« Will Hutton on House Prices | Main | Not the Best Review of All Time »
May 06, 2007
Children Wreck the Planet!
Now then, this is a name and shame game that I think many of us could in fact get behind:
HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a 4x4 car and failing to reuse plastic bags, according to a report to be published tomorrow by a green think tank.
The paper by the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) 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. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.
“The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”
Now you might think that this would be a gross invasion of the highly personal decisions of others and you'd be right. But just to convince of the moral purity of the exercise, we should consider the following:
Al Gore, environmental campaigner, four children.
Zac Goldsmith, environmental activist, editor of The Ecologist, three children.
What fun, eh? Any others?
May 6, 2007 in Climate Change | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d835000dbd53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Children Wreck the Planet!:
» A few Sunday afternoon links from Maggie's Farm
Sarko wins - big time. Three cheers for France! Maybe we will finally have a friend in Paris.Al Zawahiri mocks Dem Iraq pullout plan. We all die of heat in 8 months. Yikes! Better bring my will up to date. Wait a minute - that will be mid-January. What t [Read More]
Tracked on May 6, 2007 8:59:37 PM
» Save the planet: Blame the children from Michelle Malkin
Public Enemy No. 1 Forget about saving the planet for the children. The greenies say it's all their damned fault: Having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights,... [Read More]
Tracked on May 7, 2007 3:40:37 PM
» On Playing God from Hyscience
Earlier today when I linked to David Thompson's post on a bizarre briefing paper advocating the limiting of human reproduction for controlling global warming, the first thing that flashed through my mind was the UN's recent argument for abortion before... [Read More]
Tracked on May 7, 2007 5:51:37 PM
» Having large families ‘is an eco-crime’ from Don Singleton
For one thing overpopulation is occurring in the third world countries, not in major Western countries, and Muslims are having the largest number of children in them. [Read More]
Tracked on May 7, 2007 7:47:08 PM
Comments
T Bliar, generally irritating and sanctimonious git, 4 kids.
C Blair, wide mouthed toad, (the same) 4 kids.
G Brown, environmental tax maestro, 2 at the moment but apparently still of breeding age ...
S-E
Posted by: Surreptitious Evil | May 6, 2007 11:41:42 AM
Bit of double counting there, Surreptitious Evil.
Perhaps those irresponsible, selfish gits like myself who breed like rabbits could by kid credits from those who are not into reproduction in such a big way.
Perhaps we could charge all those who have contributed to bringing the rate of infant mortality down with Crimes against Gaia in the International Court of the Environment.
Posted by: DocBud | May 6, 2007 12:09:48 PM
Ah, but you're forgetting the "carbon offsetting" side to this: by the same logic, anyone who kills someone is benefiting the environment. Extra for those who kill children or young people, who are going to be damaging the environment for decades, and possibly even producing more children themselves.
Ian Huntley and Seung-Hui Cho should be the idols of this kind of environmentalist.
Posted by: Andrew | May 6, 2007 12:25:04 PM
Also, fat gits like myself are absorbing loads of carbon all the time, so we are in fact contributing to the essential action of defeating climate change.
Posted by: Tin Drummer | May 6, 2007 12:29:25 PM
I don't have any kids (at least none that I admit to or pay for)... Does that mean that I can fly to New York and back every day and still be more "carbon friendly" than the parents in a standard "nuclear family"?
Or is this just another load of ill-researched eco-bollocks??
Posted by: Jeff | May 6, 2007 12:32:37 PM
"Also, fat gits like myself are absorbing loads of carbon all the time"
But think of the methane you're producing, which molecule-for-molecule has more than 20 times the greenhouse effect than CO2.
Posted by: Kay Tie | May 6, 2007 12:40:40 PM
Terrible as it might be, the logic is faultless. It's not buildings nor cars nor planes that produce CO2, it's people using these machines that's the problem. So less people = less CO2 emissions.
But I am troubled by the suggestion that we should have one less child each. One less than what?
