Future of Network Impact
An exploration of networks, activism, and philanthropy
What is the new potential of networks and social problem solving? How can funders and activists best seize the opportunity?A group of Packard Foundation staff, other funders, social change leaders, academics, and technologists are coming together for a conversation --on-line and in-person -- about the emerging role of networks as a force for social change a ...learn more
GROUP DETAILS
Created: Jan 02, 2008
Updated: Feb 07, 2010
Membership: Invitation Only
Private
Return to Files & Photos for group Insulating the Third Rail--Human OverpopulationReducing Future Carbon Emissions by Investing in Family Planning
File Info
|
|
||||||||||||
About
The Client
This project has been commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust, a UK environmental
charity and think tank, raising awareness of the environmental impact of population growth.
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project is to perform a cost-benefit analysis of reducing carbon emissions
by non-coercively reducing population growth. The basic tenet of this project is that fewer
people will emit fewer tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2). The study estimates the cost-
effectiveness of providing global access to basic family planning (as a major method of
population growth reduction) in reducing future CO2 emissions between 2010 nd 2050. This
finding is compared to other means of reducing CO2 emissions.
Methods Used
The cost of global family planning was calculated in one model and analysed against the
estimated reduction in CO2 emissions calculated in a second model. The cost-effectiveness of
family planning was then compared to the cost-effectiveness of modern low-carbon
technologies. The first model was developed to estimate the cost of providing family planning
to all women who wish to delay or terminate childbearing but who are not using contraception
i.e. all with unmet need for family planning. Recent data was inputted into the model
primarily from the UN and the Global Health Council. A second model utilised UN
projections for population levels and CO2 emissions, adjusting values in accordance with
increased access to family planning. This adjustment was based on a finding stated in the UN
Population Fund’s report, Adding it Up: The Benefits of Investing in Sexual and Reproductive
Healthcare (Singh et al): meeting all unmet need will reduce unintended births by 72% (20).
Findings
The study found that each $7 spent on basic family planning (2009 US$) would reduce
CO2 emissions by more than one tonne (meeting all unmet need between 2010 and 2050).
By comparison, a one tonne reduction in CO2 emissions is predicted in Project Catalyst1
to cost a minimum of $32 using low-carbon technologies (Project Catalyst 10): $25 more
per abated tonne of CO2 than family planning. This study also found that meeting all
unmet need would prevent the emission of at least 34 Gt of CO2 (gigatonnes of CO22)
between 2010 and 2050 making the assumption that demand for family planning is not
stimulated by family planning proposals.
Recommendations
From the cost-benefit analysis, it has been found that family planning (considered
purely as a method of reducing future CO2 emissions) is more cost-effective than most
low-carbon technologies. It is recommended that an optimum mix of carbon-reducing
methods includes family planning as one of the primary methods.
This project has been commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust, a UK environmental
charity and think tank, raising awareness of the environmental impact of population growth.
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project is to perform a cost-benefit analysis of reducing carbon emissions
by non-coercively reducing population growth. The basic tenet of this project is that fewer
people will emit fewer tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2). The study estimates the cost-
effectiveness of providing global access to basic family planning (as a major method of
population growth reduction) in reducing future CO2 emissions between 2010 nd 2050. This
finding is compared to other means of reducing CO2 emissions.
Methods Used
The cost of global family planning was calculated in one model and analysed against the
estimated reduction in CO2 emissions calculated in a second model. The cost-effectiveness of
family planning was then compared to the cost-effectiveness of modern low-carbon
technologies. The first model was developed to estimate the cost of providing family planning
to all women who wish to delay or terminate childbearing but who are not using contraception
i.e. all with unmet need for family planning. Recent data was inputted into the model
primarily from the UN and the Global Health Council. A second model utilised UN
projections for population levels and CO2 emissions, adjusting values in accordance with
increased access to family planning. This adjustment was based on a finding stated in the UN
Population Fund’s report, Adding it Up: The Benefits of Investing in Sexual and Reproductive
Healthcare (Singh et al): meeting all unmet need will reduce unintended births by 72% (20).
Findings
The study found that each $7 spent on basic family planning (2009 US$) would reduce
CO2 emissions by more than one tonne (meeting all unmet need between 2010 and 2050).
By comparison, a one tonne reduction in CO2 emissions is predicted in Project Catalyst1
to cost a minimum of $32 using low-carbon technologies (Project Catalyst 10): $25 more
per abated tonne of CO2 than family planning. This study also found that meeting all
unmet need would prevent the emission of at least 34 Gt of CO2 (gigatonnes of CO22)
between 2010 and 2050 making the assumption that demand for family planning is not
stimulated by family planning proposals.
Recommendations
From the cost-benefit analysis, it has been found that family planning (considered
purely as a method of reducing future CO2 emissions) is more cost-effective than most
low-carbon technologies. It is recommended that an optimum mix of carbon-reducing
methods includes family planning as one of the primary methods.
Contributors to this Page
