Glycos Biotechnologies Joins the NSF Engineering Research Center for Biorenewable Chemicals
Planar Sodium Nickel Chloride Batteries Could Deliver 30% More Power at Lower Temperatures Than Conventional Cylindrical Versions

Study: Population Change Could Significantly Affect Climate Change

Changes in the human population, including aging and urbanization, could significantly affect global emissions of carbon dioxide over the next 40 years, according to an open-access paper published this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

By mid-century it is estimated that global population could rise by more than three billion people, with most of that increase occurring in urban areas. However, the study showed that a slowing of that population growth could contribute to significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The researchers found that if population follows one of the slower growth paths foreseen as plausible by demographers at the United Nations, by 2050 it could account for 16 to 29% of the emission reductions thought necessary to keep global temperatures from causing serious impacts.

The effect of slower population growth on greenhouse gas emissions would be even larger by the end of the century.

If global population growth slows down, it is not going to solve the climate problem, but it can make a contribution, especially in the long term.

Demography will matter to greenhouse gas emissions over the next 40 years. Urbanization will be particularly important in many developing countries, especially China and India, and aging will be important in industrialized countries.

—Brian O’Neill, NCAR scientist and lead author

O’Neill’s co-author, IIASA scientist Shonali Pachauri, says that slower population growth will have different influences, depending on where it occurs.

A slowing of population growth in developing countries today will have a large impact on future global population size. However, slower population growth in developed countries will matter to emissions, too, because of higher per capita energy use.

—Shonali Pachauri

Scientists have long known that changes in population will have some effect on greenhouse gas emissions, but there has been debate on how large that effect might be. The researchers sought to quantify how demographic changes influence emissions over time, and in which regions of the world. They also went beyond changes in population size to examine the links between aging, urbanization, and emissions.

The team found that growth in urban populations could lead to as much as a 25% rise in projected carbon dioxide emissions in some developing countries. The increased economic growth associated with city-dwellers was directly correlated with increased emissions, largely due to the higher productivity and consumption preferences of an urban labor force.

In contrast, aging can reduce emissions levels by up to 20% in some industrialized countries. Older populations are associated with lower labor force participation, and the resulting lower productivity leads to lower economic growth.

The researchers worked with projections showing that population aging will occur in all regions of the world, a result of people living longer and declines in fertility. They developed a set of economic growth, energy use, and emissions scenarios, using a new computer model (the Population- Environment-Technology model, or PET). To capture the effects of future demographic change, they distinguished between household types, looking at age, size, and urban vs. rural location.

In addition, they drew on data from national surveys covering 34 countries and representative of 61% of the global population to estimate key economic characteristics of household types over time, including labor supply and demand for consumer goods.

The authors also suggest that developers of future emissions scenarios give greater consideration to the implications of urbanization and aging, particularly in the US, European Union, China and India.

The researchers caution that their findings do not imply that policies affecting aging or urbanization should be implemented as a response to climate change, but rather that better understanding of these trends would help anticipate future changes.

Resources

  • Brian C. O’Neill, Michael Dalton, Regina Fuchs, Leiwen Jiang, Shonali Pachauri, and Katarina Zigova (2010) Global demographic trends and future carbon emissions. PNAS doi: 10.1073/pnas.1004581107

Comments

Reel$$

WOM. Waste Of Money.

HarveyD

The longer we live and more of us are around, more pollution will be created. Six billion people living 70 years each pollute a lot less than 12 billion people living 85 years each.

Unless we find ways to reduce individual pollution foot print we may have to work on both ends.

Without effective measures to reduce population growth, a 50+% reduction in individual pollution foot print will be required before the end of the current century.

Eletruk

According to M. King Hubbert, and Rick Balfour, with the loss of cheap oil, a large population die off will occur when food no longer can be made as cheaply as it is now, and cannot be transported as easily as it is now.
http://www.treehugger.com/balfour-hubberts.jpg

Peter9909

Wouldn't it be better to stabilize population now rather than it being forcibly stabilized by a large die-off due to a shortage of resources?

