Wednesday, February 04, 2009

newpapers battle over # of children British should have

A bit from "no more than 2":

Couples who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.

Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.

“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,” Porritt said.
Times Online

a snippet from the "more is merrier" piece:

...it was bunkum to suggest that it costs as much as the price of a family house to raise each child. By sharing bedrooms, baths and toys, he could see that each additional child in a large family worked out cheaper to raise than a child in a small family.

Nor did he feel it was fair to calculate that each child adds an additional 750 tons of carbon dioxide to the environment. "What about economies of scale?" he thought.

"A four-person household uses half as much electricity, per capita, as a home for one. The people who are messing up the planet are the single people living alone in swanky apartments."
Telegraph

4 comments:

Michelle said...

I think we should make people pay tax for square footage per person of living space. For an individual, 750 sq ft is fine - above that, you pay an annual tax of $1/sq ft. For a couple - let's give them 1300 sq ft. For every minor child, an additional 300 sq ft. Adult child or other relative, 400 sq ft. Unrelated adult, 500 sq ft.

This means a family of 4 gets a generous 1800 sq ft. But if that same family wants to live in a 3800 sq ft McMansion, they'll pay $2000/year tax.

I think I'm at 3200 sq ft. Guess I'd owe $100 per year. Fair enough. Maybe I'll just have another baby...

kat said...

Just like I don't want the government deciding how high my thermostat is fixed, I don't want them deciding how many square feet I'm allowed. Especially since these are the same folks who think the rules are for us, and not for themselves. Think Al Gore and his 20,000sqft house, Obama and cranking the heat to 80F, all these Democrat cabinet picks who don't pay their taxes, and John Edwards and his nastiness over his hick neighbor.

If you can afford a 3200 sqft house, you should have it. After all, you have to pay for the heat and AC and the mortgage.

kat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kat said...

Ha ha Michelle! (She emailed me to let me know that her comment was SUPPOSED to be sarcastic)

I thought you had lost your mind, instead I didn't see the eye rolling that would have accompanied your comment if you had been sitting at my kitchen table.

So... do you only get to add on your house if you have a positive pregnancy test? What happens when Fritz moves out? (they all will eventually)