Is having more than two children selfish? The future of the planet rarely plays a part when planning a family, but that’s got to change, say environmental campaigners.
Parents who have more than two children are “irresponsible” for placing an intolerable burden on resources and increasing damage to eco-systems, says a leading green campaigner.
Curbing population growth through contraception must play a role in fighting global warming, argues Jonathon Porritt.
This week, the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which Mr Porrit is a patron, launched its “Stop at Two” online pledge to encourage couples to limit their family’s size.
Mr Porritt said earlier this month: “I think we will work our way towards a position that says having more than two children is irresponsible.”
He is not advocating a compulsory limit but told the BBC that couples should “connect up their concerns with the natural environment with their decisions as prospective parents”.
“Every additional human being is increasing the burden on this planet which is becoming increasingly intolerable,” says Mr Porritt, who runs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission.
Each extra person in the UK emits around 11 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum, he argues, but he warns population is a subject even some environmentalists think too controversial to discuss.
The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) in the UK reached 1.90 children per woman in 2007. UK fertility has not been this high since 1980, according to the Office for National Statistics.
The UK population alone is expected to increase from 61 million to 77 million by 2051 but the OPT believes the UK’s long-term sustainable population level may be lower than 30 million.
“The more couples decide to have just one or two children, or even remain childless, the more they can relieve pressures on rapidly deteriorating ecosystems and alleviate demand for dwindling energy and food resources,” says policy director Rosamund McDougall.
If women in the UK stopped at two children, this would cut the UK’s forecast population by an estimated seven million by 2050, the OPT suggests.
But for mother-of-five Rosie Whitehouse, green issues did not play a part in her and her husband’s decision to have a large family.
“Life isn’t as simple as that,” says Mrs Whitehouse, a former journalist.
“For most women the environment doesn’t figure at all. I was making programmes about global warming when I became pregnant with my first son, who is now 20, and it didn’t enter my head,” she says, although she can understand why Mr Porritt feels justified in raising the issue.
“I didn’t think about money and what it was going to cost either. I just had this romantic idea,” she says.
Mrs Whitehouse, 47, who works full-time and lives in London, queries whether larger families necessarily place a greater burden on the environment.
“Money is important so you don’t buy ready-made meals. I cooked up cauldrons of soup.”
‘No more toys’
And just because you have five children “it does not mean you have five times the amount of plastic toys,” she says. “You just have to say ‘no more’.”
She has four children still living at home aged 18, 15 and twins aged 10 and says they are environmentally aware. But she does not believe green issues will be uppermost in her daughters’ minds when they come to think about having a family.
“Pregnancy is introspective. It is a selfish time, especially when you first find out, ” she says.
It’s a sentiment echoed by mother-of-three Siobhan Freegard who says environmental considerations aren’t even on the radar when couples think about how many children they want.
“If you polled mums and asked them for 10 reasons why they would not want more children the list would include money, sleepless nights and the strain on relationships,” says Ms Freegard, of the online parent network Netmums.
The bottom line would certainly seem to focus the minds of many parents, judging by recent research. The average cumulative cost of raising a child from birth to the age of 21 is about £193,000, according to a survey by the insurer Liverpool Victoria.
Ms Freegard says it is “crazy” to think the impact on the environment would even figure in the family planning process.
She has two sons, aged 12 and six, and a nine-year-old daughter. With the birth of her youngest, she felt they were a proper family, although managing three children hasn’t been easy: “It was messy and I lost control of things, but in a good way.”
And as one of five children herself, she extols the virtues of a large family, for example in having siblings to share caring for a parent.
“It’s about having some support and sharing the load. I wanted to recreate that for my own children.”
RELATED ARTICLES
- Researchers Warn Vaping is just as Harmful as Cigarettes
- German School Bans Children from Drinking Water Because its Offensive
- Italy Fines TikTok with 10 million euros over Repeatedly Exposing Children to Indecent Content
- EVs pollute 1850 times more than Fossil Fuel cars according to new study
- UK Warns that China is Preparing for Total Nuclear War with the West
Loading ...
When My Fiance and I are married, we plan on having anywhere from 4 to 8 beautiful children for Jesus and our Japheth (Aryan) peoples.
They will be raised right, with respect, honest hard workers. And to stand up for there people and not be afraid of any sacrifices they must make in life in order to morally protect the future of there people and a complete liberation of there lands (Europe and North America, which broke off of the side of Europe)
We prefer peace. not for survival we will answer our enemies calls for war since they keep sounding them
As an American caucasian, I tell you do not listen to these environmental wacko’s. We Caucasians started listening to these people in the 1970s when they started shouting “zero population growth.” Here’s the problem–suppose you have five white couples. Three of the couples have TWO children each. One couple has ONE child. One Couple has NO kids. This produces seven children or a 1.4 birthrate, less than the 2.1 necessary to maintain our population. More couples should consider three and four children to make up for those couples that are having one or none!
Whites tend to ponder the feasibility of having a child – Negroes don’t. Whites tend to advance civilization – Negroes don’t.
Tell it to Haiti and other African countries. We need to “up” our numbers. You need 2.1 children per couple just to maintain your population.
What’s amazing is the anti-White Liberals tell us we need to have fewer children…then they tell us we need more immigration because we aren’t having enouh children!
Talk about ‘genocide via the bedroom’!