Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Baby Emissions Fuel Global Warming
Estimates of the carbon legacy of bringing a child into the world suggest that the green choice may be to stop at two kids
There are already 6.8 billion people living on this crowded planet and the figure is expected to rise to 9 billion by 2050. How can we expect to reduce global carbon emissions by 50 per cent or more if populations continue to grow exponentially? Family planning is often regarded as taboo by environmentalists, but many are now coming round to the view that curbing population growth will be crucial to combat climate change.
Another mouth to feed, another gas guzzler, long-distance traveller, consumer ... and future parent The Optimum Population Trust (patron, David Attenborough) runs a campaign urging parents to "Stop At Two". Gordon Brown's green adviser Jonathon Porritt and Science Museum director Chris Rapley have also spoken of the environmental importance of tackling population growth.
Ed Miliband, the UK's secretary of state for energy and climate change, addressed the issue recently at a town hall meeting in Oxford. "There's no question that population growth is part of the reason why we have growth in carbon emissions ... but I'm not sure that there's an easy or necessarily desirable solution once you've stated that fact."
There are plenty of reasons why reducing birth rates might not be desirable. No country wants to end up with a situation in which the workforce is too small to support the elderly – as Japan and China are experiencing.
Most of the projected global population increase will happen in the developing world, but the impact of each extra person on the climate is less in poor countries because emissions per capita are lower. Can we quantify the extra emissions that result from each child born?
Statisticians at Oregon State University have done just that. Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax calculated that every child in the US adds 9,441 tonnes to each parent's carbon footprint. This is assuming that emissions per capita continue at today's levels. Compare that with 1,384 tonnes of carbon dioxide for each child in China, or 56 tonnes in Bangladesh.
To arrive at their estimates, published in the journal Global Environmental Change, Murtaugh and Schlax started with the basic premise that a person is responsible for the carbon emissions of their descendants, weighted by their relatedness. So a mother and father are each apportioned half of their child's emissions, a quarter of each grandchild's emissions and so on. The researchers used UN projections of fertility to simulate 10,000 family lineages in each of the world's 11 most populous countries, and estimated what the "carbon legacy" of an individual would be in different scenarios of future emissions levels.
"Many people are unaware of the power of exponential population growth," Murtaugh said. "Future growth amplifies the consequences of people's reproductive choices today, the same way that compound interest amplifies a bank balance."
The perceived right to start a family is a sensitive topic, so it's hardly surprising that some have reacted badly to Murtaugh's research. "However new-sounding the language about 'carbon footprints' may be, what we have here is the same old Malthusian view of people breeding themselves to destruction," wrote William McGurn, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, in an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal. The Baltimore Reporter went further, calling the authors "reproduction Nazis".
Needless to say, Murtaugh and Schlax are not advocating eugenics. They "simply want to make people aware of the environmental consequences of their reproductive choices".
So now that you know that becoming a parent could lead to a legacy of 262 times more carbon emissions than failing to convert to energy-saving light bulbs, are you still keen to start a family?
- Posted in
55 Comments so far
Show AllHow about stopping at O kids.
Sounds like a plan to me. While we are at it, we can stop making TV stars out of those who have octuplets.
Right on!
I'm laughing. In disgust actually. Not a funny laugh.
Anyone remember "Zero Population Growth"? Huge movement 30 years ago. I've been preaching hard to anyone who will listen that the world is overcrowded and if there's any chance of the human race surviving another century the population must be stopped from growing. Indeed, if we can't reduce the impact of each human being on this planet the population must be cut back to a billion or fewer.
So after 30 years of banging that drum, I give up. We're far too concerned with the economy, our money, our toys, our vacations, our cars, our nice homes to be concerned about our descendents.
There's only one answer. Forced sterilization and management of the population by government (now that is actually funny) or by "population terrorists". Biological sterilization of the masses.
It's just not gonna happen voluntarily.
But if its not taken care of my humans, "Mother Nature" will take care of the problem. And it won't be pretty.
Zero population growth doesn't require zero children. Go around calling for people to have no children is just going to get yourself labeled some kind of misanthrope.
All trends are for continually declining fertility rates - in many places already below replacement rate, with a population peaking at about 9 billion in 2050, then declining. Such a population can be supported if resources are shared equitably.
