October, 25 2011, 10:05am EDT
As Global Population Surpasses 7 Billion, Two Clear Strategies for a Sustainable Future
Greater reproductive choice and measures to reduce resource consumption and waste are critical to reducing humanity's environmental impact
WASHINGTON
As the global population surpasses 7 billion people sometime around the end of October, addressing the challenges associated with a still-growing world population will require a two-pronged response, according to experts with the Worldwatch Institute. The combined measures of empowering women to make their own decisions about childbearing and significantly reducing global consumption of energy and natural resources would move humanity toward rather than further away from environmentally sustainable societies that meet human needs.
Roughly 4.5 billion people have been added to the world population in just the last 60 years, according to United Nations estimates, putting increased strain on the world's ecosystems and resources. Because humans interact with their surroundings far more intensely than any other species and use vast amounts of carbon, nitrogen, water, and other resources, we are on track not only to change the global climate and deplete essential energy and other natural resources, but to wipe out thousands of plant and animal species in the coming decades. To some extent, these outcomes are now unavoidable; we'll have to adapt to them. But in order to improve the likelihood they will not be catastrophic, we need to simultaneously work to influence the future path of population and to address the environmental and social impacts that continued population growth will have.
"It is precisely because the human population is so large and is growing so fast that we must care how much we as individuals----and nations----are increasingly out of sync with environmental sustainability," said Worldwatch President Robert Engelman, an expert on global population. "The challenge becomes even more with each generation. Fortunately there are ways to practically and humanely both slow population growth and reduce the impacts associated with the growth that occurs."
Earlier this year, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) launched 7 Billion Actions, a campaign to highlight positive actions by individuals and organizations addressing global development challenges. By sharing these innovations in an open forum, the campaign aims to foster communication and collaboration as the planet becomes more populated and increasingly interdependent.
"Addressing global population growth is not the same thing as 'controlling population'," Engelman said. "The most direct and immediate way to lower birth rates is to make sure that as high a proportion as possible of pregnancies are intended, by assuring that women can make their own choices about whether and when to bear a child. Simultaneously, we need to rapidly transform our energy, water, and materials consumption through greater use of conservation, efficiency, and green technologies. We shouldn't think of these as sequential efforts----dealing with consumption first, then waiting for population dynamics to turn around----but rather as simultaneous tasks on multiple fronts."
Worldwatch recommends two main approaches to mitigate the impacts of a soaring global population:
Empower women to make their own decisions about childbearing. More than two in five pregnancies worldwide are unintended by the women who experience them, and half or more of these pregnancies result in births that spur continued population growth. Engelman has calculated that if all women had the capacity to decide for themselves when to become pregnant, average global childbearing would immediately fall below the "replacement fertility" value of slightly more than two children per woman. Population would then move onto a path leading to a peak followed by a gradual decline, possibly well before 2050. Women must be able to make their own decisions about childbearing free from fear of coercion or pressure from partners, family, and society. And they must have easy access to a range of safe, effective, and affordable contraceptive methods and the information and counseling needed to use them.
Consume fewer resources and waste less food. Humans appropriate anywhere from 24 percent to nearly 40 percent of the photosynthetic output of the planet for food and other purposes, and more than half of the planet's accessible renewable freshwater runoff. In addition to overuse of finite resources, humans waste large quantities of food every year. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, industrialized countries waste 222 million tons of food annually. If fewer resources and less food were wasted, the world would be able to feed more people and use fewer resources. With nearly 1 billon hungry people worldwide, wasting less food would also mean utilizing existing resources----not new ones----to feed them.
The Worldwatch Institute was a globally focused environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C., founded by Lester R. Brown. Worldwatch was named as one of the top ten sustainable development research organizations by Globescan Survey of Sustainability Experts. Brown left to found the Earth Policy Institute in 2000. The Institute was wound up in 2017, after publication of its last State of the World Report. Worldwatch.org was unreachable from mid-2019.
LATEST NEWS
Oman's Foreign Minister Said US-Iran Deal Was 'Within Our Reach.' Then Trump Started Bombing
"The Omani FM decided to go public," suggested one observer, "so that the American people knew that peace was within reach when Trump instead opted for war."
Feb 28, 2026
Hours before President Donald Trump announced his decision to bomb Iran and pursue the overthrow of its government, the foreign minister of Oman appeared, in person, on one of the most prominent US television news programs to declare that a diplomatic breakthrough was possible.
"I can see that the peace deal is within our reach," Badr Albusaidi, the mediator of recent talks between the US and Iran, told "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan on Friday. "I'm asking to continue this process because we have already achieved quite a substantial progress in the direction of a deal. And the heart of this deal is very important, and I think we have captured that heart."
Pressed for specifics, Albusaidi said that Iran committed during the talks to renounce the possibility of amassing "nuclear material that will create a bomb"—a pledge that Trump claimed Iran refused to make as part of his justification for Saturday's strikes.
"This is something that is not in the old deal that was negotiated during President Obama's time," Albusaidi said, referring to the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump ditched during his first term in the White House. "This is something completely new. It really makes the enrichment argument less relevant, because now we are talking about zero stockpiling. And that is very, very important, because if you cannot stockpile material that is enriched, then there is no way you can actually create a bomb, whether you enrich or don't enrich. And I think this is really something that has been missed a lot by the media, and I want to clarify that from the standpoint of a mediator."
