Tie your tubes and save the planet?

Environmentalists tend to avoid the topic of population control. Too touchy. But the politically incorrect issue is becoming unavoidable as the global population lurches toward a predicted 9 billion people by mid-century. Will there be enough food? Enough water? Will planet-heating carbon dioxide gas become ever more uncontrollable?

Now comes a study by statisticians at Oregon State University focusing on the elephant in the room. If you are serious about your carbon footprint, think: birth control.

The greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more significant than the amount any American would save by such practices as driving a fuel-efficient car, recycling or using energy-efficient light bulbs and appliances, according to Paul Murtaugh, an OSU professor of statistics. Under current U.S. consumption patterns, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of CO2 to the carbon legacy of an average parent--about 5.7 times a person's lifetime emissions, he calculates.

"Many people are unaware of the power of exponential population growth," Murtaugh said. "Future growth amplifies the consequences of people's reproductive choices, the same way that compound interest amplifies a bank balance."

Given how much less the average developing nation consumes per capita, the impact of a child born in the U.S., along with all his or her descendants, is more than 160 times that of a Bangladeshi child, the OSU research found. And the long-term impact of a Chinese child is less than one fifth the impact of a U.S.-born child. But as China, India and other developing nations hurtle toward prosperity, that is likely to change.

--Margot Roosevelt

Photo: Christine Cotter/LA Times

Comments

[Molly]

“Already, people have extrapolated our results into suggesting we’re implying that some restriction on reproductive freedom is called for,” he says. “We don’t say that ... We want this to be an additional piece of information that prospective parents consider when making a choice to have children, or how many to have.”
-Paul Murtaugh

[Mark]

C'mon people, this isn't rocket science...

Less people on planet earth=Less resources consumed=Less Carbon, etc

As Americans we consume the most, so, the fewer Americans equals less carbon.

Other countries should contribute to population control too, of course, its just that their effect of fewer people will be less than that of Americans.

I know it says in the bible to "go forth and multiply..."

I know that to some of you it may seem like an un-American idea.

But we are still animals eating, breathing, finite resources.

[lol]

cant wait for the day when all the retarded dead-brain feminists/enviromentalist die off, with their crazy fantasy world ideas of rising water levels

[Brandon]

Good for you Spinoza and Mother of Two! But I am going to do even better. Taking a cue from P.J. Andros, I am going to make up for the purely selfish act of my mother in conceiving me and I am going to kill myself! Not only will I eliminate any future posterity but I will get rid of my own carbon footprint without cramping my rich American lifestyle. I hope that others will follow my saintly example.

Of course I'm just kidding. But it illustrates a certain smug hypocrisy often exhibited by the population control camp. They are willing to limit future generations, but not themselves. It's a selfish "I got here first" kind of attitude.

Actually if I really wanted to make a contribution to the world, I would have 4 or more kids and teach them the importance of sustainability. Then they could become part of the massive effort needed to establish a more sustainable economic model as Tim pointed out. And as an added bonus, my large family would have lower per capita CO2 output because we would have to sacrifice a lot of that cozy American lifestyle and we would have better economy of scale (e.g. one car with 6+ occupants instead of 1 or 2). In addition, the real problem we will be facing in the western world in the next century is depopulation (see www.overpopulationisamyth.com). So my 4+ children would be there to pay the social security and medicare for all those out there who didn't have any.

-----

Actually Spinoza, Mother of two was right. Having just two children is enough to maintain population. The point that you miss in your calculation is that if everyone has only two children, then your two children are also the two children of someone else. That's one child per capita, just enough to replace yourself.

[Werner Flueck]

The footprint/person is definitively not equal across the globe. I recommend you read the scientific analysis, which did focus on the US scale.

Hall, CA. 1994. The environmental consequences of having a baby in the United States. Population and Environment 15(6):505-524.

[JW]

Although I don't disagree with the fact that less is better, I do see a problem with the argument. If "the impact of A CHILD born in the U.S., along with all his or her descendants, is more than 160 times that of A BANGLADESHI child... And the long-term impact of A CHINESE child is less than one fifth the impact of A U.S.-born child." This is comparing ONE american child to ONE Chinese or ONE Bangladeshi child - if that's the case, then it's NOT a matter of how many children we have, it's a matter of CULTURE and they ways Americans raise their kids! It's not new knowledge that Americans are wasteful as a culture, so why argue that we need to have less kids? Also, did the studies include the number of irresponsible people having children? Did it include the number of crack-heads having kid after kid after kid? Or did it include the number of teenagers having multiple children because they are not aware of birth control methods? Did the studies include the number of impoverished families who can't afford birth control or that have to give their kids up? I ask because I have worked with all of the types mentioned above, and I don't find it fair to say that EVERY American should reduce the number of children they have! I think that's generalizing! Like I said, I agree that the fewer kids, the less demand on resources. in fact, I don't have any kids! But I still have a problem with generalization and the fact that I know a few people that are very environmentally responsible and they should not be told that they have too many kids!

