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."
So, it's not about preserving resources any more. It's about minimizing those luxury fashion accessories, like SUV's. Or children. Who would have thought that the two were of equal value?The cumulative pitter-patter of little feet, and the child-size carbon footprints they leave behind has the population control gurus scared:
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
"Oh, horror!" cries the population control machine! "We've been trying so hard in the "developed" world to take care of the environment! But, those childish primitive people in the developing world (and a few stubborn religious right types here in the first world) refuse to be enlightened by birth control, and are still breeding like bunny rabbits!" What's an environmentalist wacko to do?
Never fear, population control advocates. I have the solution for those of you who want to offset the "damage" done by those of us "breeders" who are Christians, Mormons, or denizens of the un-developed world.
The best part of this solution is that many "childfree" folks have already put it into place. Here it is: walk your talk and just stop having children.
And maybe stop talking so much. Breathing emits carbon dioxide, you know.
Maybe we can even get Al Gore to pay you.
Of course, it means you'll eventually be outnumbered by the rest of us, but no sacrifice is too great for the cause, now is it?
Hat Tip: Pertinacious Papist
1 comment:
If we could afford it, I'd have 20 children just to tick these people off. No doubt, I'd have the children first and foremost because I want them and will love them, but the added bonus of irritating an environmentalist (wasn't saving the planet supposed to be about children, anyway?) is the icing in the cake.
Every large family that I know is more eco-friendly because they have to reuse, buy second hand, and budget to save money.
It's the families with one, or no, kids that usually have the large houses, drive the expensive cars, and live lavishly.
But as I've said countless times on my blog, the "global warming" movement is less about saving the planet and more about giving an elite few control over the rest of us (including - oh, joy! - our reproductive choices).
Post a Comment