The Perceived Conflict between Human Rights and Environmental Protection:

How organized religion can reconcile the viewpoints and promote sustainable consumption

Steven Bader*

Introduction

           In November 1992, 1,700 leading scientists issued a warning to humanity that expressed concern with unchecked human activity and its effect on the planet.[1] The committee cautioned: "Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth."[2]

           This warning suggests a direct relationship between human population and environmental degradation. Ironically, population growth and environmental protection are addressed in two separate areas of international law[3] and in many ways appear to conflict. Recently, jurists have begun to recognize this disconnect and have promoted identification of a link between the two.[4] Some in the international community, known as Neo-Malthusians, have suggested stagnant population growth will solve many environmental problems faced today.[5] On the other hand, Anti-Malthusians argue population control is morally wrong, and technology alone can solve our environmental problems.[6]

           Members of the two most prominent world religions, Christianity and Islam, strongly disagree with Neo-Malthusian practices.[7] Expression of this discontent often sparks intense political scrutiny in the United States[8] and abroad. However, followers of both faiths have been imposed with a duty to protect the Earth and all of its natural resources.[9] There is a perception that these two responsibilities, protection of mankind and the planet, are in direct conflict with one another. This divergence is further developed in international, domestic and foreign law. Environmental law aims to reduce pollution, conserve resources, and at the same time, allow human development. If people cause environmental harm, it would be rational to assume fewer people would result in fewer problems. And yet laws that restrict population growth are against Christian and Muslim teachings, and consequently, most law recognizes and encourages population growth. Can we support population expansion, and at the same time, environmental protection? How can these conflicting principles be reconciled?

           From an environmental perspective this conflict is immaterial as neither body of law adequately addresses consumption, the root of most ecological problems. As a result, Christians and Muslims must spearhead solutions that address the connection between population and environment. Accordingly, affluent Christians and Muslims in the developed world must take a hard look at their own lifestyles, and accept the fact that unchecked population growth must be countered by limited consumption.

           Part I will examine the effects of human activity on the Earth. Part II will provide a discussion of the Neo and Anti Malthusian viewpoints, examples of their implementation in domestic and foreign law, and examples of where both theories have fallen short. Part III will provide background information on Christianity and Islam, and the shortcomings of organized religion to adequately address environmental concerns. Part IV will discuss sustainable development and the impact of consumption on the environment. Finally, Part V will encourage members of both faiths to lead humanity to a solution in domestic laws and international policy through education, action, and awareness.

Part I: The Effects of Humans on the Planet

           Human behavior has led to widespread environmental problems around the globe.[10] More than one billion people on earth do not have access to safe drinking water, and around 2.6 billion do not have essential sanitation assistance.[11] It is estimated that two million children die from consumption of polluted water every year.[12] Air pollution, a result of human activity,[13] is estimated to cause three million deaths per year.[14] Indoor air pollution, caused by the indoor burning of fuels, leads to 2.8 million of these annual deaths.[15] Lead emissions, caused by the burning of leaded fuel and other industrial activities, have been found to increase blood pressure, as well as the risk of heart attack and stroke.[16] Suspended particle matter, airborne dust and smoke, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, has led to 50,000 untimely deaths and 400,000 instances of chronic bronchitis in China alone.[17] Currently, more than one billion people suffer from malnourishment.[18] Humanity is unable to produce grain at a level needed to feed the global population; approximately 70 percent of Earth's fisheries have been dilapidated due to aggressive and unsustainable harvesting; and 25 billion tons of topsoil is lost each year.[19] To support the expanding population, humanity has been forced to resort to the adoption and acceptance of unsustainable practices.[20]

           But Earth's population is not expected to level off anytime soon.[21] The United Nations estimates the world population grew from 5.27 billion in 1990 to 6.06 billion in 2000.[22] It has projected population to further expand to 6.79 billion in the next year.[23] There is no consensus on whether or not the Earth has a "carrying capacity," the maximum number of people the planet can sustain, and as a result disagreement exists as to whether overpopulation is the cause of environmental problems.[24] In 1798, scholar Thomas Malthus theorized that an exponential increase in the human population, coupled with an arithmetic increase in the food supply, would lead to widespread starvation.[25] Thus, Malthus saw overpopulation as a serious threat to survival of the species.[26] His hypothesis received mixed reception when it was first promoted, and the controversy is still prominent today.[27]

Part II: The Competing Malthusian Viewpoints

           Neo-Malthusians, those who support measures to curb population growth, argue growing population can be blamed for most environmental problems.[28][29] Ehrlich argues human population is supported by what he calls "natural capital," which includes "agricultural soils, fossil groundwater, and biodiversity."[30] By his calculations, topsoil is lost at a rate of twenty-five billion tons per year, although this rate may be higher.[31] Groundwater is also being mined at an unsustainable rate all over the world, including the United States, India and China.[32] Moreover, biodiversity is lost at a rate believed to be between 1,000 and 10,000 times the natural extinction rate.[33] None of these resources are able to naturally replenish themselves as quickly as they are used, and extinct species are gone forever.[34] Consequently, Neo-Malthusians believe humanity will be unable to support itself, as its "income" of natural capital cannot keep up with what is spent.[35] Modern economist Paul Ehrlich has argued population control is justified not simply as a way to relieve the food supply, but also as a way to promote a clean, sustainable environment.

           As a solution, Ehrlich and others in this camp, including billionaires Ted Turner and Bill Gates,[36] advocate for population control that includes use of artificial birth control.[37] Family planning activists argue exponential population increases, especially in the "sprawling slums of Third World Cities," must be curbed.[38] In order to stabilize population growth and fix our environmental problems, education must be provided to women in these developing nations.[39] The theory is that if women understand safe contraceptive use, they will elect to have a smaller family.[40] As the role of women in these countries evolves from one of child-bearer to one of equal citizen, there will be less social incentive for women to raise a large family.[41]

           On the other side, Anti-Malthusians argue Neo-Malthusians are promoting unfounded "doomsday" theories.[42] Those in this camp believe technology and human ingenuity will be able to support a growing population.[43] Additionally, they believe the Earth actually has more natural resources than humanity could ever use.[44] Anti-Malthusians believe the greatest intrinsic resource on Earth is people[45] and any attempt to curb population growth through artificial means is wrong.[46] For example, Steven Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute,[47] has stated family planning is unneeded because, in his words, "there is no such thing as overpopulation."[48] Many in this camp argue measures taken to curb population growth lead to government-imposed restrictions on procreation that infringe on basic human rights.[49] In addition, other Anti-Malthusians believe the Earth is actually facing a "depopulation" crisis due to declining birthrates in much of the developed world.[50]

           Both approaches find some support in international law and both have been implemented by various nations. The Anti-Malthusian approach is more widely implicated, but technological developments alone have not sufficiently addressed most environmental concerns. Similarly, the Neo-Malthusian approach is also wracked with problems, and is often associated with human rights violations. A brief discussion of both policies will better illustrate the shortfalls inherent in each methodology.

