Seriously. Alex Renton, a British environmentalist and lunatic – but we repeat ourselves – thinks the world would be better off if American and Australian women had fewer babies so African women can have more of them. And he said it with a straight face.
The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children. If they behave as the average person in the rich world does now, they will emit some 11 tonnes of CO² every year of their lives. In their turn, they are likely to have more carbon-emitting children who will make an even bigger mess…
In 2050, 95% of the extra population will be poor and the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit. By today’s standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis… As Rachel Baird, who works on climate change for Christian Aid, says: “Often in the countries where the birth rate is highest, emissions are so low that they are not even measurable. Look at Burkina Faso.” So why ask them to pay in unborn children for our profligacy…?
But how do you reduce population in countries where women’s rights are already achieved and birth-control methods are freely available? Could children perhaps become part of an adult’s personal carbon allowance? Could you offer rewards: have one child only and you may fly to Florida once a year?
After all, based on current emissions and life expectancy, one less British child would permit some 30 women in sub-Saharan Africa to have a baby and still leave the planet a cleaner place.
This is a great idea, but Alex has just scratched the surface here. Not only will those 30 starving, diseased African children produce fewer emissions each year, but they’ll lead much shorter lives than their American and Australian counterparts, thereby enriching Mother Earth even further.
These people give lunatics a bad name.
Source: Guardian UK
