A new way to combat global warming

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21684...5009760,00.html

 

Children 'bad for planet'By Sarah-Kate Templeton in London

 

 

HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.

 

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

 

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.

 

"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."

 

In his latest comments, the academic says that when couples are planning a family they should be encouraged to think about the environmental consequences.

 

"The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account," he added.

 

Professor Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.

 

The world's population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the growth will take place in developing countries. The population of developed nations is expected to remain unchanged and would have declined but for migration.

 

The British fertility rate is 1.7. The EU average is 1.5. Despite this, Professor Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions.

 

So a box of condoms to Ethiopia should mean I can drive my SUV for a decade! Woo hoo!

[jackie hayes]

Wouldn't you prefer sponsoring some of that abstinence-only education that works so well here?

[EvilMonkey]

Wouldn't you prefer sponsoring some of that abstinence-only education that works so well here?

And why would I do that? Just because I tend to be on the conservative side of things doesn't mean I fall lockstep into every ideal that appears on that side. Do you think Bush = Hitler, 9-11 was an inside job and only white people can be racist? Those ideals cerainly appear in some people on the more left side of things.

[jackie hayes]

And why would I do that? Just because I tend to be on the conservative side of things doesn't mean I fall lockstep into every ideal that appears on that side. Do you think Bush = Hitler, 9-11 was an inside job and only white people can be racist? Those ideals cerainly appear in some people on the more left side of things.

As far as I know, none of those things has been part of the official policy of any Democratic president.

 

It was meant as a tongue-in-cheek shot at the current admin. I took your post as more or less a joke, and as a rule I sort of expect that those willing to make light fun of the 'other side' are not quite so touchy about their own. Guess not.

[EvilMonkey]

As far as I know, none of those things has been part of the official policy of any Democratic president.

 

It was meant as a tongue-in-cheek shot at the current admin. I took your post as more or less a joke, and as a rule I sort of expect that those willing to make light fun of the 'other side' are not quite so touchy about their own. Guess not.

Go ahead and make fun of abstinance only programs. I have no problem with the idea, other than they don't really work too well. I also don't like schools handing out birth control to 12 year olds. I thought you were taking a potshot at me. Sorry for the tone of my rebuttal. But I was not entirely tounge-in-cheek with the posting. We always hear that the planet has too many people anyway, now you have a study that shows that it would be a good thing to have smaller families. Will the UN and Greenies champion this cause worldwide, or give exemptions to China, Mexico, the Middle East and the entire African continent?

 

On a different note, the story, being from Britian, shows that the British have a slightly higher birthrate than the rest of the EU, and the author suggests that the Brits should stop procreating so much. That would be the death of England as we know it, since they are being overrun with Muslims, who you know would not stop reproducing, and soon would be in a majority. So just like all the CO2 emmitions, we need to find a way for the 'developing nations' to stop their polluting of the planet as well, instead of just blaming all the so-called 'rich' nations.

[jackie hayes]

Go ahead and make fun of abstinance only programs. I have no problem with the idea, other than they don't really work too well. I also don't like schools handing out birth control to 12 year olds. I thought you were taking a potshot at me. Sorry for the tone of my rebuttal. But I was not entirely tounge-in-cheek with the posting. We always hear that the planet has too many people anyway, now you have a study that shows that it would be a good thing to have smaller families. Will the UN and Greenies champion this cause worldwide, or give exemptions to China, Mexico, the Middle East and the entire African continent?

 

On a different note, the story, being from Britian, shows that the British have a slightly higher birthrate than the rest of the EU, and the author suggests that the Brits should stop procreating so much. That would be the death of England as we know it, since they are being overrun with Muslims, who you know would not stop reproducing, and soon would be in a majority. So just like all the CO2 emmitions, we need to find a way for the 'developing nations' to stop their polluting of the planet as well, instead of just blaming all the so-called 'rich' nations.

Well, I certainly hope you don't think providing more condoms will solve anything. That's gotta be a joke, at least.

 

The "study" is pretty silly, imo. It provides absolutely zero information. Unless a person has a neutral 'carbon footprint', eliminating everything he does (by making him not exist) will help the environment more than just reducing his footprint. Since basically noone has a neutral carbon footprint, the conclusion is mind-numbingly obvious.

 

And then, Giuliani's assured us that the Brits are dying in droves from socialized medicine, so what more is left to be done? (Had to get that in.)

 

The poor, always and everywhere, have more kids than the rich. Without resorting to draconian measures (China -- which actually has a lower birthrate than the US; Mexico's not much higher), that's not gonna change. But the impact of one person in a rich country is much higher than the impact of one person in a poor country. So if your goal is environmental impact reduction, it still makes more sense to start with rich countries. (At least in this very simple analysis.)

 

Of course, the growth in pollution (overall) is being driven largely by developing countries. But that's not at all surprising, either. Higher living standards mean more pollution per person. So growth in pollution per person (as they catch up with our standard of living) plus growth in the number of people plus the fact that it's a much larger group of people to begin with -- of course they are going to contribute more to the growth of pollution.

 

It hardly seems morally right to demand that they stay poor. So the better solution seems to be making the ultimate end (our standard of life) more sustainable.

 

Btw, as far as I know, Muslims are allowed to be British.

