No Children : The greenest thing you can do?

Sandwich

Being slagged at work today about my frequent foreign leisure trips and how bad I was for the planet and what an awful carbon footprint I must have.

I made the claim that on the contrary I was greener than my companions because I have no children and they do (6 in one case). I didnt think any number of plane trips could accumulate to the carbon emissions of creating their own brand new 80+ years lifetime carbon emitters.

They wouldnt accept it though, saying that their kids were entitled to their own carbon footprint and that you couldnt 'bill' it to the parents.
Nonesense I thought, since they created their kids.

So whats the answer, is having a child really a bad thing to do environmentwise - and am I a closet greeny (even if by accident)?

karen3212

I don't really know, but it may be possible to make your life carbon neutral, so therefore if all your kids have carbon neutral lives too, it might be ok

bonkey

Sandwich wrote: »

They wouldnt accept it though, saying that their kids were entitled to their own carbon footprint and that you couldnt 'bill' it to the parents.
Nonesense I thought, since they created their kids.

But by this logic, my parents created me, so they are responsible for my emissions, and not me. This would mean that no matter what I do, I'm no more or less green.

This would also mean that having 20 kids wouldn't make me less green, as it would be my parents fault...as would it be if I had a private jet that I used excessively, and only used vehicles with less than 5mpg fuel efficiency.

So I think the notion that "parents carry the can" is flawed. On the other hand, its not entirely without merit.

silverharp

Sandwich wrote: »

Being slagged at work today about my frequent foreign leisure trips and how bad I was for the planet and what an awful carbon footprint I must have.

in real terms it doesnt matter, if you didn't fly you would spend your money on something else that would have built in carbon/oil. if your co workers didnt have kids they would be flying more. focusing on one activity shows there is an element of hysteria here and lack of any real understanding of the issues. your co workers are just parroting soundbites from the TV

Gekko

the fact that people are now slagging their friends / workmates about their carbon footprint is kind of a sign of the times!

Húrin

Sandwich wrote: »

Being slagged at work today about my frequent foreign leisure trips and how bad I was for the planet and what an awful carbon footprint I must have.

....
So whats the answer, is having a child really a bad thing to do environmentwise - and am I a closet greeny (even if by accident)?

I think that human numbers would be better off lower than they are now, but I also think that four ecologically conscious children are better off than two with no environmental conscience at all.

Sandwich

bonkey wrote: »

But by this logic, my parents created me, so they are responsible for my emissions, and not me. This would mean that no matter what I do, I'm no more or less green.

This would also mean that having 20 kids wouldn't make me less green, as it would be my parents fault...as would it be if I had a private jet that I used excessively, and only used vehicles with less than 5mpg fuel efficiency.

So I think the notion that "parents carry the can" is flawed. On the other hand, its not entirely without merit.

By the same logic, your grand parents created your parents so its not your parents responsibility either. And so on backwards.
Its all Adam and Eve's fault and none of us are responsible for our emissions.:D

On a serious note, I would genuinely tend to the side that having children must be a fairly planet unfriendly thing to do - and it is a decision you can make (like buying th gas guzzling vehicle or fly to Oz for your holidays). What ever about being carbon neutral or even positive, the consumption of resources must have a serious, unsustainable impact on the planet, especially in our consumerist western world.

TeaNotWar

by the time our children will be the age we are now, won't the world be fighting over resources?
We are using the earth more than it can actually cope with, so eventually there will be wars over resources.
I think having less children is the greener thing to do, because that way you are not creating a life that can choose to leave a large carbon footprint if it wants, or whatever...

Húrin

TeaNotWar: good name. Resource wars are already happening, see Iraq 2003.

As to the question of responsibility: yes you do share some responsibility for your children's carbon footprints. If they choose to live a GHG-intensive lifestyle then that is not your fault (except perhaps by values) but they cannot live a no-GHG life in the modern world.

Don't worry though, "carbon footprints" are merely a symbolic term rather than a literal quantity of carbon dioxide that you "emit".

mumhaabu

Everyone is perfectly entitled to have children, and everyone is entitled to emit as much as they want, these are our liberties guaranteed under our constitution. My carbon footprint for 2008 is already approaching 90tonnes and I will make absolutely no change to my lifestyle. I don't recycle and I drive a car that does 19MPG. There is no such thing as global warming, the earth is going through a perfectly normal cycle that happens every few millennia.

