Empowering Youth Is The Key To A Sustainable Population Future
World Population Day 2025 was on July 11th, and the conversation turned away from doomsday headlines of 'population collapse' and toward a deeper issue: the erosion of reproductive agency. According to the United Nations Population Fund, millions of people especially young people are unable to have the number of children they desire, not because of choice, but because of barriers far beyond their control. This link will give you an idea of the current population which is 8.2 billion.
Population Concerns
This year's theme, 'Empowering young people to create the families they want in a fair and hopeful world,' reflects the reality of the largest-ever youth generation facing intersecting crises, economic insecurity, gender inequality, healthcare gaps, education deficits, climate disruption, and displacement. According to a UNFPA–YouGov survey conducted across 14 countries, many adults of reproductive age are unable to achieve the family size they desire due to a range of social, economic, and environmental challenges. Nearly 1 in 5 participants said concerns about the future such as climate change, environmental degradation, war, and pandemics had influenced them to have fewer children than they originally intended. Nearly 20% of respondents believed they would be unable to have their desired number of children, while 1 in 3 reported having experienced an unintended pregnancy. Financial barriers were a significant concern, with 39% stating that economic limitations had affected or would affect their ability to build their ideal family. In addition, Around 1 in 4 felt unable to pursue parenthood at their preferred time due to these compounded pressures.
UNFPA also noted that young people, in particular, are grappling with deep anxieties about the future. Many fear they will face harsher social and economic realities than previous generations, and these concerns are already shaping their reproductive decisions.
Fertility Rates, The Population And Sustainability
Fertility rates have fallen globally, from 4.9 children per woman in the 1950s to just 2.3 by 2023, according to Our World in Data. Yet while governments fixate on the issue of declining birth rates, the real crisis is about control: the right to plan our families in dignity, safety, and sustainability.
This issue is inseparable from the broader sustainability agenda. When young people are denied access to reproductive healthcare, quality education, or decent work, we also delay progress on the Sustainable Development Goals particularly those focused on gender equality, health, poverty, and climate resilience.
The statistics show that young people today are not just thinking about having children, they are thinking about the kind of world they will grow up in. A world where there is clean air to breathe, stable access to food and water, fair economic systems, and energy that does not cost the planet. The lesson here is that giving young people the tools, rights, and opportunities to shape their future is essential. At its core, the population conversation is about sustainability.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's AI Action Plan aims to block chip exports to China but lacks key details
The Trump administration wants its AI technology to be considered an industry leader both on home soil and abroad. But it also doesn't want the U.S.'s AI prowess to empower or embolden a foreign adversary. That's quite the balance to strike. If President Trump's AI Action Plan, which was released on Wednesday, is any indicator, the administration seems to still be figuring out the right course of action to achieve those goals. 'America currently is the global leader on data center construction, computing hardware performance, and models,' the plan stated. 'It is imperative that the United States leverage this advantage into an enduring global alliance, while preventing our adversaries from free-riding on our innovation and investment.' The plan mentions strengthening AI chip export controls through 'creative approaches' followed by a pair of policy recommendations. The first calls on government organizations, including the Department of Commerce and National Security Council, to work with the AI industry on chip location verification features. The second is a recommendation to establish an effort to figure out enforcement for potential chip export restrictions; notably, it mentions that while the U.S. and allies impose export controls on major systems required for chip manufacturing, there isn't a focus on many of the component sub-systems — a hint at where the administration wants the DOC to direct its attention. The AI Action plan also talks about how the U.S. will need to find alignment in this area with its global allies. 'America must impose strong export controls on sensitive technologies,' the plan states. 'We should encourage partners and allies to follow U.S. controls, and not backfill. If they do, America should use tools such as the Foreign Direct Product Rule and secondary tariffs to achieve greater international alignment.' The AI Action plan never gets into detail on exactly how it will achieve Al global alliances, coordinate with allies on export chip restrictions, or work with U.S.-based AI companies on chip location verification features. Instead, the AI Action plans lay out what foundational building blocks are required for future sustainable AI chip export guidelines, as opposed to policies implemented on top of existing guidelines. The upshot: chip export restrictions are going to take more time. And there's ample evidence, beyond the AP Action plan, to suggest it will. For instance, the Trump administration has contradicted itself multiple times on its export restriction strategy in the past few months — including just last week. In July, the administration gave semiconductor firms, like Nvidia and AMD, the green light to start selling AI chips they had developed for China, just months after rolling out licensing restrictions on the same AI chips that effectively pulled Nvidia out of the Chinese market. The administration also formally rescinded the Biden administration's AI Diffusion Rule in May, just days before it was supposed to go into effect. The AI Diffusion rule put a cap on how much AI computing capacity some countries were allowed to buy. The Trump administration is expected to sign multiple executive orders July 23. Whether these will contain detailed plans on how it will reach its goals is unclear. While the AI Action Plan talks at length about figuring out how to expand the U.S. AI market globally, while maintaining dominance, it's light on the specifics. Any executive order regarding chip export restrictions will likely be about getting the proper government departments together to figure out a path forward, as opposed to formal guidelines, quite yet. Sign in to access your portfolio
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
U.N. court says polluters can be held responsible for greenhouse gas emissions
