Monday, April 26, 2010

Children throwing off my carbon footprint.

Now more than ever, the laws in China restricting the number of children in a family , are making sense. In an online article on grist.com by Lisa Hymas, she discusses the significance it can play on one's carbon footprint to not have children. There are more and more of people on the world everyday as the population is assumed to approache 9 billion by mid-century. If having fewer children is the best way to have an impact on climate change, people that care about the earth so much that climate change is their determining factor in not procreating, it is possible that the instinctive "tree-hugging" population might genetically remove themselves from the gene pool. It has been calculated in Scientific American, that over the life of a child, the CO2 emitted by them can add up to 9441 metric tons to the atmosphere. With exponential population growth inevitable, especially in developing countries, is this alternative surprising or difficult to accept? What would another baby boom in the developing countries do to the future projections of global temperature change. Even by using energy efficient car or appliances you will not make near as much of an impact as by not procreating.

11 comments:

  1. Yes,inevitable population growth in developing countries in an issue but population growth in developed countries is more important. I think that educating children, regardless of their birth country, can lead to a new generation bringing new ideas to the table. The "tree hugging" population could stop procreating, but who will show their children the importance of taking care of our environment? Isn't it fair to say these future children also hold future breakthroughs in the environmental world?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with Elizabeth. Educating the future minds about environmental issues is really important. I work at the after school program with the YMCA and see whats going on at most of the elementary schools in Boulder. The kids are taught how to compost, eat local and organic(which they are served), recycle, start a garden, and make art out of trash. This isn't going to solve global problems, but for public schools, its a start. Kindergartners are already conscious about recycling, so who knows how environmentally conscious they will be when they grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well the population growth for countries that need to build up their population is important to their development. However, that doesn't mean that developed countries can do less and just keep procreating without taking the initiative in pro-environment activities. Developed countries don't need to worry about decreasing their population as much as they need to focus on decreasing the amount of waste emitted to the atmosphere. I am sure that the amount of waste emitted by one child is far surpassed by just a single factory exhausting waste in a single minute. However, if countries can lead the way in acting positively in changing the environment in a way were we don't have to sacrifice our future children, then maybe we would be better off.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The law in China restricting the number of children people can have is still a controversial issue for many reasons-http://www.nrlc.org/news/2004/NRL08/united_nations_population_fund_h.htm. This article gives a point of view on the policy (although it is a bit dramatic.)
    I agree with the above comments that the more important issue is the education of children. In developed countries, proposing people not to procreate would cause an uproar; people view it as their human right to have a family. You only mention energy efficient cars and appliances as ways to reduce the carbon footprint-but there are so many more. Education about recycling, reducing waste, buying local, more sustainable energy producers and so many other possibilities can be taught and implemented into future generations.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't ever think the 'tree-hugging' population will ever die out because as our planet's environmental situation keeps worsening, more and more people - regardless of their backgrounds - will come to realize the value of our environment. But certainly, overpopulation coupled with consumerist societies have proved to be some of the main perpetrators of our current environmental woes. China's one-child policy was frowned upon worldwide, but maybe that policy was the forefront of a real environmental revolution.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think one's family is an issue too private for the government to regulate. It does seem like it might be necessary in the future thought. People should be encouraged rather than limited which I think will bring more positive results.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with Miguel that the government should not regulate American family size, though I don't think there is any chance of this EVER happening. Our congress has a hard enough time keeping wolves on the endangered species list--this is already too controversial and abhorrent to conservative representatives. Though I think population control is essential to reducing our impact, I don't think it will ever be realized in our legislations, and certainly not in our lifetime.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with Miguel that the government should not regulate American family size, though I don't think there is any chance of this EVER happening. Our congress has a hard enough time keeping wolves on the endangered species list--this is already too controversial and abhorrent to conservative representatives. Though I think population control is essential to reducing our impact, I don't think it will ever be realized in our legislations, and certainly not in our lifetime.

    ReplyDelete
  9. People, especially in the United States, do not like being told what to do about there families or how to specifically live there lives. It is a great plant for climate change to reduce the amount of children people have but realistically that can't be done in a democratic society.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree that there are much better ways to save the planet than turning out the lights for an hour, however I think any event that spreads world wide acknowledgement of climate problems is a good start. As far as I know this was the first world wide advertised public event protect the environment. It is important to first get the world to see the problem in order to make them take action against it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I definitely think that having fewer rather than more children is one of the best ways to prolong the time humans spend on our planet. I personally believe in the tow child system which states that every couple can have two children fallowing the idea that those two children will be replacing them. Although this idea would not completely stop population growth because of continuously extended life expectancies due to medical and technological advances, it would greatly slow the rate at which the populations grows while still allowing people to have families.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.