A recurring comment under our articles is some variation of: people are bad for the planet so fewer people will save it. ("humans are the virus!!")

A new model projects the world population will peak in just a few decades.

Is that something to celebrate? https://www.dw.com/en/overpopulation-climate-change-emissions/a-54725928

The short answer: no, unless you're talking about greater access to contraception and more girls going to school.

But even then, part of the fall in fertility comes from women in richer countries having fewer kids than they'd like because of inequalities.

The climate question is tricky. The IPCC says population growth has been a driver of the rise in greenhouse gas emissions. But it's less important than consumption. Future growth will happen mostly in places where emissions per person are *far* lower than richer countries.

Their emissions would rise as they get richer. But fertility would then also fall. And this is where the 'fewer people = less emissions' take really breaks down.

Renewable energy is so cheap that electricity across sub-Saharan Africa is not going to be anywhere near as polluting as Europe or North America's was at their peak. Even as incomes there rise, this won't translate into Western levels of emissions.

The surprising thing I learned when researching this is that fertility could play a bigger role in *adapting* to climate change than mitigating it. This is because smaller family sizes can boost employment and education, which, in turn, helps people cope with shocks like storms.

There are decent arguments for not talking about overpopulation and emissions together at all because the whole concept is so riddled with violence, particularly against women and minorities. But it's a strikingly mainstream concept.

Thanks to @SaraHertog @arvindpawan1 @hausfath @leiwenjiang and other experts for insights here.