A.     Application of the Anti-Malthusian Approach

           Section 1 of Article 16 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that "[m]en and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."[51] Section 3 of Article 16 states that "[t]he family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."[52]  Additionally, international law gives each parent the "basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children."[53]

          The Anti-Malthusian viewpoint is also present in the domestic policies of many capitalist countries. In the United States, each citizen has a Constitutional right to bear children. In Skinner v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court struck down a law that required mandatory sterilization of "habitual criminals" and held "marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race," and forced sterilization would leave an individual "forever deprived of a basic liberty."[54][55] and the right to abort a pregnancy before viability.[56] Additionally, the United States government offers benefits to those who have children through various tax incentives.[57] Procreative rights now encompass the right to use contraceptives

           Western European nations also recognize a fundamental right to procreate, and many aggressively encourage population growth due to concern that the low European birth rate will result in a smaller and weaker economy in the future, and the displacement of many European cultures.[58] For example, France has a "comprehensive array of incentives for child-bearing, including generous child allowances and a calibrated income tax system that means that families with more children pay less."[59] As a result, France has the second-highest birthrate in Europe, behind only Ireland.[60] In Laviano, Italy, the mayor created a "baby bonus" to encourage women, married or single, to give birth to and raise a child in the village.[61] In the rest of Italy, prior to the 2006 fall of the Berlusconi government, 1,000 Euros were given to every mother who gave birth to a second child.[62] Parents in the Netherlands are given a "child supplement" of about $1,300 per year per child until the child turns thirteen.[63] In Sweden, parents of a new baby are each given an eighteen-month paid leave from work by the government.[64] Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has announced a $4,000 grant for parents of new babies,[65] and in Germany, the government offers fourteen weeks maternity leave and up to thirty-six months of parental leave when a new child is born.[66]

           Although the United States and most of Western Europe encourage population growth, they also have acknowledged the reality of pollution in society. For example, the United States passed the Clean Water Act,[67] the Clean Air Act,[68] and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,[69] and the Environmental Protection Agency was created to regulate practices that have an effect on the environment.[70] These statutes and regulations are "pollution control" laws that promote efficiency and technology that will lead to an overall reduction in pollution.[71] However, Americans consume at a rapid rate, which leads to the decimation of natural resources.[72][73] Furthermore, these environmental laws primarily concentrate on how to reduce the pollution already created, and not on the underlying cause of this pollution.

           The European Commission has also implemented many formal policies to address environmental concerns.[74] The Commission has sections that address, among others, air pollution, soil pollution, water pollution and waste.[75] Like the laws of the United States, these statutes focus on the use of technology to reduce pollution without adequately acknowledging the role human consumption plays in the problem.[76] However, European pollution laws are stricter than those in the United States, and this has led to better air and water quality in these nations.[77]

          The general thought process of Anti-Malthusians is that human inventiveness will lead us to technologies that will help extract natural resources and handle any environmental problem that comes our way.[78] Government can encourage the development of environmentally friendly technology and at the same time implement environmental regulations that phase out practices that harm the environment.[79] Nonetheless, this has been slow to develop in the United States due to many of the government subsidies provided to the oil and petroleum industries.[80] These subsidies encourage the use of oil and petroleum and discourage renewable resources that become more costly by comparison.[81] Also, "miracle technologies," such as CFCs and DDTs, may appear safe at first but ultimately can lead to disastrous long-term environmental problems.[82] For the most part, technological innovation is a step in the right direction. However, technology alone is not yet the solution, as the environmental crisis has not yet been averted.[83]

           The Neo-Malthusian approach has also been utilized in international policy and foreign law. This approach has proven to be more controversial than the Anti-Malthusian approach and has not yielded results. Ironically, developed nations that employ Anti-Malthusian techniques at home often, at least nominally, endorse population control abroad. [84]

B.     Application of the Neo-Malthusian Approach

           The Neo-Malthusian approach was most widely recognized at the international level during the 1994 International Conference on Population Development in Cairo, Egypt.[85] The United Nations sponsored this event to address international concerns about human population, and establish a Programme of Action.[86] At the conference, 179 nations agreed that "population and development are inextricably linked."[87] The goals of the conference were "providing universal education; reducing infant, child and maternal mortality; and ensuring universal access by 2015 to reproductive health care, including family planning, assisted childbirth and prevention of sexually transmitted infections including HIV/AIDS."[88] Anti-Malthusians criticized this approach, despite the fact that the conference did not implement strict population limits and instead focused on education and empowerment of women.[89]

           Ten years later, the United Nations indicated the Programme of Action had been unable to achieve its aims due to lack of funding.[90] The goal of the programs was to spend $17 billion on family planning programs by 2000.[91] But by 1999, developing countries had only donated $6.5 of the 11.3 billion they had pledged, and developed nations contributed only $2 billion of their promised $5.7 billion.[92] A report entitled "The Cairo Consensus at Ten: Reproductive Health and the Global Effort to End Poverty" claims that an additional $3.9 billion per year would "prevent 23 million unplanned births, 22 million induced abortions, 142,000 pregnancy-related deaths and 1.4 million infant deaths."[93]

           In 2004, the Netherlands provided more annual money to UNFPA than any other nation, with a donation of $72.2 million.[94] Japan donated $39.5 million; the United Kingdom contributed roughly $36.7 million; Sweden donated $35.9 million; and Denmark supplied $29.5 million.[95] The irony, of course, is that many of these countries encourage population growth at home.[96] Thirty-seven nations that pledged money to UNFPA did not make a payment.[97] Nearly 20 nations made a payment that was less than what they had pledged.[98] As a result, this soft Neo-Malthusian international policy can be seen as a failure to solve any population or environmental concerns.

           Some nations have imposed Neo-Malthusian policies at home that find support in international law. Article 29 Section 2 of the Universal Declaration states:

 

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.[99]

 

           An argument can be made that a nation may look to the language of Article 29 to contend that a minimal birth rate is a "just requirement[] of morality, public order, and the general welfare. . . ."[100] As a result, an individuals' right to determine how many children they bear may be compromised by the laws of a nation if the restriction is implemented to promote order and welfare.[101]

          The most well known population control instituted by a sovereign nation is China's one-child policy, introduced in 1978.[102] Generally, under this policy urban couples may only give birth to one child.[103] However, if both parents have no siblings they may have a second child. [104] In addition, rural families may be able to have a second child if the first child is a female or handicapped, and ethnic minorities are often able to rear more than one baby.[105] According to Yu Xuejun, a spokesman for the National Population and Family Planning Commission, only 35.9 percent of the Chinese population is restricted to one child.[106][107]

Chinese officials claim the policy has prevented 400 million births.

           In 2002, China codified the one-child policy with the Population and Family Planning Law.[108] Under Article 18, the Chinese government advocates for one-child per couple, and under Article 19, the State encourages family planning through the use of contraceptives.[109] Couples who comply with the rule are rewarded with a "Certificate of Honor for Single-Child parents"[110] and given other welfare benefits and technical services.[111] Citizens who give birth to more than one child, in violation of Article 18, must pay a "social maintenance fee prescribed by law."[112] Government officials who violate this law are disciplined, and given an "administrative sanction."[113]

           China has specified that female babies and women who give birth to females must not be discriminated against,[114] and a pregnancy cannot be aborted based on the gender of the infant.[115] There are also fines and criminal liability for those caught:

 

(1) illegally performing an operation related to family planning on another person;

(2) Using ultrasonography or other techniques to identify fetal gender for non-medical purposes or to bring about sex-selective pregnancy termination for non-medical purposes for another person; or

(3) performing a fake birth-control operation, providing a false medical report, or issuing a counterfeit certificate of family planning.[116]

 

           Despite the fact that Chinese law prohibits human rights violations, there are extensive reports of forced sterilizations, abortions, and other physical abuse, for those who have violated this policy.[117] Chinese officials, however, have said the one-child policy will remain in effect for at least another decade.[118]