[John Howard]

Surprised no one has mentioned IVF. Not only does it create multiples most of the time, but each round of IVF has huge carbon footprint behind it, when you add up all the researchers and technicians who work in the industry every day.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Ehrlichs and all their friends also were fans of IVF and "reproductive rights", I guess because that's how they think babies should be created, by professionals making perfect babies.

[Crash Burn]

If the author took his thesis to the next logical conclusion he would have shot himself in the head, thus greatly reducing his carbon footprint and war would just be about the best carbon reduction program humankind has ever invented.

I can't believe this even made it to "print". I'm sure the original paper was not quite as dumb as your summary, but it was probably pretty darn close. You should really think about things a little more carefully before referencing something so incredibly sensationally stupid.

[Andrew B.]

This article is actually part of a subversive plot by conservatives to reduce the population of liberals by means of natural selection. Get them to feel guilty about their very existence on this planet, and they naturally stop having children. ;-)

Seriously, there is abundant evidence that this planet, far from being a cosmological accident, was designed for humanity. As such, the earth possesses ample resources to support a population much larger than today's, given improved stewardship and continued technological advances. How many of you with children could honestly say that you think the world would be a better place without some or all of your children?

[Tara Reed]

It is not the population, but how the population uses the natural resources at its disposal. Wasted use of plastic bottles, plastic bags, and so on are the effects of an increased population. If conservation was and is taught, then we would not need population control.

Tara
http://GForceProducts.com

[Janine]

The developing countries such as China and India are the ones that need to worry about population control. At some point they'll be developed and the carbon footprint per person will be much higher. With that big old population, the total carbon footprint will be through the roof.

The US doesn't have a population problem but we consume way too much. We have to worry about decreasing the carbon footprint of each individual until its down to something reasonable.

Or if we can't cut down we should at least invest in carbon offsets and the like. These services are becoming pretty specialized towards individuals.. I found this interesting article on the topic this morning http://tinyurl.com/lqzy92

[Janine]

Oh also I read an interesting article on a new carbon offset service this morning.

http://tinyurl.com/lqzy92

For all the Americans here that should be concentrating on cutting back on emissions, not kids ; )

[Janine]

Having less kids will def. cut down on the environmental impact....BUT- there's a different solution for different countries. Check it out...

You have a countries like China and India where there is overpopulation but not a terrible carbon footprint on a per-person basis...yet. But these countries are developing and sooner or later the emissions per person are going to be much higher. THESE are the countries that need to control their population.

Then you have a country like the US. There isn't really overcrowding in the US but the carbon footprint per person is HUGE. So the solution here isn't to stop having kids...it's to consume less! We're the type of country that needs to cap emissions...maybe even on an individual basis.

[Kenny456]

This article is way too short and preys on natural fears. There are studies and estimates on when peak population levels will be. There are also other projections of under population.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=19076

[Spinoza]

Did you know?
Sometimes size does matter...
If you’re one in a million in China
there are 1300 people just like you.

If you are one in a Million in Sweden
there are 8 people just like you.

Where would you rather live?

OR

The per capita GDP of Sweden is $47000
The per capita GDP of China is $2000

The vast majority of Swedes will receive honors-level educations.
Less than ten percent of Chinese will receive a decent education.

Significance for teachers: Work in countries that places a high value on the individual.
Appreciate living in countries that guarantee the highest regard for individuals already living in a society, and to discourage bringing children into the world that cannot receive an honors education.

OR

If you shipped every job in the US to China... you would still have a surplus.

But be prepared to work 14 hours a day in unbearable conditions, and to live in factory housing. Be prepared to work for $5 a day. And be prepared to die before you are 40. The value of the individual is non-existent. You live for the People’s Republic alone.

OR
Did you know? During the course of writing this...

60 babies born in the US
244 babies born in China
351 babies born in India
3 babies born in Sweden

Where would you rather live?

