had before the Famine of 1845-9, when its carbon footprint
was more or less zero.
In short,the variation and level of carbon emissions has
nothing to do with size of population and everything to do with the level and
specific character of a country’s and, by extension, the world’s economic and
social activities. It is also clear from
the nature of these variations that carbon footprints will be grossly unequal
within countries as well. It is not Brazil’s favellas or Amazonian Indians that
are producing its 2.4 figure, still less is it Australia’s indigenous
Aborigines who are responsible for its very high 16.8.
Then there is the well known claim that 70% of greenhouse
gasses emitted since 1988 have been produced by just 100 multinational
corporations. There is the even more graphic assertion that it is possible to
name the top 100 people killing the planet (the CEOs of the 100 corporations).
Names
and Locations of the Top 100 People Killing the Planet
“The earth
is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and
addresses.” – Utah Phillips
Jordan Engel / decolonialatlas.wordpress.com / Jun 13, 2019
Whether or not these claims are exactly accurate can
probably not be verified but they represent a much more accurate picture of greenhouse
gas emissions than suggesting that they are produced by the world’s population
as a whole.
Let me put it this way: should there occur through some
dreadful tragedy a repetition of the terrible famines of the late nineteenth century
or some recurrence of the Black Death, which wiped out 200 million Chinese
peasants, 200 million of India’s poor and 150 million rural sub-Saharan
Africans, while ExxonMobile, BP, Shell, Toyota, Nissan, Volkswagen, General
Motors, the US military and suchlike continue their activities unaffected
(which they would do) the reduction of the world’s population by 550 million
would have close to zero effect on the level of global emissions or the pace of
climate change. To repeat population growth is simply not the cause of climate
change.
From this follows that raising the issue of population is
music to the ears of every rotten government, every cynical and opportunist
politician, every oil industry spin doctor and PR merchant. It simply lets all
the real culprits off the hook and directs all our concern, anger, and
campaigning energy in precisely the wrong direction.
Insofar as capitalist governments and their media purport to
address the climate emergency at all it is everywhere in terms of us ‘all being
in this together’; we must all learn to ‘change our behaviour’, probably with
the aid of carbon taxes on ordinary people. In Ireland this is exactly how the
right wing Fine Gael government posed the question and exactly how RTE, in its
week of broadcasts devoted to climate change, presented the issue. Any focus on population size is guaranteed to
let these people and their equivalents, in every other country, off the hook,
just as it would if we were to make any concession to the idea that the reason
for the housing and homelessness crisis was due to the rising population and
there being too many people.
This last
example points directly to the third major reason for not accepting the idea of
overpopulation as a cause of climate change: not only is it untrue but it feeds
directly into racism. Without doubt many, perhaps most, of the proponents of
population control would indignantly protest their innocence of this charge and
even their avowed anti-racism and in many cases their protestations would be
entirely genuine. For example, I do not doubt that David Attenborough, a lead
patron of Population Matters, is not subjectively racist, while Alan Thornett
is a long standing committed anti-racist. But it is not just a matter of
subjective intentions; there is also the objective logic of ideas, not in a
vacuum but in a concrete historical context. If it is argued that climate
change is, even partially, caused by there being ‘too many people’ then this
raises the question of which kind of people are there too many of and the
answer is not going to be white Europeans and Americans. This is particularly
likely to be the case when a very tempting excuse for Western politicians who
want to avoid emergency climate action or tackling the fossil fuel industry is
to say the real problem is China and India. And if more people are a problem in
general then it is hardly a giant leap to suggest that therefore immigration
must be restricted or reversed.
Thusthere
has always been a racist tinge to advocacy of population control and to certain
kinds of environmentalism. In the opening scene of The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich describes a taxi ride in Delhi in
1966 through ‘a crowded slum area’.
“The streets seemed alive with people. People eating, people washing,
people sleeping. People visiting, arguing, and screaming. People thrust their
hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People
clinging to buses. People herding animals. People, people, people, people. . . [S]ince that
night, I’ve known the feel of overpopulation.”[6]
As has been pointed out, Delhi in 1966 had a population of 2.8 million.
