When "Green" Goes Bad
My friend Todd (Austin, TX) sent me a link to this article. In case you thought human worth was not in question (or perhaps, in case you thought the worth of carbon dioxide was not in question):
Children 'bad for planet'
By Sarah-Kate Templeton in London
May 07, 2007 12:00am
Article from: The Sunday Times
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. 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.
Children 'bad for planet'
By Sarah-Kate Templeton in London
May 07, 2007 12:00am
Article from: The Sunday Times
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. 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.
posted by Will | 10:14 AM
7 Comments:
Ironic that concern for the environment and being responsible citizens comes to something like this. I can comment because we must be among the biggest offenders--according to Guillebaud. Somehow I think that Genesis 9 and Psalm 127 and Jeremiah 29:5-6 trumps the British "green card". Family planning advice from academics in developed nations has always been quite interesting ... Margaret Sanger, Freud, others who believe we should do nothing other than replace ourselves at most. I believe we must be responsible in how we consume, but also must be obedient to how and where God is leading us. Like all good things, there is and must be a tension between the perspectives and we must examine our existence within that tension...but if we are to err toward one or the other, let it be toward where God has directed us.
wes
you guys know that kingdomofcouches.com just points to campuscrusadeforchrist.com now? not even cru press.
I think it is fixed now.
"Professor Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring."
Does this mean I have to give two of my four kids back? And if one of the two kids I give back saves the planet by building an engine that runs on cow manure, do I get some sort reward for producing the kid?
These are the same ideals that have caused so many children in China to be thrown in dumpsters and left as orphans. I believe we need to protect and care for the earth, but when does this protection turn into idolization? Have we become so consumed in Mother Nature that we have put it above the value of life? The latest weather has made me thing about the OT. When God poured his wrath on this earth, the people realized it was an act of God and repented. In current times, we don’t even consider the weather to be an act of God. We consider the change in weather to be a man-produced by-product. We have tried to take God out of his own creation. We honestly believe we have the ability to heal this earth! We believe that all the hurricanes, tornados, changes in climate are a direct effect of our own beings. Since when have we had that much control over this earth? Since when have I had the ability to reverse the weather changes? Are we so naïve that we really believe we can control God’s own creation? We have the honor to take care of God’s own creation, but we do not have the right to go against God’s own word. “As for you, be fruitful and INCREASE in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it." (Genesis 9:7)
Interesting. I was just listening to a talk that said that they expect the world population to peak at 2050 and then drop steadily for many years. There was a U.N. report that said as a TV enters a country (after studying the effects of TV entering Indian countries) the fertility rate drops dramatically. I won't go into the details, but that is very interesting to think about.
Okay, maybe I just feel compelled to be contrary, but surely there is something to consider in Guillebaud's statements. When couples decide how many children to have, don't they consider how much children cost financially? If couples consider the financial impact on their family when deciding on the number of children to have, why not ask people to consider the environmental impact on the world that their decision will have?
Post a Comment
<< Home