The Importance of Language in the Work of the IPCC
28 July 2025
The Most Sustainable Kind of Travel? Staying at Home
28 July 2025
By Joséphine DESPRES-DIRY
Right after the improvement of global life standards, global population growth is the second main driver of the rise in greenhouse gases emissions. From 1990 to 2019, population growth was responsible for increasing global greenhouse gases emissions by 1.2% each year (IPCC, 2022, p.12). According to a 2009 LSE study, means to limit demographic growth are often cheaper than most other mitigation alternatives (Wire, 2009).
In the IPCC’s AR4 report, policies aiming to limit population growth are not seen as fully desirable complements to other climate change mitigation measures : “with the scope and legitimacy of population control subject to ongoing debate, the remaining two technology-oriented factors, energy and carbon intensities, have to bear the main burden” (IPCC, 2007, p.120).
In the AR5 report, a few demographic measures were mentioned in two chapters : “meeting SDG5 relating to gender equality and reproductive rights could substantially lower population growth” (IPCC, 2022, chap.3 p.100) ; “advances in female education and reproductive health, especially voluntary family planning, can contribute greatly to reducing world population growth” (IPCC , 2022, chap.5 p.35) ; “female education and investments into reproductive health are evident measures to reducing world population growth” (IPCC, 2022, chap.5 p.70).
This essay originates from the surprise of an Environmental Policy Master’s degree student learning about the foundations of climate change and noticing that one of its core factors is proportionally much less adressed than the others in the IPCC’s reports. The essay aims to uncover the reasons behind this choice and to take a stance on it.
There are three main reasons of ethical and geopolitical nature, some more clearly mentioned in the IPCC’s reports than others. Firstly, the term “population control” comes with the legacy of a history of violences against different ethnic and social groups (Connelly, 2008), which are still occurring today in some places (Canadian Senate Committee on Human Rights, 2021), and whose ties with the neighbouring notion of “genocide” are still under debate.
Secondly, and this is not specific to population control, demographic climate policies would raise issues of unequal share of responsibilities between the historic contribution to climate change of “North” countries’ demographic transitions and mitigation policies targeting “South” countries. Indeed, most of the “North” countries already met their demographic growth peak and are now under the threshold of population replacement. “South” countries are in different earlier stages of their demographic transition, while the “demographic transition dividends” could have been undermined by Northern interventionism (Reher, 2011). Furthermore, the population control methods mentioned in the AR5 have a too narrow focus on female empowerment and access to contraceptives, development approaches embedded in Western liberal and malthusian values (Hickel, 2014), which could reinforce the tensions between the IPCC member countries. These methods are not always as efficient as hoped because they overlook structural obstacles (Banerjee & Duflo, 2011, p.129).
Lastly, population control also raises philosophical issues beyond the scope of climate change : deciding whether population should grow slower, stabilise or decrease depends on whether one aims at the maximum number of people to be happy in the world or the maximum average level of people’s happiness (IPCC, 2014, p.223).
All these reasons explain why population control is taboo in the debate over climate change mitigation. Nevertheless, given the scale of our climate objectives, we cannot afford to ignore any potential to expand the mix of mitigation solutions. The topic is perceived as too politically sensitive to be thoroughly addressed in an IPCC’s report. On the contrary, the IPCC’s reports could help to move the debate forward in neutrally assessing the state of the knowledge on population control means, their risks and different nature, leaving it up to policy-makers to take a stance on the degree of acceptability of different measures.
This essay calls for informing rather than closing the debate by giving population control a section as proportionally large as its potential to mitigate emissions growth in the 2027 Working Group III’s full report and a mention in the next Summary for Policy-Makers.
Bibliography
Banerjee, A.V., Duflo, E. (2011). Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty. Boston: MIT PublicAffairs. 320p.
Connelly, M. (2008). “Controlling Passions”. The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), Vol. 32, No. 3 (Summer, 2008), pp. 60-66.
Hickel, J. (2014). “The ‘girl effect’: liberalism, empowerment and the contradictions of development”. Third World Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 8, 1355–1373.
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Technical Summary (TS), the full Report Chapters, the Annexes and the Supplementary Materials are the Final Draft versions, and remain subject to revisions following the SPM approval, corrigenda, copy-editing, and layout. Although these documents still carry the note from the Final Government Distribution “Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute” they may be freely published, as the report has now been approved and accepted.
Reher, S. D. (2011). “Economic and Social Implications of the Demographic Transition”. Population and Development Review. Population Council. Vol. 37, “Demographic Transition and Its Consequences”, pp. 11-33.
The Canadian Senate Committee on Human Rights. (2021). Forced and Coerced Sterilization of Persons in Canada. Accessed the 05/04/22: https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/432/RIDR/reports/2021-06-03_ForcedSterilization_E.pdf
Wire, T. (2009). Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost: Reducing Future Carbon Emissions by Investing in Family Planning: A Cost/Benefit Analysis. London: London School of Economics.