In contrast the population of Paris at that time stood at 8 million, but no one
cited Paris as an example of overcrowding or overpopulation. Rather it was seen
as the epitome of elegance. Paul Ehrlich is a current patron of Population
Matters. Another current patron of Population Matters is James Lovelock,
producer of the somewhat mystical ‘gaia’ theory of mother earth. Lovelock argues
that the maximum ‘sustainable’ population on earth is 1billion; so which 6 billion
are going to go and how are they going to be got rid of? Again it is a fair bet
it is not white British Lovelock wants to cull. In addition there are a
multitude of small population control organisations with manifestly racist
attitudes and policies – groups likeCalifornians for Population Stabilization (CAPS)
founded in 1986 which works to "preserve California's future through the
stabilization of our state's human population".
My
favourite – and they would be funny if they weren’t so nasty – is Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) (formerly
Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable Population). This is an Australian
pressure group founded in Canberra in 1988, that seeks to establish an ecologically sustainable human population. SPA
claims that it is an "ecological group dedicated to preserving species'
habitats globally and in Australia from the degradation caused by human
population growth", and that it "works on many fronts to encourage
informed public debate about how Australia and the world can achieve an
ecologically sustainable population".[7]
SPA argues
that population growth exacerbates Australia's
water shortage and adds to greenhouse
gas emissions.SPA also
seeks to highlight what it claims are the negative economic effects of
population growth, such as increased housing costs, lower wages and living
standards, and opposes the current historically high level of immigration to Australia.[My emphasis].
Australia is
the sixth largest country in the world in areaand has a population of only 24.6
million. At 3.1 per sq.km. it ranks 226th in a list of countries by
population density (with only places like Iceland, the Western Sahara and
Greenland below it. This gives you a clue that the size of the population is
not really what Sustainable Population Australia are worried about!
Fear of
encouraging or being tainted by racism is probably the main reason why many
environmental (and other)campaigners refuse to take up the population issue
saying things like ‘I don’t want to go there’, or ‘I don’t see population in
itself as the main problem’ and in a sense that is quite reasonable and right
but the issue goes broader and deeper than this and I want to argue that, even if there was no question of racism
involved,and even if we are talking about other issues than climate change,the
notion that overpopulation exists or that population growth is a bad thing would be profoundly mistaken.
It is mistaken not in the way scientists and social scientists may over or
underestimate the role of a particular factor in a situation. It is mistaken in
the way those who believed (prior to Copernicus) that the sun revolved round
the earth were mistaken i.e.the truth was not just different from what they
believed but, appearances to the contrary, the complete opposite.
Impervious to evidence
One of the
clearest signs of the weakness of the overpopulation argument is the way in
which its advocates remain impervious to evidence which manifestly refutes their
claims. The opening lines of Paul Ehrlich’s The
Population Bomb (1968) read as follows:
“The battle
to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people
will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this
late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”
What
actually happened? In 1968 the world death rate stood at 13.4 per 1000 of
population. By 1980 it had fallen to 10.3 per 1000 and by 2018 it was down to
7.6.[8]
Ehrlich also
claimed in 1969 that“Most of the people who are going
to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been
born,”and in 1970 “Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come ... And by
‘the end’ I mean an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support
humanity.” [9] And in 1970 he predicted
that ‘in ten years all important life in the sea will be extinct’ and in 1971
that ‘by the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of
islands inhabited by some hungry people...I would take even money that England
will not exist in the year 2000’.[10]
On the first Earth Day in
1970, he warned that "[i]n ten years all important animal life in the sea
will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of
the stench of dead fish." In a 1971 speech, he predicted that:
"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will
be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million
hungry people." "If I were a gambler," Professor Ehrlich
concluded before boarding an airplane, " I would take even money
that England will
not exist in the year 2000." ... Ehrlich wrote in The
Population Bomb that, "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred
million more people by 1980."
