2020- 2022 Policy Process | Green Party of Canada
Where GPC membership collaborates to develop our policies
G21-P015 Remove GPC “Population Control” Policy to Better Reflect Party Values | VGM-2 Amended Version
Submitter Name
Kito Romero
Proposal
This is the amended proposal adopted by GPC membership at the VGM-2.
Remove policies G08-P094 titled “Population Decline” and G08-P054 “Global Overpopulation” from official GPC policy.
Additional Information:
G08-P054: Global Overpopulation THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Green Party of Canada address the problem of global overpopulation through a foreign policy committed to environmentally sustainable local economics and the education, health care, political, and economic rights of women as equal participants in society
G08-p94: Population Decline BE IT RESOLVED that 1. the Green Party of Canada advocates that the human population of the world and of Canada should be allowed to decline by means of lowered birth rates until a population level not exceeding the earth’s human carrying capacity with available resources and technology, is reached, having regard to the need to maintain a thriving community of life in the interests of the human population as well as for its own sake, and as indicated by a cessation of the destruction of wild nature and the beginning of its recovery; 2. the Green Party of Canada advocates as primary means of lowering birth rates; improving the education, and the social and economic power and status of women and girls; improving primary health care, and improving and spreading knowledge of birth control methods and increasing availability of birth control equipment and supplies; and · encouraging the development and spread, in countries around the world, of institutions and services providing for support in old age not dependent on the number of one’s children; 3. the Green Party of Canada recognizes that the high level of per capita resource consumption in developed countries makes the impact of their populations much more serious; and 4. the Green Party of Canada recognizes that failure to stabilize and reduce human population within a reasonable time will result in the inevitable reduction of human population by means of high death rates as the earth’s human carrying capacity is not only exceeded but reduced by the consumption of resources and the destruction of biological capital, resulting in poverty, starvation, disease, great human suffering and possibly social disruption.
Objective
Rescind Party policy to reflect current understanding of the impacts of population and consumption on the climate crisis, acknowledging that consumption rather than population is the problem. Such views are now widely considered to be racist and colonial, which goes against the principles of social justice and respect for diversity.
Benefit
This will help us have policy that is consistent with our values and based in scientific evidence. Given that the current policy is overtly racist, not evidence based, and partially deflects from the real issue, it is not in line with Ecological Wisdom.
Supporting Comments from Submitter
Although it must be acknowledged that the world has a maximum carrying capacity and that overpopulation can indeed have detrimental effects on the planet, it is also clear that a more concerning factor is the mass overconsumption that is primarily taking place in the global North. GPC policy should not be prescribing measures aimed to control the growth of populations in developing countries, but rather focused on consumption habits. Moreover, although contraception should be available to women everywhere upon request, prescribing the use of contraception through policy with particular mention to young girls in Africa has clear racial connotations. Imposing such methods is a clear continuance of our colonial roots and thus should be removed from our policy as soon as possible.
This article points to high rates of consumption, emissions, and other negatives from the West as being greater determinants to our world than is population growth:
https://www.ecowatch.com/population-decine-environment-2647421991.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2
This article points to unsustainable habits rather than population growth as a core detriment to our climate:
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/
This article points to increased consumption patterns that accompany increased urbanization as a major factor in GHG emissions rather than population growth itself:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0956247809344361
This article highlights the multitudes of policies that can be implemented to control population growth without the inadvertent racism that lays within our party’s policy:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720348750
This article from the Guardian points to general overconsumption as a driver behind the belief that the growing population is inherently bad:
Green Value(s)
Respect for Diversity, Ecological Wisdom, Social Justice, Non-Violence
Relation to Existing Policy
This proposal would rescind G08-p94 Population Decline and G08-P54 “Global Overpopulation”
Amendments (1)
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
17 comments
Both population and consumption are undeniably factors in emissions. The claim that "...consumption rather than population is the problem" (or vice versa) simply can not be true. What is even more important, it suggests that there are only two factors that determine emissions. Which isn't remotely true! I think we have perhaps fallen into a false binary opposition.