Zhukova

Australia, China, and other countries' leadership have directly addressed the necessity for population stabilization. There's not one politician in United States who has the guts to do this publicly, even if he or she believed it was necessary.

HarveyD

USA is unknowingly addressing population growth with more and more junk food. Junk food makes us obese and obese people die 8 to 10 years younger than others.

Unfortunately, obese people fall sick more often, require more health care, are absent from work more often than others, cost more to dress properly, cost more to transport/move, produce less etc. However, it is NOT the best way to limit population growth.

The current long lasting economic crisis may unwillingly reduce child birth for a few years. It also may not be the best way to reduce population growth.

Our main population growth control methods (more junk food and more economic crisis) are not worthy of an advanced society.

Do we need more nation wide Fat Tax?

Do we have to tax all junk food?

Do we have to ban junk food from schools?

Do we have to teach and offer more birth control in schools?

Do we have to convince children and adults to exercise more?

Arnold

I support the population restraint view and unlike certain W.O,S. comments - I trust the reader to interpret that!-

Equally important to the educated middle classes that are our likely readership, it is well documented that in any community the life expectancy and health and well being outcomes as well as the birth rate decreases proportional to income.
This is as much a necessary consideration as fertility rights that would likely have a greater effect in third world, developing world,patriarchal and theistic states.

This is not the way Australian and US demographics are heading.
Instead the few wealthy privileged classes I.E. America the first one % own fifty% of all wealth.
How is it that can be allowed to continue?

Simply they can buy the largest number of lobbyists, influence and politicians.
There is no shortage of wannabees who clap along.

Of course those that can counter these concerns with "limitless universe" statements are welcome to take that option.

ai_vin

in any community the life expectancy and health and well being outcomes as well as the birth rate decreases proportional to income.

While true, I would amend that to "proportional to quality of living."

Higher income also brings with it higher consumption of resources which would counter the birth rate decreases benefits. A better strategy would be to, as Buckminster Fuller put it, "do more with less" - learn to use what we have smarter.

Reel$$

Arnold - your comments are reasonable as are ai_vin's with respect to population decrease. But let's consider energy consumption: distributed amongst 20 people a thousand dollars would fuel their ICE vehicles for maybe a week. In the hands of a single person the same $1k would likely buy fuel for 15 or more weeks. Not everyone with resources squanders them.

Resources are consumed at basically the same rate by both groups. Doing more with the same amount or less is exactly what we are doing today with electrification of transport. These concepts are also the foundation of other sustainability movements.

The caution is against those who believe there is "not enough" and thus create conflict. It is this fear of "not enough" that drives hoarding, monopoly and conquest behavior.

It IS an infinite universe Arnold - unless you have some evidence to the contrary.

ai_vin

The "universe" may be infinite but the resources in it that we have access to are not. Even with the resources we do have access to we are seeing a increase in the Energy Input over Energy Returned to get them.

ai_vin

Resources are consumed at basically the same rate by both groups.

http://inhabitat.com/2010/10/14/worlds-largest-and-most-expensive-family-home-completed/

Scott

'It's the populations stupid'

No s**t sherlock!

Reel$$

ai_ - just found this website - it is fascinating. Yes, there are knuckleheads who build palaces. Always have been. BTW, this thing is one UGLY piece of architecture IMO. Not to defend the clown but it should be noted that aside from physical space, people who build and maintain these monstrosities also PAY for them. Some number of Indians are employed by this Xanadu via maintenance, service and energy jobs. They are typical of newfound wealth - expect to see the same in China.

"Even with the resources we do have access to we are seeing a increase in the Energy Input over Energy Returned to get them."

An excellent reason to introduce any of the over-unity systems waiting in the wings.

ai_vin

just found this website - it is fascinating.

I thought you might enjoy it. Lot's of good stuff there.

ai_vin


As I was saying.

The comments to this entry are closed.