I found this somewhat fascinating article claiming that a more direct way to curb greenhouse gas issue is to put a two child cap on families, especially in developed countries. Interesting. I know China has a One-Child Policy but that is their way of dealing with their ongoing overpopulation pandemic. Actually, they can have a second child but they must be spaced three to four years apart and you a required by the government to pay a hefty tax and (I believe) the parents then are responsible for paying the health insurance for that second child. Ultimately, this creates a situation where only the rich can afford a second child.
…if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family’s carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.” ~ John Guillebaud, Co-Chairman OPT & Emeritus Professor Family Planning, University College London
From a purely logical point of view I understand this point of view, but I can’t see it being implemented (at least) here in the U.S. A Washington D.C. based non-profit, the Population Connection (formerly Zero Population Growth) has touted these claims for over thirty years. If it is in fact true that we (U.S.) represent 4% of the world population and use 25% of the world’s energy resourses, and road transportation is the fastest growing and most damage of the CO2 sources; I think more can be achieved in the short-term (and ultimately the longer-term) by developing a mass produced non-combustion/non-fossil fuel burning vehicle. Although it may be prudent to consider some type of long-term government-based incentive or tax benefit for two child families.
Tags:
family,
green
