Fred Pearce’s recent blog post on why population is not the issue shouldn’t be controversial; it’s what most sensible environmentalists have been saying for over a decade. But a quick perusal through the comments section and it is clear that there are still many in the environmental community who think population is the main culprit of environmental decline. 

So for those in this camp, I have two questions:

Your support powers solutions-focused climate reporting — keeping it free for everyone. All donations DOUBLED for a limited time. Give now in under 45 seconds.
Secure · Tax deductible · Takes 45 Seconds

Stories like this don’t tell themselves.

Make others like it possible. Your support powers solutions-focused climate reporting — keeping it free for everyone. Give now in under 45 seconds.
Secure · Tax deductible · Takes 45 Seconds
  1. If population is a key driver of environmental decline, what do you propose as solutions? 

  2. What in your view is the “optimum” population of planet Earth? And why?

Please, only serious and thoughtful responses. Thanks.

To support our nonprofit environmental journalism, please consider disabling your ad-blocker to allow ads on Grist. Here's How

UPDATE: You can now read my responses to commenters here.