The Environmental Benefits of Low Fertility and Population Decline are Overstated
The discussion of impending population decline is often dismissed or minimized by arguments that downplay its urgency – or even welcome this development – because of the proposed environmental benefits. In The Environmental Benefits of Low Fertility and Population Decline are Overstated, Kevin Kuruc addresses this common misconception. He argues that welcoming depopulation on environmental grounds is unscientific and potentially counterproductive to effectively addressing climate goals.
Kuruc first points to the core issue of timing mismatch, outlining that demographic change unfolds over many generations, while effective responses to emissions and environmental harm require immediate action. Simply put, it is too late for changes in fertility to make a large difference in population sizes this century, and by the end of this century, it will be too late for population changes to make a large difference to eventual warming.
Kuruc further emphasizes that climate mitigation strategies, such as carbon capture, large-scale renewable deployment, and climate-resilient infrastructure, require high fixed capital and labor costs. In a smaller economy, these costs consume a larger share of national income, making ambitious climate action more difficult rather than easier.
Beyond climate impacts, Kuruc examines the claim that population decline will relax natural-resource constraints and improve living standards by increasing resource availability per person. He finds little support for this view. In modern advanced economies, natural-resource constraints on well-being are relatively weak and increasingly mitigated by technological progress and efficiency gains. As a result, marginal increases in resource availability from depopulation are unlikely to yield meaningful improvements in living standards or environmental quality.
In contrast, Kuruc argues that environmental progress depends critically on human ingenuity, technological innovation, and tax capacity. Technological advances that reduce emissions intensity, improve resource efficiency, and enable adaptation are more likely in larger, more dynamic societies with deeper labor markets and broader tax bases. Population decline reduces both the number of potential innovators and the fiscal resources available to finance these high fixed-cost investments.
Finally, Kuruc points out that sustainability is ultimately a result of policy choices. As younger populations tend to place greater weight on environmental protection and have more to lose from climate degradation, shrinking and aging societies may lack the funds and political resolve to enact and sustain the policies necessary to meaningfully address climate change.
Effective responses to climate change and resource sustainability require timely policy action, technological innovation, and robust fiscal capacity, all of which are more difficult in shrinking societies.