What's Your Baby's Carbon Footprint?
EXHIBIT: 8lbs, 21 inches, and 3,800 diapers worth of planet-pummeling joy
April 28, 2008
|
|
|
|
72% of American adults have children.
60% of American children say they're more afraid of global warming than of terrorism, car crashes, or cancer.
Between 2000 and 2050, the U.S. will add 114 million kids to its population. Africa will add 1.2 billion—but their respective CO2 emissions will be the same.
One American child generates as much CO2 as 106 Haitian kids.
Zahara Jolie-Pitt will produce 45,000 lbs of CO2 yearly, compared with 221 lbs if she still lived in Ethiopia.
A typical baby goes through 3,800 disposable diapers in her first 2.5 years.
96% of American babies wear disposable diapers. In China, only 6% do. In India, 2%.
China claims its one-child policy has prevented 400 million births—saving 1.5 billion tons of CO2 in 2004 alone.
For $20, British parents can have 7 trees planted to offset the 1,430 lbs of greenhouse gases generated by their child's first 2.5 years of nappies.
Civil conflict is twice as likely to occur in countries where young adults make up more than 40% of the population.
In 2007, a Hungarian couple had 300 trees planted to offset their newborn's lifetime carbon footprint.
Twin births in the U.S. have risen 70% since 1980. In 2004, 3.2% of newborns were twins.
Uganda (50% children) has been at war for most of the last 30 years. Monaco (13%) has not been at war since 1815.
Citizens of the Russian city of Ulyanovsk get September 12 off to "conceive a patriot."
Due to its low birthrate, Singapore runs a dating program called LoveByte that promotes "the importance of marriage and family, and the need to start early."
Members of the "Quiverfull" movement believe that very large families populate "God's army."
In 2005, Pope Benedict XVI called for tax incentives for large families. Last fall, he vowed to "recreate a strong alliance between man and Earth."
In March, a Vatican bishop announced seven new mortal sins, including causing pollution and being obscenely wealthy. According to news reports, the bishop said the new evils were linked to "the unstoppable process of globalization."
In 1900, 1% of Catholics lived in Africa. By 2050, 26% will.
In 1950, the typical American woman had 3.1 children over her lifetime. In 2005, she had 2.1.
In 1950, the typical new American house was 983 sq. feet. In 2005, it was 2,434 sq. feet.
In 1969, 5% of households had 3 or more vehicles. In 2001, 23% did.
Only 45% of SUV owners in the U.S. have two kids or more.
U.S. school buses—95% of which run on diesel—release 3,700 tons of soot and 11 million tons of greenhouse gases a year. School-bus exhaust is linked to higher rates of asthma and lung cancer.
Letting a school bus idle for 10 minutes creates 3 times more particulate emissions than turning the motor off.
It would take up to 223 trees to offset the CO2 produced by a child watching 3 hours of TV every day for 18 years.
19% of U.S. children under the age of 1 have TVs in their rooms.
The Ballooning TV Family
1957: Leave It to Beaver (2 kids)
1969: The Brady Bunch (6 kids)
1972: The Waltons (7 kids)
1977: Eight Is Enough (8 kids)
1988: Just the Ten of Us (8 kids)
1996: 7th Heaven (7 kids)
2007: The Duggars (17 kids)
Asked how many times they'd begged their parents for a product they'd seen advertised, 11% of tweens answered "more than 50."
Appetite for Destruction
Over his/her lifetime, each American born in the 1990s will produce an average of:
3.1 million pounds of CO2 (same as 413 plane trips from New York to Tokyo)
22,828,508 pounds of water waste (the equivalent of 48,060 ten-minute showers)
16,372 pounds of yard waste (enough to fill 442 large garbage cans)
7,249 pounds of food waste (as much as 16 households produce in a year)
S/he will eat 1,654 chickens, 74 turkeys, 25 pigs, 11 cows, 2 sheep, and 18,675 eggs.
And s/he will use 1,870 barrels of petroleum (enough to fuel a Subaru Outback for 822,800 miles).
American children make up 4% of the world's population, but they consume more than 40% of the world's toys.
