Skip Navigation
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Internet Explorer is no longer a supported browser.

This website may not display properly with Internet Explorer. For the best experience, please use a more recent browser such as the latest versions of Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and/or Mozilla Firefox. Thank you.

Your Environment. Your Health.

Impact of population growth and population ethics on climate change mitigation policy

Climate Change and Human Health Literature Portal

Author(s):   Scovronick N, Budolfson MB, Dennig F, Fleurbaey M, Siebert A, Socolow RH, Spears D, Wagner F
Year:   2017
Journal:   Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 114 (46): 12338-12343

Source: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618308114   https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29087298  

Abstract:

Future population growth is uncertain and matters for climate policy: higher growth entails more emissions and means more people will be vulnerable to climate-related impacts. We show that how future population is valued importantly determines mitigation decisions. Using the Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy model, we explore two approaches to valuing population: a discounted version of total utilitarianism (TU), which considers total wellbeing and is standard in social cost of carbon dioxide (SCC) models, and of average utilitarianism (AU), which ignores population size and sums only each time period's discounted average wellbeing. Under both approaches, as population increases the SCC increases, but optimal peak temperature decreases. The effect is larger under TU, because it responds to the fact that a larger population means climate change hurts more people: for example, in 2025, assuming the United Nations (UN)-high rather than UN-low population scenario entails an increase in the SCC of 85% under TU vs. 5% under AU. The difference in the SCC between the two population scenarios under TU is comparable to commonly debated decisions regarding time discounting. Additionally, we estimate the avoided mitigation costs implied by plausible reductions in population growth, finding that large near-term savings ($billions annually) occur under TU; savings under AU emerge in the more distant future. These savings are larger than spending shortfalls for human development policies that may lower fertility. Finally, we show that whether lowering population growth entails overall improvements in wellbeing-rather than merely cost savings-again depends on the ethical approach to valuing population.

Resource Description

  • Cross-cutting Themes: Economic Impact, Mitigation
  • Exposure : What is this?

    weather or climate related pathway by which climate change affects health

    Temperature
  • Temperature: Heat
  • Geographic Location: What is this?

    resource focuses on specific location

    Global or Unspecified Location
  • Resource Type: What is this?

    format or standard characteristic of resource

    Review Article
  • Mitigation: Secondary Health Impacts of Mitigation
Back
to Top