Grimes wrote: » Im the only man in an office of 6 people. Should I open that?
Pappy o' daniel wrote: » Its disturbing that Al Gore covered this up for so long, but ive always thought that there was something fishy about "an inconvenient truth".
kicom wrote: » We now have a good reason to ban Catholicism. And because science backs us up, we're fully justified in exterminating them.
Wazdakka wrote: » Save the Planet.. Abortions for all.
koth wrote: » We need a Gee-8 summit to try and find a solution to this problem.
WindSock wrote: » What are they going to do? Impose a fanny fart tax?
Reproducing less would have the greatest impact on battling climate change and contraception is the cheapest form of “green” technology, a study by the London School of Economics (LSE) says. The basic premise of Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost is that fewer people populating the planet will mean less pollution that leads to global warming. In a Sept. 10 press release, LSE says contraception is nearly five times cheaper than traditional green technologies put to use to halt climate change. Given that 40 percent of pregnancies in the world are unplanned, according to the United Nations, family planning would serve as a substantial solution to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, it says. The report, commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust, concludes that family planning should be considered one of the primary methods of reducing harmful emissions. The link between population and climate issues is a platform Optimum Population Trust has been pushing for some time. The Trust believes attention to family planning needs would save carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to six times what the United States emits annually. Roger Martin, chair of Optimum Population Trust, said the findings vindicated the organization’s stance that population growth must be included in the climate change debate. “It’s always been obvious that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions — the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down, as we want, while the population keeps shooting up. The taboo on mentioning this fact has made the whole climate change debate so far somewhat unreal. Stabilising population levels has always been essential ecologically, and this study shows it’s economically sensible too. “The population issue must now be added into the negotiations for the Copenhagen climate change summit in December. This part of the solution is so easy, and so cheap, and would bring so many other social and economic benefits, from health and education to the empowerment of women. It would also ease all the other environmental problems we face — the rapid shrinkage of soil, fresh water, forests, fisheries, wildlife and oil reserves and the looming food crisis,” Martin said.
syklops wrote: » You obviously didnt read the article.
patmac wrote: » As a DINKY I shall use this answer when nosy feckers ask us why we don't have any children. I saw a comedian on Charlie Bookers Newswipe (BBC3) making the same observation apparently a woman increases her Carbon Footprint 40 times for every child she spawns. I'm off to trade in my Prius in for a 1983 5 litre diesel Jag safe in the knowledge that I am saving the planet by being sprog free.
