Population and Carbon Emissions

The least cost method to reduce carbon emissions is to make schools for girls (cost of reducing 1 ton of Carbon Dioxide emission: ~$ 5) and to create jobs for women (zero cost).

Far less expensive than "geoengineering" (eg, carbon capture and sequestration, ~$ 150 per ton of carbon saved) or "clean coal" (~$ 100), substantially cheaper even than afforestation and regeneration of algae (both ~$ 40), somewhat less costly than converting to renewable fuels $ 20 to $ 50), such demographic change creates solid and lasting returns in terms of decoupling energy and carbon emissions from economic growth.

While lowering population growth can, at best, reduce carbon emissions by no more than 25% or so, and the other methods mentioned above will still be necessary, particularly for the entire industrialised global North, a very significant improvement can be achieved by lower birth rates, achieved by lowering desired family size.  This in turn can be achieved at virtually no cost by accelerating sustainable development that directly empowers people, particularly women.

So, the most cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions happens to coincide with the most urgent need of the global economy – to remove poverty and create livelihoods and opportunties for people.

The advantage of this is that the poor countries can, by adopting the measures described here, take their rightful place in the climate change negotiations as contributors of effective solutions rather than simply as deniers of current of future responsibility.   Moreover, they can legitimately demand financial and other compensation for future emissions saved.

For the rich countries, the value of slowing down global population growth is extremely high, since it is the only way they can hope that future global emissions will be limited by all and thus lead to permissible limits on greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere in the long run.