[Tim Gilliland]

... No more than two children per family...
...Involuntary sterilization...
...endlessly growing human population is not sustainable...
Who decides?
Obviously the above commenters think that it is themselves.
The are wrong. In fifty years my friends, this subject will still be debated BUT IT WON'T BE BY YOU- or your children. Because demographics are destiny and you people who remove yourselves from the gene pool are going to be dead; a dead end. Nature -true nature that is, not the kind you see on TV- Is very clear on this subject. Creatures that have babies and succeed in the struggle to live get life: All others get to die, decay and be forgotten as the failures they are. There really is no middle ground.
As I previously mentioned populations tend to stabilize in countries that become as developed as the West and the solution is to make all citizens of the world equally RICH; not drag down the developed countries to third world status. Sure we can improve on conservation of resources: We already are doing so and that is all Americans conserving more, not just those who claim some superior morailty as being 'Green" The problem with so many of you people is you think you are better than the rest of us who don't buy in to your carbon dioxide hogwash, and you fervent (fervid?) belief that AGW is destroying the planet gives you the right to limit other people's lives up to and including oppression of people who are weaker than you, destroying their futures and forcing sterilization and even murder. That is downright evil and you know it. Go look in the mirror people, is that a small black moustache starting under your nose? The man in the seventh level of hell is smiling at you.

[Spinoza]

When, after 9-11, people asked why so many Islamic countries were so radically violent, my answer was one of simple biology: since 1950 the population of Sweden grew from about 6 million to 7 million, the population of Iraq grew from about 5 million to 28 million! Guess what's going to happen, biologically, under these circumstances? To compound the situation, Islamic countries like Iraq are often dry, arid wastelands lacking in the natural resources to support such explosive population growth. All of this leads to a powderkeg situation socially, and otherwise.

The problem, when scholars study Islam, is that they focus too much on religion and not enough on biology.

[Spinoza]

Dear Mother of Two: thinking that you are doing your part by *only* having two children unfortunately will not address the problem of over-population. You only need to do the math to understand why: if we assume that the two children you have will each also have two children, who in turn will also each have two children, then before you reach the end of your life--let's say you live to be 85--you will have been personally responsible for 24 new human beings on this planet! The problem is that if you live a long life (as we hope you do!), then you are directly responsible for at least three new generations of children, and not just the generation resulting from you.

When you look at these demographics, you begin to see why humanity is in such trouble.

[Patrick Harvey]

Mr. Erhlich. I'm supposing you have not considered the thought that those who propose non-reproduction will not be around in the next generation to propose non-reproduction? Actual demographics is a good field of study (read Spengler). There are plenty of cultures and populations who are very happy with your ideas. You'll be gone. They won't.

[Tom Owens]

It seems we are approaching the carrying capacity of the planet. This is due both to increasing population, and the fact that increasing prosperity in previously underdeveloped countries leads to ever greater resource consumption.
We can let nature stop our growth by famine and disease. We can fight wars to see who will survive; or we can voluntarily limit our population. There is a limit to growth.
Tom Owens

[Liz Taraldsen]

I nearly leapt from my seat with joy when I saw this brief article. If only politicians and leaders had listened to people like the Ehrlichs decades ago, and if only the unforgivable idolization of breeding would cease, and turn into reverence for the childfree, the childless, small families and providing safe birth control and abortion for everyone in the world. The Vatican and Christian fundamentalism has caused immeasurable damage and human suffering with their abhorrent views on family planning.

Anyone who claims to fight global warming and environmental destruction, without having the guts to bring up our chronic overpopulation, lacks credibility.

[Josh]

It's amazing that population control is so widely overlooked. Regardless of your feelings on climate change or the environment, it's simply impossible for either a Democrat or a Republican to deny the fact that we already have a population issue and that adding another 3 BILLION people by 2050 is a nightmare scenario.

I wish this article didn't tie population control to global warming or undeveloped nations because it distracts from the fact that this is a major and undeniable issue.

Check out the US Census site - http://www.census.gov/ - the facts are right there. The population is growing and it's growing fast. Take a look at your city - what do you think LA looks like with double it's current population? What do you think the 10 Freeway looks like with double the cars?

We need to kick start this discussion immediately no matter how hard it is to talk about it because an endlessly growing human population is not sustainable, period. Some generation will have to face this reality, why not ours?

[P.J. Andros]

Thank god someone has finally discussed online the mammoth issue of over population and what's to be done in the future. THANK YOU MARGOT ROOSEVELT. The real problem is the ignorance and self-obsessive nature of ordinary people. Almost every public evil in the world can be attributed to over population. It's been known at least since the thirties when Huxley reported to the League of Nations. But I'm afraid nothing voluntary will solve the issue. CHILDBEARING IS A WOMAN'S MOST SELFISH ACT, and since all women are utterly self-obsessed...well, you get the picture. INVOLUNTARY STERILIZATION IS THE ANSWER.