The green fascists are trying to erode our way of life and all they are doing is create fear and uncertainty in the market place and the Green Party in Ireland are the single biggest cause of Ireland being in recession right now. They are hypocrites, anyone remember them crowing "NO TO NICE" yet we haven't heard a peep on lisbon.

The fact is we must not change our way of life, Al Qaeda tried to do this to America and not having kids as a way of being Green is the biggest insult I have ever heard towards western civilisation. Oil is $139 dollars but in terms of spending power it is still not that expensive, the Oil embargos of the 1970's did more damage than this "Crisis" can do.

Oil is not running out and won't for another 50yrs, the price curve we are seeing is a result of the negative campaigning of Green Liberals worldwide and the fact that the US Economy is currently in a severe contraction which has seen the hedge funds and big investment portfolios pump money into Petroleum futures. The current crisis is caused by speculation as was Ireland's property bubble which thankfully is collapsing and the green party are responsible for this collapse.

JIMSTARK

Catch yourselves on. Humanity can be made to believe absolutely anything, and the environemnt/global warming/carbon scam proves that point.

That is the problem, the rabble will shoot you down because of their indoctrination.

I can assure you, if someone tackled me about my carbon footprint I would unleash a tirade.

And the children are getting taught all this rubbish in school.

JIMSTARK

Húrin wrote: »

I think that human numbers would be better off lower than they are now, but I also think that four ecologically conscious children are better off than two with no environmental conscience at all.

Good point, round up all your environment movement mates and jump off a cliff. And take Al Gore and Bono with you.

karen3212

Sandwich wrote: »

- and it is a decision you can make (like buying th gas guzzling vehicle or fly to Oz for your holidays). .

Yeah kinda, you can decide to not have kids, but if you are still having sex, one or twins or triplets etc could escape, unless the guy has the snip early in life. Otherwise you can't be sure.

JIMSTARK

karen3212 wrote: »

Yeah kinda, you can decide to not have kids, but if you are still having sex, one or twins or triplets etc could escape, unless the guy has the snip early in life. Otherwise you can't be sure.

If only all dogooders and those easily brainwashed by propaganda would stop reproducing.

Húrin

mumhaabu wrote: »

Everyone is perfectly entitled to have children, and everyone is entitled to emit as much as they want, these are our liberties guaranteed under our constitution. My carbon footprint for 2008 is already approaching 90tonnes and I will make absolutely no change to my lifestyle. I don't recycle and I drive a car that does 19MPG. There is no such thing as global warming, the earth is going through a perfectly normal cycle that happens every few millennia.

The green fascists are trying to erode our way of life and all they are doing is create fear and uncertainty in the market place and the Green Party in Ireland are the single biggest cause of Ireland being in recession right now. They are hypocrites, anyone remember them crowing "NO TO NICE" yet we haven't heard a peep on lisbon.

The fact is we must not change our way of life, Al Qaeda tried to do this to America and not having kids as a way of being Green is the biggest insult I have ever heard towards western civilisation. Oil is $139 dollars but in terms of spending power it is still not that expensive, the Oil embargos of the 1970's did more damage than this "Crisis" can do.

Oil is not running out and won't for another 50yrs, the price curve we are seeing is a result of the negative campaigning of Green Liberals worldwide and the fact that the US Economy is currently in a severe contraction which has seen the hedge funds and big investment portfolios pump money into Petroleum futures. The current crisis is caused by speculation as was Ireland's property bubble which thankfully is collapsing and the green party are responsible for this collapse.

JIMSTARK wrote: »

Good point, round up all your environment movement mates and jump off a cliff. And take Al Gore and Bono with you.

Oh go and get stuffed the both of you.

HIVeindhoven

Hey mate, gobal warming may well be a crock of ****. I personally dont care about any of it as long as i get to enjoy my life. However Peak oil is almost certainly real. (google it). The price volatility you are seeing with oil right now is exactly what people(respected scientists, geologists , oil executives) have been predicting would happen for years when oil demand exceeds supply due to declining reserves. Things could be about to get extremely nasty. (BTW i'm saying as someone who is sceptical of global warming and all the other ****. If i thought thre was a chance peak oil would not happen until i was old I would not give a Flying FK and would go on enjoying taking flights/driving my car etc.unfortunately most evidence is pointing to us being on the downslope of peak oil)

Things are going to get bumpy.

