Overpopulation or overconsumption: what hurts the environment the most?

The debate over whether overpopulation or overconsumption is more detrimental for the environment, is both a complex and contested one. Regardless of opinion, both phenomena must be recognised as significant players, impacting the environment.  However, it remains up for discussion which factor bears greater impact. The notion of overpopulation can be viewed as synonymous with that of environmental degradation, yet overconsumption can often be overlooked as a pivotal reason for our planet’s suffering. Now more than ever, consumption fuelled by affluence and self-regard, is causing destruction on an unprecedented scale. Unfortunately, minority groups, due to location and status, can bear disproportionate burden of environmental degradation. But what hurts the environment the most?

Scientists have raised warning signals regarding the concerning trend of environmental degradation (Ripple et al, 2019); urging us not to ignore or underestimate the rapid increase in population; as it does contribute to the degradation of the planet we live on. As we race towards a world occupied by 8 billion, Thomas Malthus’ theory comes to light; as the initial warning signs of a forthcoming ecological trap, catalysed by overpopulation (Schleien, 2020). Fundamentally, the more people we have on this planet, the greater contribution there will be to local environmental crises, albeit in the form of overgrazing, destructive farming, fishing or deforestation. More people means more resource depletion, habitat destruction and waste generation; therefore overpopulation should not be disregarded as a potential force of evil for the environment. However, this begs the question: is overpopulation more significant than overconsumption?

In recent years, the attention has been diverted away from overpopulation and a heavy light has been shone on the idea of overconsumption. Particularly, there has been critical analysis of the affluence concerned with overconsumption, as this typically leads to higher resource consumption; due to associated purchasing power and demand for consumerist goods/ services (Oxfam, 2023). This is derived from more money enabling greater access to resource intensive goods- for example, living in larger homes (thus requiring greater electrical demand) or buying more products which are produced in unfriendly environmental ways. Likewise, greater financial status can facilitate greater capacity to travel, which in turn, can hugely exacerbate one’s carbon footprint - thus portraying how affluence can fuel overconsumption, which has huge bearings on the environment’s downfall. Wiedman et al., (2020) confirms this, showing the positive relationship that exists between the biophysical resources we use, and affluence. 

However, affluence is a notion which bears great global inequality, and despite the worlds’ richest 10% of people being responsible for 50% of global CO2 emissions (Oxfam, 2023), the burden of proof often still rests back on underdeveloped nations’ ‘rapid population growth’.

Whilst it is definitely important to recognise population growth as a significant contributor to environmental degradation, the magnitude of this is incomparable with that of affluence induced consumption. Fundamentally, there is a clear relationship between income and carbon emissions, with Ritchie et al., (2021) confirming that average emissions for people living in industrialised countries are topping the charts. Therefore, this begs the question of whether there is equality, justice and impartiality when it comes to deciding if overconsumption or overpopulation is the killer. Undoubtedly, they both have a role to play – however as results have confirmed, the impact of the richest minority, is far beyond that of the poorest majority; with people living in Canada or Australia possessing carbon footprints up to 200 times as large as people in the poorest- but rapidly growing countries- such as Niger or Chad (Ritchie et al., 2021). Therefore, it is important to recognise the issue of overconsumption or overpopulation as a complex one, which involves bias stances and often disregard for what is evidence-based facts. 

To summarise, overconsumption and overpopulation are both key players involved with the downfall of the environment. However, research from various sources point towards overconsumption having a greater impact than that of overpopulation, despite the burden of proof often resting on the latter. As such, this brings in the concept of environmental justice, something which unfortunately is often not present in this holistic and topical discussion regarding the environment. Whilst there are lots of interconnections and complex relationships that need to be acknowledged, fundamentally, overconsumption (fuelled by affluence) is the key killer. Overpopulation may have more immediate and direct effects on resource availability and localised environmental degradation but  overconsumption can have broader and long term consequences. It remains a contested issue; seemingly being easier to blame the poorest majority, than the richest minority.  

elllaspradbury@icloud.com

Bibliography 

Oxfam (2023). Oxfam GB | Richest 1% emit as much planet-heating pollution as two-thirds of humanity – Oxfam. [online] Oxfam GB. Available at: https://www.oxfam.org.uk/media/press-releases/richest-1-emit-as-much-planet-heating-pollution-as-two-thirds-of-humanity-oxfam/#:~:text=Key%20findings%20from%20the%20report. 

Ripple, W.J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T.M., Barnard, P. and Moomaw, W.R. (2019). World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency. BioScience, 70(1), pp.8–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088.

Ritchie, H., Roser, M. and Rosado, P. (2020). CO2 and other Greenhouse Gas Emissions. [online] Our World in Data. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions.

Schleien, D. (2020). Overconsumption Is the Problem, Not Overpopulation. [online] Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/climate-conscious/overconsumption-is-the-problem-not-overpopulation-76771f8bac74.

Wiedmann, T. (2020). Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature Communications, [online] 11(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y.