Some argue that linking population with climate change should not include discussion of family planning as part of the solution, for fear of reversing gains made at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo towards programming based on a rights framework rather than on a demographic rationale. This group worries about tendencies towards coercion in setting population targets. In an online discussion of population and climate change conducted by the webBulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Betsy Hartmann, director of Hampshire College's Population and Development Program, argued that "when population control is the objective, the quality of [family planning] service suffers and coercive methods often override freedom of choice." But Suzanne Petroni, Program Officer at the Summit Foundation, who also cautions about making the population-climate change connection, notes that "we must engage the discussion, if only to prevent a return to the days of coerced sterilizations, forced abortions and two-child per family mandates."

And others say that acknowledging the link between population and climate, and the role family planning can play, won't automatically lead to coercive policies. In the Atomic Scientists discussion, John Guillebaud, emeritus professor at University College, London, and Martin Desvaux, trustee of the Optimum Population Trust in Britain, wrote that this argument "perpetuates some infamous myths about people who have a qualitative concern about human population... [including] that being concerned about population leads intrinsically to coercion."

This latter group argues that voluntary family planning is critical to meeting the needs of millions of women (PDF) who express the desire to space or limit pregnancy and yet are not using contraception. Meeting this need for contraception at the individual level, by providing universal access to family planning and reproductive health (a goal set in Cairo), will ultimately have a positive effect on population stabilization. Fred Meyerson, assistant professor at the University of Rhode Island, in the same online discussion, emphatically states that "stopping emissions growth and climate change will be unattainable without universal effective [family planning] programs and population stabilization..." but adds that "There is agreement..about the need to provide FP/RH...and related education to everyone on the planet in a non-coercive way."

As someone who has been involved in population, family planning, reproductive health and sexual reproductive health and rights work for over two decades, I am in the "let's talk about it" camp. We are the ones who know the history of our field and understand that Cairo reaffirmed the need for voluntary, rights-based sexual and reproductive health services, including, but not limited to, family planning.

We should also remember that the Cairo Programme of Action was generated at the Conference on Population and Development and that we have win-win language from the Programme of Action:

"...recognizing that the ultimate goal is the improvement of the quality of life of present and future generations, the objective is to facilitate the demographic transition as soon as possible in countries where there is an imbalance between demographic rates and social, economic and environmental goals, while respecting human rights." (Emphasis mine.)

This is language that nearly 180 countries signed on to in Cairo in 1994.

If we don't stay in the discussion on population and climate change and insist on family planning and reproductive health programs that respect individual rights, what solutions might emerge from people who are unaware about what can happen when population policies and programs are driven purely by demographic targets?

Originally published at RH Reality Check.