In 2006, volunteers picked up 68,720 lbs of toys and 33,469 lbs of diapers during worldwide beach cleanups.
In order to do as much laundry as Walt Disney World does in a single day, you'd have to do a load a day for 44 years.
By the time she is 18, an American child in a middle-income family will have eaten her way through $33,330 of food.
The average student trashes up to 90 lbs of lunch-box leftovers and packaging each year.
In 2007, Julia Roberts told Vanity Fair that the "highest high" would be "growing our food that I then make, and then composting and growing more."
In 2004, she paid Hollywood's Cedars-Sinai Hospital $1,700 a night for a deluxe maternity suite with valets, a chef, security staff, and salon service.
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT—pronounced "vehement") advocates nonprocreation instead of suicide because "there's no way we could convince enough people to kill themselves.
| pics of whose baby? | amount paid/publication | comments |
|---|---|---|
| Nicole Richie | $1 million/People | Enough to sponsor 2,976 Save the Children kids for a year |
| Jamie-Lynn Spears | $1 million/OK! | Enough to buy 2 million condoms |
| Christina Aguilera | $2 million/People | Enough to buy laptops for 10,000 students in the developing world |
| J-Lo/Marc Anthony | $6 million/People | $3 million for each twin; enough to send 1,697 kids to day care |
| Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie | $7.6 million/People, Hello! | Gave some of it to charity, but won't say how much |
| Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes | $0/Vanity Fair | Fawning profile and Annie Leibovitz shoot? Priceless. |
Illustration by: Zohar Lazar
men who make a conscious choice not
to add another human to our mass.
The awe and wonder of a wanted pregnancy
may be individually satisfying but it will do nothing to clean the dirty air and the polluted water we are providing for the billions who are already here.
Nor will it stop the preventable death
of even one of the 25,000 children who
will die today, and every day.
Reproducing has become a zero sum game
and thoughtful people are refusing
to play.
Therefore, it is highly likely that a large DIE OFF of human life will occur, and in the not distant future.
Along the way, much of the planet will be "ruined" by over interaction with humanity.
Given humanity's effect on the planet, and, in order to minimize the planet's response (DIE OFF) to humanity's hubris...having even one child is no longer a moral choice.
The ONLY moral choice is an offspring free life.
Adoption is an option for those with a "need" for parenting.
A simplistic argument in the other direction says that as living creatures and not inanimate matter, our purpose for being alive is to reproduce.
To take your arguments to the next logical step, perhaps worldwide sterilization is in order?
The article raises a question in my mind thats a bit off topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_disasters
Consider the estimated death tolls on all the natural disasters and add to it WWI, WWII, the holocaust, Mao's Cultural Revolution, Stalin's oppressive regime, our Civil War, etc and I ask myself "How the hell has our species survived?"
People do need a wakeup call. And if you adopt, you're not adding to the carbon load as much, if you do it thoughtfullly.
You can have kids thoughtfully. The US and what it is now makes that harder.
if disposable diapers weren't made, they wouldn't be used.
where is the call for industry to stop producing and promoting crap people don't need?
the big corporations want the attention to be on the consumer level--guilt and a feeling of being overwhelmed makes people uneasy, which makes them spend more.
I heartily recommend the diaper free route to EVERYONE. :)
See merrybaby.com and diaperfree.org.
Thanks!
http://www.eredux.com/states/
http://www.city-data.com/forum /politics-other-controversies/ 68190-political-towns-extreme-places-political-relocation.html
http://groups.google.com/group /alt.support.childfree/browse_ thread/thread/433390c60614cc23/442c33182294bb85?hl=en
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/TurningPoints/story?id=3747045&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/search?search text=Portland%20contraception&type=
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Why_breed/
http://freetownproject.com/
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2140483&page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Exodus
http://christianexodus.org
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en& q=childfree+village+scotland&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3401106
http://www.projectprevention.org
Overpopulation or Childfree Town Project
http://www.city-data.com/forum/poli tics-other-controversies/68190-politic
al-towns-extreme-places-political-relocation.html
Hi.