           Iran also has an official population policy.[119] The Iranian family planning program was passed into law in December 1989 with three primary goals: "encourage families to delay the first pregnancy and to space out subsequent births; to discourage pregnancy for women younger than 18 and older than 35; and to limit family size to three children."[120] The government has provided citizens with virtually infinite family planning resources, including free contraceptives.[121] In 1993, the Iranian legislature passed a law that discarded all economic enticements for bigger families.[122] Currently, "[t]he government supports a range of birth control measures, including female sterilization, vasectomies and mandatory family planning classes for newly-weds. Iran also has a state-owned condom factory."[123] At the time the family planning program was implemented, Iran had a birth rate of about 3.2 percent.[124] By 2006, the birth rate had dropped down to 1.2 percent, a comparable rate to the United States.[125]

           However, current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has expressed a desire to overturn these policies and encourage population growth in Iran.[126][127] Ahmadinejad believes if family planning laws are eliminated, Iran can double in size and challenge Western nations that have seen their population growth level or drop off.[128] This policy shift does not seem to reflect any concern Iran has for alleged human rights violations, or a concern for the environment.[129] Currently Iran has a population of about 70 million.

           The hard line Neo-Malthusian stance taken by these two nations has also not led to a solution to any environmental problems. To the contrary, pollution in these countries is rampant. Only one percent of Chinese urban citizens breathe air considered safe by international standards.[130] China's Ministry of Health reports that due to pollution, cancer is the nation's leading cause of death.[131] Almost 500 million Chinese citizens do not have access to potable drinking water.[132][133] but China was still criticized for excessive "smog" in Beijing.[134] The environmental situation is no better in Iran.[135] Mohammad Hadi Heydarzadeh, director of Tehran's clean air committee, said air quality in the capital city is a "very serious and lethal crisis, a collective suicide."[136] The Iranian government estimated 3,600 deaths in October 2006 could be linked to pollution.[137] Often, the smog is so bad schools are forced to close. [138] Further, the Caspian Sea has been contaminated with pesticides and other forms of pollution, especially near the Iranian border.[139] These countries have shown that population control alone does not ensure a clean environment in the future.  Chinese officials made a concentrated effort to reduce air pollution before it hosted the Olympic games in August 2008,

Part III: The Role of Religion in Environmental Law

           It is unquestionable that "religions can and do shape people's attitudes about the environment, practices surrounding fertility and reproductive health, and the just sharing of the earth's resources."[140] More than 51 percent of the earth's population, roughly 3.2 billion people, identify themselves as either Christian or Muslim.[141] Since a majority of the Earth's population proclaims to be of these monotheistic faiths,[142] it is logical to conclude that their influence in world affairs is widespread.

           Much of Christianity, particularly the Catholic Church, has taken a firm stance against any form of artificial birth control.[143] The Bible tells Christians to "[b]e fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth."[144] Many followers believe the use of contraceptives will lead to "conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality."[145][146] Additionally, abortion is viewed as a "heinous evil."[147]

The Catholic Church has also expressed concern that "a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregard[] her physical and emotional equilibrium. . . .

           Conservative Islam is also opposed to artificial forms of family planning.[148] The Qu'ran tells believers to "not slay your children for [fear of] poverty - [w]e provide for you and for them. . . ."[149] This verse is widely cited as justification for Muslim opposition to artificial birth control.[150] Abortion is also regarded as taboo in Islam, but some Muslims acknowledge it may be acceptable if the life of the mother is in jeopardy.[151]

           With these viewpoints in mind, it is not a surprise that organized religion has tended to adopt the Anti-Malthusian viewpoint.[152] The Catholic Church, which shared the concerns of the some Islamic nations,[153] was represented at the 1994 Cairo Conference.[154] The church took a firm stand at the conference, which it believed encouraged abortions and sexual promiscuity, and ultimately would result in the deterioration of the family unit.[155] Many Muslims also took exception to the event believing it to be an "atheistic, sinful meeting."[156] Other nations at the conference accused the Church of refusing to negotiate, and instead, forcing their agenda with no room for compromise.[157]

           The reality of the Programme of Action developed at Cairo is that it has not achieved the goals it set out,[158] and it has remained a thorn in the side of organized religion.[159] Christians and Muslims are entitled to express discontent with population policies that conflict with their faith, but many in religion are fooled by the perceived conflict between human rights and the environment. Contrary to what Ehrlich and Mosher believe, human rights and environmental protection are not incompatible, and one does not need to be sacrificed for the good of the other.

           Environmental problems are not the result of population growth so much as they are the result of unsustainable consumption of resources by humans.[160][161] As better technology is developed, resources can be used more efficiently and the Earth can sustain a larger population.[162] This approach appears to be a compromise between the two Malthusian viewpoints. It recognizes consumption must be curbed or adjusted in order to sustain life on Earth,[163] but at the same time, it does not advocate for population control in order to reduce consumption.[164] The Earth can support an increase in population, so long as consumption is reduced to the level sustainable by current technology.

Part IV: A Step in the Right Direction - Sustainable Development

           Both Christianity and Islam encourage believers to take care of the Earth and its resources.[165] The Bible says, "The land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the land."[166] Christians are told "ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are . . . defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell. . . . ."[167] Additionally, Biblical scriptures note that "the land not spew you out also, when ye defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you."[168]

           Followers of Islam are instructed to be "custodians of nature," and "to satisfy their own needs only with an eye to the welfare of all creation."[169] They are told, "Surely the creation of the heavens and the earth is greater than the creation of the people. . . ."[170] The Qu'ran further instructs that "water is to be shared."[171][172] International law has recognized the human right to environment, and advocated for sustainable development as a means to provide that right. 

Muslims are encouraged to use natural resources, but are held accountable for what is used, and the waste that is generated.

           The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm in 1972, was the first international conference to recognize the relationship between human population and the deteriorating environment.[173] The preamble to the Stockholm Declaration states, "[t]he natural growth of population continuously presents problems on the preservation of the environment, and adequate policies should be adopted, as appropriate, to face these problems."[174] The Stockholm Declaration itself states in part, "[m]an has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations."[175] The Stockholm Conference supported the formation of Governing Council for Environmental Programs and an Environment Secretariat.[176] Later that year, the United Nations General Assembly created the United Nations Environment Program, "the sole intergovernmental institution whose mission is strictly environmental in nature."[177] Despite the general consensus that Stockholm was one of the most proficient conferences in United Nations history,[178] scholars have noted the Stockholm Declaration does not create any new human rights in the context of the environment, but merely recognizes the interplay between human rights and environmental concerns, and the affects of humanity on the planet.[179]

          Ehrlich has developed a formula to measure the impact of human activity on the planet.[180] Known as the I=PAT formula, it requires multiplication of total population (P); per capita consumption (A); and environmental harm caused by technology that promotes consumption (T), to lead to a total figure for environmental impact (I).[181] Based on this formula, Ehrlich argues the developed world is more overpopulated than its developing counterpart.[182] His conclusion is based on the fact that activities that harm the environment, and which occur more frequently in the developed world, mostly "involve the mobilization and use of energy at high levels, including the manufacture and powering of vehicles, machinery, and appliances; constructing and maintaining infrastructure; lighting and heating buildings; converting forests into paper, furniture, and homes; producing inputs for, and processing and distributing outputs from, high-yield agriculture; and so on." [183][184] As discussed further below, this theory has been accepted by the United Nations. Consequently, the activities of the prosperous developed world have more of a negative impact on the globe than population growth in the relatively poor developing world.

