Morning:
3°c
It is the real inconvenient truth. For all the calls in Copenhagen for more cash to tackle climate change, it was left to the Chinese to state the obvious last week: one of the easiest ways to cut carbon emissions is to have fewer children.
But this isn't just a message for people in the poorest countries who want broods of six, seven or eight.
While couples in Sub-Saharan Africa are often harangued about the advantages of fewer children, these keen breeders are not the major environmental sinners.
Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environmental Institute, estimates that the responsibility for half of the world's carbon dioxide emissions lies with the world's richest 500 million people, most of whom live in the West.
In the UK, the average birthrate is just under two children for each woman. The price for our fossil fuel-feasting, meat-munching ways should be that a pair is always considered enough.
Environmentalists usually shy away from suggesting this, for fear of intruding too much into the private realm or of being accused of ecoauthoritarianism.
Of course, we don't want totalitarian controls imposed on women's ovaries. But perhaps the green lobby needs a new message: to have two children should be considered fortunate, to have any more (multiple births aside) might be seen as careless.
A small number of ecofundamentalists are going even further, advocating having no children at all. Far from being a great miracle of nature, they see children as a threat to its future.
But what's the point in saving the planet if there's no one left to enjoy it?m Besides, rapid population decline - which would happen if we all simply stopped having children - can be catastrophic.
In Italy, contrary to the stereotype of the mamma with her four bambini at her feet, fertility has slumped to very low levels: the government now faces the huge problems of an ageing population.
I am too young to hear my biological clock ticking yet. But if I do decide to have children, I would wish to call time after two. I'm no perfect greenie, but their potential carbon footprint really should be a consideration.
After all, I opt for train over plane when I go to France, give money to Greenpeace and cycle as much as possible. So when it comes to one of the most important decisions I will make, why would I not think about the environmental repercussions?
Unfortunately, this is a sentiment shared by almost none of my friends. Most I asked hadn't thought of children as a green issue at all. One tells me this would be a sacrifice too far: "I've stopped going on cheap holidays and cut down on eating meat - but I've always wanted four children and I won't give that up. I've already worked out their names."
What's more, those people who will embrace the two-children-maximum message are probably exactly those who could be relied upon to bring up their children to be environmentally responsible anyway.
Unlike Climate Change Secetary Ed Miliband (who at least has restricted himself so far to just one child) I will make sure my sprogs wear cotton nappies.
And I hope they will grow up to be recycling, bicycling members of the green movement.
But if we want to leave a world worth living in for our children, it would be a good start to have fewer of them.
Reader views (14)
Charlie, what do you mean "Immigration is irrelevant in this context - the population explosion is a global issue. More people in the UK has no impact on this"?
Are you seriously suggesting that shipping millions more people into this already-crowded country "is irrelevant"? ...And "has no impact"?
It has one hell of an "impact" on the quality of life of Londoners, to start with! Also, why should the Third World bother to tackle the problem when they can off-load it onto the UK?
- Croyboy, Croydon, 15/12/2009 16:46
Report abuse
Dear Lindsay, thanks for the kind advice,
I have a loving family to care for me in my old age, thank you very much - perhaps it is you who needs to think about whether you want other peoples paid children (out of career duty) or you`re own to care for you one day?
Two will do.
Perhaps that is where you have it confused?
- Darius, London, 15/12/2009 11:07
Report abuse
Yes, the Truth That Dare Not Speak Its Name: population!
People use energy; people occupy accommodation (cf. Brown's we "need" 3 million more homes in the UK. Actually, we "need" 10 million fewer people!); people travel, use cars and public transport; people eat food (including much of it imported); people drink water; people consume resources; people produce more people, who need more schools, hospitals etc.
Conclusion? Let's build more wind-farms. And - oh yes: immigration is a Good Thing!
...I despair.
- Croyboy, Croydon, 15/12/2009 08:28
Report abuse
This article has got to be one of the most ridiculous articles I have read for many a year. The author makes so many assumptions and cannot write from a point of knowledge as she has no children, yet, and unlikely with the view and attitude she displays.
Responsible parenting is key, whether you have one, two or six children and recycling is taught in many schools and is championed by children more than adults as a whole. So to resolve this issue, why doesn't Rosamund suggest compulsory euthanasia as a more viable option as this will also reduce overcrowding as well as alleviate the issues of ageing populations and all the issues that brings with it.