The Republic of Vanuatu, a South Pacific island nation of 320,000 people, has led a growing effort since 2021 to compel the United Nations to answer one of the most crucial legal questions related to climate change: Can polluters be held legally accountable for the harm they've caused as a result of releasing large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere? The short answer is: yes. Fifteen judges who make up the International Court of Justice, located at The Hague in the Netherlands, issued a unanimous advisory opinion saying countries "have a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment by acting with due diligence and to use all means at their disposal to prevent activities carried out within their jurisdiction or control from causing significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment." The court further stated that existing environmental treaties, international human rights law, and participation in the United Nations further compels countries to do everything possible to protect the climate. Any wrongful act that violates these agreements must be immediately stopped, followed by "full reparations" and compensation made to the injured parties. "Vanuatu looks forward to collaborating with other States on implementing the Court's decision," Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister of climate change and environment, said in a statement. "A victory in the world's highest court is just the beginning. Success will depend on what happens next through coordinated efforts across diplomacy, politics, litigation, and advocacy to turn this moment into a true turning point." For Vanuatu, a country that comprises 83 islands with a combined size roughly the same as Connecticut, the decision is monumental. Officials said the country was responsible for less than 0.0004% of global cumulative greenhouse gas emissions between 1962 and 2022, but experiences disproportionate impacts of climate change. In addition to its average temperature rising, Vanuatu is seeing more severe and intense tropical cyclones. In 2023, it was hit by three cyclones that were Category 4 or higher, impacting nearly 200,000 residents and costing the country more than $400 million in economic damages. The western tropical Pacific Ocean has risen 4-6 inches between 1992-2020, which is particularly dangerous for the country as much of it is low-lying and vulnerable to erosion. All of this, along with increased precipitation and periods of drought, has caused entire communities to be relocated by the government, and the impacts are anticipated to grow more severe. "Today, the world's smallest countries have made history," Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, said in a statement. "The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities. It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection, reparations, and a future. This ruling is a lifeline for Pacific communities on the frontline." While the advisory opinion is not legally binding, environmental organizations and law experts are hopeful that the ruling can set a legal precedent for the thousands of climate change cases around the world that are attempting to hold larger governments and companies accountable for climate pollution. "This opinion can serve as a compass for countries who are thinking about how to prioritize justice and prioritize the safety of their citizens while also being in compliance with international law," said Carly Phillips, a research scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists who worked with the legal teams of seven countries that submitted supporting statements to the court asking for the opinion. The United States does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, but it did submit a written statement in March 2024 and participated in oral arguments, arguing that members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 2015 Paris Agreement already compel signatories to address climate change impacts and protects them from accountability for harming the climate. But Vanuatu's Prime Minister Jotham Napat has been skeptical of the power of the U.N. convention and the Paris Agreement, saying in a statement that neither are "generating the actions the world urgently needs fast enough." He believes a favorable opinion from the court could "support vulnerable nations in securing climate finance, technology, and loss and damage support." The court addressed this concern in its opinion and dismissed the legal argument that environmental treaties, like the Paris Agreement, protect polluters from accountability. In fact, the court emphasized that the Paris Agreement imposes strong mitigation and adaptation obligations on all parties and requires them to respond to loss and damages from climate change. Given that the United States is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, according to international data, the decision to hold large emitters responsible might be concerning, but President Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement for a second time earlier this year. The court called out countries like the United States, saying that nations that are not party to climate treaties but are members of the United Nations must meet "equivalent obligations under customary international law." The impact of the opinion remains to be seen. "It's likely not going to have a lot of influence in the United States," said Maria Antonia Tigre, director of global climate litigation at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. Tigre said that while the decision may not influence domestic court cases in the U.S. and the country can't be sued under the decision, the real impact could be seen internationally. A court in Brazil, for example, could cite the opinion in one of the 135 current climate change cases making its way through its domestic court system. The U.N. court also pointed out that corporate polluters are open to the advisory opinion, especially if they are based abroad in a country that is party to the U.N. and climate treaties. "Countries have an obligation to put an end to wrongful acts," said Tigre. "If a country is found to be in breach by giving permits to an oil company, they may need to revoke those permits." Representatives for Vanuatu said the next step is to take the decision back to the U.N. General Assembly to pursue a full resolution to support the implementation of the decision. The opinion will be a primary focus when U.N. countries meet in November for the next climate change conference, known as COP30, in Brazil.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
UN's top court says all countries have to act against climate change. Here are the key takeaways.
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The United Nations' top court has issued a landmark advisory opinion on climate change, its 15-black-robed judges weighing in for the first time on what the court's president called 'an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.'
