Catholic Online Forum

Having children is the surest way to send your carbon footprint soaring, according to a new study from statisticians at Oregon State University.

The study found that having a child has an impact that far outweighs that of other energy-saving behaviors.

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.

The impact of children varies dramatically depending on geography: An American woman who has a baby will generate nearly seven times the carbon footprint of that of a Chinese woman who has a child, the study found.

The calculations take account of the fact that each child is, in turn, likely to have more children. And because the calculations derive from the fertility rate — the expected number of children per woman in various countries — the findings focus on women, although clearly men participate in the decision to have children.

“In discussions about climate change, we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime,” said Paul Murtaugh, a professor of statistics at O.S.U., in a statement accompanying the study’s release. “Those are important issues and it’s essential that they should be considered. But an added challenge facing us is continuing population growth and increasing global consumption of resources.”

The full report is published in the February 2009 edition of the journal Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions.

To follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, if no more children are born, the carbon footprint of the human species will be zero.

This is another way they are using to justify killing babies. Next they will come up with reasons in order to kill the elderly and who knows who else they will target. These are the fruits of the culture of death-they will not stop till they self destruct. The Pope had it right when he said that the West has this pathological "self-hate".

There are still those who think that this is folly and keep on having babies. I know the Moslems love having children and I think some of the Spanish think the same way too. They consider children a blessing. Their children will be the ones to populate the earth.

The Pope had it right when he said that the West has this pathological "self-hate".

This is another way they are using to justify killing babies.

CORVALLIS, Ore. – Some people who are serious about wanting to reduce their “carbon footprint” on the Earth have one choice available to them that may yield a large long-term benefit – have one less child...

The researchers make it clear they are not advocating government controls or intervention on population issues, but say they simply want to make people aware of the environmental consequences of their reproductive choices.

“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.”

More like disordered self-love.

One wonders for whom they are so worried about preserving the environment if they are so anti-natalist. Themselves and their own children? But no one else's.

Eh, I don't think tihs is quite there. While I'm sure that many of them would advocate poorer and less environmentally conscious people should not have children, and perhaps should be forced not to, through various unacceptable means, many of the ZPG bunch are themselves abstaining from having children. I know a few couples like this. So some of them are putting their money where their mouth is.

If I have to give up children to be green--then paint me blue and let someone who doesn't want children cut their carbon footprint. I'm gonna have the kids!

Wise choice.
I never met a mother that said that she regrets having children but I met many that regret (and some suffer) not having them. I have met those who wished they had more kids but never met any that wished they had less of the kids they already have.

Also, what is missed is that multiples are actually an efficient use of raw materials--a crib that is used twice costs as much as the same crib used 10 times. Clothing purchased for one child may be worn by several in a row--this is also cost effective.

I keep wondering if I will be able to keep up and think somehow I shall.

But again, one wonders for whom they are saving the planet if they advocate ZPG and that everyone abstain from having children.

The math is pretty wonky. Does my carbon footprint count for ME or for me plus all my children and descendants?

ZPGer's specifically would advocate no more than two per couple (on the assumption that current consumption is sustainable, with modifications).

They said how much each person's footprint is. By creating more people, you create a larger footprint.

It doesn't matter who you attribute it to. The effect on the environment is increased with each additional person. That's pretty obvious.