John Vidal

It’s time to ditch the generations-long argument between those who blame overpopulation and those who worry about consumption

• John Vidal is a former Guardian environment editor

Tue 15 Nov 2022 05.00 EST

By a remarkable coincidence, just as governments, campaigners and business owners are meeting in Egypt to address climate breakdown today, the world is officially crashing past the symbolic 8 billion population milestone . This means global population is on its way to 10 billion or more by the turn of the century.

But there will be no attempt by countries at Cop27 to connect the inexorable growth of human numbers with the seemingly unstoppable rise in temperatures. Despite the fact that the several billion more people expected to be alive in 70 years’ time will put more pressure on resources and will produce far more emissions, the population explosion is yet again being ignored, sidestepped or denied by world leaders.

Part of this is down to sensitivity about talking about human numbers. History is littered with violent governments trying to force sterilisation on vulnerable people. Suggestions, too, that human numbers be cut have often been peddled by authoritarian regimes and far-right extremists, and genuine concern today in rich countries is often met with accusations of racism or eco-fascism.

Yet as the scientist James Lovelock was fond of saying, anyone who failed to see the connection between climate and population was “either ignorant or hiding from the truth”, adding: “These two huge environmental problems are inseparable and to discuss one while ignoring the other is irrational.”

Until now, the orthodox western intellectual argument has been that the number of people does not matter as much as how people use resources. Consumption and inequality are the problem, not population size. True, the wealthiest 10% consume about 20 times more energy overall than the bottom 10%. So of course the rich must change their behaviour. But making climate breakdown all about consumption has become an excuse for countries to do nowhere near enough to reduce their populations.

The hard fact is that in an age of climate breakdown, human numbers matter. And the ecological impact of another 2-3 billion humans will be immense.

This is also about women’s rights too. By ignoring population, the needs of women and girls are being sidelined by governments that are too obsessed with consumption to notice how vital education and family planning are in tackling the climate emergency.

The Nobel peace prizewinner Malala Yousafzai summed it up best last year. “When girls are educated and when they stay in schools they get married later in their lives, then they have less children and that helps us to reduce the impacts of climate change that the population increase brings,” she said. “If every girl was able to exercise her sexual and reproductive health and rights through quality education and had access to modern contraception, it could reduce total emissions.”

According to the UN population fund (UNFPA), 257 million women have an unmet need for proper contraception, half of all global pregnancies are unplanned, and nearly a quarter of all women do not have enough agency to refuse sex.

Yet the world’s richest countries together contribute just a few hundred million dollars annually to the UN’s population agency, with some now pushing “pro-natalist” policies to grow their numbers. In 2017, Donald Trump cut US funding to the UNFPA, and last year the UK followed, by cutting its contribution to the agency by 85%, from an expected $200m to a paltry $32m. US funding has since been partly restored but the British money alone, it has been estimated, would have helped to prevent the deaths of about 250,000 mothers and children, 14.6 million unintended pregnancies and 4.3 million unsafe abortions.

The generations-long argument between those who uniquely blame overpopulation and those who maintain that consumption is the biggest contribution to the climate emergency must be ditched.

Finally, and barely noticed, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s consensus of climate scientists, identified global population growth as one of the two biggest drivers of growing CO₂ emissions, saying earlier this year that “globally, GDP per capita and population growth remained the strongest drivers of CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel combustion in the last decade”. It also warned that if population continues to grow, “it will be much harder to limit warming to 1.5C”.

This should be proof enough for everyone that population growth and its future environmental impact are now twin global crises – and UN agencies and civil society groups meeting in Egypt must urgently recognise that both are driving planetary destruction, and poverty.

• John Vidal was the Guardian’s environment editor. He is the author of McLibel: Burger Culture on Trial
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/15/population-8-billion-climate?fbclid=IwAR2lkKaS2cX4zCJbZWiitU0FYAJnARM8zadVxg9qWgeX1A6zVwK2tZGf-HI

https://www.yahoo.com/video/100-000-birds-culled-farm-180845436.html

Wed, November 16, 2022 at 2:25 PM·3 min read

More than 100,000 birds have been culled at three Scottish farms amid the UK’s worst avian flu outbreak.

Ayrshire farmer Billy Robb told BBC Scotland he lost 32,000 hens last week.

And farming union NFU Scotland revealed 72,000 birds had also been “taken out” at two farms in Aberdeenshire in the last 10 days – taking the total to 104,000.

Last month just four avian flu cases were recorded in Scotland, compared with 80 in England.

