Again, human population is but one factor in aggregate consumption of resources and the aggregate generation of pollutants. If you are not willing to deal with other factors, how inequitable that is, the limits to growth in throughput and pollution generation, or the non-market impacts of these things, then you aren’t really taking part in the conversation. You continuously refuse to take into any other factor, defend this system and argue against us addressing inequality. A far right wing way of looking at this. Just on carbon emissions alone it is absurd. From pages 268 and 269 of Andreas Malm’s book Fossil Capital.
"Reflecting intra-species concentration on another level, as of 2000, the advanced capitalist countries or the ‘North’ composed to 16.6 percent of the world’s population, but were responsible for 77.1 percent of the CO2 emitted since 1850, sub-national inequalities unaccounted. The US alone accounted for 27.7 percent, while Nigeria stood at 0.2 percent, Turkey at 0.5 percent, Indonesia at 0.6 percent, Brazil at 0.9 percent - these being countries with a historical responsibility sufficiently large to make it on the top twenty list. Most left even smaller marks. Counting differently, the OECD countries were behind 86 of the 107 parts per million by which the CO2 concentration rose from 1850 to 2006. What about the homeland of it all? In one list of national contributions to global warming from fossil fuel combustion up to the year 2005, the United Kingdom ranks number five, having caused a rise in temperature three times larger than India, fifteen times Thailand and Argentina, thirty times larger than Nigeria and Colombia, and so on. In the early twenty-first century, the poorest 45 percent of humanity generated 7 percent of current CO2 emission, while the richest 7 percent produced 50 percent; a single average US citizen - national class divisions again disregarded - emitted as much as upwards of 500 citizens of Ethiopia, Chad, Afghanistan, Mali, Cambodia, Burundi. There were few signs of fossil fuel combustion being equalized within the human species. Rather, the data suggest a widening of polarization. Are these basic facts reconcilable with the view that humankind as the new geological agent?
The best shot for the Anthropocene narrative in this regard remains population growth: if it can be shown that fossil fuel combustion is fanned by the multiplication of human numbers, the species may be held causally responsible. Thus, the leading Anthropocene theorists like to foreground excessive reproduction as the major perturbation of the biosphere. Undeniably, human numbers and CO2 quantities are somehow connected - 20 people have a smaller capacity to burn coal than 20 million - global emissions increased by a factor of 654.8 between 1820 and 2010, while population ‘only’ did so by a factor of 6.6, suggesting the presence of another propulsive force. In recent decades, on disaggregated levels, the correlation has been revealed as outright negative. Development scholar David Satterthwaite compared the growth of population and emissions between 1980 and 2005: the former tended to be faster where the latter was the slowest, and vice versa. China’s annual population growth stood at 1.1 percent as against 5.6 percent for emissions ; South Korea’s at 0.9 percent and 5.3 respectively; at the opposite and of the spectrum, inverting the relation, Djibouti’s scored 3.5 percent and 0.8 percent, while Chad’s figures were 3.2 percent and -1.6 percent, rapid population growth, falling emissions. Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for less than 3 percent of growth in global emissions, but for 18.5 percent of population. Northern America reversed the profile: 14 percent for emissions, 4 percent of population. In short, the rise of population and the rise of emissions were disconnected from each other, the one mostly happening in places where the other did not - and if a correlation is negative, causation is out of the question. More than a third of humanity is not even party to the proto-fossil economy; as of 2012, 2.6 billion people still relied on biomass for cooking. Taking into account the capacity of undernourished humans subsisting on one meal per day to afford to emit any greenhouse gases is small, that low-income households primarily use carbon-neutral transport methods - walking, bicycling, at most riding crowded buses and trains - and that people who scavenge dump sites for waste to recycle and grow forests on their land have negative emissions, Satterthwaite concluded that one-sixth of world population 'best no be included in allocaiton of responsibility to GHG emissions.
…In the words of Vaclav Smil, ultra-prolific authority on energy systems, ‘the difference in modern energy consumption between a subsistence pastoralist in the Sahel and an average Canadian, may be easily larger than 1,000-fold’ - and that is the average Canadian, not the owner of five houses, three SUVs and a private airplane.