UN: Fight climate change with free condoms

November 18, 2009 By MARIA CHENG , AP Medical Writer
Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, executive director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) leaves a news conference following the launch of the annual report regarding the state of world population, in central London, Wednesday Nov. 18, 2009. Released by the United Nations Population Fund, the report addresses key issues such as how population dynamics affect greenhouse gases and climate change and whether urbanization and an ageing population help or hinder efforts to adapt to a warming world. (AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis)

(AP) -- The battle against global warming could be helped if the world slowed population growth by making free condoms and family planning advice more widely available, the U.N. Population Fund said Wednesday.

The agency did not recommend countries set limits on how many children people should have, but said: "Women with access to reproductive health services ... have lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions."

"As the growth of population, economies and consumption outpaces the Earth's capacity to adjust, climate change could become much more extreme and conceivably catastrophic," the report said.

The world's population will likely rise from the current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050, with most of the growth in less developed regions, according to a 2006 report by the United Nations.

The U.N. Population Fund acknowledged it had no proof of the effect that population control would have on climate change. "The linkages between population and climate change are in most cases complex and indirect," the report said.

It also said that while there is no doubt that "people cause climate change," the developing world has been responsible for a much smaller share of world's than developed countries.

Still, Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, the U.N. Population Fund's executive director, told a news conference in London on Wednesday that could be catastrophic for people in poor countries, particularly women.

"We have now reached a point where humanity is approaching the brink of disaster," she said.

In three weeks, a global conference will be held in Copenhagen aimed at reaching a deal to replace the 1997 , which required 37 industrial countries to cut heat-trapping emissions.

On Wednesday, one analyst criticized the U.N. Population Fund's pronouncements as alarmist and unhelpful.

"It requires a major leap of imagination to believe that free condoms will cool down the climate," said Caroline Boin, a policy analyst at International Policy Network, a London-based think tank.

She also questioned earlier efforts by the agency to control the world's population.

In its 1987 report, the U.N. Population Fund warned that once the global population hit 5 billion, the world "could degenerate into disaster." At the time, the agency said "more vigorous attempts to slow undue population growth" were needed in many countries.

According to Boin, "Numerous environmental indicators show that with development and economic growth we are able to preserve more natural habitats. There is no causal relationship between population density and poverty."

In this month's Bulletin, the World Health Organization's journal, two experts also warned about the dangers of linking fertility to climate change.

"Using the need to reduce as a justification for curbing the fertility of individual women at best provokes controversy and at worst provides a mandate to suppress individual freedoms," wrote WHO's Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum and Manjula Lusti-Narasimhan.

On the Net: http://www.unfpa.org

©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Explore further: Birth control could help combat climate change

Related Stories

India, China agree to cooperate on climate change

October 21, 2009

(AP) -- India and China, both major polluters and crucial players in fighting global warming, agreed Wednesday to stand together on climate change issues at a major global conference later this year.

Denmark urges agreement on climate change funds

October 23, 2009

(AP) -- Denmark urged the European Union, the United States and other rich countries to commit to financing for a new climate change deal, saying Friday that billions of dollars are needed.

Recommended for you

Amazon River pirating water from neighboring Rio Orinoco

August 16, 2018

The Amazon River is slowly stealing a 40,000-square-kilometer (25,000-square-mile) drainage basin from the upper Orinoco River, according to new research suggesting this may not be the first time the world's largest river ...

21 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

LKD
1 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2009
Solid reporting on a distressing topic.

"Women with access to reproductive health services ... have lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions."

What kind of reproductive health service damages a woman's chance of having a child? Or is this PC speak for: "Abortion is a 'green act'. Killing fetus' saves the planet."

I wonder why the U.N. Population Fund don't site Chinese population controls as an important tool, and stop with the pretenses...

"The agency did not recommend countries set limits on how many children people should have"

Did not recommend, but they seem to be all in favor of it.
joefarah
2 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2009
This article is not just MISLEADING BAD WRONG - shouldn't be on this site.

Other than nuclear testing, humans have no effect on climate change.
We need more people, not fewer. People who place the planet above human life have no morals or scruples. This is the policy that Hitler and her friend Margaret Sang (Population Control/PPFA) tried to force on us. Margaret, unfortunately, did a better brain-washing job than Hitler.

UNFPA is a dangerous, anti-humun organization, trying to kill people.

Research Birth/Population Control, Climate Change, etc.

These people banned (perfectly safe) DDT so that 1 million per year (instead of 50K) could die from Malaria over the past 40 years (reversed a few years ago).

"Global warming" doesn't exist - we've been in global cooling for a decade (IPCC will lie and rig data to support their cause - google Lord Monckton Climate Chagne). The goal:a World government this December (Copenhagen) so we'll commit our economy to a Hoax.
LKD
5 / 5 (1) Nov 18, 2009
joefarah-

No. The article is good. It is reporting true in form. The topic is disturbing, and should bring questions from future reporting. I hope that this is not a flash in the pan article.