           In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro recognized that environmental impact varies by country.[185] In the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, it was proclaimed that "[h]uman beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature."[186] Although Agenda 21, a plan for sustainable development, came out of the Rio Conference,[187] critics point out the Conference failed to take a firm position on the role of human rights in environmental law.[188]

           The developing nations represented at Rio argued overconsumption of natural resources in the developed world, not population growth in the developing world, is the root of most environmental problems.[189] In response, Chapter 4 of Agenda 21 states, "the major cause of the continued deterioration of the global environment is the unsustainable pattern of consumption and production, particularly in industrialized countries. . . ."[190] In paragraph 4.8 of Chapter 4, it was decided that "[a]ll countries should strive to promote sustainable consumption patterns . . . [and]  [d]eveloped countries should take the lead in achieving sustainable consumption patterns."[191] The international community almost universally regards sustainable development as a way of preserving resources for future generations, but the term is somewhat vague.[192]

           Agenda 21 gives meaning to sustainable development by breaking it into two parts: sustainable production and sustainable consumption.[193] Sustainable production deals with technological advances that lead to more environmentally friendly practices.[194] Most domestic pollution laws developed from the principle of sustainable production.[195] Sustainable consumption, on the other hand, attends to what humanity consumes.[196] The difficulty with sustainable consumption is that it does not lend itself to definite goals.[197] How much is too much?[198] Do we need to cut back?[199] What is a sustainable level of consumption?[200]

           Domestically, the law can address consumption in three ways.[201] First, the government can set certain standards for consumer products; second, it can require producers to provide information about their products to consumers; third, and perhaps most importantly, government can influence the price of products through taxation and other surcharges.[202] The biggest problem with these types of laws is that they address how well society consumes products, or the patterns of consumption, and not how much is consumed.[203] But from a pragmatic standpoint, it would be counterintuitive for a capitalist country like the United States to legislate in a way that directly forbids certain levels of consumption.[204]

           The perceived tension between human rights law and environmental law often makes policies to implement sustainable development programs difficult. However, organized religion can overcome the stalemate through promotion of education, awareness, and action.

Part V: Education, Awareness, and Action

           Christians and Muslims must spearhead implementation of sustainable development policies through education, action, and awareness. First, global citizens must be educated on the fact that what appears to be a conflict between human rights law and environmental law, in fact, does not exist. Second, religion must encourage citizens to take action at the domestic level to implement consumption-based law and policy that would promote clean technology and encourage reduction of waste. Finally, Christians and Muslims must raise awareness to the reality of high-level consumption and must encourage voluntary reductions in use of resources.

A.     Education

           Education is the key to understanding any complex topic, and Christians have started to educate the world on current ecological dilemmas. Traditionally, many members of organized religion have scoffed at scientific findings that indicate the negative consequences of human behavior on the planet.[205] Additionally, many believe any plan to save the environment that recognizes the role of humans in the problem will lead to abortions and other human rights violations.[206] However, this trend has started to change. A project known as the Catholic Climate Covenant recently appealed to Christians to recognize the ecological effects of human endeavors on the planet.[207] Bishop William S. Skylstad, a prominent catholic leader in Washington, recognized the negative impact of consumption, especially in the developed world, on the environment.[208] Another program, called the "Evangelical Climate Initiative," has drawn attention for its attempts to inform Christians of the effect of human activity on the planet.[209] The website acknowledges the role of humans in environmental degradation, encourages action to be taken, and states that "[a]s Christian citizens we can learn more, make personal changes, and rally action."[210] Other Christian groups that have called for environmental action include Cafod, Christian Aid, Tearfund, and the National Association of Evangelicals.[211] The key message of these groups is that religion does not have to choose between human rights and a clean environment. Humanity can have both if proper steps are taken.

B.     Action

           Organized religion may also take action in an attempt to influence domestic policy. Three concepts that may lead humanity to a better environment are stricter pollution laws, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), and the encouragement of renewable resource development by ending or reducing government subsidies to fossil fuels.

           Generally speaking, European nations have stricter pollution laws than does the United States.[212] As a result, air and water quality in these nations tends to be higher than in the United States.[213] In fact, fourteen of the twenty cleanest nations in the world are European nations.[214] Religious groups in these countries should encourage their governments to maintain their high standards and demand a clean environment. Christians and Muslims in the United States, the thirty-ninth cleanest country,[215] must demand stricter laws so as to keep pace with their developed counterparts in Europe.

           EPR may offer a solution to numerous consumption based environmental problems.[216] The phrase is a broad term that refers to efforts by lawmakers to "hold product manufacturers responsible for the collection and/or treatment of their products once the goods have been discarded by the consumer."[217] EPR generally may impose one of four different types of legal accountability on producers.[218] Economic liability is the most common and compels producers to pay all or a percentage of clean-up costs associated with a product.[219] Physical liability compels a producer to take custody of a product after a consumer discards it.[220][221] Finally, producers may be saddled with financial liability for environmental damage caused by their goods.[222] EPR proponents claim if producers are held responsible for the ultimate clean up of their goods, they will be induced to create environmentally friendly products.[223] Information liability compels a producer to accurately label their products in order to reduce the need for third-party intervention in ultimate disposal or recycling of the goods.

           The logical outgrowth of EPR is higher prices for the consumer, as manufacturers will attempt to pass increased internal costs on to those who purchase their products. These manufacturers will then lose profits as their sales dwindle due to higher retail prices. Yet in the long run, this should even out. Producers will develop technology that will allow them to sell products cheaply to the masses, and at the same time, limit the dollar figure they will pay for clean-up costs. EPR has been implemented, to a degree, in Europe and it has been somewhat successful.[224] The complications of a program like this are numerous and beyond the scope of this article but, as a theory, EPR is something organized religion should actively promote as followers of both believe humanity has a responsibility to remedy any environmental harm caused by humans.[225]

           Christians and Muslims should also advocate for development and use of renewable resources. An essential component of promotion of renewable energy is reduction and elimination of government subsidies given for the use and production of fossil fuels.[226] Roughly a decade ago, worldwide fossil fuel subsidies totaled somewhere between $250 and $300 billion.[227] Governments typically justify these subsidies as a way to provide energy to the poor.[228] However, this appears to be mostly a guise to divert attention away from those who advocate for government monies.[229] Generally, recipients of fossil fuel subsidies are prosperous and can use government financial assistance to generate higher profit margins.[230] Richard Ottinger, Dean Emeritus of Pace Law School, has suggested it would be more cost-effective for the governments of developing nations to directly pay energy costs for the poor than for it to subsidize energy costs across the board.[231][232]

Additionally, many countries must sacrifice money they otherwise could spend to develop infrastructure in order to import fossil fuels.