"... if resources are shared equitably." Aye, there's the rub! I mean no disrespect, but my first thought in response to your last sentence was, "in your dreams..." That is not to say I disagree. I just don't think it will ever happen.
Yes! Call me a misanthrope! The human race is destroying the only planet it has. We continue on with our suicidal "progress" toward what?
I don't even want to think what it would be like with 9 billion people. Its too crowded now!
As for sharing..........really? Do you really think that's possible? I don't. There's too much greed. And no one is going to give up their "right" to reproduce or stop voluntarily at 2 children just because the government asks them to.
There are too many people on this planet. We are using up the natural resources and they can't be replaced. We're polluting the atmosphere, the ocean fisheries are in dramatic decline.....and on and on.
I'm 83 and my wife is 79. We pledge to have no more children. How about you younger folks?
I'm 50 and I don't think I have any children. And I'm pretty sure I won't in the future.
That's the thing with Mother Nature, she gets her business done conclusively.
Since we value the systems of human creation above Nature we are doomed. We have never counted the cost of our actions, any of them. So there's the rub.
"Something wicked this way comes".
Don't worry about the World, Mother Earth will do just fine. It's us that's in trouble.
Just a question of when, not if.
Y'all have a nice day?
Yep. It can't be any more succinct then that. I like Carlin's take on the matter, "The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas when it's had enough. The planet ain't goin' nowhere folks, we are".
Anyone notice Mama Earth's getting twitchier lately? :S
Crafty
So much TV is about cute babies, especially soaps.
It's going to be hard to get their attention on the subject.
The warring factions like Israel and Palestine are trying to out populate each other.
Zero population growth has been tried as said above.
Then I look around at my neighbors and realize nobody really cares. They can't even get their trash in the dumpster!
As to your comments. I don't watch TV, or soaps, but yes, I do find it's always difficult to get a babies attention. "Warring factions like Israel and Palestine" Um, excuse me, do you hear of Palestine getting tens of billions of dollars a year in Military aid and cash? We don't even contribute that much to our own citizens welfare with our own money. No, we give it to the Israelis. Sorry, I just feel "warring factions" when, in actuality we mean "illegal occupation and apartheid oppression" should be clarified for honesty's sake. Just because something has been tried, doesn't mean it doesn't work. Often times it means that it hasn't been tried properly, or that it wasn't even intended to work as we are led to believe. Sometimes dogs and raccoons take the trash back out at night.
This story is all too anal for me.
He who smelt it dealt it.
Look around. Do you seriously think the majority of SUV,fast food junkies will stay off each other and stop breeding?
Of all the stories written all the comments made, all the movies and documentaries performed throughout my many years, the majority of humans just do not get it.
We are a small minority talking to each other over this and other forums to feel better about ourselves and the possibility of positive change that rarely comes.
Unfortunately, as the posts to this article show, a lot of so-called progressives simply don't get it, either.
"Green choice 'may' be to stop at two kids"
Hahaha
News flash: Study shows people have feet below their knees.
It's good to finally see some figures on the carbon footprints of American children compared to developing countries.
In the old days (ie the beginning of the environmental movement) Barry Commoner coined the term, "overpolulution". Sort of sums up the situation. One additional factor is that a baby in the US has a bigger carbon foot print than one in say India.
Kenneth Boulding proposed "baby licenses". Marketable baby licenses would mean that people could have as many babies as they wanted if they had the license, which would be made available at the rate of two to be given to each woman. Ha!
This is the most stupid article with cockeyed statistical analysis and mixed logic aimed to appeal to the mindless minions to make them think of reproduction as a question of PC (political correctness).
What stupidity to compound the population growth rates of the 11 most populous countries with the berthing rates and attitudes of the west and cross it with their respective differences of carbon foot prints.
Japan or Switzerland have not enough people to pay the social security or collect the garbage, so migrant "workers" are expected to pay the taxes but not receive the benefits. Portugal and Sweden are desperately trying to increase berths to stabalise their native population.
What branch of the NWO, ordered this article up. For all you fools who believe population is the problem, please don't be hoodwinked. Clearly population growth stabilizes when social and economic conditions are stable. However when 80% of global wealth and resources are in the hands of 1% of the population.... it just gets worse.
What you are reading here is about the interests of that 1% and its next 3% wanabe neighbours, not the 96% below and certainly not the bottom 10%.
