![\"https:\/\/pixabay.com\/en\/babies-children-park-caprice-girl-857470\/\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/533\/2017\/07\/babies-857470_960_720.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
From The Guardian: \u00a0\u201cWant to fight climate change? Have fewer children<\/a>\u201c, which reports that having one less child reduces one\u2019s annual carbon emissions by 58.6 tons per year, which far outpaces any other actions one can take, such as taking mass transit or not flying anywhere. \u00a0 This article cites\u00a0a report, \u201cThe climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions<\/a>,\u201d which, oddly enough, has a rather different focus: \u00a0how frequently\u00a0are the top \u201ccarbon-reducing\u201d (non)actions mentioned in Canadian high school textbooks.<\/p>\n (Funny, Canadian kids are already at a TFR of 1.6<\/a>. \u00a0Do they really want them to drop down to a 0.6 rate?)<\/p>\n The idea that that human beings are, in net, a burden on the world, and we really could stand to halve the global population is nothing new, though this is the first time I\u2019ve seen it quantified quite like this. \u00a0(Well, it\u2019s probably not \u2013 I have a poor memory.) \u00a0 Often enough, there\u2019s a caveat of \u201cthose people who have a dozen kids should cut it out, but my two kids are going to be highly educated and net contributors to the world.\u201d \u00a0Sometimes this is all a rationalization for the decision of the \u201cchildfree\u201d to remain so.<\/p>\n And what does \u201cone less child\u201d really mean? \u00a0Is it, \u201cwhatever number of children you had intended to have, reduce by one\u201d? \u00a0Or, \u201chave as few children as you think you can minimally get by with and still feel you\u2019ve had a fulfilling and enriching life\u201d? \u00a0Remember, this is in the context of high school textbooks, and the authors\u2019 objective is for textbooks to convince teens to make these changes, now or in the future:<\/p>\n The majority of the textbooks that we analyzed are aimed at Grade 10 students (typically age 16), which is the same age that most Canadians are first allowed to obtain a driver\u2019s license. Adolescents can also choose their own diets, can influence family decisions on vacations (e.g. flying vs. staying local) and should be informed of the environmental consequences of family size as they are likely becoming sexually active.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n (Bangs head against wall.)<\/p>\n Yes, in principle, a teen could choose to ride her bike to school rather than nagging mom for a car. \u00a0But a teen has no ability to choose to live in a mass transit-friendly area. \u00a0A teen who decides to be vegetarian can cause serious disharmony in the family (demanding special meal plan accommodations). \u00a0A teen complaining about flying somewhere for vacation? \u00a0Give me a break \u2013 the notion to \u201cvacation local\u201d comes largely from people who live in vacationable areas. \u00a0And it\u2019s bizarre to imagine that a teen would be all set to get pregnant but for concerns about the environment, or be extra diligent about contraception for that reason.<\/p>\n What\u2019s more, they\u2019re comparing apples and oranges. \u00a0If, for purposes of meting out shame on parents, they calculate the cumulative \u201ccarbon-costs\u201d of each child and their descendants, in order to reverse this into the \u201ccarbon-savings\u201d of a negative child, then they ought to likewise calculate the average carbon usage per person per year, which they cite as ranging from 7 tons in the UK to 16 tons in the US, as a much higher figure reflecting the cumulative usage of the average person\u2019s descendants. \u00a0But they know that their audience would reject the concept of deeming \u201cannual\u201d carbon emissions to somehow include future emissions as well. \u00a0Besides, if the whole point of these exercises is to persuade people to reduce their carbon emissions, and to advocate for more government spending on renewable energy sources, it\u2019s all the more inappropriate to ascribe to each child\/descendant a fixed and known amount of emissions, if at the same time their message is \u201cwe can all reduce carbon emissions.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s enough to make your head explode.<\/p>\n But this paper does cite a source for their per-child \u201ccarbon cost\u201d: \u00a0\u201cReproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals<\/a>\u201c, published in 2008. \u00a0This paper does acknowledge that there are multiple choices for the projection of future fertility rates and carbon emissions levels. \u00a0They choose the UN \u201cmedium variant\u201d population projection, which assumes that fertility rates in all countries will decrease to 1.85 children per woman by the year 2050. \u00a0(This seems to have been revised in the meantime; the 2017 projection<\/a> is 2.2 children by 2045-2050 and 2.0 in 2095-2100.) \u00a0There are also multiple scenarios of carbon usage put out by the experts, but for the purposes of these calculations, the authors have chosen to use the \u201cconstant\u201d scenario.<\/p>\n They then take the approach that, basically, for each child, the individual is responsible for half the emissions; for each grandchild, 1\/4, for each great-grandchild, 1\/8, and so on. \u00a0And, depending on life expectancy, due to the magic of calculus and limits, as long as you\u2019ve got sub-replacement fertility, you end up with a cumulative total \u201cnet descendants\u201d that is finite. \u00a0You can work out an elementary calculation in excel, though their math is more sophisticated. \u00a0But it all depends on that magic long-term 1.85 TFR, along with the lower life expectancy in poor countries. \u00a0The closer the TFR gets to replacement-level, the more \u201cnet descendants\u201d there are, until at replacement-level or above, there is no limit to the number of descendants. \u00a0In such a case, the \u201ccarbon legacy\u201d of any child born into the world is infinite, and, hence, meaningless,\u00a0which pretty much blows up the entire concept, and demonstrates that it\u2019s just preposterous to pin \u201cthe sins of the children\u201d upon the parents.<\/p>\n Image: \u00a0https:\/\/pixabay.com\/en\/babies-children-park-caprice-girl-857470\/; pubic domain<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" From The Guardian: \u00a0\u201cWant to fight climate change? Have fewer children\u201c, which reports that having one less child reduces one\u2019s annual carbon emissions by 58.6 tons per year, which far outpaces any other actions one can take, such as taking mass transit or not flying anywhere. \u00a0 This article cites\u00a0a report, \u201cThe climate mitigation gap: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2209,"featured_media":6964,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[683,581,445],"class_list":["post-6960","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-carbon-emissions","tag-climate-change","tag-fertility-rate"],"yoast_head":"\n