We also find that at given rates of population growth, income growth is related to the time path of population growth and that population growth due to high birth and death rates is associated with slower income growth than population growth due to relatively low birth and death rates.
Hence, the timing and components of population growth are important elements in the process of economic development.
Investing in human development programs could result in avoided climate change mitigation costs enough to pay for the programs themselves, the researchers found.
If society chooses not to value population size itself, then this would be another reason to implement these programs, in addition to the more well-known benefits like poverty alleviation, education for young girls and boys, and improved maternal and child health.
Additionally, we estimate the avoided mitigation costs implied by plausible reductions in population growth, finding that large near-term savings ($billions annually) occur under TU; savings under AU emerge in the more distant future.
These savings are larger than spending shortfalls for human development policies that may lower fertility.
When using these terms, they are referring to an individual’s overall well-being — not simply a day-to-day state of being happy.
They found that the economic costs of climate change always increase if the population grows, and increase faster if society’s goal is to maximize the number of people who are happy or well-off compared to the average level of people’s happiness/well-being.
We show that how future population is valued importantly determines mitigation decisions.
Using the Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy model, we explore two approaches to valuing population: a discounted version of total utilitarianism (TU), which considers total wellbeing and is standard in social cost of carbon dioxide (SCC) models, and of average utilitarianism (AU), which ignores population size and sums only each time period’s discounted average wellbeing.