- ‹ previous
- 95 of 1538
- next ›
Econundrum: Kids vs. Earth?
Last week, we held a household conservation smackdown. Change out lightbulbs? Retrofit your windows? Drive less? The answers are here.
But there’s one thing you can do with carbon-saving benefits that wildly surpass all of the activities on last week's list: Have fewer kids. Assuming that an American mother and father are each responsible for one half of the emissions of their offspring and 1/4 of the emissions of their grandchildren, researchers at Oregon State University recently calculated that each child adds a staggering 10,407 tons of carbon dioxide to an average female’s carbon legacy, the equivalent of 5.7 times her lifetime emissions, or an extra 470 years of life. You'd have to change out 2,623 incandescent bulbs to offset a child’s carbon footprint.
Now clearly, the decision whether to have kids isn't as simple as a carbon footprint calculation. Back in March, Mother Jones contributor Julia Whitty blogged about the Oregon State study. Emotion ran high in our readers' comments: "When did babies become the enemy?" asked one commenter. "My three little carbon monsters are going to find cures for myriad cancers, bring about world peace, discover economically feasible ways to desalinate water, and develop safe methods of nuclear fusion," wrote another. Yeah. No pressure.
One idea for folks set on having kids: Consider living more modestly. Over at Natural Papa blog, Derek Markham writes about his family’s six-year adventure in living in a 120 square foot camper. "We hauled all of our own water, used a composting toilet, a solar shower, and we tried to exercise extreme patience with each other." They survived, and saved money: Their rent was about $200 a month. Experiments like this one and No Impact Man's might not be for your family, but the lesson—that it’s possible for families to learn to live with less—is certainly worth some thought.
It's one thing if your "little carbon monsters" are your choice. But not everyone in the world has kids voluntarily. Another recent study, this one by the London School of Economics, compared several ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions: spending money on low-carbon technologies such as renewable energy and "clean coal" technology vs. providing birth control to women who want it but lack access to it. Birth control spending won by a landslide—it was roughly four and a half times as cost effective as the other activities. Here's a list of the countries that would see the greatest emissions reductions over the next 40 years with better family planning (in billions of tons):
- United States: 5.5
- China: 4.4
- Russian Federation: 3.3
- India: 2.2
- South Africa: 1.1
- Mexico: 1.1
The bottom line: Whether you see kids as carbon monsters or little darlings, one thing's clear: For the planet's sake, people who don't want kids should have access to birth control. Just ask Levi Johnston.
Birth control needs to be
Birth control needs to be promoted extensively. So does keeping abortion safe and legal. I am LDS (Mormon) and think my church needs to come out of the 19th Century and promote BOTH ideas - birth control and keeping abortion legal. However, it isn't just MY church that has failed to face the truth - most religious organizations are as bad, or WORSE. Having more and more and more kids is stupid and, yes, IMMORAL. The media should also stop promoting such STUPID shows as "18 Kids And Counting." Shows like that offend me, as do the people "starring" in that show.
Carbon Monsters
tagged as:- solution
Finally.
Yes. the religions are the problem.
I left the one i was born into at the very day i came of age because they said i had to be grateful for the life in an abuse family!
I am not.
I did not and still do not want anything resembling my own childhood - and the politicians are so submissive to the faithheads that they make it difficult to have no children.
I do hope so much that this nice argument "carbon monsters" cuts!!!
Jeez. How do we keep ending
Jeez. How do we keep ending up on lists with countries like China, Russia, India, South Africa...
But thank you Mother Jones for addressing the topic periodically. It's truly dumbfounding how big a taboo there is in regard to discussing population in the MSM.
Kids
Thanks so much for raising this issue of having fewer kids as a powerful step towards preserving/restoring our planet's ecological health.
This was one of the major factors in my wife's and my decision to have only one child, and it still feels to me like one of the more significant ethical decisions I've made in my life.
This is a hard issue for parents to confront -- especially for those who have already had a significant number of children -- but the logic is inescapable, and this still seems to be the one topic in our egalitarian, post-modern culture that is taboo.
Population control has other benefits
It's easy to forget that climate change is only one of the converging crises of the 21st century. Population control can also help with shortages of:
* Food
* Water
* Fossil Fuels
* Soil
Etc.
If we overshoot the carrying capacity of the earth, or have already, climate change will be merely the Great Exacerbater of all the rest of our problems.
Population
is certainly part of the problem, and I believe strongly that everyone should have access to birth control and abortion. But if you included figures that really revealed anything, you would reveal that the places with the highest population growth rates emit the smalllest percentage of the world's GHG. Population control is great and needed and won't help stop climate change much--especially in the next 10 years. That's when we need to solve the carbon problem.
