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. (Saint Louis Catholic Note: the US rate is just at replacement level: 2.1 to 2.2). 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.
_________________
Of course, if having two helps so much, then why not one?
Great idea! But wait, if only one helps so much, why not none?
Brilliant!! And then, ultimately, there will be no more nasty humans to ruin the precious environment. As a bonus, it gives us an excuse to persecute Catholics in the meantime.
CS Lewis, among others, anticipated this in “The Abolition of Man” and “That Hideous Strength”.
Enjoy your large family/homeschooling/Catholic lifestyle while you can.
May 7, 2007 at 9:56 am
“reat idea! But wait, if only one helps so much, why not none?”
But why not mandatory sterilization at birth? Or reducing the current population? Sadly, there are pople who would take this seriously!
May 7, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I just read on another site, and thus am not sure it is accurate, that the “expert” quoted in the story has three children!
It would make sense, because all social engineers exempt themselves from the sacrifices they order for the general populace.
May 7, 2007 at 8:19 pm
The irony here is this: For so long leftists have railed against the Church and conservatives by painting them as ever eager to march into bedrooms and control behavior. They have been successful in that characterization.
Yet, now they are doing exactly the same thing (if with opposite purposes). So it seems, they do not dislike the methods they attributed to us, just the outcomes.
Well, we leave outcomes to God. They want to play God and determine outcomes (for others) themselves.
May 8, 2007 at 9:02 am
If these crack-pots had been truthful they would state that one of the biggest pollutants is caused by animals such as cattle, not humans.
So the humans are dirty, and animals are bad for the environment, I guess that just leaves plants. I wonder if plants have FEELINGS. Maybe they should write an ammendment to the constitution giving them rights!