PS Nuking China would prob help.

mumhaabu wrote: »

Everyone is perfectly entitled to have children, and everyone is entitled to emit as much as they want, these are our liberties guaranteed under our constitution. My carbon footprint for 2008 is already approaching 90tonnes and I will make absolutely no change to my lifestyle. I don't recycle and I drive a car that does 19MPG. There is no such thing as global warming, the earth is going through a perfectly normal cycle that happens every few millennia.

The green fascists are trying to erode our way of life and all they are doing is create fear and uncertainty in the market place and the Green Party in Ireland are the single biggest cause of Ireland being in recession right now. They are hypocrites, anyone remember them crowing "NO TO NICE" yet we haven't heard a peep on lisbon.

The fact is we must not change our way of life, Al Qaeda tried to do this to America and not having kids as a way of being Green is the biggest insult I have ever heard towards western civilisation. Oil is $139 dollars but in terms of spending power it is still not that expensive, the Oil embargos of the 1970's did more damage than this "Crisis" can do.

Oil is not running out and won't for another 50yrs, the price curve we are seeing is a result of the negative campaigning of Green Liberals worldwide and the fact that the US Economy is currently in a severe contraction which has seen the hedge funds and big investment portfolios pump money into Petroleum futures. The current crisis is caused by speculation as was Ireland's property bubble which thankfully is collapsing and the green party are responsible for this collapse.

JIMSTARK

Peak oil is a load of rubbish. They have spent the last 30 years capping off the oil wells in Alaska and Canada.

silverharp

JIMSTARK wrote: »

Peak oil is a load of rubbish. They have spent the last 30 years capping off the oil wells in Alaska and Canada.

that is a strawman argument, the bigger point is that the North Sea was the last major discovery (over 30 years ago) the world consumes 30bn barrels a year and finds less then 10bn , do the math. The US may not be fully exploiting their reserves but in global terms this is peanuts

JIMSTARK

silverharp wrote: »

that is a strawman argument, the bigger point is that the North Sea was the last major discovery (over 30 years ago) the world consumes 30bn barrels a year and finds less then 10bn , do the math. The US may not be fully exploiting their reserves but in global terms this is peanuts

Mate, look into the finds in South America.

You will find that GW Bush bought a couple of thousand acres in or around Bolivia. And the next thing you know it is discovered that a major oil field is below.

They have enough oil for at least the next 50 years, and don't forget that zero point energy was discovered long ago. But where is the profit in zero point energy??????????????????????????????? Thats why it has not been released.

oscarBravo

Bugger off, casey. Cat-banned from Soc, siteban to follow.

sarahirl

how many bloody names does that twat have?

anyway, back to the actual question. garret hardin wrote in the tragedy of the commons that the carrying capacity of the earth is finite and human nature will push the earth's resources to this limit and over, thereby destroying resources for the future. he states that human breeding should be regulated. this is seen even more in his lifeboat ethics where the basic premis is that some people are in a lifeboat, some are in the water. the people in the boat have the choice to sail away and save themselves or try to take on a few people and more than likely sink. by the way i'm not saying i agree with his theory, just reiterating them.

if your co-workers kids are like most kids today, new toys every week, 20 mobiles every year, etc etc. think i'm exaggerating? probably but due to the consumer society we live in and advertising aimed at the most susceptible of us (kids) parents are under pressure to provide the latest gadgets.

also i'd say that parents are responsible for their kids 'footprints' until they are able to make their own decisions and leave home, so 16/18?

sarahirl

sarahirl wrote: »

if your co-workers kids are like most kids today, new toys every week, 20 mobiles every year, etc etc. think i'm exaggerating? probably but due to the consumer society we live in and advertising aimed at the most susceptible of us (kids) parents are under pressure to provide the latest gadgets.

also i'd say that parents are responsible for their kids 'footprints' until they are able to make their own decisions and leave home, so 16/18?

Agree 100%, My eldest is nine and I am being made very aware that his friends have x,y & z; he starting to feel left out because he only has x.

My children have a huge mount of "stuff", personally I think they already have too much (can't convince the missus). Their friends appear to have even more "stuff", whats the point.

The recent hikes in the price of oil will soon be reflected in a rapid increase in the price of consumer goods from china, then maybe parents will think twice before buying more "stuff" for the kids.

diamondgeezer

Deleted User wrote: »

Agree 100%, My eldest is nine and I am being made very aware that his friends have x,y & z; he starting to feel left out because he only has x.

My children have a huge mount of "stuff", personally I think they already have too much (can't convince the missus). Their friends appear to have even more "stuff", whats the point.