I think it is important to recognize that there are some wealthy societies with small populations and higher consumption per capita and that there are other poorer societies in which the reverse is true.
To declare that high consumption is the *singular* problem is to bias our analysis toward wealthy societies . The poorest 10% of the population have access to less electricity than it takes to run a water heater, let alone a refrigerator. From their point of view, high consumption is not 'the problem'.
If the intention is to highlight over-consumption in wealthy societies, then let us use specific language, and avoid making global proclamations.
Ditto population. It is one thing to describe the relationship between birth rate and GDP per capita in Africa. It is another thing entirely to prescribe specific action from a Canadian point of view. Just who do we think we are?
I think this is a bad idea. Without limitations to our populations, Canada and every where else, we will not have space for any kind of civilized humanity on this our only, and only into the every far future, planet. We should not repeal that current policy.
Waste of resources is as much of a problem as the numbers of people on the globe. There is poor distribution of essentials like water and land for growing and housing people. Poor people aspire to the lifestyles of the wealthy. Wealthy countries feel entitled and work to push for constant growth, which unjustly harms the countries from which many of those resources are extracted. Let us control consumption and let Nature (extreme weather events and pandemics) control population.
I remember the debate around G08-P94. Everyone felt really good about the final policy. It is very very detailed. It contains valuable Green policies around education for women and girls, around access to birth control, and yes, it does admit that this planet has a "carrying capacity" that will likely max out (and developed nations use way too much of that pie)! I do not want to see G08-P94 axed, I want to see it form a plank in our next election platform!
I repeat, this is a mistake to remove G08-P94. See the calamity unfolding in Madagascar, as reported by the Population Institute of Canada, https://populationinstitutecanada.ca/famine-in-madagascar-is-due-to-more-than-climate-change/
We are contributing to this calamity (maybe indirectly) and should be ashamed of it.
Conversation with Vaalea Darkke
In my opinion there are 4 big flags that membership should consider before ratifying the AGM vote on this.
1. Submitter put in the title to remove the "Population Control" policy. Well just from that name I'd vote to remove that policy too, but there is no policy by that name. I find it very concerning that during the meeting someone spoke twice in favour of removing our so called "population control" policy because they did not want to be euthanized or have life-sustaining drugs withdrawn from them as they aged. To me that clearly shows people are voting based on the words "population control" without reading the actual policy.
2. They say the policy they want removed "prescribing the use of contraception through policy with particular mention to young girls in Africa". THERE IS NO particular mention of young girls in Africa. If I was voting based on that statement, I would agree such a policy should be removed.
3. They proposed to remove G08-p94 and completely overlooked removing G08-p54 which I find excessively careless. I brought it up, I don't know if anyone else caught it. I proposed that we instead remove the more troublesome G08-p54 "Global Overpopulation" "address the problem through a foreign policy" and KEEP the thoughtful G08-p94.
4. They included in supporting documents "This article highlights the multitudes of policies that can be implemented to control population growth without the inadvertent racism that lays within our party’s policy:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720348750 "
However that link is titled "Population growth and climate change: Addressing the overlooked threat multiplier" that argues "policy makers largely ignore the potential of fertility changes and population growth when designing policies to limit climate disruption and lessen its impacts. Here we argue that rights-based policy interventions could decrease fertility rates to levels consistent with low population pathways." which as far as I can see is consistent with our policy G08-94 Easing Population Decline. WE SHOULD IMPROVE ON, NOT ERASE.
THEREFORE I do not get the sense people are taking the same care about removing policy as they are about adding policy, and they are relying on misleading/false statements by the policy submitter rather than scrutinizing the original policy for themselves. If we are voting to remove policy then the original policy should be included in full for us to agree that it should ALL be struck-out from (and not just amended/replaced in) the GPC Policies.
