Posted by Stacy Richter on September 18 at 11:30 AM
I stumbled across a topic about solving climate change and was really bothered initially. There are a number of factions that support population control as a means of affecting climate change. When I read about the subject, I immediately began to write my thoughts of disgust that someone could suggest that a person should or could not have children on account of the increased emissions that would occur.
Well cooler heads prevailed and I read and researched a little more. Let’s take a look at the figures. An Oregon State University study(1) reported:
• Each baby in the U.S. results in 1644 tonnes of CO2
• 5x more than a baby in China
• 91x more than an infant in Bangladesh
The
Optimum Population Trust, commissioned from the London School of Economics (LSE) , reports that the cost of reducing CO2 emissions by 1 tonne is (2):
• $7 via family planning
• $24 via wind power
• $51 via solar power
• $57-$83 for coal plants using carbon capture and storage (CCS)
The figures make sense. Intuitively.... less people = less pollution. However I have a moral objection to suggesting that a couple base their decision about having children on the environmental impact they would have. This is not a statement about the virtues of family planning or contraception. My point is I believe that our family decisions should be based on quality of life... shouldn’t they?
Energy production exists to serve people. Businesses exist to serve people. We need to find a means to reverse climate change while maintaining our ability to serve people. I will be the first person to ask ‘people’ to adjust their lifestyle or make responsible decisions about their consumption. I will not be the person to tell them they can only have 1 child in their family to curb the environmental impact. There’s a better way.
__________________________________________________________________________
(1) Fahrenthold, David A. (2009, September 15). When it comes to pollution, less (kids) may be more. Washington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/09/14/AR2009091403308.html
(2) Levitt, Tom. (2009, September 15). Copenhagen and population growth: the topic politicians won’t discuss. The Ecologist. Retrieved from http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/317429/copenhagen_and_population_growth_the_topic_politicians_wont_discuss.html
Topics: energy, sustainability SHARE: 
2 Comments so far...
Should the real issue of these studies not be why a baby in the US creates so much more CO2 than in other societies? Agreed, the knee jerk reaction would be to wonder why someone would use this as a basis for family planning, vs cultural indulgences.
Posted by Steve Rankin on October 21 at 4:13 PMThanks for your response Steve. You're absolutely right. Why does North America (Canada included) emit that much more CO2 "per person" (key word) than other societies? My concern is what will climate change look like when developing nations, who have 10x the population as North America, catch up to our level of industrialization....Scary thought.
Posted by Stacy Richter on October 26 at 5:17 PM