- Pete Waller, Horsham, West Sussex, 14/12/2009 21:47
Report abuse
Immigration is irrelevant in this context - the population explosion is a global issue. More people in the UK has no impact on this. The choice to have fewer children is one that western nations can prioritise from both public health and environmental perspectives.
- Charlie, London, UK, 14/12/2009 21:42
Report abuse
"The price for our fossil fuel-feasting, meat-munching ways should be that a pair is always considered enough" - can you explain what reasoning lead to a choice of 2? Why not 1? Or indeed 6?
- Clovis, London, 14/12/2009 20:58
Report abuse
Dear Darius. If there are too few children being born, there will be nobody of working age to pay your pension or wipe your bottom in the care home - you and the millions of other over 65s who will make up society if we all stop breeding in order to be ecoworthier than thou. Presumably as a taxpayer you're expecting these to be provided to you as a 'right' - from your tone, you seem the type! Where do you think the workforce comes from? From people having children, that's where. Think before you spout ill-informed venom on news sites - things are never black and white.
- Lindsay, London, 14/12/2009 20:53
Report abuse
I don't think that the quantity of the children is the issue - it's the 'quality'. What is 'better' two children who expect to jet away on an intercontinental flight 2/3 times a year or 4 children who holiday at home, for example.
- Nicky, London, 14/12/2009 15:28
Report abuse
If the writer has this view about population, numbers, then what is her view on immigration and its contribution to the population growth which is forecast to add seven million to the population over the next two decades?
- Damian Hockney, London, UK, 14/12/2009 14:13
Report abuse
I for one consider the global population explosion as more frightening than the threat of CO2 emmissions. Acting now on CO2 to enable more people to exist on the planet is perverse logic.
The truth is that there are an extra 80 million people on the planet every year now and the rate of increase is quickening. We are running out of room and can only expand further by cutting down forests. If Brown was genuinely sincere about the global problem. He could start at home by eliminating all benefits for any child born after the first two from 2011 onwards.
- Harry H, London UK, 14/12/2009 14:01
Report abuse
Kate,
Oh dear, if only we could all do what we wanted and it never impacted on any one else, uh?
It IS the business of the taxpayer as they subsidise the whole breeding industry, from handouts like child benefit etc, council housing for the nevermarriedneverwill multiple breeders on sink estates through to NHS asyoulike child delivery service and of course one to one tuition if mummy hasn`t taught you to be socialised schooling, and not to mention the congestion for these very same benefactors on their way to work during of the school run!
So don`t go telling everyone else who has to pay for it all that it`s their right to do what they like when they like how they like - not on our taxes you don`t.
Oh, and before you claim that one of the little sprogs will probably grow up to be a famous pianist, sporting celebrity or surgeon , possibly, but if brought up in poverty of CARE , like so many in too-large taxpayer funded families are, then they are more likely to mug or rob you to pay for their habit rather than achieve some great public good!
We`re a crowded Island, an overconsuming decadent country grown fat on the property casino so we must turn the tide of overpopulation for once and for all - sorry, but solar powered curling tongs and methane dishwashing technology is no longer enough.
Keep to one,or if YOU as a family unit can afford it, two children - then there might just be enough space left and resources for the future children of the other mothers
- Darius, London UK, 14/12/2009 11:09
Report abuse
It's not just about carbon emissions, Kate. The world just can't support an ever-increasing population.
- Johnj, Aberystwyth, 14/12/2009 11:05
Report abuse
Of course it is obvious that the amount of fuel used increases as the population increases, but you won't find any UK politian admitting it because:
1. They tend to have large families themselves.
2. Any leader wants to lead more people, not less. Boosts their ego.
3. Most people don't realise the link between fuel use and population growth and don't like being told what to do.
4. Someone has to be born before they can be taxed.
World population is growing at 2% per annum so how are CO2 emmissions going to fall?
- Frank, Waterlooville, Hants, 14/12/2009 10:43
Report abuse
Ditch the guilt trip.
Human beings are not valued according to their so-called carbon "emissions". In any case, carbon dioxide is a life-giving trace gas without which we would all be dead.
Have as many children as you want. It's your decision, and nobody Else's business.
- Kate, London, 14/12/2009 10:12
Report abuse