"There is no accumulation, so there would be zero accumulation, zero stockpiling, and full verification," the Omani foreign minister continued. "Full and comprehensive verification by the [International Atomic Energy Agency]."
In a social media post following the interview, Albusaidi reiterated that a deal "is now within reach" and implored all parties to "support the negotiators in closing the deal." Prior to Saturday's attacks, additional US-Iran talks were scheduled for next week.
Watch the full segment, which critics highlighted as evidence that the US-Israeli attacks on Saturday were aimed at forestalling a diplomatic resolution:
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the US-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in response to Albusaidi's remarks that "the Omanis are famously cautious."
"The Omani FM going on CBS to reveal what has actually been achieved in the negotiations is quite unprecedented. And what has been achieved is significant—Trump can indeed declare victory. Listen to this segment—it goes way beyond what Obama achieved," Parsi wrote. "But everything indicates that Trump won't take yes for an answer. That he will start a war of choice very soon."
"Which is probably why the Omani FM decided to go public," Parsi added. "So that the American people knew that peace was within reach when Trump instead opted for war."
According to one survey released earlier this month, just 21% of Americans support "the United States initiating an attack on Iran under the current circumstances."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Iran Demands Emergency United Nations Action Amid 'Criminal Aggression' by US, Israel
"Just as we were ready for negotiations, we are more ready than ever for defense," said the Iranian Foreign Ministry.
Feb 28, 2026
As US and Israeli bombs fell on Tehran, the Iranian Foreign Ministry on Saturday vowed that the country would defend itself against "criminal aggression" and implored the United Nations Security Council to take emergency action.
The ministry said in a lengthy statement that Saturday's attacks, which US President Donald Trump characterized as the start of a massive military operation aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, represent "a violation of Article 2, Paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and a clear armed aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran."
"The Islamic Republic of Iran notes the grave duty of the United Nations and its Security Council to take immediate action to confront the violation of international peace and security," reads the ministry's statement, which noted that the US and Israeli assault began "in the midst of a diplomatic process."
"The Iranian people are now proud that they did everything they could to prevent war," the statement continues. "Now is the time to defend the homeland and confront the enemy's military aggression. Just as we were ready for negotiations, we are more ready than ever for defense. The armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran will respond to the aggressors with authority."
Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, condemned US-Israeli "aggression against Iran" in a social media post, calling the assault a "violation of the most fundamental rule of international law—the ban on the use of force."
"All responsible governments should condemn this lawlessness from two countries who excel in shredding the international order," Saul added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Bombs Will Be Dropping Everywhere': Trump Launches Illegal Regime Change War Against Iran
"The US once again used the veneer of negotiations as a cover to bomb Iran."
Feb 28, 2026
President Donald Trump announced in the early hours of Saturday morning that the US has launched a massive military operation aimed at toppling the Iranian government as blasts were reported in Tehran, including near the offices of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Israel, under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is taking part in the assault. Unnamed Israeli security sources told Channel 12 that Israel and the Trump administration are "going all in" against Iran as Trump instructed Iranians to "stay sheltered," warning that "bombs will be dropping everywhere." People were seen seeking cover in Tehran as the US and Israeli bombs began to fall.
The assault, dubbed "Operation Epic Fury" by the Pentagon, comes days after the US and Iran took part in talks in Geneva, which Trump's envoys characterized as "positive." In announcing military action on Saturday, Trump said falsely that the Iranian government has "rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions."
The US and Israeli attacks—which both nations characterized as "preemptive"—are plainly illegal under international law, which prohibits the threat or use of force except in response to an armed attack. The Trump administration is also violating US law, which gives Congress the sole power to declare war.
"The term 'preemptive' is pure propaganda," wrote Drop Site journalist Jeremy Scahill. "The US once again used the veneer of negotiations as a cover to bomb Iran. Tehran had just offered terms that went far beyond the 2015 nuclear deal. What was preempted was diplomacy. The same propaganda tactics used in the 2003 Iraq war."
Trump, who ditched the 2015 nuclear deal during his first White House term, repeatedly made clear in his remarks Saturday that he does not intend the new assault on Iran to be limited in scope like his bombings of Iranian nuclear sites last year. In the weeks leading up to Saturday's attack, the Trump administration carried out a massive military buildup in the Middle East even as the president publicly claimed he was open to a diplomatic resolution.
"We may have casualties," the US president said of American troops. "That often happens in war. But we're doing this not for now. We're doing this for the future."
Trump also urged the Iranian armed forces to surrender or "face certain death" as the US fired Tomahawk cruise missiles and other munitions at Iran.
The Iranian government's immediate response to Saturday's onslaught was a pledge of "crushing retaliation" and a wave of drone and missile attacks on Israel. The Associated Press reported that "hours after the strikes on Iran, explosions rocked northern Israel as the country worked to intercept incoming Iranian missiles."
Iran's foreign minister later informed his Iraqi counterpart that Iran would be targeting US military installations in the region in retaliation for Saturday's attacks.
A spokesperson for the Iranian military declared that "we will teach Israel and America a lesson they have never experienced in their history."
"Any base that helps America and Israel will be the target of the Iranian armed forces," the official added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