We should point out that we support measures to support 'families' (such as $10 daycare, paternity leave etc etc), but we should NOT support *incentivizing* domestic births and especially to avoid immigration. This is about rights-based provisions of tools for voluntary fertility rate reduction (easing decline), not "control". https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2019/03/29/nations-labor-to-raise-their-birthrates/?sh=3b0ed88c707d
This proposal was amended at workshop at the VGM Phase 2- it now addresses G08-P54 & G08-P94
P015 is amended to: Remove policies G08-p94 titled “Easing Population Decline” and G08-P54 “Global Overpopulation” from official GPC policy.
Yes, I flagged G08-P54 during the meeting. Was there anyone else who had flagged it or was everyone ready and willing to remove "Easing Population Decline" policy while keeping the "Global Overpopulation" policy? I hadn't seen anyone else flag it? I am not a great public speaker and I didn't raise the issue that this policy totally misrepresents the "Easing Population Decline" policy "with particular mention to young girls in Africa".
I did not find the other's responses in the meeting satisfactory but I find it easier to track *in writing* than trying to remember what was *said* over zoom. I don't remember their justification for misrepresenting the policy exactly... it did not make sense to me anyway.
As population increases our per-capita ecological footprint shrinks and then EVEN THESE countries become unsustainable:
Algeria, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Georgia, Jamaica, Jordan and Sri Lanka are the only countries that currently meet the two minimum criteria for global sustainable development. They enjoy “high human development” (even “very high human development” in the case of Cuba) while keeping their Ecological Footprint lower than 1.7 global hectares per person, according to Global Footprint Network and United Nations data.
https://www.footprintnetwork.org/2015/09/23/eight-countries-meet-two-key-conditions-sustainable-development-united-nations-adopts-sustainable-development-goals/
-We can’t NOT mention population as it’s obviously part of the calculation of our fair ecological footprints and at some population# (whatever # you want to debate that is) is an issue in the foreseeable future (until we advance in other ways as a species to be more sustainable).
It's pretty bleak for our babies as things stand currently. “We found that everyone under 40 today will live an unprecedented life in terms of their lifetime exposure to heat waves, droughts and floods,” Thiery told NBC. “This is true even under the most conservative scenarios.” https://futurism.com/under-40-see-horrible-stuff-scientists
-I think if we want to properly talk about population problem we should also mention livestock we breed to DOUBLE humans by mass on this planet and being a main driver toward catastrophic climate change, catastrophic loss of biodiversity and increased emerging disease /pandemics, and of course meat consumption increases with wealth and is perceived as a sign of wealth and is a huge component of our ecological footprint. Animals are killed and replaced within months or for dairy a few years, methane is 80x more potent as a GHG but also shorter-lived than CO2 so we can rapidly and drastically change our odds facing climate change/loss of biodiversity if we address domesticated animals we are breeding. It's always the die-hard meat eaters I speak to who say we need to rather reduce the human population.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-gas-is-methane/
-We should emphasize BETTER contraception options including for men, such as highly effective, non-hormonal, long lasting and reversible RISUG/Vasalgel, which presents as a better option for women as well than pretty much all options available right now.
Again, where is the "particular mention to young girls in Africa"?
G08-p94: Population Decline
BE IT RESOLVED that
1. the Green Party of Canada advocates that the human population of the world
and of Canada should be allowed to decline by means of lowered birth rates until
a population level not exceeding the earth’s human carrying capacity with
available resources and technology, is reached, having regard to the need to
maintain a thriving community of life in the interests of the human population as
well as for its own sake, and as indicated by a cessation of the destruction of wild
nature and the beginning of its recovery;
2. the Green Party of Canada advocates as primary means of lowering birth rates;
· improving the education, and the social and economic power and status of
women and girls;
· improving primary health care, and improving and spreading knowledge of
birth control methods and increasing availability of birth control equipment
and supplies; and
· encouraging the development and spread, in countries around the world, of
institutions and services providing for support in old age not dependent on the
number of one’s children;
3. the Green Party of Canada recognizes that the high level of per capita resource
consumption in developed countries makes the impact of their populations much
more serious; and
4. the Green Party of Canada recognizes that failure to stabilize and reduce human
population within a reasonable time will result in the inevitable reduction of
human population by means of high death rates as the earth’s human carrying
capacity is not only exceeded but reduced by the consumption of resources and
the destruction of biological capital, resulting in poverty, starvation, disease, great
human suffering and possibly social disruption.