I'm sure the carbon futures and complex exchange markets being developed by the banks, speculators, and their government lackeys will go right to the problem of redistribution of global access to wealth and resources, in order to stabilize population growth, or should we just leave it to "big brother" and do like China? Who's talking eugenics, but since you mantioned it...
And BTW where did the canard of "Family planning is often regarded as taboo by environmentalists" come from.. What rubbish.
Right on!
Speaking of Eugenics, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a staunch advocate of Eugenics.
Right on!
Speaking of Eugenics, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a staunch advocate of Eugenics.
I tend to agree with you. In another article it was mentioned a mere 7 percent of the worlds Population, consumes 50 percent of its resources.
Blaming this on population growth is like claiming there not enough money in the United States to pay decent wages because there are too many poor people dividing the pie.
It the wealth being concentrated amongst the elites that the root cause of all this. Redistribute so that there a more equitable division of wealth and population growth will slow on its own.
It seems to me a lot of this comes from the "If there are less of YOU there will be more for ME" frame of mind.
exactly.
"And BTW where did the canard of "Family planning is often regarded as taboo by environmentalists" come from.. "
From experience of being repeatedly abused and ostracized over the decades by such so-called environmentalists when suggesting that LOCAL overpopulation in US regions needs to be addressed.
Ecology 101: Populations are limited by the carrying capacity of their environment. When the carrying capacity is approached or exceeded, one of two things happens: 1) the birth rate falls; or, 2) the death rate increases.
The carrying capacity for Homo sapiens on Earth is uncertain. Maybe we've passed it; maybe not (personally, I think we have). If we have, sustainability is impossible without a reduction in population and a massive reversal of planetary habitat destruction.
Humans are vastly more accomplished at increasing the death rate than reducing the birth rate. Genocide, one of two reasons for war (the other being resources), IS eugenics. The depression permeating this thread is the premonition of resource and genocidal wars to come.
Humans will evolve or perish. We are but freaks of evolution--too "successful" to prevent our own foreseeable demise. Life itself will go on, with or without us.
Population dynamics and pressures are totally different, economically, geographically and socially. If you condescendingly start by calling it Ecology 101, without the slightest idea of how and what can be done to achieve balanced and sustainable populations, in local contexts, just talking about, reduced birth rates and humans "accomplished at increasing death rates" on a global basis is perfectly meaningless.
Of course you are right the problem is people, but not the ones who you may think, not the ones who are breading, as much as the ones who are exploiting them. We are not so much freaks of evolution as manipulated tools and slaves of the economic imbalances caused by excessive rampant market capitalism, a system which apparently benefits the 1% elite either way, they can gain from the killing or struggling to survive, but balance is the threat.
Apparently you have it all figured out, so I'll just withhold my "meaningless" posts from now on and leave it all to you (as for condescension, re-read your own posts). Good luck. Report back when you've whipped the all the "fools" of the world into shape. I'm done trying.
Your welcome.
But if you are interested to learn something about demographics and the effects of development, for a short introduction just watch an excellent graphic from TED featuring Hans Rosling on HowStuffWorks. Hans Rosling is professor of international health at Sweden's world-renowned Karolinska Institute, and founder of Gapminder, a non-profit that brings vital global data to life. See how the world population is changing in this video....
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/ted-conferences/1734-hans-rosling-talks-at-ted-about-the-world-population-video.htm
The point being that global generalizations are often and most always wrong when looking at specific cases. So thank you for allowing me to show you something you apparently did not know.
exactly.
while we must acknowledge that EVENTUALLY - the globe can only support up to a certain limit - as in any ecosystem - part of what makes a civilization one is the ability of humans to RECOGNIZE and plan FOR the recognition of a future.
an equitable society or civilization would , hopefully, for being equitable (which is of course a far cry from where we are DUE to the capitalist dogma of ever-accelerating consumption based on MAL-DISTRIBUTION and artificial scarcity) ALSO contain in it, by definition of being an equitable society - Also a THOOUGHTFUL society (alas - also , this process or goal is suspended by - once again - the SAME forces that impose inquitable, unthinking, exploitative consumption through capitalist dogma that brooks NO rival thought),
and in that process, i would hope , or think that, being part of what could , or ought to be the natural evolution of a truly civilized globe - that nations and people would NATURALLY use that thoughtfulness , encouraged by that equitable society , to voluntarily do the wise thing:
concerning populations -- where societies do not have national "fears" of losing out to others - nations (i.e. people) would just instinctively, morally, keep their own populations under control without any coercion ...but simply because of general awareness that everyone must share (both living and future generations)
in a LIMITED resource world for the benefit of all individuals living and in the future and for everyone involved.