When none of
this occurred, he refused to accept there was anything wrong with his approach
or method. He just said ‘When you predict the future, you get things wrong. How
wrong is another question... If you look closely at England, what can I tell
you? They’re having all kinds of problems, just like everybody else’.[11]
I have
focused on Paul Ehrlich here as the most famous name associated with the
overpopulation argument, but the truth is that virtually all the predictions of
all the population doomsters from Malthus onwards have been falsified by
history. Of course, there are always ‘problems’ and disasters that can be
pointed to: for example, the dreadful famine in Ethiopia in 1983-5 which
claimed 1.2 million lives. For the lazy minded this could be ascribed to
‘overpopulation’ but the argument is nonsense. Ethiopia had a long history of
famines when its population was much lower, it had a catastrophically
incompetent government and there was more than enough food available to feed
the starving Ethiopians if it could have been distributed to them. Moreover
Ethiopia in 1983 had a population of 37 million (half that of Britain in a
country four times the size) and a Gross National Income per capita of $210 per
annum. By 2018 its population had nearly trebled to 105 million. Has it got
poorer? No, its GNI per capita now stands at $790 per annum- still very low but
more than three times higher than in 1983. What is more with the rise in world
population in the last 100 years the overall trend has been for the deaths from
famine to decline.
(5w
Infographics; Sources: World Peace Foundation, Tufts; Food and Agriculture
Organization, U.N.) [12]
Vague alarmism
Faced with
the dramatic refutation by history of these specific predictions the tendency
of population control advocates and those who are ‘concerned’ about population
growth has become to engage in what I would call vague alarmism.
A typical
example of this is the world population meters that can be seen at the top of many
population websites which purport to show the disturbing growth in population
second by second. Now obviously if the world population is rising, as it is,
and we are talking about the whole world it will inevitably be rising every
second. This doesn’t mean there is a problem but, of course, it vaguely
suggests there is. The same technique can be used by showing the number of
births every second with the implication we should be worried about this.[13]
Note here the difference between attitudes to births in the abstract and the
concrete. Concretely when someone has a baby the normal human reaction is to
congratulate them and greet the birth of a new human life as to be welcomed.
But in the abstract we are supposed to regard it as a misfortune. Or is it
perhaps that white European babies are welcome, but babies of colour or babies
of the Global South are not (as happened with the racist reaction online to the
news that the first Irish baby of 2020 was black)? In any event this method of
presenting worldwide or national statistics by the second or the minute to make
them look alarming can be used for any and every purpose, e.g. the number of
abortions per minute; the number of muggings, crimes, road accidents etc.
Unless put in context and set against a real benchmark such statistics may be
emotive but have no real value.
At the head
of the Population Matters website we find the statement:
It took humanity 200,000 years to reach one billion and
only 200 years to reach seven billion. We are still adding an extra
80 million each year and are headed towards 10 billion by mid-century. [14]
But if the
population is rising by 80 million a year that means that the rate of
population growth is actually slowing. If that were not the case the annual
increment would increase. And why should 80 million a year or 10 billion by mid-century
be a particular problem. Population
Matters and other ‘populationists’ assume it will be but offer no convincing
reason. They just assume, or intend, that the figures will alarm people. Alan
Thornett writes, ‘The human population of the planet is growing by over 70
million a year – almost the population of Germany. It has done so for the last
50 years and shows little sign of slowing down’.[15]Thornett
repeats the mistake. In 1973 the world population was approximately 3.9
billion. Today it is 7.7 billion. 70 million is a much smaller proportion of
7.7 billion than of 3.9 billion and the world population growth rate in 1970
was 2.1% per annum and now it is 1.2%.
In other words, the rate of growth is slowing and IF the present trend
continues the population will level out by the end of the century and even
decline thereafter.
This whole
discourse is predicated on a fear of large numbers of human beings which has
many sources in our culture, not least the elite’s fear of ‘the masses’ or
‘mob’ and the perennial excuse that ‘rising/ageing population’ and ‘too many
people/an influx of immigrants’ provides
for governments for crises in housing, health and education. If the same
conscious or unconscious attitude applied to birds it would be possible, as
Alfred Hitchcock probably realised, to scare people silly with the statistic
that there are 200-400 billion birds in the world ie. between ten and twenty
times the number of humans.
Two terms
that pepper the writings of populationists are ‘unsustainabilty’ and
‘carrying-power’. We are repeatedly told in their literature that current
levels of population growth are ‘unsustainable’ as if this was obvious or
proven. In fact it is neither. The concepts of sustainability and
unsustainability are familiar in the general ecological discourse but let us
ask what they mean in the context of population. If we say that China’s rates
of economic growth are unsustainable this means either that in the not too
distant future, they will fall to a lower rate or that there will be a
recession and they will go into reverse.
