Maybe you’ve already read it. This article has been making the rounds and stirring up both sides of the great carbon footprint debate: Having Children Brings High Carbon Impact.
…Take, for example, a hypothetical American woman who switches to a more fuel-efficient car, drives less, recycles, installs more efficient light bulbs, and replaces her refrigerator and windows with energy-saving models. If she had two children, the researchers found, her carbon legacy would eventually rise to nearly 40 times what she had saved by those actions.
“Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle,” the report states…
If it’s new to you, make sure your force fields are up. No matter what your lifestyle, if you have children you are burdening the planet more than you ever imagined. You are environmentally irresponsible, to say the least.
If you have already seen it, I hope you took time to read some of the comments too. Many are from people like us who value children. Others are from environmentalists, but they are hardly in agreement. Maybe we as Christians don’t have room to talk, but I can’t help being amazed at the division within their own ranks.
While some simply follow the leader and nod in agreement, others follow the reasoning to its logical conclusion: death. Still others see the inconsistencies in the prevailing arguments coming out of the environmentalist camp, and some even say things that I can wholeheartedly agree with.
There are currently over 300 comments. Here are just a few of my favorites:
Of the serial killers I’m aware, John Wayne Gacy was the greenest. His victims were young, so he snuffed out many years of carbon consumption. He could have only been greener by targeting females.
…This article is a joke, right? If there aren’t going to be any more people, what’s the point of saving the planet. It’s not as if cockroaches care how many greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere…
Ooooh, never thought of that.
Duh. This is obvious. And useless. Reproducing has little inherent harm to the earth. Why don’t we have a discussion questioning the reasons for gross consumption by people in the developed world? Why don’t we talk about the emotional issues that drive Americans (and to a lesser but growing extent, the rest of the world) to spend/toss/spend/toss at soaring rates?
Let’s hit at the core of the problem. When we start being honest with ourselves about why we need a 4-pages-long registry for the birth of a single baby, then maybe we’ll see a greener earth…
Very good question. We need to be good stewards of God’s creation, and we need to raise up children to continue taking care of His creation until He returns.
You liberals keep swearing off kids. Soon, there will be fewer of you.
I’ll admit it. I was thinking the same thing.
I suggest that all the people who want to help the planet commit suicide. This will completely eliminate your carbon footprint and will reduce the world’s population.
How can you argue with logic like that?
So, [to a previous commentor], you do want someone to feed you when you can’t work anymore (indirectly, through taxes, Social Security payments and such), but you don’t want to spend any efforts for this yourself?
Somehow the liberals never seem to think this far ahead. Our children will be feeding them, paying their bills, and dispensing medication in their old age.
What gives the already-living a special ethical status if the safety of the earth is truly at stake? Those so concerned about the earth that they tell others whether to have a family can start reducing the earth’s population one at a time any time they wish.
That’s right. Let’s put our money where our mouth is, shall we?
As my friend Dug always said: “I’m not having kids; I can pollute as much as I want.”
And they worry that those of us with kids are being irresponsible…
So from this can we derive that war IS the answer?
Do we need more giant wars like WW1 (16 million dead) and WW2 (50-70 million dead) instead of puny wars like Vietnam (2 million dead, max) and Iraq?
Should we stop trying to prevent influenza pandemics and millions of deaths from malaria?
Should we stop trying to feed the hungry?
The four horsemen of The New Ecology: war, conquest, war, famine and death.
Wonderful! Perhaps, in time and with concerted effort, we can achieve negative population growth! Imagine, the earth will be devoid of human life, but positively crystalline in its pristine grandeur!
There is a time and place for sarcasm. I believe this comments provides an excellent example.
Economists (even very green economists) might take a different viewpoint on the issue posed by the blog. Carbon footprint is a cost, one of many costs entailed by childbirth. On the other hand, a new human being is a good thing, a positive value.
So, the question really comes down to whether the value of a child exceeds the costs, including the environmental impact. Clearly, some readers believe a child has little or no value. For others, the value of a child far exceeds any conceivable cost.
As to my own values, I would need to know whether we are talking about my kid or yours.
The emphasis was mine. I wanted to make sure you read to the end of that comment.
If the point of saving the planet from global warming by reducing our carbon footprint isn’t to leave a better place for our children, then why bother? If we can’t have kids, we might as well use this place up while we can.
I’m a pacific northwest dwelling, environmental promoting, prius driving mom, but even I have to admit, sometimes these environmentalists miss the forest for the trees.
I suppose we could just commit suicide as well, or bomb any country we chose and elminate a large carbon footprints worth of people, but that would also hardly be the point, now would it?
Amen, sister. And that’s where I’m tempted to hug a tree-hugger.
Go read some more comments, but be warned. The language is a little rough here and there.
Just call me Bigfoot. Apparently my carbon footprint is even bigger than my shoe size.
Related posts:
Great post Kim. No I hadn’t heard about this article so thanks for keeping me informed.
From one Bigfoot to another!
Um, and this is probably the same mindset one might find in, oh, I don’t know… people who might administer a national health plan someday? Only think of the cost savings AND the benefit to the planet!
*yikes*
Hmmm… it’s sad when people would rather give up children then stuff. I notice no one is saying let’s give up using oil based products or other modern idols. Let’s just get rid of the children then we can keep on being as selfish as we want. Sigh.
Yeah…..Liberals. Abortion is like a game to them. Birth Control pills are like candy. When will they wake up and see how dangerous and life threatening their practices happen to be. To them a child is a waste of money. The pursuit of money, fame and idolatry is more important than the gospel.
For some reason I don’t ever hear them complain about the deer population or the rat population.
Interesting read. Where can I get a copy of this book?
