The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are “driven largely by economic and population growth” (AR5). Indeed, all the IPCC's scenarios that achieve under 2oC warming assume low population growth. Lowering or ending population growth would also make it easier for societies to adapt. Modelling found that even a modest acceleration of fertility decline would negate climate change impacts on food security in Ethiopia. Unexceptional floods in Pakistan and elsewhere are exacting an ever greater toll, simply because more people are living in their path. With fewer people, the strain could be eased on fresh water, forests and fisheries. Globally, population growth has accelerated since 2000 due to neglect of family planning programs, and through pronatalist propaganda, making the IPCC’s more desirable scenarios less attainable. Millions of women suffer unwanted pregnancies, rendering them and their children more vulnerable to extreme events and food insecurity. Meeting their reproductive needs is inexpensive – the political barriers could be lessened by acknowledging the benefits in climate discourse. But to date this is lacking. In Australia, scenario analyses from Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) Stationary Energy Plan to CSIRO's Australian National Outlook failed to consider the enormous benefits that would accrue from a lower population path. Global analyses of food, water and energy security have been similarly negligent. Addressing population growth does not compete with any other climate or development programs, but increases the effectiveness of all of them. It deserves to be included among the suite of solutions.