           Many countries have already cut fossil fuel subsidies and have consequently seen a reduction in pollution.[233] Poland reduced subsidies to fossil fuels by $3 billion per year, and they saw a 30 percent decrease in the amount of coal used between 1987 and 1994.[234] Russia reduced fossil fuels subsidies by 50 percent in 1990, and saw carbon emissions decrease by more than 30 percent by 2000.[235] The United Kingdom began to decrease coal subsidies in 1989 and by 1995 all subsidies had been abolished, resulting in consistently dropped carbon emissions.[236] China has also drastically reduced subsides available to produce and use fossil fuels,[237] although China still has many serious environmental problems.[238]

           The United States still provides considerable subsidies for coal and petroleum,[239] although renewable energy may have recently received a push from the United States government. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides for more than $70 billion in spending and tax cuts to renewable energy.[240] Like EPR, government subsidies are an inherently complex and multi-faceted topic that goes beyond the scope of this piece. Yet Christians and Muslims should still consider the benefits humanity and the environment could receive through promotion of renewable energy.

C.     Awareness

           Christians and Muslims must acknowledge the relationship between human consumption and environmental dilapidation. Followers of these faiths should clearly point out that neither Anti- nor Neo- Malthusian viewpoints have led humanity anywhere closer to a solution. Christians and Muslims do not have to change their stance on birth control or abortion either. All of humanity has an interest in seeing human rights protected. But it is important that religion recognize the role human consumption plays in the ecosystem. People of faith are required by God to be stewards of the Earth, and protect its resources for future generations.

           Awareness is crucial at the international level and international law may provide guidance when dealing with consumption. Ten years ago, people living in Earth's wealthiest twenty percent of countries utilized 86 percent of the worlds GDP.[241] In 2000, the United States, Western Europe and Canada accounted for 11.6 percent of the Earth's population, and yet those nations accounted for more than 60 percent of all consumption.[242] South Asia made up 22.4 percent of world population, and only accounted for two percent of all consumption, while sub-Saharan Africa comprised 11 percent of the world's population and was only responsible for 1.2 percent of all consumption.[243] Soft international law cannot compel nations or citizens of prosperous nations, or any nations, to reduce consumption. But if citizens of the globe can be made aware of how consumption affects the planet through international law and policy, it is more likely citizens would voluntarily choose to reduce excess consumption and utilize eco-friendly technology. Christians and Muslims can encourage believers to use less and chose environmentally friendly products, so those in the developing world do not have to live in poverty. The Bible says "[t]he righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it."[244]

Conclusion

          Organized religion plays a major role in world affairs. Christians and Muslims influence law and politics all over the globe, but they are yet to use these avenues to promote a healthy environment. Followers of these faiths are entitled to their conscientious objection to the UNFPA, abortion, and birth control and family planning programs. Religion is a personal choice, but the law binds us all. Christians and Muslims should unite and support a policy that recognizes consumption, and not human population, is the root of most environmental problems. Only then can the international community divorce itself from the abrasive Malthusian viewpoints that are ill equipped to solve any of the Earth's ecological problems.

 

 

* J.D. Candidate 2010, Gonzaga University School of Law. I would like to thank the editorial board and staff of the Gonzaga Journal of International Law for all of their help and suggestions in preparing this piece for publication.  I would also like to thank Professor Upendra Acaharya for his guidance and input on this multifaceted area of international law and policy.

[1] See Union of Concerned Scientists, 1992 World Scientists Warning to Humanity, http://www.ucsusa.org/about/1992-world-scientists.html (last visited October 25, 2009). The warning began, "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources." Id.

[2] Id.

[3] See Alison Lindsay Shinsato, Increasing the Accountability of Transnational Corporations for Environmental Harms: The Petroleum Industry in Nigeria, 4 N.W. U. J. Int'l Hum. Rts. 186-87 (2005).

[4] See, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung. v. Slovk.), 1997 I.C.J. 7, 91 (Sept. 25) (separate opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry) (writing that "protection of the environment is likewise a vital part of contemporary human rights doctrine, for it is a sine qua non for numerous human rights such as the right to health and the right to life itself").

[5] See Diane L. Slifer, Growing Environmental Concerns: Is Population Control the Answer?, 11 Vill. Envtl. L.J. 111, 147 (2000); Paul Ehrlich, The Population Explosion: Why We Should Care and What We Should Do About It, 27 Envtl. L. 1187, 1196 (1997).

[6] See Slifer, supra note 5, at 149-50.

^[7] See Yasmin Abdullah, The Holy See at United Nations Conferences: State or Church?, 96 Colum. L. Rev. 1835, 1846 (1996); J.A. Lindgren Alves, The United Nations, Postmodernity, and Human Rights, 32 U.S.F. L. Rev. 479, 506 (1998).

[8] See Obama Lifts Ban on Abortion Funds, BBC News, Jan. 24, 2009, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7847651.stm ; Obama Reverses Abortion-Funding Policy, CNN, Jan. 24, 2009, available at http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/23/obama.abortion/index.html?iref=newssearch ; David Hunter et al., International Environmental Law and Policy 97 (3^rd ed. 2007). The Foreign Assistance Act, passed in 1961, gives the President the power to implement foreign policy on world population growth. In 1973, Congress banned the use of federal funds for abortions abroad. In 1984, President Reagan stated that the United States would not fund NGO's that provided "abortion counseling, referral, or other abortion-related services." This later became known as the "Mexico City Policy," and was upheld by President George H.W. Bush, overturned by President Clinton, and reinstated by President George W. Bush. Hunter et al. at 97.

[9] See Harold Coward, Religious Responses to the Population Sustainability Problematic: Implications for Law, 27 Envtl. L. 1169, 1173-75 (1997) (noting that all religions have "an implicit environmental ethic").

[10] See Hunter et al., supra note 8, at 15.

[11] Id. To put these numbers in perspective, 18 percent of the world's population does not have use of potable water (one in six people), and another 42 percent (two in every five people), do not have basic sewer services. Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id. at 16.

[14] Id. at 17.

[15] Hunter et al., supra note 8, at 17. Women and children in the developing world are the largest class of victims of this type of pollution. Id.

[16] Id. For example, in Bangkok, estimates suggest a decrease in IQ among children.  In Mexico City, exposure to lead may increase frequency of hypertension by 20 percent. Id.

[17] Id. Bangkok, Calcutta, and Delhi are other areas that exceed World Health Organization clean air standards. Id.

[18] Id. at 19.

[19] Id.

[20] Hunter et al., supra note 8, at 19.

[21] See id. In fact, the earth's population is expected to swell by up to 70 percent in the next 50 years. Id.

[22] See United Nations Population Division, The World at Six Billion, at 5, http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf (last visited Oct. 25, 2009).

[23] Id.

[24] Slifer, supra note 5, at 115-16.

[25] Id. at 146.

[26] See id.

[27] Id. at 146-47.

[28] Id. at 146.

[29] Slifer, supra note 5, at 147-48.

[30] Ehrlich, supra note 5, at 1192.

[31] Id.

[32] Id. Ehrlich points out that the Ogallala aquifer in Colorado is drained at a rate of four to six feet per year, while it naturally only replenishes a half-inch of annually. Id.

[33] Id. at 1192-93.

[34] Id.

[35] Ehrlich, supra note 5, at 1193.

[36] Slifer, supra note 5, at 112-13. Turner donated $1 billion to the United Nations Population in 1997. Bill Gates donated $2.2 billion to private entities that support family planning in 1999. Id.

[37] Ehrlich, supra note 5, at 1196.  Ehrlich makes a bold assertion when he claims "cultural and religious-based biases against contraception are no longer taken seriously by the majority of people." Id. This statement proved to be anything but true in Cairo in 1994. See infra Part II.B.

[38] Russell Lawrence Barsh, Indigenous Peoples' Perspective on Population and Development, 21 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 257 (1994).

