Thesis: The basic problem for the climate crisis is the enormous population growth. Derived from this is the view that the solution to the climate crisis lies in political measures that reduce population growth as quickly as possible, especially where it is high. Countries with high population growth are often developing countries (due to socio-economic conditions).
The more people, the more resource consumption, so the simple and understandable thought. But the situation is not quite that simple. A closer look reveals a very different picture.
The planet’s resources are limited, as is the land that nourishes us and the amount of greenhouse gases our atmosphere can absorb before the 1.5 °C limit is exceeded and the climate crisis transforms into a global climate catastrophe. This is the two-part problem: agricultural land and global warming.
In the following, we pose three central questions and try to answer them. The above thesis is thus refuted and the actual socio-political challenges are brought back into focus.
Question 1: We are almost 8 billion people. Will there always be more of us?
Answer: No.
Facts.
Global population growth has been declining since the late 1960s. The United Nations predicts that the world population will level off at 10.4 billion by the end of the century and that growth will stagnate. (Further reference: Our World in Data)
Question 2: Can we feed 10 billion people?
Answer: Yes.
Facts.
Currently, almost 8 billion people live on earth. We consume just under half of the arable surface for our food. However, it can be assumed that this will shrink in the future due to global warming. In addition, it is expected that we will have up to 2 billion more people. Increased land use for food production would lead to further deforestation, which in turn would fuel global warming. To get closer to a solution to these problems, we need to consider the following facts.
Inefficient land use. Animal food production consumes 77% of the land, 60% for cattle farming alone. But these provide only 37% of the proteins and 18% of the calories we eat. (Food in comparison: land use per 1000 kcal, land use per 100 g protein). On top of that, cattle farming is responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. (Also in South Tyrol)
Huge food waste. Between 30% and 40% of food is thrown away in industrialised countries. This not only wastes land, but also water and emits greenhouse gases unnecessarily. (Further references: Project Drawdown)
A significant reduction in food waste, and in particular a shift in our diets to largely plant-based diets, is the right approach that will allow us to feed everyone while using even less land and emitting fewer greenhouse gases.
Question 3: Can we guarantee a good life for 10 billion people without provoking a climate catastrophe?
Answer: probably yes, it depends on details and what one understands as a good life.
Facts.
According to Oxfam, the emissions of the world’s 10% richest people alone are enough to cause the 1.5 °C limit to be exceeded within 2040, even if the remaining 90% of the world’s population were to immediately reduce their emissions to 0. (Further reference: Oxfam study)
Greenhouse gas emissions increase exponentially with wealth on average, it is a lifestyle issue. (The World Inequality Database allows you to check which wealth class you fall into).
Of course, these statements are based on average values and even someone who is very wealthy could in principle lead an extremely sustainable life, but these people are clearly the exceptions, as statistics show. Not only in a global context do wealthy people emit much more than poorer people, emissions are also extremely unevenly distributed within Europe, as the following graph shows.
It is clear that responsibility for emissions is very unevenly distributed both globally and locally. This should be taken into account in measures to reduce emissions so that the efficiency of the measures is ensured. This does not yet answer the question of whether a good life is possible for 10 billion people. What a good life means remains to be defined, and science is taking the first steps here to find out how much energy and resources are needed to maintain a standard of living that ensures access to education, health care, mobility and telecommunications for all people in addition to a home with heating or air conditioning and running water.
Further references on the topic: Decent Living Standards: Material Prerequisites for Human Wellbeing in Social Indicators Research; Providing decent living with minimum energy: A global scenario in Global Environmental Change; A Societal Transformation Scenario for Staying Below 1.5°C Heinrich Böll Stiftung.
Some studies suggest that a sufficiency-based standard of living would in principle be possible for the entire future world population of 10 billion people. The core question is one of resource distribution and what level of luxury is ecologically sustainable. More research is needed, however, to achieve greater certainty.
This blog entry by David Hofmann is based on an article originally written for the street magazine Zebra and published on Salto.bz. It has been updated with newer sources and expanded in content.