the problem of course is - while we probably all know there are always thoughtful people -- countless - the power of capitalism's
"greed principle" - and its inequitable actions and results just continues to suppress ANY thoughtful actions and solutions from gaining the upper hand - to become what ought to be, imo, the NATURAL evoluton of civilization.
but where we all ARE today - in the maldistribution exacerbating what is PERCEIVED as a "problem of overpopulation" RATHER than MALdistribution through capitalism - i thoroughly agree with Lucitanian.
if anything -- it is NOT "overpopulation" as it is percieved at this point (6.8 billion against whatever finite resources of the planet) -- but the global structure of capitalism that not JUST maldistributes but actually PREVENTS the very thoughtfulness for civilization to see clearly whether or not
it IS "overpopulation" .
overpopulation - becomes, under the capitalism dogma - the "culprit" when seen through the prism of maldistribution:
"there are not enough resources due to overpopulation" when it really means -- the "people who DESERVE the finite resources of the world are being prevented from enjoying them DUE to those overpopulations that DON"T really deserve them..so let's SOLVE the problem of FINITE resources BY reducing the population of those who DON'T deserve the resources..."
which is the dogma really - of capitalism.
in reality - it is in fact an initial stage of "culling the population" in order to MAINTAIN the CONSUMPTION lifestyles of those that THINK THEY deserve MORE and others DON'T...
which is an even more extrem practice that will arise out of capitalism's BASIC, CENTRAL tenet of "scarce resources" to be consumed AS IF there were no limits - FOR THOSE that think they "deserve" them.
to be sure - if one can assume that - say : the global population can only be supported by the planet , despite our best medical , scientific and technological efforts to provide food at the most basic, at what? 60 billion people covering the surface of the planet --
humanity will have to come to terms with a global recognition and agreement that populations will have to control themselves and maintain at a tolerable level.
mores, traditions, habits WILL have to change simply because it is the right thing to do for individuals and for everyone if we are to survive and if the planet is to support us...unless we found another "earth" nearby and do so in perpetuity before the sun goes out. it will have to be part of what generations will have to teach the children ...etc...in no different way than generations have taught, for example, that one's marriage is important to create a family to 'carry on the name' ....
old ways will have to give way to new ones if we are to survive.
BUT fundamental to all of that is an EQUITABLE society in which NO ONE is sacrificed for the sake of the many - NOR the future of the many sacrificed for the sake of the FEW....
which latter case IS the case today:
the future of the MANY is sacrificed for the sake of the FEW....
which is what CAPITALISM promotes.
the first step - imo - is the demise of capitalism ITSELF because it propagates MANY of the useless systems and beliefs or gives reason to keep beliefs that will eventually overrun all of us - including "overpopulation" while its "solutions" are downright INHUMANE (such as continuance of capitalism's mal-distribution evolving eventually towards outright extermination fo entire populations through neglect or war or designed famines and extraction of resources FROM populations) .
it first has to die before solutions can be given power that are more thoughtful - if only because Capitalism and its power IS thoughtless and suppresses the rise of more thoughtful approaches towards what is humanity's common problem for the future:
how to survive and live well in a finite world.
Too long and choppy! KISS
Chill out! No one is forcing you to the read the post.
Doesn't capitalism require ever expanding markets and larger and larger pools of cheap labor?
FastEddie75 August 7th, 2009 11:59 am
"Ecology 101: Populations are limited by the carrying capacity of their environment. When the carrying capacity is approached or exceeded, one of two things happens: 1) the birth rate falls; or, 2) the death rate increases."
Watch out for that SWINE flu vaccine or you might end up in category 2).
http://drtenpenny.com/default.aspx
The way I see it, the gauntlet-- or in this case, the Pampers-- has been flung down.
This calls for an Apollo-style crash program to perfect the anti-flatulence suppositories predicted by science-fiction writers for a century or more!
Amerika WILL persevere despite a string of launch-pad meltdowns and aborted missions, and finally break the Broccoli Barrier!