Please report more on the WHO's remarks about this subject.
Birger
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2009
Interestingly, even the mullahs who rule Iran have become positive to condom use to rein in the runaway population growth. This is because they are seeing firsthand a nearly Malthusian population growth that is eating up the oil revenues and ultimately threatens their power base by making the young generation frustrated about the declining economical resources. In this regard they are wiser than many democratic governments, a fact that I find embarrassing.
Ethelred
4.8 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2009
We need more people, not fewer
How many more? And why?

What number of people might you consider excessive?

Can you multiply by 2 a few dozen times? Try it. Starting with 5 billion to make easier. And you can use a doubling rate of every thirty years. Which is below the present rate.

To get you started:

10 billion in 2040
20 billion in 2070
40 billion in 2100
80 billion in 2010 or about 100 years from now.

When did you reach what you might consider a reasonable limit?

Was of before the mass of the total population reached that of the Earth? Was it higher? Perhaps it was when the rate of expansion exceeded the speed of light? This of course is ignoring gravitational effects of the mass of humans.

There is a limit. It is just a matter of what you consider reasonable. Of course the real problem not what the limit is but how the limit will be maintained. Some seem to go for plague and war.

I think condoms are a better choice.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2009
80 billion in 2010 or about 100 years from now.


Oops that would be

80 billion in 2030 or about 120 years from now.

Ethelred
LKD
1 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2009
There is a limit. It is just a matter of what you consider reasonable. Of course the real problem not what the limit is but how the limit will be maintained. Some seem to go for plague and war.

I think condoms are a better choice.


Plague?! There are no plagues. Prosperity is the best method for curbing population expansion. The evidence is right in front of you, and yet you would rather mass produce garbage and ship it around to people at our expense. How about instead we bring them up from third world nations to modern countries?
joefarah
1 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2009
LDK: "The battle against global warming"
We are in a global cooling cycle (since 2000). People make no difference in this "battle".

"slowed population growth by making free condoms..." Condoms increase promiscuity and pregnancies. Why do you think that Planned Parenthood, funded primarily by abortions, distribute free condoms to increase revenues?

"Women with access to reproductive health services ... have lower fertility rates" That is, these services mess up their ability to conceive childern.

"lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions." Total Non-sense, misleading and false. And it presumes its a significant effect.

"As the growth of population, economies and consumption outpaces the Earth's capacity to adjust" The earth can EASILY support 100B. Give every family (of 4) a 75'x110' lot (double typical lot sizes) and 10Billion people would fit in an area less than 1000mi x 1000mi., or roughly 1/4 of the United States.
joefarah
1 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2009
LDK: "climate change could become much more extreme" No, not due to population.

"[UNFPA] acknowledged it had no proof of the effect that population control would have on climate change

'while there is no doubt that "people cause climate change," ' This is utter garbage with 0, (zero, nil, nada, rien) data to support this.

"We have now reached a point where humanity is approaching the brink of disaster," Yes - too many have been duped.

"global conference will be held in Copenhagen" with a goal of one world government instead of Freedom - read the treaty to be signed.

In its 1987 report, the U.N. Population Fund warned that once the global population hit 5 billion, the world "could degenerate into disaster." - right.

"There is no causal relationship between population density and poverty." The density of UN agendae is causing poverty more than any other factor in the world today.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2009
Plague?! There are no plagues.
What world are you living in? This one has plagues.
Prosperity is the best method for curbing population expansion.
Maybe. It works in France. It doesn't in the USA.
The evidence is right in front of you, and yet you would rather mass produce garbage and ship it around to people at our expense.
Thank you for making up my position for me on that. I couldn't have done it without you. Especially since I can't figure out exactly where you got the idea that I am mass producing garbage at our expense. Doesn't really make any sense the way you wrote that. Who is YOU and more to the point who is OUR?
How about instead we bring them up from third world nations to modern countries?
Can't be done. They have to do it themselves. We can help. Indeed we do help. Or at least try to.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2009
As the growth of population, economies and consumption outpaces the Earth's capacity to adjust" The earth can EASILY support 100B.
Stand on Zanzibar. Please read it. Also watch Soylent Green based on Make Room Make Room. Lovely way to live since the world is already pretty crowed at six billion.
Give every family (of 4) a 75'x110' lot (double typical lot sizes) and 10Billion people would fit in an area less than 1000mi x 1000mi., or roughly 1/4 of the United States.
Assuming NO roads. No libraries. No anything except a bunch of subsistence farmers one drought from death. Without enough fresh water for the farms and no pipes to get the water that doesn't exist to the farms.