The recent hikes in the price of oil will soon be reflected in a rapid increase in the price of consumer goods from china, then maybe parents will think twice before buying more "stuff" for the kids.

maybe you should teach your child that it is alright not to be part of the "masses", based on ancient moral issues rather than new age "greening".

sarahirl

diamondgeezer - i applaud your faith in children of today, but i dunno, it'd be a hard rock to sell i think. maybe parents clubbing together to discuss the issues and agree a kind of communal sharing of toys, like kid a gets one thing which all the other kids can use, something like sisters and brothers sharing. maybe as you say oil prices increasing will give parents a more hard line approach to the accumulation of stuff...

Climate Expert

No Children policies:
This is why the green lobby is such a dangerous force.

BendiBus

JIMSTARK wrote: »

Mate, look into the finds in South America.

The South American finds are in the billions of barrels range. A billion barrels will last the world about 12 days. By the time these fields are producing, each billion barrels will provide about 10 days supply. Very lucrative but a drop in the ocean nevertheless.

silverharp

BendiBus wrote: »

The South American finds are in the billions of barrels range. A billion barrels will last the world about 12 days. By the time these fields are producing, each billion barrels will provide about 10 days supply. Very lucrative but a drop in the ocean nevertheless.

What I also find funny is that people will always point out where a potential new field is but very few comment about depletion of existing fields, another one is equating a tar sands oil reserve with a conventional oil field.

Anyhoo I gather the only potatoes in the local supermarket today were from Israel, the sooner oil goes to 250$ the better, this is insane.

silverharp

silverharp wrote: »

Anyhoo I gather the only potatoes in the local supermarket today were from Israel, the sooner oil goes to 250$ the better, this is insane.

Are you looking forward to hyper-inflation! when oil reaches that level the costs of everything will rise rapidly to cover the costs, one thing to remember is the recent hikes in the cost of crude oil have yet to reach the consumer.

It takes three months for changes in the cost of crude to reflect in the cost of petrol, heating oil for the wholesalers and shortly afterwards the consumer (us), €1.60 a litre for your petrol by september, unless the government changes the tax take on it!

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you looking forward to hyper-inflation! when oil reaches that level the costs of everything will rise rapidly to cover the costs, one thing to remember is the recent hikes in the cost of crude oil have yet to reach the consumer.

The price of oil has very little to do with hyperinflation, but I would like to see oil rise to a price that changes peoples behaviour. Ideally I would like to see oil go up 10% a year in a way that everyone sees this and plans accordingly if that is not possible then if prices stayed at this level for a few years that would be fine too (it would only add to inflation for a year or so). my least fav option is for oil to spike now then fall in half and everybody goes back to old habits, because when PO really kicks in (2010-2012), 2€ ltr will seem cheap. Maybe we catch a break and have a financial meltdown/global depression, this will put off PO for several years.

Unfortunately, the price of oil affects everything in modern living, just that the dramatic hikes will not feed through the system for a while, but they will! Then there will be a significant rise in inflation (maybe hyper-inflation was an exaggeration ) then we go round the circle (costs increase, wages increase & raw product appears cheaper again).

Even though this time around, I don't think that oil will ever again appear cheaper (it may flucturate) as demand is still increasing faster than increases in supply.

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

Unfortunately, the price of oil affects everything in modern living, just that the dramatic hikes will not feed through the system for a while, but they will! Then there will be a significant rise in inflation (maybe hyper-inflation was an exaggeration ) then we go round the circle (costs increase, wages increase & raw product appears cheaper again).

Even though this time around, I don't think that oil will ever again appear cheaper (it may flucturate) as demand is still increasing faster than increases in supply.

Peak oil could cause a deflation as well as the world economy would not be able to grow and debt could not then be serviced. Peak oil could also create a series of reource wars, take your pick. it will reduce peoples quantity of living, how it effects peoples standard of living depends on how people deal with it.

It would certainly alter the balance of the costs of goods & services. When demand eventually outstrips supply (permanently, after peak oil) then the first casualties will be the third world - for many (rural dwellers) it will be like going back to how it was like when their parents were children, some of the elders will see life turn full circle and will be able to advise the current generation on how it used to be.

Donkey -> Tractor -> Donkey, in the lifetime of someone born in the 1960's

Developed countries on the other hand will have a slow painful transition!

sonicthebadger*

Sandwich wrote: »

Being slagged at work today about my frequent foreign leisure trips and how bad I was for the planet and what an awful carbon footprint I must have.