[39] Id. at 258.

[40] Id.

[41] Id.

[42] Slifer, supra note 5, at 149.

[43] Id. at 149-50.

[44] Id. at 151.

[45] See id. at 151-52.

[46] See Robert M. Hardaway, Environmental Malthusianism: Integrating Population and Environment Policy, 27 Envtl. L. 1209, 1213 (1997).

[47] Population Research Institute, Our Founder: Fr. Paul Marx, O.S.B., http://www.pop.org/20090117804/our-founder (last visited Oct. 25, 2009). The Population Research was founded by a Catholic priest, and appears to have the support of the Catholic Church. See id.

[48] Kojo Minta, Overpopulation is a Myth, Researcher Says, The Daily Pennsylvanian, Apr. 6, 2006, available at http://thedp.com/node/49249 ; Population Research Institute, Our Mission,  http://www.pop.org/20090117801/our-mission (last visited Oct. 25, 2009) [hereinafter Population Research Institute Mission]. This group claims overpopulation is a myth that "cheapens human life and paves the way for abusive population control programs." Id.

[49] See Population Research Institute Mission, supra note 48; Slifer, supra note 5, at 128-131.

[50] See Slifer, supra note 5, at 150; Elizabeth Bryant, European Nations Offer Incentives to Have Kids, San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 10, 2008, available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/10/MNTQ11UVLJ.DTL&type=moms .

[51] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A, at 74, art. 16(1), U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., 183d plen. Mtg., U.N. Doc. A/810 (Dec. 12, 1948).

[52] Id. art. 16(3).

[53] International Conference on Human Rights, April 22 to May 13, 1968, Proclamation of Teheran, ¶ 16, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.32/41, U.N. Sales No. E.68.XIV.2 (1968), reprinted in Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments 43, Proclamation of Teheran, ¶ 16, (United Nations 1988); see also Declaration on Social Progress and Development, G.A. Res. 2542, at 50, Article 4, U.N. GAOR, 24th Sess., 1829th plen. Mtg., U.N. Doc. A/7630 (Dec. 11, 1969) (providing "[p]arents have the exclusive right to determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children").

[54] Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 536, 541 (1942).

[55] See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965) (recognizing access to contraceptives is a right of privacy that cannot be impeded by the state); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972) (holding "[i]f the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child").

[56] See Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 879 (1992) (holding "a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability"); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164-65 (1973) (setting forth trimester framework for when the state can regulate an abortion).

[57] See generally 26 U.S.C. § 151 (2004) (exemption for dependents); 26 U.S.C. § 24 (2009) (child tax credit); 26 U.S.C. § 21 (2007) (dependent care credit); 26 U.S.C. § 32 (2009) (earned income tax credit).

[58] See Russell Shorto, No Babies?, New York Times Magazine, June 29, 2008, at 1, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html .

[59] France Moves to Encourage Large Families, DW-World.De, Sept. 24, 2005, http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1720921,00.html [hereinafter DW-World France]; see also Caroline Wyatt, France Boosts Family Incentives, BBC News, Sept. 23, 2005, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4274200.stm .  In France, the government has implemented a policy to encourage women to have more than two children by offering tax incentives for childcare, and an increased monetary allowance for the time a mother may miss from work. Id.

[60] DW-World France, supra note 59.

[61] Shorto, supra note 58, at 1. The "baby bonus" was about $15,000 per child. Id.

[62] Id. at 7.

[63] Id.

[64] Bryant, supra note 50.

[65] Id.

[66] Id.

[67] Pub. L. No. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816 (codified as amended at 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (2006)).

[68] Pub. L. No. 88-206, 77 Stat. 392 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 7401 (2006)).

[69] Pub. L. No. 94-580, 90 Stat. 2795 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 6901 (2006)).

[70] EPA History: 1970-1985, http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/15b.htm (last visited Oct. 25, 2009).

[71] James Salzman, Sustainable Consumption and the Law, 27 Envtl. L. 1243, 1244-45 (1997).

[72] See id. at 1245.

[73] Id.

[74] European Commission, Environment Policies, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/policy_en.htm (last visited Oct. 25, 2009).

[75] Id. The comprehensive list of policy areas includes: air, biotechnology, chemicals, civil protection and environmental accidents, climate change, environmental economics, enlargement and neighboring countries, health, industry and technology, international issues, land use, nature and biodiversity, noise, soil, sustainable development, waste, and water. Id.

[76] Id.

[77] See Andy Stone, The World's Cleanest Countries, Forbes Magazine, Apr. 15, 2009, available at http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/15/worlds-cleanest-countries-business-energy-clean-countries.html . The Environmental Performance Index, developed by Columbia University's Center for International Earth Science Information Network and Yale University's Center for Environmental Law and Policy to measure pollution in a nation, ranked 14 European nations in its list of top 20 clean countries. Switzerland was number one on the list. The United States ranked 39^th on the list, out of the 149 countries that were ranked. Id.

[78] See Hunter et al., supra note 8, at 75.

[79] Id. at 70. This is the "push - pull" equation. Government can "pull" in new technology and at the same time, "push" old technology out. Id.

[80] See Peter Lehner, Changing Markets to Address Climate Change, 35 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 385, 389 (2008). Lehner estimated the Energy Policy Act of 2005 allowed for $9 billion in government subsidies for coal and $6 billion in subsidies for oil and natural gas. Id.; see also Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 1908-58, 119 Stat. 594.

[81] See Richard L. Ottinger, Renewable Energy Sources for Development, 32 Envtl. L. 331, 344 (2002).

[82] Hunter et al., supra note 8, at 84.

[83] See supra Part I. Green technology may hold more promise than humanity realizes. But as long as government continues to invest in fossil fuels instead of renewable sources, it is hard to say how far technology can take us.

[84] See United Nations Population Fund, 2004 Annual Report 29, http://www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/documents/publications/2005/annual_report04.pdf

(last visited Oct. 30, 2009) [hereinafter UNFPA 2004 Report] (listing pledges made, by country, to the United Nations Population Fund). Note that the UNFPA once stood for "United Nations Fund for Populations Activities" but was changed in 1987 to its current form. The original acronym, however, was retained. United Nations Population Fund, About UNFPA, http://www.unfpa.org/about/faqs.htm (last visited Nov. 4, 2009).

[85] See Summary of the ICPD Programme of Action, United Nations Population Fund, http://www.unfpa.org/icpd/summary.cfm (last visited Oct. 30, 2009).

[86] Id.

[87] Id.

[88] Id.

[89] See Coward, supra note 9, at 1171.

[90] See Alex Kirby, Slowing Population ‘Lacks Funds', BBC News, Sept. 15, 2004, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3655028.stm .

[91] West Accused of ‘Woeful' Family Planning Effort, BBC News, June 29, 1999, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/06/99/world_population/380220.stm .

[92] Id.; see also Annan: World Must Curb Population Growth, BBC News, June 30, 1999, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/382466.stm . In 1999, then United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan encouraged world governments to honor the financial commitments made to the United Nations Population Fund at Cairo. Id.

[93] Kirby, supra note 90.

[94] UNFPA 2004 Report, supra note 84.

[95] Id.

[96] See supra Part II.A.

[97] See UNFPA 2004 Report, supra note 84. Egypt, Iran, Liberia, Cameroon, and Brazil all pledged relatively large sums and failed to make any payment. Id. 

[98] Id.