I am writing because I am interested in overpopulation activists in small
towns. I am hoping that if overpopulation activists concentrate forces
like the Libertarians of the Free Town Project,
http://freetownproject.com/ we can build a majority that can replace
public school, playground, ballfield, and childcare funding with
contraception and abortion funding and end up saving a great deal of
money especially since Social Security and Medicare funding are mostly
federal and can be imported.
Housing unit size could also be limited to crowd large families but
regular zoning is a big problem because it makes it expensive for
overpopulation activists to move in and build a majority.
Anyway, what do you think? Can such a majority be built in your hometown.
NYC is the only municipality I know of that funds abortions and it is too
overcrowded and thus difficult and expensive to move to or build a
majority in. And NYC's abortion funding is still only a tiny fraction of
their education funding.
Three groups likely to be allied in this municipal cause are gays,
especially conservative gays like Log Cabin Republicans, retirees, who
would be hypocrites because they usually have grown children and
grandchildren but these grandchildren often live in different towns and
would be unaffected by local education cuts, and Libertarians who are
ideologically committed to small government.
-Alan
--------- Forwarded message ---------
Subject: My speech to County Commission
I'm Alan and I came accross a shocking statistic. In America, and by
inference in Buncombe County, 2 out of 3 parents are so environmentally
callous that they would turn down even subsidized contraception and
squeeze out babies anyway; which calls into question the ability of local
contraception funding to save the planet from overpopulation.
But in that case there is something else a county can do and that is to
stop susidizing parenthood. It is fundamental that the responsibility to
fund schools, childcare, playgrounds and ballfields lies exclusively with
parents.
So how is it fair that I, as a taxpaying nonparent, should be subsidizing
such reproductive activities? There is no ethical construct by which that
is fair. So since none of you seem to be funding contraception anyway, I
might as well vote for those who would defund parenthood, while
contraception and abortion are so cost effective that funds can be raised
privately. And of course that would, and does, switch me to the true
party of the environment, affordable housing and direct democracy, the
Republicans.
The Republicans help the environment by cutting or attempting to cut
parental subsidies like playgrounds, childcare, ballfields and public
schools, which is effective against overpopulation in a society in which
most babies are planned.
Local Republicans oppose zoning which is bad for affordable housing, and
Nathan Ramsey alone proposed a direct democratic referndum on zoning,
which makes the Republicans the party of direct democracy.
-Alan
To the Editor:
Contrary to most political alliances and strategies, LGBTQ people seem to
be making the most progress in the profit driven corporate world led by
Log Cabin Republicans and HRC. To see why, one need only look at the
economics of LGBTQ communities like Provincetown MA. According to the
2000 census, Provincetown had only 8% children, compared to about 25% for
the nation and 31% for the generally politically allied city of Detroit.
This means LGBTQ communities are fundamentally different from most other
minority communities in a way that is massively under appreciated,
totally politically incorrect, and lies at the very heart of economic
conservatism.
You are largely nonparents, with the economic interests of nonparents.
And despite all the political rhetoric, what the corporations can see is
that so far liberal government subsidies have done far more to transfer
wealth from nonparents to parents than to move wealth from rich to poor
adults; and when nonparents, like me, form communities and more
specifically school districts, we are relieved of huge tax burdens and
consequently experience economic (and environmental) booms. It may
behoove nonparents to better understand and acknowledge this huge and
inherently conservative factor and perhaps use it to rethink some
political alliances with minority parents versus those with corporations.
Alan
Were you abused as a child? why do you hate children and families so much? I would hate to live without the laughter, playfulness and sheer unadulterated joy that children bring to this world.
Babies and children do not necessarily bring "joy" to eveyrone's life. They are a drain on the natural resources of human beings and earth in general.
Yeah, yeah, yeah - my mother had me, and if she had an abotrtion, I wouldn't be here, and BLAH, BLAH, BLAHHHHHHHH. Look, I didn't ask to be here, but I'm here, and I have to live, and I have decided to live childfree and not "make my mark" so to speak by spooting out kid after kid.
