Will a decline in the global population really help the environment?

The intuitive expectation is that fewer people will mean less environmental strain. However, environmental impact is a complex equation, and population numbers are only one part of it. There are three critical points to consider:

1. Age and Consumption: As populations age, their resource needs change. Studies show that per capita energy use peaks between the ages of 35 and 55, then decreases, only to rise again from age 70 onwards. This pattern occurs because older adults are more likely to spend more time at home and often live in larger homes, consuming more energy. Consequently, the growing population of older adults could counterbalance the environmental relief we might expect from fewer people overall.
2. Resource Disparities: The consumption of resources varies drastically across countries. Wealthier nations like the United States and Australia have a much higher per capita carbon footprint than countries such as India or Indonesia. Even as global population growth slows, if lower-income countries become wealthier, we could see a significant rise in worldwide consumption and emissions. This disparity highlights the reality that environmental sustainability is not only a matter of population size but also of consumption patterns.
3. Economic and Environmental Growth: Many economists and environmental scientists have long advocated for “decoupling” economic growth from environmental harm. In other words, the hope is to create economic progress without increasing emissions and resource use. Some countries have made strides in this direction by transitioning to renewable energy and promoting sustainable practices. But progress remains slow, and the path to sustainability is fraught with challenges.

Migration, Climate Change, and Resource Allocation 🌱

Another element to consider is migration. As wealthy nations face declining populations, they may turn to migration to supplement their workforce, as has already been observed in countries such as Canada and Germany. Migration can be economically advantageous for both the host and origin countries, but it also increases the environmental footprint. When people migrate to wealthier countries, their consumption typically rises due to the higher standards of living, contributing to more emissions.

Forced migration due to climate change is also projected to rise sharply in the coming years. By 2050, as many as 216 million people could be forced to relocate due to factors like drought, sea-level rise, and extreme weather. These climate refugees may contribute to increased resource use in their new locations, placing additional environmental strain in certain areas. This shift illustrates that population decline does not inherently translate to less environmental stress—it often depends on where people are and the lifestyle associated with that location.