[Amy M]

Folks, save the racist and anti-immigrant dogma. Clearly the author is arguing that ALL people ALL over the world should have fewer kids. Duh. It is also true that the U.S. consumes 25% of the world's resources. As we live in the U.S., we need to recognize that our decisions have a disproportionate effect on the rest of the world. But that doesn't mean that the rest of the world has no responsibility for population control too.

Pass the condoms!

Oh yeah, and it would be nice if other people would stop treating me like a freak when I reply to their question about when I'm to have kids that I don't want them. It's rude.

[julio]

I am Hispanic , but can not help see how the Hispanic population is exploding, has nothing to do with any conspiracy with whatever name anyone wants to qualify it, not just here in the US, but also in all Latin American countries. Perhaps is time to educate EVERYBODY?, about the benefits and need of a small family?. Hispanic TV networks, how about a little public service here?, all we need is to start talking about it openly, and then Politicians will not be scared to talk about it either.
I am a peon.

[Marianne]

It’s hard to improve upon what Tim said—limit the number of children born to families and nations that are in a position to make contributions to the good of mankind, and allow for unlimited and unfettered births in Third World nations, and you end up with an overwhelming population of people who need help just living and an underwhelming population of people who could be in a position to provide help. And by help, I don’t just mean capital outlay—I mean passing on knowledge, making new advances in technology that can help humankind in the big picture.

Limit the birth rate in industrialized nations, and watch the planet turn into a population and ecological disaster that India and China are now today. Watch HBO’s documentary, The Final Inch, for a glimpse at our future. That is what the world will be without people who have educations or the ability to make changes.

Bruno’s comments are brutally honest and good, too. There are finite resources on the North American continent, and uncontrolled immigration, legal or not, is destroying this country. We’ve got plenty of “diversity” now—so for now, let’s work on taking care of who is here before we let more come in and take, take, take.

[Amy]

Kudos to you for your responsible decision, Spinoza. I have made the same one and also did so long before this issue finally began getting even a scant bit of attention.

All our choices have implications beyond our own lives, and this short article reveals why that is never more true than when deciding how many children to have. Just as it is globally irresponsible to drive a fuel-inefficient vehicle or build, heat and cool an oversized home just because one can, it is inexusably selfish to exceed the replacement rate in the midst of an overpopulation crisis.

[Deborah]

I don't think it's reasonable to think that we can determine the number of children that couples can have. However, there are things we can do. As Scott mentioned, why not give incentive (tax credit or something else) for tubal ligation and vasectomy? What about encouraging adoption?

[Whatever]

About time the issue is brought to the front lines. Nobody should have more than two children - in and outside the US. We already have population explosion and we are all suffering the consequences and will suffer more. It is time that birth control is made readily available for everyone, to stop unintended pregnancies.

This is common sense, and should not be named otherwise. Allowed the education and choice, most families will elect to have no more than two children - a good number which allows a family to provide for all their children's needs.

The Mexican government had a campaign promoting no more than two children per family a few years ago. If they saw the light, so can we.

- (a mother of two)

[Scott]

Finally. It's about time someone points out the obvious. I'm the last one who would tell someone that they could or could not have kids or how many they can have. But tell me this: Why are we giving tax credits to people to spawn children yet I had to pay for my vasectomy out of my own pocket?

[sheila]

the problem is consumption. of space, water, land, goods, etc. when you have a pyramid scheme of increasing, unchecked consumption (and exploitation) as the "model" for the Robber Baron economy, obviously over-consumption will be the result (along with grotesque enrichment of a few at the top).

if "sustainability" were the model instead, consumption would level out, and innovation and quality would replace unchecked growth as a measure of economic success. no, the mercenaries will no longer be multi-billionaires (sorry fellas) but the "bottom rungs" will no longer be starving, desperate, uneducated and exploited either.

simplistic, usually fascist answers like "kill the immigrants" or "one child only" are such a cop-out when you leave the ravenous consumption-based ponzi scheme machine intact, and its appetite for cheap labor and "emerging markets" is allowed to devour all of us.

people need to stop trying to dominate and control other people and start trying to live in a balanced, more natural way. if we all refused to buy into the dubious over-consumer model, while fighting for those with no voice, this whole mess would die a natural death and sustainability would prevail. in a balanced system, there is no need to cull the herd...

[Spinoza]

Some of us will recognize the tragic irony of having the Ehrlichs patiently take the time to comment on this piece, fully recognizing how their voices would be buried by the other comments here. The Ehrlichs work is important, and they should know that some of us read and take their research seriously. Then again, I didn't need an Oregon State study when, as a young man back in the 80s I recognized the Sisyphean nature of saving and recycling yogurt containers while friends and relatives created mountains of disposable diapers with the children they were having. When someone asks me, at the end of my life, what was the most humanly significant decision I ever made, I would answer--without hesitation--that of not having children.

