is limiting population a key factor in protecting the global environment?

Family planning would definitely be a big help, especially in the countries that put the most pressure on the environment.

It would go a long way, but it's important to recognize that it's not just numbers of people that cause environmental havoc it's the amount of resources they use per capita. So there are a couple of ways to attack the problem, both of which should be worked on, although direct approaches to controlling population growth itself can't really be expected to work. Increasing education levels is probably the best approach.

There is a sense in which you can say that easy access to a relatively cheap energy resource has been responsible for the dramatic increase in human population. That resource is fossil fuels. We have essentially converted fossil fuels into human beings over the past 200 years by generating more food and greater food availability. If this resource becomes unavailable in the next 200 years without a replacement then the population numbers will likely decline on their own. We are a resourceful species though, likely to come up with a replacement energy source and it seems more prudent to try to use the other limited resources we have (including living space, which we share with other species) more judiciously.

it's not particularly "limiting" population growth, but dealing with developing nations such as China and India and the potential impact they will have on the environment. It comes from the equation I = PAT.

I - impact

P - population

A - affluency

T- technology

If a growing population, such as that of China and India, gains the affluency as that of nations such as the U.S and U.K, then the technology they produce will impact the environment more than countries with smaller populations. The equation is self-explanatory. This is why China isn't having such an incredible impact now. The national affluency isn't great enough to produce technology that can be used on a larger scale.

Generally speaking, the better off people are education wise and economically speaking, the fewer children they choose to have. Increasing those two things should naturally correct the population issue. When it comes to the environment, education is also an issue. People don't take personal responsibility for things. They think they are the only one throwing garbage out the car window.

it would circulate a protracted way, even with the shown fact that it quite is important to renowned that it is not purely numbers of those that reason environmental havoc it quite is the quantity of aspects they use consistent with capita. So there are a pair of concepts on a thank you to attack the subject, the two certainly one of which must be labored on, even if direct procedures to controlling inhabitants develop itself can no longer truly be anticipated to artwork. increasing training ranges is in all probability the terrific attitude. there's a feeling in which you will say that straightforward get right of entry to to a somewhat decrease priced power source has been to blame for the dramatic develop in human inhabitants. That source is fossil fuels. we've truly switched over fossil fuels into human beings over the final 2 hundred years via producing greater nutrients and larger nutrients availability. If this source turns into unavailable in the subsequent 2 hundred years and not utilising a exchange then the inhabitants numbers will probable decline on their own. we are a inventive species however, probable to return up with a exchange power source and it form of feels greater prudent to purpose to apply the different constrained aspects we've (consisting of residing area, which we proportion with different species) greater judiciously.

yes but you would need to limit on pollution but not just pollution, we have to stop cutting down the forest conserve more oil, stop realizing carbon dioxide and stop killing poor fish.

no...

finding new power sources and reducing emissions is...

yeah it might help