Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Interesting article for all you true believers out there. How many kids do you have again? Why did you have them again?

"The greatest impact individuals can have in fighting climate change is to have one fewer child, according to a new study that identifies the most effective ways people can cut their carbon emissions"
“In life, there are many values on which people make decisions and carbon is only one of them,” she added. “I don’t have children, but it is a choice I am considering and discussing with my fiance. Because we care so much about climate change that will certainly be one factor we consider in the decision, but it won’t be the only one.”

At least this lady is walking the walk or at least considering doing so. It would be interesting to know what she finally decides. My guess is she says screw the climate and has children.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

 

Isn't the West already at zero population growth?

 

Even if that were true, according to the warmer cult we are going over a cliff so a reduced population would be the order of the day. According to the article you reduce around 20 tons of Co2 per year added to the atmosphere every time you reduce one person in the American population.

 

So...since the citizens of the industrialized nations are at zero population growth or lower except for immigration, it stands to reason that the proper climate change position on immigration from third world countries to first world countries would be to prohibit it entirely since the carbon footprint in the third world is lower per person than in the first. Bring a third worlder to the first world, and their carbon foot print increases.

 

Good point but a different subject. The subject is the subject the cult hates to talk or even think about and that is the C02 they add to the mix when they have a baby. They run from this like it was the devil himself.

 

The better option is to educate our children. I tried to put my money where my mouth is, but I'm sure there is more that I can do in this regard:

 

And there's also this:

 

Indoctrinate them all you want but they will still need food to eat, a house to live in, durable goods, transportation and on and on. Your carbon footprint grows exponentially when you have a kid and the best you can hope is that sometime in their lives they dump slightly less C02 into the atmosphere than you did. The chart in the link is very informative on this issue and makes it clear that light bulbs, electric cars etc is just nibbling around the edges. If you really want to make an impact on supposed climate change, not having children is by far the single biggest thing you can do and is the elephant in the room that the warmers turn a blind eye to.

 

Do you have statistics that show that AGW subscribers have more children than others?

I also have a wind turbine and solar panels. Do I get any "Sawyer" points for that?

 

I heard this same argument in the late sixties about overpopulation. Wonder how that worked out?

 

Doesnt the socialist model require population growth? Who are we supposed to leach of off if theres no young working class to overproduce for us?

 

AGW subcribers as you put it just need to know and accept the fact that their choice to have children dramatically increases their carbon footprint even if they drive hybrids and have solar panels on their house. Just out of curiosity how many kids did you have as you bemoan the plight of the planet and berate non believers?

 

If you believe in AGW it didn't work out well at all.

 

What is concerning to me is Earth's population carrying capacity, and how we use industrial agriculture to supply the world's food. The mass use of pesticides and fertilizers creates eutrophication (Wikipedia) of waterways which spills into the oceans. Soil degradation is another concern related to industrial agriculture.

So, population growth should be a concern because of the pollution of our water and soil erosion resulting from increased pressure on food production.

 

All true but an entirely different subject. I want to keep the spotlight on the true believers here and there focus on C02. They need to face facts and the fact is when they have a kid their carbon footprint doubles. If you are a true believer and pregnant I suggest you do the polar bears a favor and immediately abort.

 

it isn't so much about population in of of itself. It is about standards of living. I doubt the planet could support the population now if everybody had the American standard of living globally, at least for very long.

 

Very true. If the entire third world suddenly had a ranch House in the burbs and two cars in the garage, if they had good jobs and took 747s to Hawaii for vacation etc etc we would be out of resources in about five minutes

 

Or a person could simply identify their carbon usage - cut it in half - and have the kid. Or is that too "outside the box" for you?

 

Easier said than done, did you look at the link in the OP and the accompanying chart of what your potential cuts amount to?

 

Buy used instead of new

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-used-cars-are-more-ecofriendly/

 

The chart assumes your child will be an average carbon user - not a reduced carbon user.

 

The chart shows you that all your reduced usage efforts amount to a few percent off your carbon footprint and not anywhere near the 50% you claimed would be so easy to do.

 

Used children is an excellent idea, adopt instead of procreating

 

yes, that too

 

Wow, your tough. You're not even going to give me any Sawyer points for my renewables. I run a surplus every month, and put power back on the grid. How about a half point? I have 2 kids. Both are teachers, and I'm thinking that's worth some points too.