We hear a lot about energy transition. But almost always with excessively specific or very partial approaches. It is therefore worth reflecting on the meaning of the concept in its broadest sense.

There is now a broad scientific consensus that since the industrial revolution, and particularly since the mid-20th century, humans have forced global warming beyond natural climate cycles. This means that the time has come to find ways to "regulate the thermostat" using our ingenuity and cooperative skills. The question is how. To answer this question, it is important to remember that the first step in solving a problem is to formulate it correctly. In this regard, it should not be forgotten that global warming is related to three main groups of factors: 1) socio-economic (demographic and economic growth); 2) energy model (energy intensity and carbon intensity) and 3) amount of CO2 that once emitted can be removed from the atmosphere by natural and/or technological means. 

From this perspective, it is clear that global warming is an unexpected dysfunction of the current socio-economic model, of the energy model that sustains it, and of our level of technological development that prevents us from remedying the problem satisfactorily and urgently.  We are facing a systemic challenge and we have to ask ourselves what we can do about it. On the one hand, we know that focusing our action on socio-economic factors is unrealistic, but on the other hand, future projections tell us that demographic and economic growth trends will contribute to increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, i.e. worsening global warming. So we have no choice but to try to compensate for this deterioration through a radical improvement in the energy model and significant, disruptive advances in technological innovation.

The energy transition therefore entails: 1) decoupling demographic and economic growth from the increase in CO₂ and other GHG emissions; 2) moving rapidly towards a low energy intensity (efficient) and decarbonised economy (driven by a low carbon mix); and 3) deploying, on a large scale, technologies that enable the removal and reuse of carbon from the atmosphere, fostering a circular CO₂ economy to convert, after economic valorisation, current waste into a resource. 

An epic task that requires a grand pact or coalition, based on science and technology, including governments, financial institutions, investors, companies, and all social sectors and citizens committed to the fight against climate change. 

In relation to climate change forced by human activity, it is worth asking whether a slowdown in world population growth would mitigate the future impacts of this phenomenon. An affirmative answer seems obvious, especially if we consider that from 2015 to 2100 the forecasts are that the planet’s population will grow by around 4 billion people. On the other hand, the validity of said answer is backed up by rigorous studies and, in fact, many non-governmental organisations, which are carrying out activities related to the climate and population in less developed countries and with experience in the drafting of national adaptation plans, consider that demographic growth constitutes an important factor of vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.

However, the main source of scientific information underpinning international policymaking, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is not explicit about the potential of demographic policies to reduce the risks associated with global warming. Thus, although the latest report from the IPCC includes a technical evaluation on the interaction between population and climate, it is silent on whether or not demographic planning should be included among the potential responses envisaged for climate change adaptation and mitigation.

In the opinion of some experts, there are at least four prejudices or misperceptions within part of the community that is aware of and committed to mitigation and adaptation, which lead to underestimating the demographic issue and the consequent absence of proposals for solutions in this area. 

The first of said perceptions is that the growth of the world population is no longer a problem. However, the latest demographic projection from the UN presents some figures that are the highest of all those estimated to date, with a global population that in 2100 would be around 11.2 billion people. 

The second misperception is the assumption that demographic policies are ineffective, which is an overgeneralisation since family planning programmes to limit or space births have worked successfully in many countries, although more effort and investment are still needed. 

A third error is to consider that demography doesn’t have a special influence on the climate. We know that the emissions that cause global warming result from a combination of several factors, such as economic growth and consumption, technological progress, and changes in economic structure and in the uses of the soil, amongst others. In the past and today, greenhouse gas emissions are mainly attributable to economic growth enabled by the massive use of fossil fuels in developed countries. However, many studies also conclude that demography plays an important role in the history of emissions and their projections.

And the fourth prejudice is the belief that demographic policies are too controversial to be successfully implemented. The strongest opposition to family planning programmes often comes from socially and religiously conservative groups. But there are also other reasons for objection, such as those put forward by human rights organisations denouncing the injustice of planning being applied mostly in the poorest countries (on occasions with coercive methods) when these aren’t responsible for climate change. Certainly, this objection reflects an objective reality, but that doesn’t change the fact that the growth of the population in developing countries represents a challenge for the global climate so that demographic inaction deprives the international community of an important tool for improving human well-being.

It is time for the IPCC to take action and for the scientific and environmental communities and international development institutions to carry out rigorous scientific analysis on demographic policies and reproductive health programmes based on the fullest respect for human rights.