Worldwide sterilization is NOT SUCH AS BAD IDEA. Less humans, less waste. The world is already going to hell in a handbasket. Why add an other human being to the mix?
As for world sterilization, I didn't have a lobotomy but I think you did. Forced sterilization MEANS THE END OF THE HUMAN RACE. If there are no people left, either from sterilization or some major catastrophe as many of the gloom and doomers here keep talking about or both, then who cares about our carbon footprint because noone will be here anyway.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/childfreetown/
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2140483&page=1
And yes I survived some abuse, mostly by peers which was ignored or encouraged by teachers especially gym coaches. Could not run away because school attendance is mandatory, escape was truancy. Now I don't want to pay taxes to abuse others, especially with the new obesity driven gym hype. And I don't have a house, and mentioned that I actively resist ZONING, which is the twisted municipal overpopulation system that is driving up housing costs.
rights. So get on task. The main problem is that the US town with the
smallest percentage of children is not in Cascadia. It is the gay
community of Provincetown MA with 8% children compared to about 25%
nationally. Does Cascadia have a gay town like Provincetown? I will be
voting Republican because they subsidize parenthood less in the form of
schools, childcare, TANF, playgrounds, ballfields and family leave. They
also reduce the population more by killing more anti-choice people in the
middle east. Also, I am in the southeast and here the Republicans are
further from the center and therefore more likely to seceed so that you
can be rid of them. They are more for state's rights. Also, public
schools teach national unity, which is the real enemy of secession. So
stop subsidizing them.
-Alan
Although I do some energy conservation work on a hands on basis, I don't
think much of it as a political issue because direct environmentalism
distracts attention and then funding from overpopulation and
contraception, which is the ONLY way to actually stop global warming. The
windmills were for electric generation, but I don't much care. Seven
billion people just cannot live sustainably and efforts to do so are
counterproductive and diversionary. Though we could limit yachts to 400hp
(you lived in FL, those big semi-planers are truly absurd. It's beyond me
why the little jet ski's get the complaints.) I'm more interested in
defunding parenthood including public education. Did you know that
Provincetown MA is only 8% children? San Francisco is 14%, the USA about
25%, Detroit 31.1%, Maywood CA (a hispanic LA suburb) is 37% and Colorado
City AZ (polygamist) is 60.4% children. What effect do you think that has
on property taxes? especially since old age subsidies are mostly federal.
Do you know of any towns with a larger or smaller percentage of children
than 8% or 60.4%. If I can find a town outside the Northeast with 8%
children, I will move there and pay the property taxes. Though Frisco is
both too big and too expensive for my tastes. Expensive may be inevitable
because low property taxes would cause speculation. My county is 22.2%
children.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4805000.html
I'm doing a lot of political and demographic research on localities in
the west lately so I can figure out where I want to live. I can find very
little reference material on comparitive municipal politics. It's badly
neglected. There are many more towns to choose from than viable political
parties.
A libertarian county has already been chosen, Loving County in the west.
See,
http://freetownproject.com/
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2140483&page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia
http://christianexodus.org
I oppose public education because I am not a parent and wish to stop
subsidizing parenthood. However subsidized contraception is very
important and far more cost effective than public education, and better
for the environment. Texas secession might tilt the balance enough to
make this possible in the rest of the country.
-Alan
Local governments may be doing a bunch of myopic and reactive
environmental stuff, but they are doing almost nothing to reduce
fertility rates and are subsidizing parenthood heavily in the form of
childcare, playgrounds, ballfields and public schools. Do any two or
more members of this group live in the same town? county? state?
Anyone
here in Nevada? AZ? NM? eastern OR? west TX?
-Alan
Limiting housing counts does NOTHING for fertility rates and is a myopic
digression from overpopulation. So in that sense I am pro-development. I
want enough housing units for everyone ESPEICIALLY domestic migrants who
may be moving for political purposes. I have no problem with limiting the
SIZE of houses in order to crowd large families, but I oppose any limits
on unit counts, unit densities, or building height. An overpopulation
town funds contraception and abortion INSTEAD OF playgrounds, ballfields,
childcare, or schools. It has NOTHING TO DO with land use policies other
than banning ballfields.