Marcus,
It’s just a short article. You can read the entire thing at the link above.
Ironic, also, since God created this Earth for us. Doesn’t that mean that we should live here and continue to bring more children into the world? That doesn’t mean we should use our resources unwisely, we just need to get rid of all the consumption on all sides, for everyone! Children are a blessing to God. And will always choose God, over what this world!
Laura, you are not speaking for all liberals are you… I am a liberal, seems like you have the wrong idea.
Al, Barrack, etc are starting to look like the left’s version of shiny haired helmet headed faith healers.
Give them your money. They will heaaaallah you! (<< see that was my “three syllable Jesus voice)
Put your hand on the tv and they will fix the environment.
This is truly disgusting. I cannot understand these people. I LOVE the earth… some would say I worship it but I don’t. However, this is just nuts. This gives all environmentalists and liberals a VERY bad name.
The study was also flawed. There are many other things to effectively reduce our carbon footprint without forcing families to die out. Like one commenter said, cloth diapers, breast feeding, baby wearing and co-sleeping. Not to mention home schooling! All of these are a reduction in carbon footprints. A professor even said it is so high because we don’t share resources anymore! I think larger families are the answer. Remember divide and conquer. If they can get everyone to have only one kid, what kind of social ties will that kid have or it’s kid have to fight against an oppressive regime? Remember the revolution too…the Adams family produced two presidents and took the British out of one town entirely! Now that is family!
Genesis 2:15
The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
Can we agree that we need to maintain the Earth?
@Marcus
Certainly we can, but you and I must make sure we define our terms.
1.) What or who do you mean by “we”
2.) Who gets to determine what good care is?
3.) What standard is used to define good care or good maintenance?
1.) What does Moses mean in Genesis 1:26 “Let us,”. Maybe the plan was to place nature as a watchdog. Nature has been giving us warnings through out time. We just lost the users manual. Or maybe God thought that we have the ability to learn by the warnings.
In terms of “we”, I mean everything living on this marvel of a planet.
2.} That will have to be decided on your own lifestyle. I think about driving unnecessarily, and recycle as much as possible. Until there is no choice, there is choice.
3.) It would be nice if we can present the God with a functioning earth and to show that were took care of his creation. I think most of this can be done with commonsense.
Is this the right place for this?
I have seen many versions of this, so I didn’t actually click over to the article, but I’m pretty sure I know what it covers…
Reduce, reuse, recycle? Anyone who hasn’t spent some time juggling limited resources to care for several children doesn’t know the meaning of any of these terms. Energy efficiency and cost efficiency are daily considerations in feeding, clothing and teaching 6.5 children. I can only imagine that those considerations are more important the more children one has.
I took an environmental awareness class in college and saw two ZPGers in action teaching. One was not pushy and conceded that a few children can be a good thing, the other invited the question, “Why don’t you just go ahead and spare the earth the burden of your existence sooner rather than later?”
The children rasied on the idea that they are a burden to everyone and everything will be taking care of us in our old age, by contributing to Social Security and by being employed in the various jobs we will need to do business with. What incentive will they have to be “burdened” with the care of those who called them burdens?
I could go on and on…I guess it would be sufficient just to say that I, too, am a Bigfoot. LOL!
To clarify a few facts:
Believe it or not, not all liberals are evil (just like I assume not all conservatives are completely ignorant). Yes, some of them have children and (gasp!) love them!
I think we can all agree that we need to take care of the earth. Nowhere did the article suggest abortion should be used as a game to control the population.
And can we please all agree to not to use Fox News to prove a point as they are the most biased, non-fact checking, and most blatant lying news network in America? (E.g., recently when Governor Sanford (a prominent Republican) admitted to an affair with a woman in Argentina, Fox News put a “D” after his name. That is only a small example, but it’s indicative of the general dishonesty of Fox’s news culture.)
If you want to prove a point, please use a balanced vehicle to do so (check out NPR or Democracy Now if you need a suggestion – both are independent, meaning they do not accept advertisers, corporate underwriting, or government funding).
Amen. Let those liberals stop having kids. Conservative Christians will rule again. e’ll save not only the planet, but souls.
Call me silly, but doesn’t a large family have a smaller carbon footprint than the equivalent number of people in smaller family units? I believe we as a family *consume* far less. For LOTS of reasons! Their comparisons are skewed to their advantage; I am returning the favor:-)
I am really having a hard time picking my favorite comment from the ones you posted… I think it was “Economists (even very green Economists…etc” My (aviator) husband’s standard comment about things like this: Anyone who says we are overpopulated has obviously never been in an airplane. Now, please don’t get me wrong, I believe we still need to care for our planet. But Scripture speaks to having dominion over the earth and subduing it WHILE being fruitful and multiplying.
“Thus have their superstitions become veils between them and their own hearts and kept them from the path of God.”
Monica seems ok. She realizes that there are ignorant people on both sides of the fence. As far as more children, don’t worry this liberal is done. However I do not look down on people that have multiple babies. They make up for the people that don’t have any. I always thought that they have multiple babies to pay lower taxes.
“I always thought that they have multiple babies to pay lower taxes.”
Marcus,
Let me assure you that the tax benefits do not offset the cost or labor of raising a child. There are cheaper and easier ways to boost your budget than by having a whole passel of kids.
We’re doing it for other reasons.
Thought is pasttence. No pokes.
Monica, what NPR are you talking about that isn’t government funded?
Accidentally putting a ‘D’ after Sanford’s name is hardly proof that everything that comes from Fox is biased. I could name fifty examples of such errors from any other network, including NPR. And I can also name egregious examples of bias from both Democracy Now and NPR.