Can we avert climate disaster more effectively by curbing population growth or by reducing consumption? Would it be enough if the wealthiest few flew and sailed less, or should fewer children be born among the less affluent? Does population policy shift the burden of solving a problem caused by the rich onto the poor? 

Held on Monday evening to a full house, the event was the first debate in the series “Searching for Paths to Sustainability: Debates on the Future”, organised within the university’s Ethics, Responsibility, Sustainability Hub. 

In a lively, hour-long exchange following the opening talks, Zoltán Pogátsa stressed that he had no intention of interfering in anyone’s private life, but maintained that only 3–4 billion people could be fed without emitting greenhouse gases. “If a room is full,” he said, glancing around the packed auditorium, “some people simply can’t fit in.” 

Diána Ürge-Vorsatz, on the other hand, argued that population growth among poorer communities is not the real concern, as their emissions are negligible. The richest 10 percent of the world’s population are responsible for nearly half of all emissions, while the poorest 50 percent contribute barely a tenth. She believes that reducing consumption could achieve far more, and that the Earth could support up to 10 billion people—though not entirely without emissions. 

Moderator Alexandra Köves suggested that the growing populations of developing countries might still pursue a path of progress with lower ultimate emissions, taking advantage of the benefits of late development and open-access knowledge and technology. The two speakers, however, remained divided on this point. 

The full report is available on hvg.hu in Hungarian. For the English version of the article, it is recommended to use the browser’s built-in translation feature. 

Photo credit: HVG