[99] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supra note 51, at 71, art. 29(2).

[100] Id.; see also Hunter et al., supra note 8, at 92.

[101] See Hunter et al., supra note 8, at 92; Final Act of the UN International Conference on Human Rights, art 16 (Tehran, Apr. 25-May 9, 1968) U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 32/41 (1968), U.N. Sales No. E. 68.XIV.2; Declaration on Social Progress and Development, supra, note 53, art. 4.

[102] Has China's One-Child Policy Worked?, BBC News, Sept. 20, 2007, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7000931.stm .

[103] China to Keep One-Child Policy, CNN, Mar. 10, 2008, available at http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/10/china.onechild/index.html .

[104] Id.

[105] Hannah Beech, Enemies of the State, Time, Sept. 12, 2005, available at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1103579,00.html .

[106] Guan Xiaofeng, Most People Free to Have More Child, China Daily, July 11, 2007, available at http://chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-07/11/content_5432238.htm.

[107] China to Keep One-Child Policy, CNN, Mar. 10, 2008, available at http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/03/10/china.onechild/index.html ; see also Has China's One-Child Policy Worked?, BBC News, Sept. 20, 2007, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7000931.stm .

[108] Population and Family Planning Law of the P.R.C. (Order of the President No.63), Chinese Government's Official Web Portal, http://english.gov.cn/laws/2005-10/11/content_75954.htm (last visited Oct. 30, 2009) [hereinafter China Population Law].

[109] Id. art. 18, 19.

[110] Id. art. 27.

[111] Id. art. 21, 25.

[112] Id. art. 41.

[113] China Population Law, supra note 108, art. 42; see also Lawmakers Barred for Breaking One-Child Rule, China Daily, Apr. 5, 2008, available at http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-04/04/content_6592357.htm (stating that twenty-one lawmakers in China's Liaoning Province were barred from political office due to their violation of this law).

[114] China Population Law, supra note 108, art. 22.

[115] Id. art. 35.

[116] Id. art. 36.

[117] See Ying Chen, China's One-Child Policy and its Violations of Women's and Children's Rights, 22 N.Y. Int'l. L. Rev. 1, 2 (2009). Chen notes, "there is a great discrepancy between law as it appears on paper and the law in actual practice. In reality, the one-child policy is carried out through involuntary contraception, forced sterilization, and abortion, which seriously violate women's basic dignity and human rights." Id. For further reading, see generally L. M. Cirando, Note, Informed Choice and Population Policy: Do the Population Policies of China and the United States Respect and Ensure Women's Rights to Informed Choice?, 19 Fordham Int'l L.J. 611 (1995); Gerrie Zhang, Comment, U.S. Asylum Policy and Population Control in the People's Republic of China, 18 Hous. J. Int'l L. 557 (1996); Amy Hampton, Comment,  Population Control in China, Sacrificing Human Rights for the Greater Good?, 11 Tulsa J. Comp. & Int'l L. 321 (2003).

[118] Jim Yardley, China Sticking With One-Child Policy, New York Times, Mar. 11, 2008, at A10, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/world/asia/11china.html

.

[119] See generally Farzaneh Roudi-Fahimi, Population Reference Bureau, Iran's Family Planning Program: Responding to a Nation's Needs (2003), available atId. at 3.  

http://www.prb.org/pdf/IransFamPlanProg_Eng.pdf. Iran is primarily an Islamic nation, and in response to certain faith-based criticisms of population control, the High Judicial Council announced sterilization was not against the teachings of Islam.

[120] Id. at 3.

[121] Id.

[122] Id.

[123] Robert Tait, Ahmadinejad Urges Iranian Baby Boom to Challenge West, The Guardian, Oct. 23, 2006, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/23/iran.roberttait .

[124] Michael Theodoulou, Iranians Told to Beat West by Making More Babies, London Times, Oct. 23, 2006, available at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article610340.ece .  

[125] Id.

[126] Id.

[127] Id.

[128] Id. Ahmadinejad has said, "I am against saying that two children are enough. Our country has a lot of capacity. It has the capacity for many children to grow in it. Iran even has the capacity for 120 million people." Id.

[129] See Theodoulou, supra note 124.

[130] Joseph Khan & Jim Yardley, As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes, New York Times, Aug. 25, 2007, at A1, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html .

[131] Id.

[132] Id.

[133] Shirong Chen, China in Olympics Pollution Drive, BBC News, Feb. 26, 2008, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7264957.stm .

[134] Juliet Macur, Reviews of Air Quality Are Mixed, and So Is Attendance, New York Times, Aug. 9, 2008, at D2, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/sports/olympics/09pollution.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=Chinapercent20olmpicspercent20airpercent20pollution&st=cse .

[135] Iran Smog ‘Kills 3,600 in Month', BBC News, Jan. 9, 2007, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6245463.stm .

[136] Id.

[137] Id.

[138] Tehran Schools Closed Due to Smog, BBC News, Dec. 6, 2005, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4502406.stm .

[139] Chloe Arnold, Experts Debate Ailing Caspian Sea, BBC News, Oct. 9, 2002, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2314303.stm .

[140] Coward, supra note 9, at 1170.

[141] ReligiousTolerance.org, Religions of the World, http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm (last visited Oct. 31, 2009). The author recognizes the fact that every Christian and every Muslim do not necessarily agree with every teaching of their faith. Internal disagreements exist in organized religion. This article is meant to examine the official position of these faiths, and it is recognized these positions may not be representative of every follower of the creed.

[142] Id.

[143] BBC Religion & Ethics - Christianity, Contraception, http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/contraception_8.shtml   (last visited Oct. 15, 2009) [hereinafter BBC - Christianity].

[144] Genesis 1:28 (King James).

[145] BBC - Christianity, supra note 143 (quoting Pope Paul VI).

[146] Id.

[147] Abdullah, supra note 7, at 1846 (quoting Pope John Paul II).

[148] BBC Religion & Ethics - Islam, Contraception, http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/contraception.shtml   (last visited Oct. 31, 2009).

[149] Qur'an 6:151.

[150] BBC Religion & Ethics - Islam, Abortion,  http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/abortion_1.shtml   (last visited Oct. 31, 2009).

[151] Id.

[152] See Hardaway, supra note 46, at 1213-14; see generally Coward, supra note 9, at 1170.

[153] See Abdullah, supra note 7, at 1847. The Pope attempted dialogue with Islamic nations, but denied "seeking a pact." Id.

[154] Id.

[155] Id. at 1846.

[156] Alves, supra note 7, at 506.

[157]See Abdullah, supra note 7, at 1850-51. Egyptian Population Minister Maher Mahran, for example, asked: "Is the Vatican ruling the world? Is the Vatican deciding what every country must have? . . . We respect the Vatican. We respect the Pope. But if they are not going to negotiate, why did they come?" Id.

[158] See supra Part II.B.

[159] See Abdullah, supra note 7, at 1846; Alves, supra note 7, at 506.

[160] See Barsh, supra note 38, at 258.

[161] Id.

[162] Id.

[163] This is more of a Neo-Malthusian viewpoint. Anti-Malthusians tend to focus more on the implementation of technology and the resourcefulness of humans to solve Earth's ecological problems, and not a reduction in overall consumption.

[164] This is in line with Anti-Malthusians who object to any and all forms of population control.

[165] See Coward, supra note 9 at, 1175 (noting that all religions have "an implicit environmental ethic"); Slifer, supra note 5, at 123.

