Global population growth is now slowing rapidly. Is it better for environment?

> Fewer of us means a reprieve for nature – right? No. It’s not that simple.

> For instance, the per capita amount of energy we use peaks between ages 35 and 55, falls, and then rises again from age 70 onwards, as older people are more likely to stay indoors longer and live alone in larger homes. This century’s extraordinary growth in older populations could offset declines from falling populations.

> Then there’s the huge disparity in resource use. If you live in the United States or Australia, your carbon footprint is nearly double that of a counterpart in China, the largest overall emitter.

These passages reflect a deeply confused way of thinking. These two things cause more environmental strain regardless of population growth, and they are not caused by slowing population growth. It is equivalent to writing "Commuting by bicycle is faster than on foot - right? No. It's not that simple. Yes you will travel faster by bicycle, but this is offset by the workplace being far away. Then there's the huge disparity in commute length - if you live in the suburbs, your commute is nearly double that of a counterpart in the inner city."