[jackie hayes]

Let me add that I think people on the left are appalled by really out-of-control pollution in the developing world, as China continues to get a lot of attention. But if Mali has to double its carbon emissions per capita in building roads, transportation infrastructure, and hospitals, so that fewer people starve and suffer awful deaths, yeah, I can live with that. I'd trade off a marginal improvement in SUV fuel efficiency for that, yes.

[EvilMonkey]

It hardly seems morally right to demand that they stay poor. So the better solution seems to be making the ultimate end (our standard of life) more sustainable.

 

Btw, as far as I know, Muslims are allowed to be British.

Jackie, it is a viscious circle, to a point. The poor stay poor in part because of their extra mouths to feed, bodies to put clothes on, etc. But why is it poor people have more kids? Is the only entertainment they can afford to f*** like rabbits? Condoms, or the pill, are cheaper than kid(s).

[EvilMonkey]

Btw, as far as I know, Muslims are allowed to be British.

Yes, they are. And with the huge immigration flow they have there, if the native population stops having kids, they will soon be outnumbered by Muslims, who are NOT going to stop having kids.

[jackie hayes]

Jackie, it is a viscious circle, to a point. The poor stay poor in part because of their extra mouths to feed, bodies to put clothes on, etc. But why is it poor people have more kids? Is the only entertainment they can afford to f*** like rabbits? Condoms, or the pill, are cheaper than kid(s).

I haven't seen anything suggesting that unintended pregnancies are important for population growth. As for why the poor often have more children -- In dramatically poorer countries, you have to deal with a couple facts. One, many people are living on near-subsistence levels of income. Two, LOTS of kids die. From an economic perspective, yes, an additional kid provides another mouth to feed for a while. On the other hand, a kid doesn't consume as much as an adult, and he eventually starts contributing to the family through work. And when you get too old to work, you want to have at least one kid who: survives, becomes relatively prosperous, remains in contact with you, and wants to support you. That's a lot of ifs. (And of course there's no Social Security...it's paradise for Republicans...) And in many places, it usually means it's gotta be a boy, one more if. Add it all up, and it may well make a lot of sense to have a huge family. From an evolutionary perspective (if religious fanatics like all you Republicans believe in that sort of thing), it obviously makes sense to have a large family when any given kid has only a so-so chance of surviving to adulthood.

 

In the mid-1800s our birthrate was comparable to that of many African countries today. It doesn't imply endless poverty.

 

Yes, they are. And with the huge immigration flow they have there, if the native population stops having kids, they will soon be outnumbered by Muslims, who are NOT going to stop having kids.

Muslims can be part of the "native population", too.

[EvilMonkey]

I haven't seen anything suggesting that unintended pregnancies are important for population growth. As for why the poor often have more children -- In dramatically poorer countries, you have to deal with a couple facts. One, many people are living on near-subsistence levels of income. Two, LOTS of kids die. From an economic perspective, yes, an additional kid provides another mouth to feed for a while. On the other hand, a kid doesn't consume as much as an adult, and he eventually starts contributing to the family through work. And when you get too old to work, you want to have at least one kid who: survives, becomes relatively prosperous, remains in contact with you, and wants to support you. That's a lot of ifs. (And of course there's no Social Security...it's paradise for Republicans...) And in many places, it usually means it's gotta be a boy, one more if. Add it all up, and it may well make a lot of sense to have a huge family. From an evolutionary perspective (if religious fanatics like all you Republicans believe in that sort of thing), it obviously makes sense to have a large family when any given kid has only a so-so chance of surviving to adulthood.

 

In the mid-1800s our birthrate was comparable to that of many African countries today. It doesn't imply endless poverty.

Muslims can be part of the "native population", too.

So if I read you right, you think that poor people have more kids so that in 16 years or so they can start working and contributibng to the family and then not be quite as poor. Might work, if you can survive the first 16 years or so. Very long term thinking. I am well aware of the thinking in some part of the world regarding kids, such as you need boys to help you work the farm, or have to have 20 kids so that maybe 3 or 4 survive. But wouldn't it be easier to feed 3 kids as opposed to 10? (And how do they have the energy to keep f***ing when they can barely eat? ) Then your chances of keepng them alive have increased. And sure there are places where the kids are needed to provide for the families and work on the farms, but what about in cities? What's the rational behind a poor single mom having 6 kids? And for all this grand plan about having kids to take care of them when they get old, what is the average lifespan in some of these areas? In Etheopia it is less than 50. In Congo it is a little less than that, and that is one of the more urbanized African countries with over 80% of the population living in cities. Not alot of need for farm hands there. Zambia is under 40 years life expectancy. Maybe that is why they average over 5 kids per family. Afganistan averages about 44 years and over 6 kids per family. Must be a whole lotta farming going on there. And a thriving retirement community as well.

 

And now I am going to consider it personal with the "(if religious fanatics like all you Republicans believe in that sort of thing), ". I am far from a religious fanatic, as are many republicans. If you want to continue to believe that all Republican think in lockstep, go ahead. I personally get pissed when I hear the creationism talk as it make them seem crazy to just about everyone else in the country, and we all know how in politics it is guilty by association. So next time those crazy Democratic protestors in Olympia pour cement over train tracks to block a port from getting supplies to our troops, I will just think of how you hate our troops as well. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...trators14m.html

Yeah, all them Democrats really hate our troops.

[jackie hayes]

Jesus, rtft. It's a throwaway line, meant as a joke. Never mind...