Global Warming and Population
It seems there has been a recent interest in associating climate change/global warming
with “over population” and that countries such as China and India have to do more to
help contain global warming.
Yet rich countries have a lot to do themselves. There were agreed reasons why
developing countries were exempt from initial greenhouse gas emission targets: it was the
emissions from rich countries that accumulated in the atmosphere for so long to trigger
US President George Bush has often indicated his reluctance to be bound to global targets
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if developing countries such as China and India are
not subject to them as well.
Recently, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been airing similar sentiments.
Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, refused to ratify the Kyoto Agreement because
of similar concerns as stated by George Bush.
From their viewpoint, it would seem that China and India are responsible for runaway
climate change and the rich countries cannot do anything without these two giants being
involved. It is feared that given the large populations of India and China and combined
with their strong economic growth, their thirst for energy and materials may result in
outstripping of resources.
However, many years ago, the world agreed that due to the way greenhouses gases
accumulate in the atmosphere over decades, it was today’s rich countries that were
responsible for climate change. As a result, developing countries such as China and India
were not subject to the targets that the rich countries were. Developing countries were
strongly urged to follow a different path to development, though; one that would use
cleaner and sustainable technologies. This was known as the “Common but differentiated
This point is almost never discussed—certainly any mainstream reporter talking to Bush,
Blair (or other prominent world figures who insist China and India be subject to various
targets), have rarely challenged them with this particular point (at least from what I have
been able to research and observe).
Back to top
Common but differentiated responsibilities, or “Climate
Summarizing from this site’s article that looks at this issue of “climate justice and equity”
in more depth:
The world—including the industrialized countries—accepted that the
industrialized countries have more obligations to reduce their harmful greenhouse
Greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere for decades and centuries, so the
industrialized countries’ enormous quantity of emissions are still present in the
While developing countries are growing and therefore increasing their emissions,
their road to development has been comparatively recent, and it would therefore
be unfair to penalize them to the same extent as industrialized nations
Around the time of the Kyoto protocol, for example, the emission of 1 US citizen
equaled that of 19 Indians.
In other words, today’s rich nations are the ones responsible for global warming and
developing countries therefore feel it is unfair to be subjected to targets for something
that was not their fault (and their emissions are for basic needs and development; for the
rich it has moved to luxury consumption and lifestyles).
This difference was recognized as a principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities. When the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
was formulated and then signed and ratified in 1992 by most of the world's countries
(including the United States and other nations who would later back out of the subsequent
Kyoto protocol), this principle was acknowledged. The principle recognized that
The largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases
has originated in developed countries;
Per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low;
The share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to
meet their social and development needs.
— The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, (Text is original, but
minor edit made to reformat as a list)
Furthermore, the need for developing countries to reduce emissions ultimately was also
recognized, but via a different way: The rich countries were to help provide means for the
developing world to transition to cleaner technologies while developing:
The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their
commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by
developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial
resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and
social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the
developing country Parties.
— The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
As the World Resources Institute (WRI) highlighted (2003), there is a huge contrast
between developed/industrialized nations and poorer developing countries in greenhouse
emissions. For example:
In terms of historical emissions, industrialized countries account for roughly
80% of the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere to date.
Annually, more than 60 percent of global industrial carbon dioxide emissions
originate in industrialized countries, where only about 20 percent of the world’s
The WRI also notes the differences in energy use, which the cartoon below also captures:
© Centre for Science and Environment and Equity Watch
(See this site’s climate justice and equity section for further details.)
Back to top
Population and Climate Change
A “Malthusian” theory about the relationship between population growth and the
environment suggests that as populations grow, they will strip their resources leading to
famine, hunger and environmental degradation.
As detailed further in this site’s section on population, that is an oversimplification and
has largely shown not to be true. Instead, it has been factors such as politics and
economics (i.e. how we use our resources and for what purpose) that has determined
environmental degradation or sustainability.
For example, the world’s wealthiest 20% (i.e. the rich countries) consume approximately
80% of the world’s resources, while the rest of humanity shares the other 20% of
resource consumed, as noted in the consumption section of this web site.
In regards to climate change, countries with large populations such as China and India
have not been the countries contributing greenhouse gases for the decades that has been
required to trigger climate change, as noted further above.
