That’s according to Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the UK’s Sustainable Development Commission. The carbon footprint from having more than two children will inflict too much damage on the environment to justify having any more. Straight from Porritt’s mouth:
I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate.
I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.”
Although population control is nothing new and to debate population control is not the point of this post. (Even though population control is also just one more example of tired old leftist ideas being dusted off as solutions to climate change.) The point is to point out how ridiculous (and arbitrary) it is for environmental reasons.
James Lileks makes a number of good points. Here’s two.
It hasn’t taken long, but it’s taken hold: children, to some, are not bundles of joys, but bundles of sticks whose inevitable combustion harms the planet. It doesn’t matter whether reducing the population might deprive the world of another Mozart or a scientist who can cure cancer; the latter would just mean people living longer and going more harm, and it’s an act of pure cultural arrogance and classism to suggest we need another Mozart anyway.
But why are two kids okay? Perhaps because the fellow speaking has two of his own”