Hospital nurseries must be thorougly canvassed, for somewhere out there is a bassinet occupant with The Right Stuff: the Chuck Yeager of fart-free neonates, born to break the Ass Ceiling.
Yes, We Can!
· Yr Obd't Servant
All this math stuff is just a distraction to drive us nuts. I think that we would all be better off focusing on better ways to do things rather than worrying too much about the numbers. The planet could be 1 million people and we'd still be yapping about global warming.
I don't think so.
We'd sure have a lot more open space, quiet, and time to play.
New solution by the conservatives: Abstinence Only, for All!(except gays, since they aren't contributing.)
I've often wondered why those of us who choose not to have children aren't rewarded with tax credits. After all, I've done more to contribute to a healthier planet, using up fewer resources. Give us some tax benefits for every year we don't produce a child. Also, reward responsible behavior. As a single person- even with a very low income- I was unable to qualify for grants to help me pay for college. I had to borrow thousands of dollars. But if I'd accidentally gotten pregnant at 15 or 19 or even 30, and my child's father fled the scene, my education would have been completely paid for. Even married women I knew, whose husbands made a lot more money than I did, got full rides to college because they had ONE 'dependent.'
Anyway, that's my vent for today.
In Germany, a woman who is single gets paid a lot less than a woman who is married. A woman who has no children gets paid a lot less than a woman with one kid. A woman with two kids gets paid a lot more than a woman with one kid. A woman who is unmarried and has no children gets the lowest pay of all! Merit and job performance do not enter the computation.
Sterilize Conservatives
It is the mind dont you see?Where do you always find the largest population growth?It always seems to be where people have nothing or very little and they get the urge to leave something of themselves for the future and if they have nothing else then babies are their legacy.It is survival at its basic and basest level so who do you think is going to get hit first or has been getting hit already?This is eugenics by murder.We talk about Iraq,Afganhistan but not about all the people dying in Africa,as one example,and what do they think about when they go to bed hungry and have nothing but a little sex to put away that hunger pang and dont want no stinken condums or whatever imposed by somebody who really does not give a shit about them as people?A "we the people" philosophy for all the people of the world that is my only wish.Tony
Again, the U.S. has virtually no natural population growth. It is the developing world that is producing all the surplus babies.
"surplus babies"
Nice evil language there. Surplus, as in disposable? Unnecessary? No point in keeping them?
The word was satire of the content of the article. As that is what is seems to call babies born in developed countries.
while this is true in terms of what you can call "surplus" babies...those babies happen to be the main source of "income" eventually for families given that their resources have been DENIED to THEM BY the rich countries in the global financial and "wealth distribution" system -
which are the SAME rich countries whose "zero growth" populations STILL produce - MANY TIMES the carbon footprint accumulated by the "surplus babies" compared to a SINGLE baby produced by those in the rich countries.
in other words - it is NOT so much the "surplus babies" in poor countries - but that the EVERY SINGLE BABY in zero-sum rich country baby production
PRODUCES FAR MORE POLLUTION and ENERGY CONSUMPTION than the entire rest of the globe of "surplus babies".
a single "child" in the USA - comes into her bedroom, switches on the light and TV and radio, and calls on her cell-phone -- in a few minutes CONSUMES more than TEN babies sitting by their parents searching for roots and tubers in africa so they can eat a SINGLE MEAL for the day.
and that single child in the USA or europe hasn't EVEN started the DAY YET!
so -- when you are talking about GLOBAL CONSUMPTION of energy and food and resources to maintain A SINGLE person or baby -
it is NOT the poor-country babies or populations that are SURPLUS.
it is THOSE IN THE RICH COUNTRIES who consume FAR MORE than their "share" in what the planet can provide - especially under the present inequitable distribution global finance system.
in ONE LIFETIME - an american already has consumed what?
how MANY OTHER LIFETIMES worth elsewhere - just to maintain his or her "lifestyle?"
and then end up DEAD after 80 years and given BACK the world nothing more than his or her CHEMICALS NO MORE Than a poor farmer or peasant or gatherer in africa or elsewhere?..
but in the MEANTIME - during the course of those 80 years - has CONSUMED IRREPLACEABLE RESOURCES at the expense of
TEN or 100 OTHER human beings somewhere ELSE who were willing or forced to subsist with LESS than a small fraction of what a SINGLE american consumes!