While in total amounts their emissions might be high (China is second largest emitter
after the United States, for example), per person, their emissions are significantly smaller
as noted earlier.
The atmosphere of course doesn’t “care” so to speak, but from the perspective of
international relations, this is important: As stated above, penalizing developing countries
for the problem mostly caused by the rich countries is not seen as fair by the developing
world and so they will understandably resist demands by Bush, Blair and others to meet
the same types of targets as industrialized nations.
An additional concern however, is that as countries such as China, India and Brazil grow
in prosperity, there will be large populations with purchasing power, consuming more
goods and services, thus making more demands on the planet.
Indeed, many environmentalists have constantly noted that if such countries were to
follow the style of development that the rich countries used and emulate them, then our
planet may not be able to cope much longer.
Yet, as also noted in this site’s population section, researchers have found that depending
on what variables you factor in, the planet can support an extremely large population, or
an extremely small one. These ranges are ridiculously wide: from 2 billion to 147 billion
people! Why such variance? It depends on how efficiently resources are used and for
what purpose (i.e. economics).
There are concerns, however, that many developing countries are pursuing the same path
to development that the current industrialized countries have, which involved many
environmentally damaging practices. Ironically much of the advise and encouragement to
follow this path comes from the western economic schools of thought. There is therefore
an urgent need to focus on cleaner technologies and an alternative path to a more
sustainable form of development.
Journalist Diplip Hiro captures this quite well, when interviewed by Amy Goodman for
the radio/TV broadcast of the Democracy Now! show:
2 out of 5 human beings are Indians and Chinese … 2.4 billion people. Last year, China’s
oil consumption went up by 15%. That means they’re doubling oil consumption every
five years, quadrupling it every ten years. And … India … 8%.
… In the USA, there are 800 vehicles … for 1,000 American men, women and children.
In India, there are 8 vehicles for 1,000 Indians, men, women and children. Now, suppose
India progresses economically, and you change that figure from 8 to 18 or 80, can you
imagine how much oil will be required? And that is something which one has to face up
… And at that time [that oil peaks in production and starts its decline, in] India and
China, the demand will rise. So what will happen? The price of oil will go up to … $200
And, you see … the internal combustion engine, can be fueled by natural gas, by
hydrogen cells and by solar panels. And that’s already happening. You know, Toyota
actually has hundreds of cars running on hydrogen cells. They have supplies of them in
Tokyo. And I would say in ten to fifteen years time, a high proportion of cars will be run
by fuel other than petroleum product. And that is the only way we can actually save
ourselves from a catastrophe, which will come if we go on the present path.
— Blood of the Earth: Dilip Hiro on the Battle for the World’s Vanishing Oil Resources,
Democracy Now!, January 31, 2007
So, as Dilip Hiro has noted, the high populations of China and India may present a
problem, but it is through the conscious decision on how to use resources that will be
important to address these problems.
Researchers and commentators will often comment that “if we follow the present course”
then there will be disaster ahead. To some extent there are already problems through
global warming due to the slow response. Yet, rarely throughout history has the use of a
resource remained constant. Many economists remind us that over time, more efficient
and innovative ways emerge, so in there lies the hope that the present course will not be
maintained. While some are overly optimistic that all the world’s problems will be solved
because humanity always figures out an answer, many are usually wise to be cautious,
given our violent histories.
Technology investment into alternatives is therefore also important. President Bush’s
State of the Union address in January 2007 called for cleaner (or at least more efficient)
fuel use, implying that technology and consumption patterns have a bearing on
The private sector as well as public has slowly been pouring more money into this,
though many argue that far more could still be done, and that these alternative energy
industries have not been given the kind of boost and support that the fossil fuel industry
had. Hardly a month goes by without some news item of technology companies
researching more efficient and innovative energy sources, or of large companies and local
governments attempting some sort of initiative to cut down on wasteful energy
Interestingly, many developing countries, including China and Brazil in particular, have
been making progress towards cleaner and more efficient technologies, resulting in many
countries being able to reduce their emissions to some extent, as also detailed further in
this site’s climate justice and equity section. As the “common but differentiated
responsibilities” principles recognize, it will clearly be in the interests of developing
countries to continue do these things (and more) as they face enormous consequences
from climate change if they do not.
