The moral dilemma

Now it is the UN calling attention to the connection between population rise and climate change! “Slower population growth ... would help build social resilience to climate change’s impacts and would contribute to a reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions in the future,” the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) says.

Today, the world’s population stands at around 6.8 billion. By mid-century, it will range between 7.959 billion to 10.461 billion, with a mid-estimate of 9.15 billion, according to U.N. calculations.

And, the difference between 8 billion and 9 billion is between one and two billion tons of carbon per year, according to research cited in the report.

That would be comparable to savings in emissions by 2050 if all new buildings were constructed to the highest energy-efficiency standards and if two million one-gigawatt wind turbines were built to replace today’s coal-fired power plants.

The report, the 2009 State of World Population, is seen as a rare departure from the UN's stand so far regarding population.

This is a key debate point to emerge at Copenhagen. Negotiators, including the European Union, have tentatively suggested that the question be considered in talks.
This has been a bone of contention between two sides. Is it population or overconsumption that has caused the problem?

Overconsumption is by far the bigger culprit, with Americans way out in the lead. The Washington, D.C., area, according to an expert, produces 25% more CO2 than all of Sweden, which has nearly twice as many people!

Population growth did not cause the climate crisis but yes, it can aggravate it. How does one stabilize the population at 8 billion instead of 9 billion? Pay people for not having children? Impose carbon tax on number of kids?! Who decides for everyone?

You bet, this is one helluva moral issue that calls for political rightness. Any bright ideas?