3+ children is an eco-crime??

[morocco]

am a bit depressed to find out that all my recycling/washable nappies/eco lightbulbs etc is all in vain cos i've gone and had one kid too many.story here
sigh
it's all probably true of course but I'm getting a bit sick of reading all this guilt trip eco crime stuff.
anyway, if you've stopped at 2 or less, now is the time to feel eco smug

I feel eco-guilt about having a 3rd child. but then I feel contorted with eco-guilt about all sorts of things.

I have noticed however that having 3 has really slowed down our family carbon footprint. With one we backpacked to China and Australia, with two we flew to Spain etc for holidays. And with 3 we just don't bother going on holiday (or anywhere much really) because it's too much hassle.

Following the train of thought to logical conclusions, why don't we all just commit suicide (before having children), then we'd use no resources at all?

But don't you think our "more than 2" families keep the population viable because of all the "no kid" families and the "1 kid" ones?

I've convinced myself anyway.

I don't feel remotely guilty.

Absolutely, anyway I don't have extra kids, i'm just making up for my BIL who is still living with Mummy and hasn't had a date since 1989 (and he's 33 now)

OK you can't guarantee your kids will be green

but maybe the one you are thinking about having but put off for eco reasons would have come up with the eqaution to save the planets eco system for 50p???

well you never know

(self justification? Moi?)

no guilt at all over my 3!!

That article is a load of tosh (highly fertile and compostable tosh). If you simply multiply the resources usaed and footprint emitted (?) by one person, then of course it seems to get bigger as the family size increases. But of course we reuse more and travel less as or families get bigger. And what about all those who don't have children at all? Not only do we profligate types compensate for them and fund their pensions, but we still leave smaller footprints than them!

Besides, I wonder whether they've factored in the co2 emissions from the condom factories?

hmm - we have 3 kids (the last two were twins so not entirely planned ). It does mean we need a bigger car than we would have had with 2, and a bigger house (not that we actually need either to survive but it makes life much more livable).

However, lots of people with only one or two kids have the same size cars and houses - what's their excuse ?

Darn, do you think this is something I'll have to declare on forms when it asks if you have any criminal convictions??

If I use a car, at least I'm likely to be ferrying 4 or more people around rather than sitting in it in my solitary glory. Surely that divides the carbon footprint of my car? The boys' clothes get used for 3 children rather than just for 1. My SIL only has one child so I had another to make up for it.

In the 1960s and 1970s when I was growing up a constant worry was the population explosion that was going to destroy the planet. It was very very much frowned on to have large families. It didn't stop me having 5 but it's always been a major issue for the world.

like xenia says, anti-population growth groups have been around before any awareness of climate change. their point used to be there weren't enough resources in the world. which could be argued that the problem was/is the distribution of resources and inequality.
no doubt population growth is a problem regarding climate change and carbon footprint generally, but leading a "greener" life certainly does make a difference. just compare the co2 emissions per capita here - the emissions are so different between industrialised nations and low consumption third world countries. any effort towards sustainable development helps.

Minr point, but how do they reckon just one condom prevents a 3rd child? Is it reused? Surely need a new one each time.

Whatever next?
I have 3, ttc number 4. I do not feel guilty.
I do all I can to be an eco friendly family.
Nowadays there are so many people that have no or just one child that surely it all evens out?

It would probably make more sense to get more people involved in recycling etc. We are one of the few who do recycle almost everything and compost. Our next door neighbours are 50+, have no children, drive a gas gussling car each. He's a pilot.
They recycle NOTHING. They own 2 cats, not even the cat food cans get recycled. They use a petrol lawnmower.... I could go on. So their carbon footprint is heaps bigger than us as a family of 5!

Utter rubbish I say.

I've always joked about child ration sharing.... just like companies can now trade their carbon footprint stuff. Lots of childless people have given me their offsets

califrau, is a Honda Accord really viewed as a small car in the US?

I think this is more eco guilt, I wonder what the effect of income is on the environment? Are poor people more environmentally friendly than the rich? If you have more holidays abroad or money to spend on new gadgets, washing machines, building big extensions on your house, buying new cars...

The less money you have to spend surely the less impact you have on the environment?

I think parents are an easy target when it comes to the environment, governments and big business are the ones that should shoulder more of the guilt and be doing more to decrease our impact on the environment

In other countries zero energy homes are common place, why are we not seeing more of them being built in this country...

public transport, more effort being put into recycling and using renewable energy....

Perhaps someone would like to suggest how I can carbon offset DD3?
Seriously, I think this is bonkers as reproduction in Western Europe is way below replacement levels anyway.

True Fio. Mind you I presume many of the adult nappy wearers will never own a car, and ds1 ensures we never get on a plane so they should be eco kings and queens.

Just another statement telling me what to do.
Can't stand it really

No doubt my local council are devising a special tax as we speak on my third dc.

aha , that's where this is leading, let's make some more money out of them

and whilst ds1 saves us aviation fuel, he does insist all lights are on all the time (even when very bright) and has a fit if we try and use ecobulbs.

It would be better for the planet if we sterlised everyone in the West male and female and adopted surplus children from the poorer parts of the world presumably. Also yes, a child born in the UK has a massive worse impact on the evironment than one born in a rural area in say China.