[Mark Little]

This is the best LA Times article I have ever read. Thank goodness that the PC Police did not get to this before publishing. Population control is the solution to much of the suffering that occurs on this planet. Bravo Ms. Roosevelt.

[Bruno]

You can't have population stability and unlimited immigration. You get to choose one or the other.

The US currently allows between two and three million immigrants (legal and illegal) every single year. A city the size of Los Angeles is imported every year into the US because of business pressure for cheap labor and ethnic lobbies seeking to increase their political power. Such numbers of migrants are unsustainable and will no doubt lead to societal upheaval if left unchecked.

Not addressing the real population issue of immigration leaves all other population arguments mute. If you're serious about environmental degradation, immigration must be completely stopped. Immigration reform should be the primary point of the article, not eugenics.

[PAUL TAYLOR EXAMINER]

Thanks for the revealing piece. I was wondering when the academic "warmists" would expose their Maoist-Mathusian eugenics theory for serilization. Environmentalism has replaced Reniassance-borne "humanism" for the demise of the human race. Global warming, the central front in the "green war" against capitalism, now has its Waterloo in the failing global initiatives for climate control. Our progeney will have a big laugh if their academia will tell them of the biggest hoax of the 21st century -- global warming.

[Tim Gilliland]

This is a short opinion piece but the content is quite staggering. The author believes that population control is essential to "save the planet" but not just any population: Only us guilty Americans must go. Those poor people in undeveloped countries are free to breed like bunnies, as long as "right thinking people" prevent them from advancing, and keep them out there in the long grass eating each other... Gee, sounds a lot like the author harbors a hidden distain for those "lesser" folk. Oh, I'm sure its fun to watch them dance in their traditional costumes as she drives by in the safety of her limo, but don't let them have a washing machine or TV! The women are free to have tem babies by the time they are thirty and be dead by forty-five. They are free to have six out of ten of those babies dead before they reach the age of twelve... Has Ms. Roosevelt actually considered what the consequences of limiting growth are for these people? It has been shown repeatedly that fostering advances in undeveloped countries (You know, allowing and helping them develop) Brings stability to their populations and even makes them level off and/or decline. If we bring all other places in the world up to the level of lifestyle of us "Guilty Americans" we would have a global population that was stable if not slightly declining, and we really might see a time of peace and prosperity that man has dreamed of since the dawn of time.
Now getting back to the Americans. It is a common and totally false claim that the solution to pollution is to place limits on growth and innovation of America. It is that same innovation that has brought the author the ability to live her coddled lifestyle in the first place. The advances in modern agriculture are why the planet now supports six billion people, despite the hysterical alarms spouted during the nineteen seventies by such doomsayers as Paul Erlich. Allowing the freedom for Americans to advance technology will allow us to continue to feed the world. It does not have to be done in a way that is not environmentally friendly either. From my experience people who have the attitudes of the author want to halt advancement of any kind. It may make the author feel better about herself, but Invoking laws and regulations that prohibit expansion in the name of the environment will likely end up in a great many people around the world dying a horrible death from starvation. Is that what is really wanted here? It is one way to solve the population problem, isn't it?

[Patrick Harvey]

Eugenicism under a different name.

Nice job.

[Paul and Anne Ehrlich]

The huge impact of population growth on our environmental and related problems is something the scientific community has long tried to impress on a largely innumerate society. As examples, ask yourself, if the U.S. population were now 140 million people (as it was at the end of World War II), instead of over 300 million:

1. How much carbon dioxide would the U.S. be putting into the atmosphere?
2. How much oil would the U.S. need to import?
3. Would the U.S. need to spend a third or more of its military budget trying to control foreign sources of oil?
4. How crowded would American roads be and how safe American bridges?
5. How much would toxic chemicals be poisoning our environment from pole to pole?
6. How likely would you be to die from a new flu or pandemic of a novel disease?

You probably can see the rough answer to all but the last, since even universities rarely teach about the tight connections between global population size and the probability of vast epidemics. You also may not have thought about how future population growth will disproportionately assault our environment. Just consider that, being very smart, human beings have always picked the low-hanging fruit first. Each individual added to the population must now be fed from more marginal land, use water and minerals from lower quality and more distance sources, and so on – all requiring more energy use and thus causing more environmental damage. The ethical question for all prospective parents to ask is not “How many children do I want?” but “What kind of a world do I want my kids and grandchildren to live in?

Paul and Anne Ehrlich