HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a 4x4 car and failing to reuse plastic bags, according to a report to be published tomorrow by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) will say that 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 of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.

 

“The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”

In his latest comments the academic says that when couples are planning a family they should be encouraged to think about the environmental consequences. “The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account,” he added.

 

Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.

The world’s population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the population growth will take place in developing countries. The population of developed nations is expected to remain unchanged and would have declined but for migration.

 

The British fertility rate is 1.7. The EU average is 1.5. In some countries, such as France, the government is so concerned it has introduced financial incentives for women to have more than two children.

Despite this, Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions.

 

The suggestion has been criticised by family rights campaigners. Eileen McCloy, a geography graduate from Glasgow with 10 children, said: “How dare they suggest how many children we should have. Who do they think are going to look after our elderly?

“According to this I would have five couples’ quota of children. I believe my children will be productive members of society.”

Typical left wing meddling, I believe it is up to parents themselves to decide how many kids to have

off to pop hoodie 2 into composting bin :rolleyes:

That person with 10 kids, that's a bit much though...

That person with 10 kids, that's a bit much though...

 

Depends, catholic families for instance have a tendency to have 7 or 8 kids etc there is a particularly high level of kids in the average catholic family

 

 

Depends, catholic families for instance have a tendency to have 7 or 8 kids etc there is a particularly high level of kids in the average catholic family

 

But they aren't allowed contraception are they?

But they aren't allowed contraception are they?

 

Yeah they aren't, I was guessing with her surname and number of kids that she is a catholic

Yeah they aren't, I was guessing with her surname and number of kids that she is a catholic

 

 

Don't accept that statement, McCloy is an aveage Scottish name and could be any religion, are you saying that no catholic parents ever have 2 children or less, Indian parents have lots of offspring for instance, and they tend not to be catholic. You are just stereoptyping Catholics. I know loads of catholic people who either have no kids or less than 2.

 

Pretty sure plenty athiest couples have more than 2.

I've no problem with people having as many children as they want, provided they can reasonably afford to bring them up. What I'm not happy about are the single girls and couples who continue to have more children without ever intending to work or provide for them and expect the state (ie. the taxpayer, you and I) to do it for them.

I totally and utterly agree... This planet is unimaginably over-populated... We really need some sort of population control.... In the past the need to produce offspring in large quantities was essential due to high infant mortality rates and a much lower life expectancy.. Now, thanks to Modern Medicine, we have practically wiped out infant mortality in the Western world and life expectancy is a lot higher in many parts of the world... It is NOT necessary to breed to the sort of volume that we used to, and it IS having a detrimental effect on the planet.. More people = more of the planet's resources being used up... Birth control IS a necessity, population control IS a necessity, the planet cannot sustain a totally unchecked growth of human population...... It's not "Left Wing meddling" Craig, it's a bloody fact.... As Bill Hicks once said "Wait a minute folks... Let's think about this whole 'Food/Air' deal for a minute....."

It's not "Left Wing meddling" Craig, it's a bloody fact.... As Bill Hicks once said "Wait a minute folks... Let's think about this whole 'Food/Air' deal for a minute....."

 

We have that already in China where there is population control and appalling human rights violations of women who breach it and I just don't want to see that kind of thing darkening our doorway, if there is too many people in this country then think about how much carbon dioxide illegal immigrants are using up in this country and asylum seekers who are coming to this country with no reason other than to bludge when their country is not at war, free up the carbon dioxide they are using first by deporting them from our shores before telling the indigenous population how many kids they can have

Edited May 6, 200718 yr by Vic Vega

We have that already in China where there is population control and appalling human rights violations of women who breach it and I just don't want to see that kind of thing darkening our doorway, if there is too many people in this country then think about how much carbon dioxide illegal immigrants are using up in this country and asylum seekers who are coming to this country with no reason other than to bludge when their country is not at war, free up the carbon dioxide they are using first by deporting them from our shores before telling the indigenous population how many kids they can have

 

With all due respect, that's just idiotic thinking mate.... You;re talking on a purely narrow, national level, whereas I'm thinking GLOBAL here.... This is a problem for the entire planet mate... In many ways, the Chinese had the right idea.....