"overpopulation" is NOT the problem - MALDISTRIBUTION of wealth and resources IS.
" WE AMERICANS ....CAREFULLY NURTURE AN ATTITUDE OF DETACHED INDIFFERENCE TO THE SUFFERING OF OTHERS........EVEN IF *WE* ARE THE CAUSE OF IT"......an american poet
So you're telling me the developing countries were once fully developed countries that are not any longer? You cannot 'steal' what does not even exist.
Oh, and here is the rob peter to pay paul problem with this call for the developed countries to not have babies.
Europe already DID that! Now the European baby gap is pitting Europeans in a dilemma, dismantle their welfare state or accept large scale immigration from Muslim countries. Take a guess as to which one the left supports.
Let's see. If we have a social welfare state a baby gap would bring in it down, yes? A baby gap would mean the end of social welfare programs as their would be more drawing on them than paying into them, yes? The only way out is to accept immigrants to cover the babies we are not having. Correct?
Now if with immigration our population still grows what is the benefit of not having natural population growth? See what I mean by robbing peter to pay paul?
There are many other ways that we can reduce our carbon footprint. Divorce, which is rampant in the United States, encourages extra consumption. Does this study take into account how when the mother and father live in separate households, they both leave a bigger footprint? Why aren't environmental groups raging against divorce?
http://www.csis.msu.edu/Publication%20files/PNAS_divorce_environment.
I'm all for voluntary population control, but human technology has extended the lifespans and resources of humans and will continue to do so. We have passed the carrying capacity of doomsday population control advocates again and again.
Rather than seeking to destroy our civil liberties through governmental population control measures, population control groups should focus on raising money to offer free vasectomies. There are many WILLING promiscuous unmarried young men out there who would gladly give up their ability to have children. Why aren't they being targeted by population control groups?
Instead we see a flurry of population control reporting that targets married, educated middle class Americans, a group who consistently produces the most useful offspring to society, a group that is already at zero population growth. Having children is selfish, they tell us. Don't have children. Why? So we can divorce easier and consume more resources that way?
People who want children should have them. Population control advocates should leave these people alone, and focus on reducing unplanned pregnancies, since doing so would benefit not only the environment, but our society as a whole.
"There are many WILLING promiscuous unmarried young men out there who would gladly give up their ability to have children."
LOL that's great!
"Divorce, which is rampant in the United States, encourages extra consumption. Does this study take into account how when the mother and father live in separate households, they both leave a bigger footprint? Why aren't environmental groups raging against divorce?"
And similarly, promote gay marriage :-)
"We have passed the carrying capacity of doomsday population control advocates again and again."
If you understand the dynamics of peak oil, perhaps you will understand the dynamics of peak carrying capacity. Just because we have overshot the carrying capacity and haven't reached the downslide of the bell curve yet doesn't mean that we haven't way overpopulated the planet decades ago.
People who want to overpopulate and overconsume don't have the right to do so. That means all of us.
Some say sheer numbers are simply not a problem, because Malthusian doomsayers have been wrong before about specific numerical projections of maximum population.
i recall a few decades back someone asserting the Earth can support 30 Billion humans. Cool! Why not? No chance we could be confused or mistaken about carrying capacity or ecological stability or feedback loops. No need to worry about any "overpopulation" mythology.
On the other hand, i learned in Environmental Science that ecosystems have natural carrying capacities, and never on Earth has a species of big animals like humans approached anywhere NEAR the population that humans have. We are FAR beyond the "natural" carrying capacity of the Earth, due to reducing our death rate by using technology to pull ever more biological resources out of natural flows into our own mouths (and to "defeat" diseases).
Humans now "use" about half of all biological resources (net primary product of all living things) on land, and a significant percentage from the oceans as well, over the entire Earth as a whole system. The "natural" demand on net primary product in an ecosystem for a top-of-the-foodchain predator or omnivore is under 10%.
This hyper-demand on the Earth's living systems would be reduced with social justice, and reduced further with whole-systems design (Permaculture) of all human systems. But with population in the billions, our impact will still not be sustainable.
Inequality, greed, violence, overconsumption and abuse of technology are real, major problems that multiply human disruption of the ecology. But it is absurd to assert that 7 billion humans, or 9 billion humans, or 30 billion humans, is not "too many" for the living systems of the Earth to handle.
Overpopulation is real.