It comes as 12 swans are believed to have died from bird flu after being found in a Glasgow park on Tuesday.

NFU Scotland said it was also aware of three non-commercial outbreaks, two in Orkney and one on Lewis.

• No plans to widen bird flu rules in Scotland
• New anti-bird flu rules as virus hits flocks in Lewis and Orkney

Since 7 November all poultry and captive birds in England must be kept indoors, but these strict rules have not been replicated north of the border.

Mr Robb told BBC Radio Scotland’s Drivetime programme that the situation was “crazy”.

“Our birds might have survived if they had been shut in a week or so before,” he said.

Mr Robb said he suspected his hens were infected by migrating Canadian geese which stopped at a marsh on his farm.

He added: “This is definitely the worst the poultry industry has seen.”

“I have been doing this job for 30 years and my father-in-law farmed for 40 years before that.”

Mr Robb said farmers were not able to put prices up and had to rely on what retailers were prepared to pay, despite challenges posed by soaring feed and energy costs.

As a result, he warned: “There is going to be a shortage of eggs for the whole of next year.”

Some shops including Asda and Lidl have started to ration the number of boxes of eggs customers can buy due to supply issues.

Asda said customers would be limited to buying two boxes of eggs until further notice, while Lidl is limiting customers to three.

Scotland’s chief vet defended the decision to allow captive birds to remain outdoors in Scotland.

Sheila Voas told BBC Scotland she was “following the science”, saying there had been 100 outbreaks in England, but just six in Scotland since 1 October.

She added: “Potentially housing would help, but housing is much less effective than improved biosecurity generally.

“The decision to house birds across the whole of Scotland has to weighed against the negative impact on welfare.”

In addition to the farm cases in Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire, Ms Voas also confirmed the three “back yard premises” affected – two on Orkney with a small number of birds and one on Lewis with about 200 birds.

Robert Thompson, of NFU Scotland’s poultry review working group, said the union had warned major retailers in spring about rising production costs and potential shortages.

He said: “It was well documented that we were facing a major crisis and that crisis has now happened.”

“By February we reckon there will be 7.9m less hens, so if you are out of eggs now they are going to be very scarce by spring.”

The latest outbreak of avian flu is the largest seen in the UK to date, and has affected the wild bird population as well as commercial and backyard flocks.

The Scottish government said the disease was also affecting wild bird populations elsewhere in the world, and it had published updated advice on the reporting, collection and safe disposal of wild bird carcases.

A spokesperson said: “We are aware that there are a number of issues affecting egg supplies, such as the impact of Avian Influenza on all commercial flocks, the cost of living increases and a number of other issues, including labour shortages across all sectors of the industry.”

PUBLISHED THU, NOV 17 20227:50 AM EST

Sam Meredith@SMEREDITH19

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/17/cop27-draft-deal-critcized-for-paving-the-way-to-climate-hell.html

SHAREShare Article via FacebookShare Article via TwitterShare Article via LinkedInShare Article via Email

KEY POINTS

• The U.N. climate agency on Thursday published a 20-page first draft of a hoped-for final agreement.
• It is highly likely to be reworked in the coming days as climate envoys in Egypt’s Red Sea resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh strive to reach an overarching agreement before Friday’s deadline.
• Environmental campaigners reacted to the contents of the paper, which is likely to be markedly different from the final political agreement, with deep concern.

Around 35,000 delegates from nearly 200 countries are expected to convene in the Red Sea resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh to discuss collective action to tackle the climate emergency.

Ahmad Gharabli | Afp | Getty Images

As talks at the COP27 climate summit enter the final stretch, government ministers and negotiators from nearly 200 countries are scrambling to build consensus on an array of issues critical to tackling the climate emergency.

The U.N. climate agency on Thursday published a 20-page first draft of a hoped-for final agreement. It is highly likely to be reworked in the coming days as climate envoys in Egypt’s Red Sea resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh strive to reach an overarching deal before Friday’s deadline.

The so-called “non-paper” repeats many of the goals in last year’s Glasgow Climate Pact, including pursuing efforts to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius and calling for continued efforts to “phase down” unabated coal power.

It does not, however, push for a phase-down of all fossil fuels, as India and the European Union had requested.

The U.N. paper said it “welcomes” the agreement to include “loss and damage” payments on the agenda for the first time, but does not include details on how to establish a loss and damage funding facility — a highly divisive and emotive issue that is seen as a fundamental question of climate justice.

