If most of the delegates to COP 21 were women, they might come to an obvious conclusion about how to slow climate change. Unfortunately, with mainly men making the decisions, this conclusion may escape the scientists and politicians.

There are over 200 million women worldwide who would like to have control over their fertility, but do not have access to modern contraceptive methods. Regrettably, many of them live in my country, the United States of America! Increasing access to birth control has many salutary effects: postponing childbearing can improve women’s status and education, and birth spacing saves women’s and children’s lives and improves their health. We know the many benefits of contraception from studies and from personal experience. However, many people do not think of family planning as a means to slow greenhouse gas emissions.

One of the first studies to draw the connection between human numbers and greenhouse gas emissions was published in 2009. “Few Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost” was researched at the London School of Economics. It compared the cost-effectiveness of then current low-carbon technologies with the cost-effectiveness of family planning. Family planning won hands down, costing only $7 US for each tonne of carbon kept from being emitted, while the price using low-carbon technology would cost $32 per tonne—$25 more!

An article by O’Neill and others, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2010, was able to quantify the potential of family planning. That is best summed up by a quote from the article’s abstract: “…we show that slowing population growth could provide 16–29% of the emissions reductions suggested to be necessary by 2050 to avoid dangerous climate change.” More recently Robert Engelman, in his essay at NewSecurityBeat.org, has found reason for optimism. He writes that the IPPC, in a report a year ago, recommended wider access to contraception. “Researchers around the world are increasingly recognizing the strength of the population-climate change link.” Indeed, there is hope that the importance of slowing population growth will be noted at COP 21 in Paris.

“But” you may ask “isn’t the real problem consumption?”

I would reply, “Yes. Definitely. The problem is largely overconsumption.”

“Then why are you talking about population rather than consumption?”

My response might be: “In my country, although it is rich, there are still many people who do not have access to the most effective types of birth control. That is one of the reasons that half of pregnancies in the U.S.A. are unplanned. As a physician I have met hundreds of women who have unplanned pregnancies! Unfortunately, I have met very few people who want to decrease their consumption.” It is much easier to help people do what they want rather than try to compel them to buck the societal norms by consuming less.

How can we influence people to consume less, to have smaller carbon footprints? I cannot think of any way that we could compete with the marketing that deluges us over radio, TV and Internet. People want to have control over their fertility, but they are so immersed in our consumer society that it is difficult to envision a way out of it.

I have heard Paul Ehrlich quip that the United States is the most overpopulated country in the world. This is true not because of our population, but because of our consumption. A child born in the U.S.A. will consume more—and cause more greenhouse gas emissions—during his lifetime than several children born in a developing country. That is why I have focused my professional life as a physician on population issues here in the United States.

Fortunately, there is some good news. An experiment in my state, Colorado, has shown the value of making effective contraception available at no cost. A foundation funded the most effective contraceptives for women who didn’t have insurance coverage. Over a 5 year period the result was that the teen pregnancy rate dropped by 40%! Unfortunately the grant that supported this experiment has run out and Colorado’s legislature voted against funding the program with state money.

There are at least three reasons for hope. Many of the delegates to COP 21 are women. Second, there is a large, multinational program to make modern, safe and effective family planning methods available to more women. FP2020 is an effort to improve access to these lifesavers in developing countries. It is funded by local governments, donor governments and by several large foundations. The goal of FP2020 is ambitious—to reach 120 million women by the year 2020. Finally, a coalition of foundations in Colorado has banded together to provide funding for our very successful family planning program.

We need to limit greenhouse gas emissions in ways that are rapid, humane and equitable. Access to modern, effective family planning services should be at the top of the list.

* Richard Grossman, MD, is an obstetrician-gynecologist who has practiced in Colorado for almost 40 years. You can find his blog at: www.population-matters.org

* THE VIEWS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE PAMBAZUKA NEWS EDITORIAL TEAM

* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!

* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.