POPULATION CONTROL

In Athens, for the European Commission's biodiversity conference, with the EU clearly destined to miss its target of halting the decline in biodiversity by 2010, and a minimum 30pc decline in world biodiversity recorded since 1970.

In my speech I pointed out that one species was not in decline, and that having trebled its population in 50 years humans were making rabbits look sexually inadequate. "The ecological footprint of the EU is that of someone in steel capped boots."

Politicians are frightened to mention the reality of explosive population growth for fear of being accused of wanting to introduce coercive policies, or of rich-poor hypocrisy, I said. But the West relies on developing nations staying poor because if they had the same consumption levels as us the planet's resources would be gone in a flash.

Europe's high population could be gently reduced just by increasing the average age of first children, and the first step was to make sure the subject was on the political agenda and up for public debate.

"Very brave," whispered Tony Long, international director of WWF.

One male questioner implied that I was in favour of eugenics, euthanasia, female sterilisation, and girl child infanticide, which I thought a little extreme. "Dishonest in the context of the biodiversity issue," I replied.

Later, in response to a point from Tony about the use of resources for meat production, I said that I gave up eating meat more than 20 years ago, had found it easy, but did not know how to counter the image amongst so many people in developing nations that meat eating is a demonstration of affluence.

"Hitler was a vegetarian," muttered my questioner.

THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND CLIMATE CHANGE

There's a gorilla in the room that politicians debating climate change don't like to acknowledge.

Next week the European Parliament will vote on a non-legislative report on the subject. It's a monster, an overlong dog's dinner review of the subject which includes statements from which I dissent as well as much that I cannot vote against.

I wanted to retable an amendment that was defeated in committee. It pointed out that world population has trebled in the past 50 years, is increasing by 153,000 every day, and this understandably generates a hugely increased demand for energy. It also called for the Commission and Member States to come up with some proposals for NON-COERCIVE measures to achieve optimum population levels.

And what does "non-coercive" mean? Women everywhere having greater control over reproduction. Couples having a first child a few years later than might otherwise be the case. Perhaps some financial incentives. But above all, discussion, just how many people can the planet support?

This prompted the first debate in the Lib Dem group about population that I can recall. The Romanians appeared particularly concerned about the idea that we should ask the Commission to actually propose something. It is the most important subject of all yet politicians are frightened of the consequences of discussing it.

We agreed to table my amendment so far as it mentioned the problem of growing numbers. But the call for some kind of follow up was deleted.