Experts doubt U.N. Population Fund’s claim that population control will help fight climate change
Imprimir Incrementar tamaño de fuente Disminuir tamaño de fuente

.- The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) claims that climate change could become “much more extreme and conceivably catastrophic” as population growth “outpaces the Earth’s capacity to adjust.” However, several experts say the claim is alarmist and lacks clear proof.

“We have now reached a point where humanity is approaching the brink of disaster,” UNFPA executive director Thoraya Ahmed Obaid told a Wednesday news conference.

The UNFPA said it had no proof of the effect that population has on climate change, explaining that the connections are “in most cases complex and indirect.”

Saying there is no doubt that people cause “climate change,” it also added that the developing world is responsible for a smaller share of global greenhouse gas emissions than industrialized nations, the Associated Press reports.

According to the AP, policy analyst Caroline Boin of the London-based International Policy Network, said the UNFPA comments were alarmist and unhelpful.

“It requires a major leap of imagination to believe that free condoms will cool down the climate,” she commented.

Two experts in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) “Bulletin” also have criticized linking fertility to climate change.

"Using the need to reduce climate change as a justification for curbing the fertility of individual women at best provokes controversy and at worst provides a mandate to suppress individual freedoms," wrote WHO's Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum and Manjula Lusti-Narasimhan.

In a Friday e-mail to CNA, Colin Mason, Director of Media Production for the Population Research Institute (PRI), said the claims about population growth affecting the climate were “completely unfounded.”

“I find it ironic that, on the one hand, the UNFPA admits that it has no proof of the effect that population control would have on climate change but yet it still has no doubt that ‘people cause climate change.’ Which is it? Is this science, or baseless conjecture? The evidence points toward the latter.”

According to Mason, in 1987 the UNFPA had predicted disaster if the global population reached five billion, but the population is now approaching seven billion.

“Why are we being asked to support something that even they cannot prove?” Mason said. “We believe that it is nothing more than an attempt to attach the obsolete idea of overpopulation to the currently trendy issue of climate change, which is currently the focus of international obsession.”

He said that human ingenuity and attention to justice, not “a forceful lowering of fertility,” would address humanity’s ills. He said his PRI colleague Steven Mosher has said poverty, rather than people, is the environment’s primary enemy.

“Poverty forces people to degrade their surroundings just to survive. Wealth, on the other hand, brings with it the resources to clean up and protect the environment,” Mason argued. “Economic and population growth is not destroying the Earth, it is making it possible to restore much of it to its pristine state.”

Imprimir Incrementar tamaño de fuente Disminuir tamaño de fuente
Subscriber comments:
Published by: lagonda
UK 12/03/2009 10:25 AM EST
This article seems to be nothing but common sense. How can you have a policy about carbon emissions without addressing the number of people who produce carbon. The real green issue is not directly carbon but overpopulation of which carbon is but a part. More people equals more demands on land and the world resources. Its not true that the world can keep absorbing an increasing human population and as populations increase exponentially something will have to be done to control it. If we no not control it the quality of life for everyone will fall. What is the advantage of waiting until this becomes a crisis lets act now and try and keep the world a pleasant planet!
Published by: Enrique Woll
Lima, PERU 11/25/2009 04:09 AM EST
It is evident that the intuition that "everything may affect everything else" is the broad baseline reasoning which originally led philosophy and science to formulate the concept of the positive hypothesis, which approach, in post-positivist scientific thought, has been replaced with the roundabout so-called negative null hypothesis concept. The development of the mathematical science of probability and statistics as of the 1930s, or so, has availed scientists with powerful tools useful in distinguishing and testing correlation, importance, and causality between measurable or perceivable variables or values, the statistical significance and power of inferences about these, and the ability to explore and specify complex relationships between sets of variables, essentially. But though it is generally accepted that for practical purposes it is reasonable to conclude in many cases that correlation is so negligible, significance so small, and importance so limited, that there is no causality between observed phenomena, science does not favor categorical statements such as those made by advocates of the status quo regarding global warming, global population growth, and development policies. Complex relationships not clearly understood or discernible, but that hold potential threats to humanity, should not be laid to rest or forgotten. Conversely, undemonstrated potential causality should not be abused in pursuit of opposite extremist economic, social, or political agendas either.
Published by: Andres
Peru 11/23/2009 11:41 AM EST
Of all the justifications I've heard in favor of condoms, this is the most ridiculous one.
Published by: Thecla St. Romain
Breaux Bridge/LA/USA 11/23/2009 08:42 AM EST
Doesn't anyone get it? GOD IS IN CONTROL OF OUR CLIMATE. May He have mercy on all who are trying to be God. Amen
Published by: Stephen
USA 11/22/2009 11:19 AM EST
These claims in this CNA article are totally ludicrous because this earth can easily accomodate billions more people. We as a human race that have plenty particularly in the western world need to learn to share from our abundance with our brothers and sisters in Christ from the poorest parts of the entire globe. What we do for the least of our neighbours we do unto Christ himself because he is the least of our neighbours.
Published by: DLL
scituate Mass 11/21/2009 11:55 PM EST
What's the beef! We have abortion,condoms,wars that are self sustaining,suicide bombers,all other homicides including genocides,nuclear weapons,swine flu,breast and prostate cancer,lung cancer,ulcerative colitis,a multitude of other diseases,mass starvation,drought and pestilence,you name it! Still the population is increasing to 7 billion people? When God said be fruitful and multiply he must have really meant it no matter what the obstacles.We are surely blessed,the population grows as God blesses,it when humankind considers it to be a complete curse. Talk about contradictions." I'll retire to bedlam":Quote Ebenezer Scrooge! They must be trying to scare the Dickens out of us! Out upon a Merry Christmas and in with the Happy Horrordays! "If they be like to die than let them do it and decrease the surplus population"! Really??????? The WAGE of SIN is DEATH! Choose Life! Choose Death? Holy Mary full of Grace,pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):
NAME:
CITY/STATE/COUNTRY:
EMAIL:
COMMENT:
 
PLEASE ENTER THE SECURITY CODE DISPLAYED ABOVE:
Chars:
* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages.
ADVERTISING
Place your ad here
Resources:
Columns:
News:
Documents:
Tools:
ACI Group:
ACI Prensa