That isn't living. That isn't even surviving for more than a decade. At best.

And what about AFTER the population goes PAST 100 billion? And what will stop it from growing beyond that besides plagues and wars and of course famine from that total lack infrastructure you have there?

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2009
More people, more prosperity. That has been the trend for the past 200 years with free market economics
More prosperity more people. Except in France.

More people does not automatically result in more prosperity and France CLEARLY shows a nation can have prosperity without a population gain.
BTW, where is the extra mass from to increase the gravitational effects of all those humans?
Not my problem. I am not the one that doesn't want to accept a need for population stabilization. However the mass OBVIOUSLY would come from the usual source. You do eat don't you?

joefarah clearly bases his demand for more population on a fear of birth control and the economics is just a smoke screen. This is shown in his description of the way people could live at 100 billion. In abject poverty.

So how about you answer the question? Just where do YOU draw the line at increases in population? And how do YOU draw it?

Ethelred
LKD
1 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2009
Ethelred-

There are no diseases going around that are killing off 25% of the population of any place. Unless the disease is a catastrophe, I wouldn’t refer to it as a plague. As evidenced by swine flu which has killed less people then pneumonia.

Maybe it works in France? It works in all countries. Even the US. The reason our population is increasing is thanks to immigration.

Doesn’t make sense? That was in response to you and how you thought condoms was the way to go. We are all taxed to pay for the UN’s antics. And shipping them is just a way to increase the amount of garbage out there.

And lastly, yes, we do need to try to improve the lives of all people.
Damon_Hastings
5 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2009
Uh oh... looks like the WHO made the mistake of pointing out the elephant in the room. And here come the villagers with their pitchforks...
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2009
There are no diseases going around that are killing off 25% of the population of any place
Let the population increase enough, which is my point.
As evidenced by swine flu which has killed less people then pneumonia
And less than HIV as well. Which isn't the point. Plague goes with war and famine as a limiter of population. The only limiters some people are willing to accept. For religious reasons.
It works in all countries
No. It does NOT work in France. France has had a stable population for at least a century. 50 million give or take a few. Yet they have prosperity most of the time.
Doesn’t make sense?
No.
And shipping them is just a way to increase the amount of garbage out there
Strange definitions are one way to stop making sense. More people more garbage. So why do you think condoms are garbage in the first place. They are a tool to help people:

Control their lives.

Avoid disease.

So what do you have against either of those?

Ethelred
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2009
I absolutely agree with the article, and I would like to add that by free condoms you are fighting not only climate change, but poverty and diseases, too.

ShotmanMaslo
not rated yet Nov 23, 2009
It could be payed for by a fraction of what we are now wasting on wars or ineffectively used billions for developing countries.

I dont see so big population growth in the US that economy and infrastructure cannot keep up, so it has affected the US very positively.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2009
So you are in error by +/- 20%.
No. I am in error but that number contradicts your own numbers.

Population Growth Rate: 0.588% (2007 est.)

So I was in error by less than one percent.

Then again I made another error that you either didn't catch or chose not to show.

Source CIA Factbook. A great site for real world data. Yes the CIA is useful at least for those that argue on the NET.

GDP - real growth rate:
0.3% (2008 est.)

So their economy is, at present, growing slower than the population.

That is what I get for doing things of the top of my head.

So how about I cherry pick Poland.

Population growth rate:
-0.047% (2009 est.)

GDP - real growth rate:
5% (2008 est.)

Now that one makes my point.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2009
Yet time and time again, Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' hand proven far more effective at resource allocation while population's INCREASE. More people create more resources.
Evidence is clear.


See above about the clarity. However I suspect that you have NOT read Wealth of Nations. So you shouldn't use it to support you. For instance he was not enthralled with the Laizes Fare capitalism you seem to prefer. Also his economics were based on England in a time that agriculture was far more important.

You might find Steven Brusts site interesting in that he is presently, slowly, going over Wealth of Nations chapter by chapter.

Of course he is a Trotskyite so you might not like that part. Still he is trying to understand it and others are commenting occasionally.

Please do not go there to start an argument. Keep that here.

http://dreamcafe.com/words/

Ethelred
ShotmanMaslo
4.5 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2009
I agree with marjon. On the other hand, condoms are in fact encouraging more individual liberty - liberty to choose having sex without having babies.

Free condoms for liberty! :D
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2009
Again, the evidence is clear, free markets and free peoples create prosperity that can accommodate a greater population.


That might be true. BUT it is not what you have been claiming.

You have been claiming that population increases, assuming a free market, ON THEIR OWN, induce prosperity. Which is crap. An increase in population is not needed. Nor is it desirable.

On top of which you appear to mistake anarcho-capitalism for a Free Market. Perhaps I am mistaken on that but I have to see a single sign of you accepting even the need for anti-trust.

Ethelred

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.