A very large fraction of the world’s grain gets fed to cattle. In an equitable world, people will get fed before cattle; if they aren’t, it’s a problem of priorities, not absolute shortage.

Re your comment:

…we are in for grim times.

I think you’re right, although I’m not sure a lot of people have caught on yet to how dire things might get. Kevin Rudd seems to be thinking about it though… http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aanlj.Y9LlE4&refer=australia

In the reference you provided Dyer notes:

I think we will end up having to do things that at the moment nobody would consider doing like geo-engineering, ways of keeping the temperature down while we get our emissions down.

Apart from protecting forests (sorry, I always try to get a plug in for forests wherever I can…) we should do more to promote “reproductive responsibility” and family planning.

A very controversial area of course, with many complex agendas, which will take considerable “political will” to address… However, it’s way past time we faced this obvious environmental (and social) issue. If we’d tackled this years ago we might not be in the fix we’re in now.

Malthus and Ehrlich were right, just a bit out with the timing…

Actually, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich have written another book, “The Dominant Animal” see here for details: http://www.dominantanimal.org/index.php?page_id=1

There’s only one world. The human world has to face the problems of over-consumption and over-population and cooperate to find solutions.

I’ve got some more queries about the Garnaut Draft Report which I will post later.

On food production, if Australia was to be unable to produce enough food, it may be able to import food (at higher prices). However, if sea level rise is on the bad side of what is predicted, significant port and shipping infrastructure would be at risk, possibly making international trade more difficult.

Oooops, sorry… In my reference to the “9 billion population” figure mentioned in the Blair/Climate Group and Nicholas Stern reports, I carelessly mixed up the relevant page numbers.

The references should read:

Both Tony Blar/Climate Group (p.9) and Nicholas Stern (p.3) refer to a population of around 9 billion by 2050 in their recent reports.

The reason is that he sees food production being adversely affected with the drying out of the grain bowls, for example in the USA and Asia. Some of this is caused by the movement of the dry zones towards the poles and some by the frying of the ice caps that serve some of the major river systems in the world.

Perhaps he’s right, who knows, but if he is we are in for grim times.

I do keep copies of my posts in Word, so I’ve reposted it if you wouldn’t mind fishing it out of the “spaminator”.

It’s “eye-glazingly” long with lots of links, but some people might be interested in following up the links.

Ta
Eliz

Elizabeth: Garnaut does briefly mention population issues in the draft report

Yes, Garnaut does “briefly mention population issues in the draft report”, i.e.

…global population is assumed to follow United Nations projections, increasing by about 40 per cent from 6.5 billion in 2005 to around 9.3 billion people at the end of the century (p.230)

Which is confusing, because according to the Executive Summary of the UN report World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision:

the world population will likely increase by 2.5 billion over the next 43 years, passing from the current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050. (p.5)

So that’s 9.2 billion by 2050, not sure where “the end of the century” came from?

Both Tony Blair/Climate Group (p.3) and Nicholas Stern (p.9) refer to a population of around 9 billion by 2050 in their recent reports.

It is mind-boggling that population growth has received such little attention in our current climate change agreement. In fact, as I have already outlined here: http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/06/09/penny-peter-marn-and-the-professor/ (see #41 plus #42, #52 and #56), it appears that population issues were deliberately left out of climate change agreement negotiations in Rio in 1992, apparently due to the influence of the Vatican. This was a diabolical exclusion (exclusion of forest protection was another diabolical exclusion) and the chickens are rapidly coming home to roost now…

At least the issue of population growth is now starting to be acknowledged overtly in relation to climate change. (See this article for some background: “Combating Global Warming Brings Population Back to the Agenda” http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/node/7637 ) It’s about time. Or is it too late?

In their reports, Garnaut, Blair and Stern all failed to mention this important comment in the UN population report:

…it is essential that access to family planning expands in the poorest countries of the world. The urgency of realizing the reductions of fertility projected is brought into focus by considering that, if fertility were to remain constant at the levels for 2000-2005, the population of the less developed regions would increase to 10.6 billion instead of the 7.9 billion projected by assuming that fertility declines. (My emphasis)

Add this potential 10.6 billion population of the developing world to the developed world’s expected stable population of 1.2 billion, and this would mean a global population of nearly 12 billion by 2050.

The current population is 6.7 billion and we’re already experiencing serious environmental problems. How is the environment going to cope with a potential extra 5.3 billion?

Why isn’t the issue of population growth and reproductive responsibility on the climate change/environment agenda, particularly as “the growth of the world’s population will be a critical factor”? At the very least we should be trying to address the 3 billion difference between 9 billion and 12 billion.

As for your comment:

The first thing to note is that if you educate women and give them access to family planning, birthrates drop dramatically.

You make it sound so easy ! Well it’s not…

Women in developed countries (often known as “Western society”) have access to education and family planning. However, women in developing countries have varying degrees of access.

For some background on this, here’s a link to the United Nations Population Fund State of World Population 2005 report http://www.unfpa.org/

I’ve pulled out a few quotes:

Gender discrimination related to education, health care and lack of control over economic resources and reproductive decisions further increase pregnancy related risks. High levels of maternal mortality are associated with gender inequality. Although using contraceptives can prevent 20 to 35 per cent of maternal deaths, limited family planning supplies and services, as well as social norms, often bar women from using them. Inadequate education often leaves women with little or no understanding of childbearing risks and other health matters, including how to navigate the health system or negotiate timely lifesaving care within the family. http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2005/english/ch4/index.htm

Poverty reduction, gender equality and reproductive health go hand in hand. They are interrelated and mutually reinforcing, and all have positive effects that can last for generations. Social and cultural assumptions about appropriate female and male roles strongly affect decisions regarding reproduction and sexual behaviour, which in turn influence prospects for social and economic development. When restrictive norms and stereotypes are transmitted to children, the cycles of gender discrimination, poor health and poverty are perpetuated. The effects show themselves in direct and indirect ways, most dramatically in the incidence of maternal deaths and injuries, and HIV infections. (My emphasis). http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2005/english/ch4/index.htm

PAYING THE PRICE: UNINTENDED PREGNANCY AND UNSAFE ABORTION. Unsafe abortions are a leading cause of maternal mortality and can result in permanent injuries. Lack of access to family planning results in some 76 million unintended pregnancies every year in the developing world alone. Each year, 19 million abortions are carried out under unsanitary or medically unsound conditions. These result in some 68,000 deaths. Many women who seek abortions are married. They are usually poor and struggling to provide for children they already have. Research suggests that 1 in 10 pregnancies will end in an unsafe abortion, with Asia, Africa and Latin America accounting for the highest numbers. (My emphasis). http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2005/english/ch4/index.htm

At least 200 million women still do not have access to a range of effective and affordable family planning services, and demand for these services is expected to increase by 40 per cent in the next 15 years. Meanwhile, funding for family planning has been declining in recent years. (My emphasis). http://www.unfpa.org/issues/index.htm

Re the comment: “Meanwhile, funding for family planning has been declining in recent years”.

This is a very controversial issue…

Refer to these links for more background on this:

Rudd ‘picking fight with churches’ on abortion aid ban
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/04/2264270.htm

POPULATION: UN Predicts 12 Billion if Family Planning Falters
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43156

Foreign aid merely fosters poverty
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21866969-5007146,00.html

Letter from Brian Harradine to the British Medical Journal 1994 Jan 1;308(6920):64. http://www.popline.org/docs/1119/094866.html