Nick Kettles
Statistics damn statistics.
Without them they’re would be no environment debate.
They set the parameters of where we’re at, and where we’re heading, and, at the same time, their ability to
objectify the beauty of human relationships as a series of mathematical formula
is simply spectacular.
At no time has this been more clearly illustrated, than in the
environment movement’s very own bête noire, the debate about population growth
and its impact on climate change.
The facts are in.
Today, there are nearly 7 billion people and rising. It's estimated by
2050, there will be upwards of 9 billion.
The UK's
Optimum Population Trust estimates the world's sustainable population is 5
billion.
According to the Earth Policy Institute's Lester Brown, Population
growth, "contributes to water shortages, cropland conversion to non-farm
uses, traffic congestion, more garbage, overfishing, crowding in national
parks, a growing dependence on imported oil, and other conditions that diminish
the quality of our daily lives."
Join the dots: More people equals more carbon CONSUMPTION. Less babies
less carbon CONSUMPTION. People who have them are selfish, so stop
having them.
Indeed, a recent study at Oregon State University has concluded that in
the US, the carbon footprint of having an extra child, is almost 20 times more
important than any other actions a couple might take in their entire lives:
things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient
appliances and light bulbs.
Moreover, they conclude, the long term carbon footprint of a every child
born - along with all its descendants –
is likely to have more than 160 times the impact of a child born in Bangladesh.
So, there you have it.
Children, like commodities, carry their own carbon rating, and therefore
parents should, where possible, think before they make their purchase decision.
However, based on logic like this, for those of us who are already
parents, there’s little place to go.
The chances of breeders like me ever achieving the same moral high
ground as eco-heroes such as Cameron Diaz, who claims she may never have
children, on the grounds the planet doesn’t need anymore, or the woman who
actually decided to have herself sterilised to ensure she would not overburden
the planet any further, are slim indeed.
My partner and my carbon rating will remain
lumped alongside Hummer drivers, Lear Jet riders, and other eco-criminals, while
my daughters, and in particular my second daughter, will inherit the carbon
debt burden our hasty decision to expand our circle of love has created.
Who ever said mathematics wasn’t an emotional subject?
But, is this narrow view truly representative?
This debate is possibly wider and more complex still.
Of course, it’s is true that the world cannot sustain a larger
population at business as usual levels of consumption and waste, but by the
same token, taking a ‘Round Up Ready’ approach to population control does
nothing to address the economic system which impoverishes the third world in
the first place.
One reason why people in the developing world may have
more children is that a lack of sanitation and general healthcare means they
die in greater numbers. Children are
part of the workforce in some countries and not to have them means not to have
enough hands on the farm. In short it’s
cash not copulation we should be controlling.
Of course, Oregon
University’s
statisticians neglect to say what happens if someone in a Western country
adopts a homeless Bangladeshi child, to help them relieve the burden of
over-population. Presumably, some kind
of carbon credit or trading scheme will be on offer to assuage the impact of
bringing up this child in the bosom of the capitalist West.
Like I said, it’s complex.
And, while not having children to save the planet is a noble act, it
assumes, that we are already doomed.
There is little we can do, because that’s what climate science tells
us.
Based on what we know about human potential, this is a fair assessment,
however, based on what we don’t yet know about human potential, it risks
condemning the current and future generation of children hopeless to effect
change. Thankfully human potential is not like oil: it doesn’t have a peak
point where it starts to run out. We may
not have found the resilience, courage, creativity, and resourcefulness to
create the world anew, but future generations might, if we are willing to
instil these qualities in them.
Maybe developed countries actually needs more parents who conceive
children, for the purpose of instilling strong values in a new generation who
may yet, change the world, and not those
who have children because they forgot to use contraception, got drunk, wanted a
house from the government, or to please their parents eager to be grandparents.
Oh, yes, and then there’s those countries like France who are not ashamed to say
children are our future. Compared with
the rest of the developed world, they recognise their declining birth-rate
means they will soon face problems paying for the pensions and care of their
ageing population. France’s unofficial
‘third child policy’, implicit in their tax system, guarantees exponential tax breaks for larger
families.
Shoring up a system doomed to bust anyway, or ensuring a big enough
labour pool to take over all those beloved but at risk, artisanale
Boulangeries, Charcuteries, and Cafés which lovers of sustainability believe
should be at the heart of every community?
And while it may appear that adoption is the middle way solution,
excluding our right to procreate, also denies fundamental choices, which remain
intrinsically political.
I applaud Cameron Diaz, for speaking out about her choice possibly not
to have children, and right that she should, but she has no less moral fibre in
my mind, than my wife’s decision to have our children awake and naturally,
because she wished to affirm her ability, which she shares with every other
woman on the planet, to give birth free of the control of male dominated
obstetrics.
Which is greater? Neither. Both rightly assert a woman’s right to choose
– the same choice that has been suppressed by the same forces of progress which
delivered this sorry mess we’re in, in the first place.
While statistics often paint a bleaker picture of what’s possible, the
human spirit is far stronger and deserves a chance to fully show itself. This can only truly happen if we recognise
that the continuity of our race is really about human connection, and
especially the sharing of wisdom and love from one generation to another. This more than anything needs to be at the
heart of a sustainable society.
And for those who rightfully assert your right not to be parents, on
environmental grounds, feel free to step in and enjoy the role of being
extended family to some children in your community.