(Edited 11 December to clarify a few points. I also wanted to look at this from the perspective of population decline, but I can't write more on this page on the iPad, so will have to start a new post)
On Twitter and elsewhere, I frequently come across people who believe that not having children is the best thing they can do to reduce emissions. I discussed the problems with this idea in my presentation to the Dangerous Consumptions colloquium, which I'll post soon. Basically it's the problem of trying to apply averages in situations where they don't apply. In summary, the reason why this doesn't work is that countries with high birth rates tend to have low emissions, while countries with high emissions tend to have low birth rates.
Differences in emission rates correlate with wealth, but also reflect whether the country produces fossil fuels. Countries like Australia, USA, and the Arab gulf states (wealthy fossil fuel producing countries) tend to have very high emission rates. Australia's per capita emission rate, according to the latest greenhouse inventory report, is almost 22 tonnes CO2e per capita. (Around 2 is probably a sustainable level).
To help make it a bit clearer why 'not having children' isn't the most important thing anyone can do at present, I've included some simple calculations below. I should make it clear that I'm not saying sustainable population isn't important - Australia's birth rate is a bit below replacement rate at present, which without immigration would lead to a declining population. That's not a bad thing at present. However decreasing the birth rate even further isn't the most urgent or important thing we collectively can do to reduce emissions.
I'm interested in any comments on this, including the calculation below. I haven't seen much research on this, which is why I'm looking at it, but there's bound to be people somewhere specialising in this, I'd think.
Calculation
Australia's current population - c 25 million (ABS)
Australia's average yearly births - c 310,000 (ABS)
Australia's per capita emission rate - c 22 tonnes CO2e (as above)
So total emissions = c 550 million tonnes CO2e (25m x 22). If we had no births next year, and if we assume babies have the average per capita rate (questionable, but to keep it simple), then we would save about 6.8 million tonnes CO2e (310 thousand x 22), or 1.2% of current emissions. Over the course of 11 years to 2030, that would be cumulative, so would add up to about 12% reduction in emissions per annum by 2030.
So is that the biggest thing we can do? Well no. Over the 11 years to 2030, we need to reduce emissions by about 50% or more if we want to stay within 1.5C global warming (Climate Council), so it's only a minor proportion. Secondly, it's of course completely unrealistic to expect everyone to stop having babies for 11 years. I've got no idea what you could realistically expect. The birth rate certainly declined a lot in the 20th century, but once it's below replacement rate, it's hard to say how much lower it could go, especially in only 11 years. Maybe a decline of 10 or 20% is possible, which would amount to less than 3% decline in emissions, out of the more than 50% decline we need.
On my reading of the latest IPCC report on Global Warming, the most important things we collectively could do (not in any particular order) to reduce our emissions, are:
On Twitter and elsewhere, I frequently come across people who believe that not having children is the best thing they can do to reduce emissions. I discussed the problems with this idea in my presentation to the Dangerous Consumptions colloquium, which I'll post soon. Basically it's the problem of trying to apply averages in situations where they don't apply. In summary, the reason why this doesn't work is that countries with high birth rates tend to have low emissions, while countries with high emissions tend to have low birth rates.
Differences in emission rates correlate with wealth, but also reflect whether the country produces fossil fuels. Countries like Australia, USA, and the Arab gulf states (wealthy fossil fuel producing countries) tend to have very high emission rates. Australia's per capita emission rate, according to the latest greenhouse inventory report, is almost 22 tonnes CO2e per capita. (Around 2 is probably a sustainable level).
To help make it a bit clearer why 'not having children' isn't the most important thing anyone can do at present, I've included some simple calculations below. I should make it clear that I'm not saying sustainable population isn't important - Australia's birth rate is a bit below replacement rate at present, which without immigration would lead to a declining population. That's not a bad thing at present. However decreasing the birth rate even further isn't the most urgent or important thing we collectively can do to reduce emissions.
I'm interested in any comments on this, including the calculation below. I haven't seen much research on this, which is why I'm looking at it, but there's bound to be people somewhere specialising in this, I'd think.
Calculation
Australia's current population - c 25 million (ABS)
Australia's average yearly births - c 310,000 (ABS)
Australia's per capita emission rate - c 22 tonnes CO2e (as above)
So total emissions = c 550 million tonnes CO2e (25m x 22). If we had no births next year, and if we assume babies have the average per capita rate (questionable, but to keep it simple), then we would save about 6.8 million tonnes CO2e (310 thousand x 22), or 1.2% of current emissions. Over the course of 11 years to 2030, that would be cumulative, so would add up to about 12% reduction in emissions per annum by 2030.
So is that the biggest thing we can do? Well no. Over the 11 years to 2030, we need to reduce emissions by about 50% or more if we want to stay within 1.5C global warming (Climate Council), so it's only a minor proportion. Secondly, it's of course completely unrealistic to expect everyone to stop having babies for 11 years. I've got no idea what you could realistically expect. The birth rate certainly declined a lot in the 20th century, but once it's below replacement rate, it's hard to say how much lower it could go, especially in only 11 years. Maybe a decline of 10 or 20% is possible, which would amount to less than 3% decline in emissions, out of the more than 50% decline we need.
On my reading of the latest IPCC report on Global Warming, the most important things we collectively could do (not in any particular order) to reduce our emissions, are:
- Reduce energy use and shift to renewables (which of course includes stop mining coal)*
- Shift to a locally grown, organic* plant based diet as much as possible
- Shift from motorised to active transport as much as possible
- Reduce consumption across the board (reduce, reuse, recycle)
I'd argue the main obstacle to these is the 'economistic' discourse of growth, shared by both major parties in Australia, and not effectively contested by the Greens so far. Underlying that, I'd say, are the assumptions of hierarchical, capitalist patriarchy, but that's a long story I'm trying to write about in articles at present, so won't expand now.
Interested in any comments on this, especially if my calculations are wrong.
*as far as I know the coal we sell isn't currently included in our per capita emissions, but we should stop mining and selling altogether anyway
* organic in this case to reduce emissions associated with production, transport and spreading of synthetic fertilisers, although there's other good reasons as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment