Children 'bad for planet'
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.
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.
0
-
they have a point, there's a reason the third world is the third world.
You only have so many resources in a given nation, which brings up a quote from Kelly's Heroes: "split how many ways stupid"0 -
not population control again... they, the green think tank, or whatever they call themselves nowdays should start with themselves -- take a deeeeeeeep breath and not exhale.
here, great article: http://www.jefflindsay.com/Overpop.shtml0 -
that study is flawed.
cut new joisey off from Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, etc. and see how long they last. It is the sparsely populated midwest states that feed this nation, not the east coast megalopolises0 -
quote:Originally posted by KSUmarksman
that study is flawed.
cut new joisey off from Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, etc. and see how long they last. It is the sparsely populated midwest states that feed this nation, not the east coast megalopolises
than you must immediately commit an abortion.0 -
It stands to reason that the planet can support only a finite number of individuals. We push the "carrying capacity" of the planet upwards with our technological advances, to be sure, but I think we do so at the cost of our own quality of life.
I live in a sparsely populated part of the nation. I can be in "nature" within 30 miles of my home. And still, I see development robbing all of us of our undeveloped spaces. This holds whether I'm talking about the suburban sprawl around Minneapolis, the explosion of 5-acre lots in eastern WA and the Idaho panhandle, or even just the trend to develop rural Nevada.
All of that is driven by population growth. Fewer babies: less need to develop more land. It's that simple.0 -
quote:John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London
If he really belives his theory perhaps he should persuade himself and all his liberal friends to do the "right" thing. I'll supply the Kool Ade. Or is this just another Elitist telling others what to do, while ignoring his own professorial study?0 -
The problem is WHOis going to have fewer babies? I have two. Population replacements. I get NO freebies from the government, I save for their education and my retirement, etc, etc. Meanwhile, the third worlds, both outside AND inside the U.S. are cranking them out almost as fast as their bodies will allow. If you want to control the population, start there. Sterilize those who won't take care of 'business' themselves and solve two problems. 0 -
LOL ... thanks for the chuckle.[8D] 0 -
These wack jobs are really making Global Warming a scientific joke. Just about every day they come out with another crazy thing that is causing Global Warming and thus will end the world. Even the good scientists are now coming out against all this hype, as they are worried that the average person will just shrug it all off to "the wackies." 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
9 comments