Population vs Consumption: Will Coronavirus Answer the Question?

There’s a long-standing, and often heated, debate in the environmental community about whether “population” or “consumption” drives environmental degradation and especially climate change emissions. People who advocate for population stabilization often argue that “population” is a bigger driver, whereas people who eschew population as a problem argue that “consumption” is the major driver.

The coronavirus in China may help answer the question with a real-life experiment using those exact variables.

Variable #1 — “Consumption”: The partial nationwide shutdown in China has caused a dramatic decrease in human activity, movements, transportation, work, shopping, etc. Stated differently, many Chinese people — as well as the Chinese government and economy — have stopped or slowed “consumption”.

Variable #2 — “Population”: The death toll in China so far, while tragic, is tiny, and so the population variable has not changed.

The non-profit organization “Carbon Brief” has a great post up today titled, “Coronavirus has temporarily reduced China’s CO2 emissions by a quarter” (see link here). In addition, not only have CO2 emissions declined, but other major environmental pollutants have also declined. The Carbon Brief post summarizes:

• Coal use at power stations reporting daily data at a four-year low.
• Oil refinery operating rates in Shandong province at the lowest level since 2015.
• Output of key steel product lines at the lowest level for five years.
• Levels of NO2 air pollution over China down 36% on the same period last year.
• Domestic flights are down up to 70% compared to last month.

So, is it “population” or “consumption” that drives climate change emissions and environmental degradation? I argue that it is both.

First, just changing consumption won’t fix the problem. The tragic and terrible example in China happening right now is not perfect, but it may be as perfect as we can ever get. Although consumption has been dramatically reduced, GHG emissions have still only declined by 25%. Stated differently, the Chinese industrial and economic system is so consequentially interlinked with, and powered by, fossil fuels that even with dramatic decreases in consumption, GHG emissions are still very high and disastrous for global climate change.

The pollution and GHG emissions of China can only be consequentially lowered by completely changing the fossil-fuel powered industrial system at the backbone of the country, or by the similarly impossible concept of “de-industrializing”. Further, the current decrease in GHG emissions has only occurred due to a virtual shutdown of human activity and consumption, an impossible goal or prospect itself.

Second, the other variable in this equation, “population”, so far remains unchanged in China, and for the sake of all humanity, let’s hope it doesn’t change. Similarly, it’s possible that this coronavirus experiment has only begun, and that everything said above should be prefixed with, “So far…”.

***
Gary Wockner, PhD, is an environmental activist in Colorado focusing on river and water protection, climate change, and population stabilization. https://twitter.com/garywockner