Environmental campaigners reacted to the contents of the paper, which is likely to be markedly different from the final political agreement, with deep concern.

“As climate impacts and injustice accelerate, lives, livelihoods, cultures and even whole countries are lost, the latest draft cover note from the COP27 Presidency pushes the pedal to the metal on the highway to climate hell,” Yeb Saño, executive director of Greenpeace Southeast Asia, said in a statement.

It echoes a stark warning from U.N. chief Antonio Guterres earlier this month. Speaking at the outset of the two-week-long COP27 conference, Guterres said humanity is “on a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator.”

WATCH NOW

VIDEO09:01

Why poorer countries want rich countries to foot their climate change bill

“We came to Sharm el-Sheikh to demand real action on meeting and exceeding climate finance and adaptation commitments, a phase out of all fossil fuels and for rich countries to pay for the loss and damage done to the most vulnerable communities within developing countries by agreeing a Loss and Damage Finance Fund,” Saño said.

“None of that is on offer in this draft. Climate Justice will not be served if this sets the bar for a COP27 outcome.”

Nearly 200 countries ‘must agree’

The success of the U.N.-brokered talks is seen as likely to hinge on whether policymakers can agree to establish a new funding stream to support victims of climate disasters and slashing planet-warming emissions.

It comes amid growing calls for rich countries to compensate vulnerable nations as it becomes harder for many people to live safely on a warming planet.

Rich countries, despite accounting for the bulk of historical greenhouse gas emissions, have long opposed the creation of a fund to address loss and damage.

Brazilian president-elect Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva speaks during the COP27 climate conference in Egypt’s Red Sea resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh.

Ahmad Gharabli | Afp | Getty Images

It is thought that slow progress on building consensus could see talks continue through the weekend, although host country Egypt has previously insisted talks remain on track — and warned countries must reach a deal.

“The future of humanity, without exaggeration, is at stake,” said Wael Aboulmagd, Egypt’s special representative to the COP27 summit, according to Reuters.

“So, we can just push and encourage and use all the tools in our toolbox. But at the end of the day, 190-something sovereigns must agree.”

World leaders took to the stage at COP27 last week to insist that geopolitical issues, such as Russia’s onslaught in Ukraine, must not derail urgent and collective climate action.

It comes as Russia’s war in Ukraine has threatened to derail the European Union’s decarbonization goals.

Indeed, some European governments have been prompted to reconsider coal, one of the dirtiest and most polluting ways of producing energy, following a sustained period of reduced flows of Russian gas.

‘Hold polluters to account’

Tzeporah Berman, international program director at grassroots environmental organization Stand.Earth, said Thursday that the U.N.’s non-paper “ignores the science” of capping global heating to the critical temperature threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Berman said via Twitter that the document fails to mention oil and gas, does not mention fossil fuel expansion and warned that while “phase down unabated coal” is in, the term “unabated” was “a loophole big enough to drive a drill rig through.”

“Climate agreements & policy are complicated but what’s not is 86% of emissions trapped in our atmosphere & causing climate change & air pollution come from 3 products: oil, gas & coal. These 3 things are the greatest cause of premature death globally just due to air pollution,” Berman said.

“Our failure to recognize this in 27 COPs is a result of the power of the fossil fuel incumbents, especially the big oil and gas companies out in force at this COP who have made their products invisible in the negotiations.”

WATCH NOW

VIDEO06:30

Degrowth: Is it time to live better with less?

To be sure, the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas, is the chief driver of the climate crisis.

Analysis from campaign groups published earlier this week showed more than 600 fossil fuel industry delegates were registered to attend COP27, reflecting an increase of over 25% from last year.

The sharp jump in attendees associated with some of the world’s biggest polluting oil and gas giants at the U.N.’s climate conference raised questions about the fossil fuel industry’s ability to shape the debate.

Harjeet Singh, head of global political strategy at Climate Action Network, which includes more than 1,500 civil society groups, told CNBC that meaningful progress at COP27 would not be achieved unless the conference adopted measures to tackle the root cause and consequences of the climate emergency.

“If you look at loss and damage and fossil fuels, both have not been on the agenda and both are the key issues at the heart of everything — one is the cause and the second is the consequence. We have never talked about the cause and the consequence in the UNFCCC space, we have talked something, somewhere in the middle. That’s why we are not there,” Singh said.

“Now is the time, when people are suffering, to hold polluters to account because they are the ones making money and yet they are responsible for the climate crisis, health crisis, energy crisis,” he added. “They are profiting from every crisis.”