-Alan
FRANCE'S HIGH BIRTH RATE PARTLY DUE TO GOVERNMENT INCENTIVE
France Only European Country With Replacement Level Fertility
France's "robust birth rate," which is "bucking the trend" of declining
European birth rates, is "could be attributed to government support for
people who have children.
Birth rates in European countries recently have reached a historic low,
with the largest and most recent fall occurring in Eastern Europe. All
European countries recorded birth rates of more than 1.3 children per
woman.
I am in my 30's and will not be breeding and I'm damn proud of it!! It's heartening to see that others are making the same ethical decision not to reproduce for the fun of it. The fate of our planet may well depend upon those of us who can look beyond our selfish needs and desires to create "mini me's."
Save the planet, stop breeding!!
I grew up in a communist country where disposable diapers were completely unheard of at the time. If you would rather spend 3 hours a day washing dirty cloth diapers, be my guest. When you think about it, that wastes water. You can't win in this!
The most atrocious thing I can think of is the birth of an unwanted child. Those children that would be born under responsible government sponsorship could be cherished as they should be and the world would be a better place, maybe a shangri-la, a utopia or at least it's people would have a chance for peace and contentment and creative production, but I guess that would piss off too many cultists, fundamentalist and other religions who gain their livliehood by preaching happiness after death. As if. Cults like the Quiverfulls and the Fundamentalist polygamists (cover ups for rampant sexual perversion) should go to jail along with the Pope.
Procreating is a natural instinct to insure survival of the species of humans, just like the animals. That we ignore the results as another deficiency of nature is inexcusable and irresponsible. We are supposed to be smarter than animals. Even lemmings know enough to limit themselves by walking off a cliff to perpetuate the species. All humans have done is step up the percentage,or at least acceptance, of gays.
The catholic church and all religions that preach, persuade or demand overpopulation (to feed their own greedy coffers) should be immediately outlawed and birth control taught and encouraged in all schools, all states, all countries of the world and the so far irresponsible governments should quit subsidizing large families by tax credits.
Impose fines instead for the birth of more than two children to a family - and watch the birth level fall.
Provide free, easy access to all those who seek it - most pregnancies are not wanted anyway - watch the birth level decrease.
Ostracize, condemn or make unpopular all those (disgusting) people who overbreed and watch the population diminish.
And finally, if all else fails, which it will (too late to curtail the Richterlike increments of measure)then make sterilization mandatory as a last resort until the population stablizes.
Those who were never born will not know and those already born will have a better life.
Quality of life for individuals is a hell of a lot more conducive to health, happiness and freedom than quantity of individuals unless you're a capitalistic business owner or corporation who needs a huge pool of starving people from which to hire for poverty level wages. That includes most of the world, all of the third world countries, and the U.S. at times and for the last decade. Those people in a populated controlled world would have increasingly, a better quality of life.
And for those worried about diapers - the underdeveloped countries can't afford them or they would have them and everything else Americans's "waste".
The economy has forced moms to work and they don't have time to change, soak, rinse, wash, dry and fold diapers all day - count the energy, labor, water, soap - this goes for the 2 bread winner families saving for a home and the welfare moms who have to pay back every penny to the state/county/federal on her low income job (thanks to Clinton's welfare reform). Given a choice, before it was too late or the father walked, she would probably not have given birth in the first place. The baby's here now and sometimes loved in a harried, exhausted and impoverished way, being tended to sporadically with what quickly becomes even at the sacrifice of food, absolutely necessary disposable diapers. Anyone advocating hours a day more tedious labor by using cloth diapers has never had a kid.
Limit the people born and overfilled landfills, global warming, pollution, etc., and a lot more issues won't be a problem.
Why, why are the people too stupid to elect leadership who can predict and prevent the things - like climate change - overpopulation - before it gets out of control? In ten years yes, someone will see and another ten afterward be able to convince the majority - but by then it will be too late.
I agree - those who adopt are (insane) heroes. PS - anyone celebrating the wonderful innocence and laughter of children has never raised a teen ager.