[166] Leviticus 25: 23-24 (King James).

[167] Numbers 35:33-34  (King James).

[168] Leviticus 18:28 (King James).

[169] Coward, supra note 9, at 1173.

[170] Qur'an 40:59.

[171] Qur'an 54:28.

[172] Geoffrey E. Roughton, Note, The Ancient and the Modern: Environmental Law and Governance in Islam, 32 Colum J. Envtl. L. 99, 111 (2007).

[173] See Barry E. Hill et al., Human Rights and the Environment: A Synopsis and Some Predictions, 16 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 359, 375 (2004).

[174] Declaration of the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment, pmbl. ¶ 5, June 5-16, 1972, U.N. Doc. A/.CONF.48/14/Rev.1 (June 16, 1973), available at

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=97&ArticleID=1503&l=en.

[175] Id. princ. 1.

[176] David A. Wirth, The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: Two Steps Forward and One Back, or Vice Versa?, 29 Ga. L. Rev. 599, 601 (1995).

[177] Id. at 601; see also G.A. Res. 2997, U.N. GAOR, 27th Sess., Supp. No. 30, at 43, U.N. Doc. A/8730 (1972).

[178] See Wirth, supra note 176, at 601.

[179] See Ole W. Pederson, European Environmental Human Rights and Environmental Rights: A Long Time Coming?, 21 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 73, 77 (2008).

[180] Ehrlich, supra note 5, at 1188.

[181] Id.

[182] See id. at 1190. Ehrlich appears to focus his conclusion on the premise that the highly populated developed world consumes more, which leads to more of an environmental impact than developing nations can have simply because the rate of consumption in those nations is much smaller. Id.

[183] Id.

[184] See id.

[185] U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, June 3-14, 1992, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, princ. 7, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/5/Rev.1 (Aug. 12, 1992), available at http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm .

[186] Id. princ. 1. 

[187] U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, June 3-14, 1992, Agenda 21: Program of Action for Sustainable Development, U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 151/4 (1992), available at http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21toc.htm [hereinafter U.N. Agenda 21].

[188] See Hill, supra note 173, at 376. Hill argues the Rio Declaration takes a "softer approach than the Stockholm Declaration." Id.; see also Pederson, supra note 179, at 78. Pederson claims, "[t]he Rio Declaration, despite its strong anthropocentric focus, contains no specific reference similar to the nexus between human rights and the environment contained in the Stockholm Declaration." Id.

[189] See Coward, supra note 9, at 1170.

[190] U.N. Agenda 21, supra note 187, at 32, ¶ 4.3.

[191] Id. ¶ 4.8.

[192] See Salzman, supra note 71, at 1253.

[193] Id.

[194] Id.

[195] Id.; see also Richard Lazarus, Pursuing "Environmental Justice": The Distributional Effect of Environmental Protection, 87 N.W. U. L. Rev. 787 (1993). Professor Lazarus notes that "[e]nvironmental protection policy has been almost exclusively concerned with two basic issues during the last several decades: (1) what is an acceptable level of pollution; and (2) what kinds of legal rules would be best suited for reducing pollution to that level." Id.

[196] See Salzman, supra note 71, at 1253.

[197] Id. at 1255.

[198] Id.

[199] Id.

[200] Id.

[201] Salman, supra note 71, at 1259.

[202] Id.

[203] Id. at 1260.

[204] Id. at 1269. Salzman points out that in 1997, 93 percent of American teenagers claimed shopping was their favorite hobby. He observes that a law that would discourage consumption "flies in the face of strongly-held cultural values." Id.

[205] See, e.g., Jeff Brumley, The Great (Green) Debate in Churches, Florida Times-Union, Apr. 17, 2009, available at http://www.jacksonville.com/lifestyles/values_and_religion/2009-04-19/story/the_great_green_debate_in_churches   (noting that "conservative evangelicals historically resisted the environmental movement"); Robert McClure & Lisa Stiffler, Federal Way Schools Restrict Gore Film, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Jan. 11, 2007, available at http://www.seattlepi.com/local/299253_inconvenient11.html (reporting how certain parents objected to a showing of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," in a public school on the grounds that an alternative Biblical view was not offered). 

[206] See generally Acton Institute, From Climate Control to Population Control: Troubling Background on the "Evangelical Climate Initiative", http://www.acton.org/files/fcctpc.pdf (last visited Oct. 31, 2009).

[207] Cornelia Dean, Catholics Organize Against Climate Change, New York Times - Dot Earth Blog, Apr. 21, 2009, http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/catholic-post/?hp .

[208] Id.

[209] Christians and Climate.org, The Evangelical Climate Initiative, http://christiansandclimate.org (last visited Oct. 31, 2009).

[210] Id. The initiative asserts four claims: 1) "Human-Induced Climate Change is Real" ; 2) "The Consequences of Climate Change Will Be Significant, and Will Hit the Poor the Hardest"; 3) "Christian Moral Convictions Demand Our Response to the Climate Change Problem"; 4) "The need to act now is urgent. Governments, businesses, churches, and individuals all have a role to play in addressing climate change-starting now." Christians and Climate.org, The Evangelical Climate Initiative - Call to Action, http://christiansandclimate.org/learn/call-to-action/ (last visited Oct. 31, 2009).

[211] See Richard Black, Christians Draw Swords on Climate, BBC News, Sept. 1, 2005, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4201372.stm .

[212] See Stone, supra note 77.

[213] Id.

[214] Id.

[215] Id.

[216] See Salzman, supra note 71, at 1270.

[217] Holly K. Towle et al., The European Union Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment: A Study in Trans-Atlantic Zealotry, 31 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 49, 55 (2004).

[218] Noah Sachs, Planning the Funeral at the Birth: Extended Producer Responsibility in the European Union and the United States, 30 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 51, 62 (2006).

[219] Id. at 62-63.

[220] Id. at 63. This generally creates logistical problems for a producer. Id.

[221] Id.

[222] Id. This can be especially important in the discarding of hazardous products. Id.

[223] Sachs, supra note 218, at 64.  

[224] See generally id.

[225] See supra, Part III.

[226] See Ottinger, supra note 81, at 344.

[227] Id. This figure does not include money paid by the United States to "secure the supply of oil imports that have been estimated to produce a true oil cost of more than $100 per barrel." Id.

[228] Id.

[229] Id.

[230] Id.

[231] Ottinger, supra note 81, at 344-45.

[232] Id. at 345.

[233] Id.

[234] Richard L. Ottinger, Global Climate Change Kyoto Protocol Implementation: Legal Frameworks for Implementing Clean Energy Solutions, 18 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 19, 42 (2000).

[235] Id.

[236] Id.

[237] Id. at 41-42. Ottinger  recites that "[b]etween 1990 and 1997, annual fossil fuel subsidies in China fell from $24.5 billion to $10 billion. Coal subsidy rates fell from 61percent in 1984 to 37 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in 1995, and further since then. Petroleum subsidies fell from 55 percent in 1990 to 2 percent in 1995." Id.

[238] See supra Part II.B.

[239] Lehner, supra note 80, at 389.

[240] Joel Makower et al., Clean Energy Trends 4 (Mar. 2009), http://www.cleanedge.com/reports/pdf/Trends2009.pdf .

[241] Hunter et al., supra note 8, at 53.

[242] Id. at 54.

[243] Id.

[244] Proverbs 29:7 (King James).