GabyCurrently, our planet’s population is experiencing something that was once thought nearly impossible: it is fluctuating. This suggests that the global population may peak much sooner than expected, potentially exceeding 10 billion by the 2060s, before beginning to decline. In wealthier countries, this trend is already observable. For instance, Japan’s population is shrinking by 100 residents every hour. Meanwhile, birth rates have plummeted sharply in Europe, America, and East Asia. This trend is also likely to affect many countries with medium and low income levels.
A university team led by prominent demographer Andrew Taylor and climate change and health researcher Supriya Matthew has been studying this alarming trend. They recalled how just a decade ago, demographers predicted that the number of people on our planet could reach 12.3 billion—significantly higher than the current 8 billion. For the past 50 years, some ecologists have attempted to save the environment through various population control strategies. Now, we are facing a completely different reality: population growth is slowing down without any control over its numbers, while the population in wealthy countries continues to decline.
What does this global population decline (depopulation) mean for the environment?
Depopulation is already underway. Experts note that for much of Europe, North America, and some countries in Northern Asia, depopulation has been ongoing for decades. The birth rate has steadily decreased there over the past 70 years and has remained low. However, the increased life expectancy in these regions means that the number of very elderly individuals (those over 80) has doubled in the last quarter-century. Until recently, China was the most populous country in the world, accounting for one-sixth of the Earth’s population. But now, the number of residents in the Middle Kingdom is rapidly declining, and this process is expected to accelerate, as reported by Science Alert. According to expert forecasts, by the end of the century, only one-third of the current 1.4 billion people in China will remain.
Japan, once the 11th most populous country in the world, may see its population cut in half by the end of the century. This phenomenon is known as demographic transition. As countries shift from predominantly agrarian economies to industrial and service-based ones, birth rates drop sharply. When low birth rates and low mortality rates combine, the population begins to decline. A significant factor is women’s increasing preference for education and careers. They are more frequently having children later in life and, on average, having fewer children.
Population decline creates real economic challenges. The working-age population is shrinking, while the number of elderly individuals who require support is increasing. By 2100, researchers predict that only six countries will have a birth rate exceeding the death rate: Samoa, Somalia, Tonga, Niger, Chad, and Tajikistan. In contrast, in 97 percent of countries, birth rates are expected to fall below the replacement level (2.1 children per woman).
Will nature get a break when the population decreases? Not necessarily, scientists say. The situation is more complex than it seems. For example, we consume the most energy between the ages of 35 and 55. After that, our energy consumption declines, only to rise again after age 70. This is because elderly individuals often stay home or live alone in large houses. The extraordinary increase in the elderly population this century may offset the decline in consumption caused by population reduction. Additionally, it’s important to consider the vast differences in resource use among residents of different countries and their carbon footprints. Wealthier nations consume more. Therefore, as more countries become wealthier and healthier but have fewer children, it is likely that a larger portion of the global population could contribute to increased emissions.
We should also anticipate more liberal immigration policies that could boost the working-age population. Currently, migration levels have already surpassed projections for 2050. When people migrate to a developed country, it can be economically beneficial for both them and that country. However, from an ecological standpoint, this situation could lead to increased per capita emissions and anthropogenic impacts on the environment, as the link between income and emissions is quite evident.
As the world warms, forced migration (when people are compelled to leave their homes to escape war, drought, or other climate disasters) is expected to soar to 216 million people over the next quarter-century. Forced migration could alter emission patterns depending on where people find refuge. If we disregard all these factors, ideally, a reduction in the planet’s population should lead to decreased pressure on the environment. However, the question remains: will the population pressure on nature actually lessen? If we do not reduce emissions and change consumption patterns (especially in developed countries), that is far from guaranteed.