If that is what the term means in relation to population growth, then
what is really being said is that the rate of population growth will not
continue ie. it will self-correct. This
would, of course, be reassuring rather than alarming but this never seems to
occur to overpopulationists, much as it never seemed to occur to Malthus or
Ehrlich that if population growth would increase poverty and starvation the
increased poverty and starvation would reduce the population.
The notion
that the earth, or even parts of it, has a fixed ‘carrying capacity’ is similar
to ‘unsustainabilty’ but even less substantial and convincing. The carrying
capacity of a bus has real meaning but what does the carrying capacity of the
earth mean? The population of Hong Kong was 7,450 in 1841. In 1851 it was
32,983. Looking at Hong Kong in those days it would no doubt have seemed
‘obvious’ that this small island could not possibly ‘sustain’ or ‘carry’ a
population of 7.4 millionas it does today.[16]
Clearly they would all starve or eat each other long before such an unthinkable
figure was reached!
Sometimes
the overpopulation argument is put in terms of the earth has certain ‘natural
limits’. Are you saying, the population controllers ask, that the earth can
sustain unlimited population growth, that it can support an ‘infinite’ number
of people? But this is an absurd way to pose the question. ‘Unlimited growth’
and an ‘infinite number’ is so vague and potentially enormous that it would
apply to absolutely anything or everything. Can the world carry an ‘infinite’
number of peanuts? Clearly not. Similarly, you could raise the alarm about the
impossibility of coping with an indefinite or unlimited number of bees or
trees. But this would similarly obscure the fact that right now, and for the
foreseeable future, we need more bees and trees.
The only
real meaning that all this alarmism has and can have is that population growth
is driving climate change and other forms of ecological damage such as ocean
acidification,plastification and destruction of the rain forest. But as we
began by showing, this is not true of climate change and the same arguments
apply to the other forms of ecological destruction. The Great Barrier Reef is
being killed off but by Australian mining and farming methods (along with
climate change) not by Australia’s ‘vast’ population. The terrible felling of the Amazon rain
forest is not being done to provide space for Brazil’s population, which is
neither dense (at 25 per sq.km) nor growing very fast (at 0.72% per annum[17])
but to serve the profits of beef and logging corporations. The vast quantities
of single-use plastic that are choking the oceans are produced by a tiny
percentage of the world’s population and, even more importantly, the decisions to produce and use that
plastic are taken by literally handfuls of people.
A misanthropic argument
There has
always been a fundamental contradiction in the populationists’ arguments. They
are alarmed at the size and growth of world population. But world population is
NOT growing because people are having more babies, they are not. In 1950 the
global birth rate stood at 36.937 per thousand; by 2000 it was 22.29 per
thousand and today it is 17.464 (and predicted to fall to 14.634 by 2050.[18]
It is growing because the death rate is falling (infant mortality is falling
and life expectancy is rising). In 1950 the global death rate was 20.15 per
thousand, in 2000 it was 8.647 per thousand and today it is 7.612.[19]
In 1950 global average life expectancy was 47.0; in 2000 it was 67.1 and today
it is 73.2[20].
Of course, as we know, there is increased alienation, exploitation and
inequality, all brought to us by global capitalism, but in itself this rise in the population is caused by an improvement
in people’s living conditions, especially their nutrition and health care. In
itself it is a gain for humanity not a cause for alarm or fear.
It is true
that climate change and related environmental catastrophes have the potential
to wipe out these gains, but this will not be because the population is too
large but because capitalism, with its production based on competitive
accumulation, was unable to break its addiction to fossil fuels. To blame the
number of people for this and not governments and the system is not only to let
the guilty off the hook but also to malign the innocent. In 1865 Marx called
Malthus’ theory of population, according to which population inevitably grew
much faster than food production, a ‘libel on the human race’ [21]
and the same is true of contemporary would-be population controllers. There is
a deep-seated misanthropy involved here.