This was only added during the VGM for removal, there would be no need to specify *foreign* policy when our other Declining Population policy had the same targets BOTH DOMESTIC and global. The original G21-P015 policy proposed by the submitter would have allowed this policy to remain while deleting the other more thorough policy that simultaneously highlighted Canada's worse consumption.
G08-p054: Global Overpopulation
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Green Party of Canada address the problem
of global overpopulation through a foreign policy committed to environmentally
sustainable local economics and the education, health care, political, and economic
rights of women as equal participants in society.
What other existing policy contains this focus on empowering women (which of course you could improve upon to be more inclusive as well, without eliminating altogether)?
· improving the education, and the social and economic power and status of
women and girls;
committed to environmentally
sustainable local economics and the education, health care, political, and economic
rights of women as equal participants in society.
So again as I said in the meeting, I strongly encourage members not to pass this policy but ask that a better policy be written up to *repeal and replace* the current policies, by the submitter and supporters, (and other GPC member contribution)
In Supporting Comments from Submitter of the above G21-P015, THEY WROTE: "This article highlights the multitudes of policies that can be implemented to control population growth without the inadvertent racism that lays within our party’s policy: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720348750 "
so following the "multitudes of policies that can be implemented to control population growth" SHOW US HOW BY WRITING THAT POLICY as the replacement. (I'm still do not feel it has been sufficiently explained how the current policy is racist especially as again there IS NO specific mention of young girls in Africa as the submitter claims. And again I would like to see the better policy proposed as the original submitter indicates can be done)
Again from the link in the submitters own Supporting Documents, we should have population policy:
Population growth and climate change: Addressing the overlooked threat multiplier
Demographic trends will play a role in determining the magnitude of climate disruption and the ability of societies to adapt to it. Yet policy makers largely ignore the potential of fertility changes and population growth when designing policies to limit climate disruption and lessen its impacts. Here we argue that rights-based policy interventions could decrease fertility rates to levels consistent with low population pathways. We review country and global level studies that explore the effects of low population pathways on climate change mitigation and adaptation. We then provide rights-based policy recommendations, such as the expansion of voluntary family planning programs that incorporate elements from successful past programs, and highlight current research gaps. In concert with policies that end fossil fuel use and incentivize sustainable consumption, ****humane policies that slow population growth should be part of a multifaceted climate response.**** These policies require attention from scientists, policy analysts and politicians.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720348750
The submitter's proposal is short and clear and the objective is put with admirable directness.
Vaalea, I'm sure the wording of P094, " improving primary health care, and improving and spreading knowledge of birth control methods and increasing availability of birth control equipment and supplies" is what Kito is drawing attention to in the reference to "young girls in Africa."
Laurence seems to be on the fence: against pinning Trouble solely on consumption (which I don't read into the proposal under consideration) but for keeping Canada out of the role of prescribing action for others.
I'm no expert, but I believe Kito is... and I find nothing in the above comments to hold me back from ratifying this.
It's good to see such a to-and-fro—even if the voices against seem to be piling on a bit.
Not just no. Hell no!
There is merit in both of our current policies, so, "No" to Removing them. Improvements can be proposed in a later round of policy adjustments.
For G08-p054: Global Overpopulation, perhaps adjust the text to "domestic and foreign policies", plus other changes indicated with **, to become:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Green Party of Canada address the problem
of global overpopulation through **domestic and foreign policies** committed to environmentally
sustainable local economics**,** and **to** the education, health care, political, and economic
rights of women as equal participants in **their societies**.
Add your comment
Sign in with your account or sign up to add your comment.
Loading comments ...