In Lynsey Hanley's article on the global population reaching a new landmark, the headline states that "we've room on earth" and "it's sustainable if the rich world consumes less" (Welcome baby seven billion: we've room on earth for you, 23 September).
The article seems to miss the point that more than 200 million women who are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant are not using modern contraception. The results are staggering: one in four births worldwide are unplanned; and 42 million abortions are performed each year, half of them clandestinely, killing 68,000 women. The human toll of denying women the fundamental right to plan their families is extraordinarily high and also a significant source of population growth. If all women who want to avoid pregnancy were able to use and access family planning, the rate of population growth would slow substantially.
Hanley writes: "For there to be any significant impact on the environment, that [population] decline would have to take place in countries that already consume a far more than sustainable share of the world's resources." Yes, of course, the developed world should decrease its consumption – and the co-benefit of providing women with services to avoid unwanted pregnancies is particularly large in the UK because of its high per capita emissions. But does she realise that a reduction of 8-15% in carbon emissions can be obtained by providing family planning to all women who want it. This reduction would be equivalent to stopping all deforestation, or increasing the world's use of wind power 40-fold.
The argument that if you care about reducing consumption, then to focus on population is a distraction, is misleading and inaccurate. It isn't an either/or issue – both elements are important.
Addressing the unmet need for family planning also offers a host of additional health, social and economic benefits, which Hanley does not address. She writes: "Around the world, policies to promote family planning only work when people of child-bearing age are able to factor in the prospect of stability and choice in other areas of their lives." But this is incorrect. Women are crying out for family planning in many parts of the world as they realise that with fewer, healthier children to provide for, they are less likely to become poor. They are also better able to feed and provide healthcare and education for their children.
Women themselves also have greater opportunities for education, training and employment when they can control their fertility, and family planning can slow the spread of HIV/Aids. Fewer people reduces pressures on natural resources, such as arable land, fresh water, timber and fuel.
Last but not least, Hanley refers to "advocates of population control". My parliamentary group distances itself from anything that controls other people's lives and any form of coercive family planning. It is composed of cross-party MPs and peers advocating for accessible and affordable family planning and reproductive health services for all women seeking to avoid or delay pregnancies and childbirths – which respect and protect rights.