I made the claim that on the contrary I was greener than my companions because I have no children and they do (6 in one case). I didnt think any number of plane trips could accumulate to the carbon emissions of creating their own brand new 80+ years lifetime carbon emitters.

They wouldnt accept it though, saying that their kids were entitled to their own carbon footprint and that you couldnt 'bill' it to the parents.
Nonesense I thought, since they created their kids.

So whats the answer, is having a child really a bad thing to do environmentwise - and am I a closet greeny (even if by accident)?

If you killed yourself you'd make a very big impact on your carbon footprint.

But if you don't want to try that why not kill their children instead? You'd be saving masses of carbon output then!

Or better still, stop thinking of yourself as seperate from nature and get to work finding ways to close the cycle, one creature's waste is another's food. The only type of carbon that is a problem is that from fossil fuels, the kind you breathe out is just keeping all the trees alive, it's not actually adding to the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

It's idiots like you that give the green movement a bad name.

sonicthebadger*

mumhaabu wrote: »

Oil is not running out and won't for another 50yrs, the price curve we are seeing is a result of the negative campaigning of Green Liberals worldwide and the fact that the US Economy is currently in a severe contraction which has seen the hedge funds and big investment portfolios pump money into Petroleum futures. The current crisis is caused by speculation as was Ireland's property bubble which thankfully is collapsing and the green party are responsible for this collapse.

You keep telling yourself that.

The price curve we are currently seeing on oil is due to the economic explosion in China and India.

Any other "Green conspiracy" gems for us?

Do you happen to know Jim Corr by any chance?

thecaptain

this whole thread is founded on the belief that the person person will have the right to choose to procreate.

in the next 20 years you will not be allowed to procreate freely. dna testing will be used to screen for defects, with the majority having such problems.

also you will not be allowed to have more than one child.

the "new" freedom.

sonicthebadger*

thecaptain wrote: »

this whole thread is founded on the belief that the person person will have the right to choose to procreate.

in the next 20 years you will not be allowed to procreate freely. dna testing will be used to screen for defects, with the majority having such problems.

also you will not be allowed to have more than one child.

the "new" freedom.

Where's the evidence for this captain? I'd be very interested in seeing why European countries (some of whom already have naturally declining populations) would introduce such measures.

thecaptain

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Where's the evidence for this captain? I'd be very interested in seeing why European countries (some of whom already have naturally declining populations) would introduce such measures.

have a look into the area of genetic mapping and the transhumanist agenda. bertrand russell speaks about this agenda.

you are right about the reducing populations, if not for immigration the populations of most developed countries would be dropping like a stone.

like global warming, the population "problem" is also a hoax.

we are moving into a world which will be dominated by advaned technology/science.

oscarBravo

Bugger off, casey.

sonicthebadger*, don't call people idiots, thanks.

sonicthebadger*

thecaptain wrote: »

have a look into the area of genetic mapping and the transhumanist agenda. bertrand russell speaks about this agenda.

you are right about the reducing populations, if not for immigration the populations of most developed countries would be dropping like a stone.

like global warming, the population "problem" is also a hoax.

we are moving into a world which will be dominated by advaned technology/science.

Just so I'm clear, you say that we won't be allowed to have children by law but also that the population "problem" is not a problem because of the natural tendency for populations in developed countries to remain static or fall. Then why do we need the law?

oscarBravo

When I told him to "bugger off", it wasn't a suggestion - he's banned. Feeding trolls makes baby jebus cry.

sonicthebadger*

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bugger off, casey.

sonicthebadger*, don't call people idiots, thanks.

Noted.

Sorry Sandwich, I was out of line there.

Do remember though people that we are in fact an animal living with all the other plants and animals on the planet. Our tendency to exploit our fellow beings for our survival and produce waste is natural. The problem is the prolific rate at which we can do this due to our language skills and thumbs.

The solution can't include less. Unless you want to start culling humans. It must instead include more. More uses for our "waste", more diverse ways of producing energy.

Eliminate the concept of waste. Eliminate the "supply chain" way of thinking and replace it with a "supply loop" way of thinking. If there's no actual waste there need be no limit to our consumption or how many of us there is.

sonicthebadger*

oscarBravo wrote: »

When I told him to "bugger off", it wasn't a suggestion - he's banned. Feeding trolls makes baby jebus cry.

Doh!