The economic, political and technology choices thus have a more important bearing on
climate change than “over population.”
Back to top
Pollution For Others
Pollution and emissions are related to consumption, not just population numbers alone.
While pollution is increasing in poorer countries as well, it is not solely due to rising
populations, because, as the U.N. points out, and as mentioned earlier, 80% of the
world’s resources are consumed by the world’s wealthiest 20%. Hence, even if pollution
is occurring in poor countries, a large portion of it is to meet this consumer demand.
In its September 2008 issue, the journal Energy Policy found that around 1/3rd of
Chinese carbon dioxide emissions were due to the production of exports and that it is
mostly the developed world consuming these.
Large amounts of China’s carbon
emissions is for consumption elsewhere. Source: PNAS (Click for larger image)
Most of the above data for China was for 2005. The National Academy of Sciences of the
USA produced a paper at the beginning of 2010 which used 2004 data to compare China
and other parts of the world.
They found that some 22.5% of China’s emissions were exported, on net, to consumers
elsewhere and added that,
Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions demonstrates the potential for
international carbon leakage. Sharing responsibility for emissions among producers and
consumers could facilitate international agreement on global climate policy that is now
hindered by concerns over the regional and historical inequity of emissions.
— Steven J. Davis1 and Ken Caldeira, Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions,
PNAS, March 8, 2010, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0906974107
And long before the fears that the Kyoto Climate Change protocol would encourage
western businesses to move dirty industry to poorer countries that were exempt from
emissions reduction targets, multinational businesses were already looking for places
with lower standards.
In 1991, then Chief Economist for the World Bank Larry Summers, (and US Treasury
Secretary, in the Clinton Administration, until George Bush and the Republican party
came into power), had been a strong backer of IMF/World Bank Structural Adjustment
Policies, which have proved to be so disastrous to the developing world. He wrote in an
internal memo (leaked to the Economist in 1992) that is very revealing:
Just between you and me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging more migration of
dirty industries to the LDCs [less developed countries]?… The economic logic behind
dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable, and we should
face up to that… Under-populated countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted; their air
quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City…
The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostate
cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get
prostate cancer than in a country where under-five mortality is 200 per thousand.
— Lawrence Summers, Let them eat pollution, The Economist, February 8, 1992. Quoted
from Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest, (South End Press, 2000) p.65; See also Richard
Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), pp.
233-236 for a detailed look at this.
Summers was talking about migrating industries. That is, moving them elsewhere, but to
still serve their original purpose — produce for consumption by wealthier nations and
people. So instead of expensive changes to factories to deal with environmental and other
issues that the public and society demand, they moved elsewhere if possible and
continued on without making as much costly changes. As a result, we may see a
relatively cleaner environment in the industrialized world, but it is not all explainable by
using newer technologies, being more efficient, etc (which are no doubt certainly part of
Slow progress by rich countries leads to blaming poorer
What has also concerned some people is that industrialized countries have had over two
decades to try and address climate change issues but their lack of progress, their faltering
and even resistance to change will have the effect of putting more burden on developing
countries. In effect, this could allow the rich countries to minimize the changes they may
have to make to their lifestyles.
Bush’s recent call for more efficient technology use and investment, while welcome, has
been criticized by many environmental groups as being slow in happening and modest.
These, and other calls should have been made a long time ago.
The British newspaper, the Independent, summarized an International Energy Agency
(IEA) report noting that while emissions from poorer countries will grow, per person,
they will still be a lot less than richer countries for a long time:
Although the absolute level of emissions from developing countries will soon surpass that
of the developed world, measured on a per capita basis, poor nations will remain far
behind. The IEA predicted that in OECD countries, emissions would rise from 11.02 tons
per person in 2004 to 11.98 tons in 2030. For the non-OECD, emissions would grow
from 2.45 tons per person, to 3.55 tons in 2030.
— Saeed Shah, China to pass US greenhouse gas levels by 2010, The Independent,
November 8, 2006
(The World Energy Outlook web site has more details on this and other predictions of
energy demands and use up to 2030.)
The rich countries have much to do already. The more they drag their heels on this issue
while developing countries develop, the more blame and attention will be placed on
countries such as China and India and “over” population will be seen as a major
contributor to climate change, while other underlying issues and causes will go relatively