Posted by: mark Brinkley | May 6, 2007 1:00:05 PM
"Also, fat gits like myself are absorbing loads of carbon all the time"
But think of the methane you're producing, which molecule-for-molecule has more than 20 times the greenhouse effect than CO2.
Oh. I had forgotten about that. But surely as I hardly exercise at all, I'm using less precious oxygen and emitting a compensatory lower amount of CO2. Furthermore - emitting methane is funny, and has given us Viz, one of the wonders of the western world.
Posted by: Tin Drummer | May 6, 2007 1:40:38 PM
Human Being: "I have four children."
Guardian Reader: "Isn't that rather a pity?"
Posted by: Little Black Sambo | May 6, 2007 9:47:42 PM
Why does it seem that socialist bastards like those at this OPT always want to control people's lives to a granularity so tiny that the practicality of it is ludicris? China legislated one child per family, but exacerbated social welfare is doing so. Crap, I hate me some liberal gimps who want to control every little aspect of living.
Posted by: skh.pcola | May 6, 2007 10:30:50 PM
Helen Caldicott - 3 children
http://www.abc.net.au/schoolstv/australians/caldicott.htm
Posted by: Forester | May 7, 2007 3:59:48 AM
If we kill Islamo Facists we'll eliminate untold millions of Co2 producers in the future, considering they average 6-8 kids per wife. Plus many have more than one wife.
Posted by: sean | May 7, 2007 4:49:37 AM
JOHN/ELIZABETH EDWARDS: 4 KIDS (ONE DECEASED)
I THINK WE'RE ONTO SOMETHING GOOD HERE. WE COULD SOLVE SEVERAL PROBLEMS HERE AT ONCE. A GENOCIDE PROGRAM DIRECTED AT MUSLIMS WOULD SOLVE THE MUSLIM FUNDAMENATALIST PROBLEM WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY TREATING MOTHER EARTH'S FEVER. OF COURSE BURNING THE BODIES WOULD BE OUT DUE TO THE LIBERATION OF THE CARBON IN ALL THE BODIES. WE SHOULD SINK THEM TO THE BOTTOM OF THE OCEAN OR BURY THEM IN A MINE (CARBON SEQUESTRATION).
WHILE WE'RE AT IT, WHY SHOULD WE BE SENDING FOOD AID TO AFRICA OR ANY OTHER POOR REGION OF THE WORLD. AND AS FAR AS SENDING MEDICATION FOR AIDS TO PEOPLE INFECTED IN AFRICA, FORGET ABOUT IT. WE SHOULD JUST LET THEM DIE.
Tim adds: OK, free speech and all that but let's assign this to the kook's file shall we?
Posted by: DR DEATH | May 7, 2007 6:40:17 PM
ROBERT KENNEDY, JR: 6 CHILDREN
Posted by: DR DEATH | May 7, 2007 6:43:58 PM
OK TIM. IF I'LL REMOVE MY TONGUE FROM MY CHEEK NOW. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE OBVIOUS BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF KOOKS ON THE INTERNET.
Posted by: DR DEATH | May 7, 2007 8:26:32 PM
If any of the people being mentioned are advocating having less children, then they are hypocrites. If not, then how can they be called hypocrites? You can't attribute a statement to people that they haven't made or adopted.
And how is the suggestion invading anyone's privacy? It is a suggestion, followed by a statement of purported fact. If I tell you to brush your teeth twice a day because you will have fewer cavities, am I invading your personal choice? Please spare the sanctimony.
Population is the source of environmental harm, no question. Should anything be done about it? No. The Earth will survive, we're here for a short ride - pack your bags.
Posted by: Erik | May 8, 2007 6:54:46 PM
Canada's environut, geneticist David Suzuki:
"Suzuki has five children, three from his first marriage to his high school sweetheart, Joane, and two from his current marriage to Dr. Tara Cullis."
Posted by: andycanuck | May 8, 2007 8:21:58 PM
Oh, and he also has IIRC four houses.
Posted by: andycanuck | May 8, 2007 8:23:17 PM
