Consumer Energy Report is now Energy Trends Insider -- Read More »

By Samuel R. Avro on Feb 1, 2009 with no responses

Green Activist: Procreation Harms The Environment

Tags:

The Optimum Population Trust estimates that each person throughout their lifetime wil burn carbon equivalent to roughly 2½ acres of old-growth oak woodland.

Mr. Porritt wants the U.K. government to shift funding away from the curing of illnesses in order to help pay for abortions and contraception.

Families with more than two children create an unbearable burden on the environment and is ‘irresponsible’, says an environmental adviser to the U.K. government quoted in the Sunday Times.

The chairman of the U.K.’s Sustainable Development Commission believes that in order to seriously combat global warming, population growth needs to be curbed through the usage of contraception and abortion.

“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.

Porritt, a father of two children, even went so far as to say that the government should be shifting some of their funding from the curing of illnesses to paying for contraception and abortion.

The Optimum Population Trust estimates that each person throughout their lifetime will burn carbon to the equivalent of roughly 2½ acres of old-growth oak woodland. Porritt, a former chairman of the Green Party, is listed as a patron on the group’s website.

The organization says that its aim is to advance environmental protection by promoting policies in the United Kingdom or any other part or parts of the world which will lead or contribute to the achievement of stable human population levels which allow environmental sustainability.

He intends to bring awareness to this issue to the environmental groups which he says have yet to connect the population growth’s effect on global warming.

Mr Porritt wants the U.K. to take money away from curing illnesses in order to pay for abortions and contraception.

“Many organizations think it is not part of their business. My mission with the Friends of the Earth and the Greenpeaces of this world is to say: ‘You are betraying the interests of your members by refusing to address population issues and you are doing it for the wrong reasons because you think it is too controversial,” he said.

The world’s population of 6.7 billion is expected to rise by 2050 to 9.2 billion.

“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,” said Porritt.

Mr. Porritt isn’t the only one who thinks this way, and he isn’t the first one either. There are those in America that believe their government needs to do the same.

“You’ve got to get a president who’s got the guts to say, ‘Patriotic Americans stop at two [children],’ ” says Paul Ehrlich, a professor of population studies at Stanford University and also the author of the groundbreaking 1968 book ‘The Population Bomb’. “That if you care about your children and grandchildren, we should have a smaller population in the future, not larger.”