The author addresses two questions: First, how much could feasible reductions in projected rates of population growth in the developing countries help reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Second, how much would it cost to ensure such reductions in population growth, compared with other options for reducing emissions? The answer to the first question is that reductions in population growth would matter, but not much. Based on current econometric estimates linking population growth to deforestation, feasible reductions in population growth could reduce emissions from deforestation (relative to what they otherwise would be) by 8 percent over the next 35 years. Feasible reductions in population growth rates could reduce fossil fuel emissions by about 10 percent. The percentage reductions, though substantial, are small relative to projections of a tripling or more in emissions under any baseline scenario in the next 50 years. Thus there is little basis for the view that the South could contribute to major reductions in global warming by taking new and stronger steps to reduce its population. The answer to the second question is that reducing population growth is cost-effective compared with other options to reduce emissions. The author estimates the costs of reducing carbon emissions by reducing births through increased spending on family planning at between $6 and $12 per ton; and by educating girls at between $4 and $8 per ton. These compare to a marginal cost of $20 per ton to reduce current emissions by 10 percent, using a carbon tax. Discounting reduces the cost advantage of the population reduction strategies over the tax, but does not eliminate them as a critical part of an overall global strategy to reduce emissions. The implication of the cost analysis is simple: The global negative externality represented by rapid population growth in developing countries provides a strong, new rationale for developed countries, in their own interests, to finance programs that would reduce population growth in developing countries. This is true even though feasible reductions in population growth would represent only a modest contribution to reducing greehouse gas emissions. Spending to reduce rates of population growth in developing countries makes sense as part of any optimal carbon reduction strategy.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)