Small families 'more eco-friendly'

A spiralling global population, with an annual increase of 79 million people, is driving up greenhouse gas emissions, John Guillebaud of University College, London, and GP Pip Hayes of St Leonard's Practice, Exeter, said.

And in an editorial in the British Medical Journal they raised the question of whether people in the UK should be told that stopping at two children is "the simplest and biggest contribution" that can be made to saving the planet.

The doctors said every person born adds to greenhouse gas emissions, with demand for food, fossil fuels, water and forests outstripping supply. And they pointed to research from the Optimum Population Trust which said that each new birth in the UK will be responsible for 160 times more greenhouse gas emissions than a birth in Ethiopia.

While they said pressure should not be put on people over the number of children they have, doctors should show that family size has an impact on the environment - just like patio heaters and cars.

"Should we now explain to UK couples who plan a family that stopping at two children, or at least having one less child than first intended, is the simplest and biggest contribution anyone can make to leaving a habitable planet for our grandchildren?" they wrote.

"We must not put pressure on people, but by providing information on the population and the environment, and appropriate contraception for everyone (and by their own example), doctors should help to bring family size into the arena of environmental ethics, analogous to avoiding patio heaters and high-carbon cars."

Globally, they said, a rising population has led to food shortages, escalating prices and riots, while growing demands for food exacerbates climate change through the use of transport and fertilisers.

Around half of pregnancies around the world are unplanned, with many women unable to access contraception because of a lack of empowerment or abuse from partners, family or authorities. Doctors should help eradicate myths and rules that prevent women accessing family planning, the editorial said.

Population and family planning seemed taboo words in the climate change debate, they argued, adding: "Isn't contraception the medical profession's prime contribution for all countries?"