The multiplication table

It's official. The 7 billionth human has just entered the race. And chances are you will find the talk centred around this arrival, whether in energy circles or environment. For, the 7 billion holds big consequences to the way ahead.

More than 200,000 people are added to the population each day, and we're expected to keep growing for years to come, reaching anywhere from 8 billion to 11 billion mid-century.

Now comes the important question: who or what is to blame for the world's problems - the total number of people, or the amount of water, food, mineral ores or clean air each demands?

An extra child born today in the United States, would, down the generations, produce an eventual carbon footprint seven times that of an extra child in China, 55 times that of an Indian child or 86 times that of a Nigerian child, said a Oregon university research.

Slowing population growth could provide 16 per cent to 19 per cent of the emissions reductions suggested to be necessary by 2050 to avoid dangerous climate change.
In other words, it can make a contribution. But the other 81-84% will have to come from reducing consumption and changing technologies.

Across time and geography, countries that have reduced birth rates have got richer and so more consumptive. The CIA World Factbook data for countries' birthrates and average purchasing power of each person shows a pretty strong correlation between the two. At the same time, study after study shows environmental damage rises with income, and often more steeply as developing countries begin to industrialise.

Environmental degradation can be helped by reducing the number of people and equally by what they use.