Unfortunately,
we are not just dealing with a bad explanation or a reactionary theory but with
an idea which can have, and has had, very reactionary consequences in the real
world. Liberal and leftist populationists try to avoid this by denying they are
for forcible or racist population control and stressing instead population
limitation by means of ‘female empowerment’ i.e. contraception and abortion
rights. Both Population Matters and Alan Thornett do this with Thornett calling
population an ‘eco-feminist issue’.[22]But
obviously the left have fought for these rights for decades, ever since the
Bolshevik Revolution and before, without ever endorsing the call for population
control and in the real world the people who will take up and implement this
policy will not be liberals and leftists but governments who want to cut child
benefit[23]
and authoritarian regimes like China with its horrific one-child policy[24] and India’s highly repressive forced
sterilisation programme under Sanjay Gandhi in the 70s.
The
underlying problem in the whole populationist ideology is that it its advocates
see the mass of the world’s people, including the international working class,
simply as passive consumers and not as active producers, still less as people
who can take collective control of society. This why they fail to understand
that it was and will be perfectly possible to greatly increase food production
and that the real problem is to ensure its equitable distribution. And why they
fail to see that it is possible for those teeming masses in Delhi and Mumbai,
in Jakarta and Cairo to smash the system that is driving us all towards
catastrophe and create a new economic and social system in which the metabolic
rift with nature is healed. And why they
fail to see that from that point of view the more of such masses, increasingly
proletarianised and urbanised as they are, the better.
[2]
See Joel Kovel, Foreward to Ian Angus and Simon Butler, Too Many People,
Haymarket Books, Chicago, 2009, pp.xiii-xvii.
[3]
Alan Thornett, Facing the Apocalypse:
Arguments for Ecosocialism, Resistance Books, London 2019, p.152
[4]
These and subsequent statistics on per capita carbon foot print are from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
[5]https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/ireland-falling-way-behind-on-climate-change-action-admits-taoiseach-37668523.html
[6]Cited
in Charles C.Mann ‘The book that incited a world fear of overpopulation’.
Smithsonian Magazine, January 2018.https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/book-incited-worldwide-fear-overpopulation-180967499/
[9]Cited
in Mann, as above.
[10]Cited
in Mann, as above.
[11]Cited
in Mann, as above.
[12]From
Charles C. Mann, as above.
[13]See for example: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
[15]
Alan Thornett, as above, p.130.
SadlyThornett’s reference to this being ‘almost the size of Germany’ is a
terrible argument. Racist
anti-immigration campaigners often try to scare people by saying the level of
immigration is equal to ‘a new town the size of Birmingham’. Now I know full
well that Thornett is not a racist and has no racist intention here but this
shows the kind of bad argument his position on population leads him into.
[17]
This compares to population growth rates of 2.9% p.a. in 1960 and 1.95% in
1990. Moreover Brazil ‘s population is 87.6% urban and concentrated
overwhelmingly in the coastal cities such as Rio and Sau Paulo. (All statistics
from https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/brazil-population/)
[20]As above.
[21]
Karl Marx, Letter to J.B Schweizer, 24 January, 1865. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/letters/65_01_24.htm
[22]
Alan Thornett, as above, Ch.14.
[23]
On a personal note I well remember debating with Jonathan Porritt, then of the
Green Party, at London Marxism in the early 90s and I particularly recall reading
out from Porritt’s book The Coming of the
Greens a passage in which he called for removing child benefit after the
second child. I’m sure this policy went down well with Prince Charles whom
Porritt served as an adviser and who has, of course, lived on benefit all his
life.
[24]Introduced in 1979 and modified in
the mid-1980sto allow rural parents a second child if the first was a daughter
(no women’s empowerment there!) and,incidentally,supported by our friend
Jonathan Porritt who said, "Had
there been no 'one child family' policy in China there would now have been 400
million additional Chinese citizens," https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/dec/03/carbon-offset-projects-climate-change
I saw comments from people who already got their loan from Mr Benjamin Lee a loan officer who offer me loan at the rate of 2% ROI , and I decided to apply under their recommendations and just 5 days I confirmed in my own personal bank account a total amount of $90,000 which I requested for.This is really a great news and I am advising everyone who needs real loan lender to apply through their email : 247officedept@gmail.com or WhatsApp : +1-989-394-3740. I am happy now that I have gotten the loan I requested .
ReplyDelete