August 8, 2009

CO2 Reduction-The China Way

Going green to the extreme

How much would you sacrifice to save the planet? Would you consider not having a child?

A new study by Oregon State University suggests having multiple children may be the most environmentally damaging of all human activities.

By having one less child, an American would save more than nine thousand metric tonnes of carbon dioxide – many more times what you could save by simply living a rigidly green lifestyle.

Professor Ben Zuckerman at UCLA suggests this could be a wake-up call for environmental groups. He says: “The mainstream environmental movement has entirely dropped the ball on this issue and I think its really been a disaster for our country… They have hundreds of trivial ways in which one can reduce one’s environmental impact of the earth but they don’t even mention population.”

For the record, it has not yet been scientifically proved that there is a link between human activity and global warming, even if there is a broad consensus on a connection.

Do you think environmental groups will be going well beyond their remit if they start advising against having children? Or do you think the situation has become so serious, each one of us should consider taking such drastic action if it’s relevant?

Let me know what your opinion on this. Leave your comments below, and I’ll read some of the best out on tonight’s show at 2100 BST.


1 comment:

  1. What's next? Reduce your "carbon footprint" by expediting the "recycling" of your parents? If these eco-whackos really want to put the onus of responsibility for reducing environmental impact on each individual, why don't they all just voluntarily reduce their own CO2 output to zero?