Finally, proof!

Thanks to a recent tweet I was linked to this article from the LA Times. I've pasted it below for your benefit:

GREENSPACE, LA Times
August 07, 2009

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.

The findings: If you are concerned about your carbon footprint, think birth control.

The greenhouse gas effect of a 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 lightbulbs and appliances, according to Paul Murtaugh, an Oregon State 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.

Given the higher per-capita consumption of developed nations, the study found that 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. But as China, India and other developing nations hurtle toward prosperity, that is likely to change.

-- Margot Roosevelt

Study by statisticians at Oregon State University.

I have for a long time thought that we're breeding too much. Overpopulation, although not a sole cause, can be attributed to problems in unemployment and lack of housing, two issues rather close to my heart at the moment.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that with fewer people on the planet the net quality of life for us would improve.

The long term solution is obvious: have fewer children. But a short term solution isn't clear. Mass genocide isn't looked too kindly upon nowadays and far be it for me to wish another World War to happen.

The hippie in me thinks pandemics like bird-flu and swine-flu are natures way of keeping us in check: Survival of the fittest etc. If we keep extending our life expectancy there'll be no room left on this little planet for us to enjoy a quantum of solace every now and then.

Now, I'm not saying that we should just let nature take it's course, but we must realise that we can't have lots of children and live forever.

Balance must reign supreme. Yin and yang; black and white; 0 and 1... life is full of things that work only because there is balance.

To address this balance we can either try to come to a happy medium ourselves as individuals, living truly carbon neutral lifestyles (ha!) and agreeing not having children until we've sorted the problem, or we can work together and agree on certain principles.

However, now we get onto questions of freedom and moral rights: Do we prevent people breeding purely on the basis of their social status, wealth, race or skills? No, we can't. What, then, is the answer?

It's at this stage where I fall short of the mark. Obviously I wouldn't deserve to breed in my twisted Orwellian world. Probably a good thing, then, that I don't want kids for the reasons suggested by the LA Times.

A watched kettle...

... contrary to popular folklore, will invariably boil. An obvious statement, you may say, but so obvious is this statement that many people take it for granted.

I could go and praise the amazing work of Lord Weir and the existence of the National Grid, but this is a call to arms for Eco Warriors everywhere.

My green aspirations are nothing new and I have been through the dreadlocked-hippie-university-student phase. Nowadays I am less dogmatic about Green Living and will not scorn others at the drop of a hat for not recycling their paper (Shock, horror!).

However, recently I have moved to Brighton, a city popular with the Green vote. I am shocked at the number of the people I meet who are oblivious to their impact on the environment and still boil a whole kettle of water to make one cup of tea. I even live with a man who boils a whole kettle "so that whoever uses it next doesn't have to wait as long"!

I implore everyone with a scrap of common sense and decency to think very carefully about how you can help us make this world last a little longer. It is well documented that abusing the grid in the way mentioned above wastes a expletive huge amount amount of energy.

Do those of you who still boil a whole kettle for one mug of Ovaltine not feel the sting of guilt that you have slapped Mother Nature in the face every time you do this?

I remember the moment when I realised that although I may be a small fish in a 1,400,000,000 km³ pond everything I do has an effect on the environment. 'For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction'. Twisting Netwon's laws to fit my analogy may be a little pretentious but humanity must realise that we affect the world we live in. The laws of nature will not overlook the stray wrapper and she will count every single one as an act against her survival.

Can we not see that once Earth is made uninhabitable we have nowhere else to live?

So, please, make it your life's goal to protect our habitat in whatever you do. Recycle your paper, buy fair trade products, only boil as much water as you need. Vast and varied as our world may be, we only have one chance to get it right.