Conservation, wind, solar, organic permaculture; eco-democratic changes in lives, diet and government...those are the solutions. OF COURSE we have overshot the carrying capacity of Earth--by a factor of 2 at least. But population and all our other problems won't cause the end of civilization or the extinction of humans and all other terrestrial megafauna within the lifetime of anyone living today. Climate change can if we don't change our lives dramatically very soon. Population is an exacerbater of all our problems. Climate change IS the problem.
How about hormone pollution
One thing this article fails to address is the impact excess human hormones have on the environment. After all, if a woman is using a hormonal birth control method she urinates those excess hormones, and researchers are starting to study the impact of those hormones on water systems.
If using a barrier method- the impact of production, packaging and shipping. Sex 3-4 times a week, a least one condom per encounter.
Not saying that kids don't have a larger impact or that birth control shouldn't be readily available, but the discussion shouldn't ignore that everything will have some impact (except abstinence, I guess. But then you'd need the anti-depressants to counter not getting laid).
breeding on earth
Polpulation is not the core problem; greed, laziness, and consumption, to name a few, are more problematic issues. People having too many people who aren't skilled/healthy and don't teach socially/environmentally responsible, respectful, low-impact lifestyles are giving the rest of us parents a bad name. In any case, let's say we stop breeding and "save" the planet; who will be here to care and to enjoy it? And then, the sun will burn out and all of this hate and madness and arguing will have been for nothing anyway. Stop being just angry and get out there and volunteer to help underprivileged parents and children so that they can become skilled and learn new ways to build good habits and to pass along this gift to others, including the newest members of our communities. Be the change you want to see...
Vasectomy is a good solution
tagged as:- solution
Since Americans are the worst polluters per capita, we need to concentrate on reducing our numbers as much as possible.
About 15 years ago, I established a vasectomy fund with a local chapter of Planned Parenthood in Eugene, OR. Any male of legal age wanting a vasectomy, but unable to afford one, could go to the Planned Parenthood office and get the procedure for free. When a story about the fund ran in the local paper, many people contributed to the fund, and a local urology group agreed to perform the procedures at half cost, effectively doubling the fund. To date, well over a hundred vasectomies have been performed.
After moving to Santa Monica, my wife and I set up two more funds with Planned Parenthood Los Angeles and Pasadena.
I highly encourage folks to either contribute to these existing funds, or even better, go to your local Planned Parenthood office and endow one yourself. It doesn't take much to get it started, then spread the word and you'll be amazed how many people will contribute to keep it going.
Vasectomies are much cheaper than the pill and more effective. They also spread the responsibility to the male side of the equation instead of always relying on the female to prevent pregnancy.
Won't this result in
Won't this result in dysgenics??? The world will be populated with the world with poor, under-educated people. They don't read Mother Jones nor do they care about the environment. The answer is progress as a civilization to renewable energy and recycling and reusing EVERYTHING. Drugs in the water are bad too. Oh and don't call me a racist.
Can't you come up with anything else, MoJo?
Here you go again, MoJo, beating this old story to death. We get it. Increasing the population has an impact on the earth.
Sure, people who want birth control should have access to it. But sooner or later, an epidemic is going to wipe out 1 or 2 billion and the population will shrink again, eliminating many more people than birth control ever could prevent. The population will regulate itself. Many more people will limit their household size because of economics than because of goody-goody propaganda like this.
The Crustier Than Thou's now have another way to feel better about themselves and superior to everyone else--not only can they recycle, be vegetarian (or vegan), and buy overpriced, recycled products (isn't ripping out our current kitchen and putting in the eco-friendly version a great idea, honey, and since we've decided not to have kids we have all this extra money...), now people can feel smug about not having kids.
Let's focus on changing power production instead of catering to narcissism.
Thank You
I live in a nice neighborhood in a small midwestern town. I have one child, and I'm frankly amazed and appalled at so many of my neighbors having three and four. But what do you say without deeply offending the parents of your child's friends (some of whom are your own friends)?
Part of me thinks it's a side-effect of trying to fill up the huge houses they've purchased. Part of me thinks it has to do with the rural nature of the state--it seems like there's plenty of room.
In my opinion, it's selfish, irresponsible, and dumb to breed like rabbits--not just in terms of the planet but in terms of their own ability to provide for their family in scarce (and getting scarcer) times.
Thanks for the article--I'd like to see it as a cover story.