| Contraception is 'greenest' technology - and depopulation method! | |
|
Yes, and by a wide margin, contends a recent study from the London School of Economics asserting that family planning is nearly five times more cost effective in mitigating global warming emissions than green energy technologies like wind and solar power. Each $7 spent on basic family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton. To achieve the same result with low-carbon technologies would cost a minimum of $32. The UN estimates that 40 percent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended. “It’s always been obvious that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions –- the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down, as we want, while the population keeps shooting up,” Roger Martin, chairman of the Optimum Population Trust, the British environmental group that sponsored the study, said in a statement. “The taboo on mentioning this fact has made the whole climate change debate so far somewhat unreal.” Yet at the recent Copenhagen climate summit –- which failed to produce any binding resolution on curbing global warming emissions — population control was again an option that was not even mentioned. It is easy to see why. Population control measures like China’s one-child policy, and forced sterilization campaigns by various countries during the 20th century, have led many to associate such efforts with racism and totalitarianism. Powerful institutions like the Roman Catholic Church continue to oppose contraception on religious grounds. The report, Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust from the London School of Economics, concludes that “considered purely as a method of reducing future CO2 emissions”, family planning is more cost-effective than leading low-carbon technologies. It says family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. Meeting basic family planning needs along the lines suggested would save 34 gigatonnes (billion tonnes) of CO2 between now and 2050 – equivalent to nearly six times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total. “The environmental problems we face would be easier to solve with fewer people, and ultimately impossible to solve with ever more. Meanwhile each additional person, especially each rich person in the OECD countries, reduces everyone’s share of the planet’s dwindling resources even faster. Non-coercive population policies are urgently needed in all countries. The taboo on discussing this is no longer defensible,” Martin said. Yet while population control remains sidelined in official climate talks, the number of prominent voices calling for its recognition as an issue of concern is mounting. The United Nations Population Fund’s most recent annual report explicitly linked slower population growth with reduced greenhouse-gas emissions. Despite the obvious challenges, little research has focused on the intersection of demographics and climate change, states a recent World Health Organization study. “The relevance of demographic trends to adaptation to climate change has meanwhile remained almost entirely unexplored by the scientific literature,” wrote Leo Bryant, the lead researcher on the study.
Related Articles:
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Hits: 318 Trackback(0)
Comments (0)
 Write comment
|
Are condoms and birth control pills more cost effective than windmills and solar panels as tools to curb global warming?
Like this? Share it with your friends!
TrackBack URI for this entry
Show/hide comment form
