[Flipside]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8392193.stm

Meeting the demand for family planning in poor nations is a cheap and effective way to cut CO2 emissions, a new website initiative claims.

The UK-based Optimum Population Trust says human activity is exacerbating global warming and higher population levels mean higher emissions.

Ok, so the thinking behind the idea is sound, but I can see a ****storm on the horizon for the approach which sounds curiously like something out of a Johnathan Swift monologue...

[Solatar]

Maybe they should cut emissions even more by eating the babies they already have?

A modest proposal, but it could work.

In all seriousness; maybe a good idea.  You're absolutely right, I could think of very few worse ways to present this.

[General Battuta]

Sounds fine to me. Bringing their growth rate down to something like developed nations is probably not going to hurt them.

[Bobboau]

except only 3 out of there 12 children survive to adulthood.

[Flipside]

My problem is the fact that somehow reducing the number of consumers in the countries that have the least in the way of industry, and whose people consume the least in the way of luxuries and energy will somehow help CO2 emissions. If you want to reduce CO2 emissions by cutting populations, the third world is probably the worst place to start.

Edit: For example, the UK, if it had 25% less population would have a far greater impact on the worlds CO2 emissions than if Central Africa had 25% less population.

[Ford Prefect]

Yeah, but it's sort of a moot point, since the nations in question are generally in dire need of birth control anyway.

[Flipside]

I'll agree that Birth Control, or, at the least, Contraception for protection against STD's is required in third world countries, but the difference is that, in that case, it's about protecting third-world citizens, whereas this seems to be more about putting the blame on them.

[Ford Prefect]

Oh yeah, I agree. I'm just hesitant to apply too much resistance to poor rationale for a good thing.

[Solatar]

You know what would really cut C02 emissions? Those God damned cows...all those cows farting all the time; stinking up my atmosphere.

It's funny 'cause it's true...

[Flipside]

Apparently, Termites are guilty of producing several times as much CO2 as the worlds population of Cows, but are a staple part of so many diets that there is actually very little that can be done about it

[Colonol Dekker]

This will
A- be a good punishment for idiot chavs relying on sex to gain a council flat.
 
B- dunno.
 
C- does China or Malaysia have a one baby rule or something in place already? I can't guarantee that, but I thought I heard it somewhere already. I'm pretty sure that it was one of the huge population centres, imagine if the rule wasn't in place.

[karajorma]

China has a one free baby rule. After that you have to pay.

[NGTM-1R]

China has a one free baby rule. After that you have to pay.

I'm pretty sure they're a bit more stringent then merely paying. At the least "pay a lot", but I think it's more "get a license that you'll never be approved for hahaha suckers".

[karajorma]

You'd be wrong. Virtually all my class have brothers or sisters.

It's actually a quite complicated system that varies from province to province.

[Kosh]

My problem is the fact that somehow reducing the number of consumers in the countries that have the least in the way of industry, and whose people consume the least in the way of luxuries and energy will somehow help CO2 emissions. If you want to reduce CO2 emissions by cutting populations, the third world is probably the worst place to start.

Edit: For example, the UK, if it had 25% less population would have a far greater impact on the worlds CO2 emissions than if Central Africa had 25% less population.

I was under the impression that population growth in the world has been coming almost entirely from poor nations.

[mxlm]

Sure. But poor nations aren't responsible for the lion's share of emissions. Remember that bit about the US alone consuming something like 1/4 of the world's resources? Yeah.

[castor]

Yet the poor nations also have the most potential for emission growth. So population control there is imperative anyway.

[Flipside]

Birth rate is highest in poor countries, population growth is higher, iirc, in more advanced countries, due to immigration and the sudden increase in birth survival rates due to medicine.

Considering it's going to be decades before third world countries make any real kind of environmental impact, it is, surely, more important (at least from this particular point of view) to worry about the actual emmission creators than culling the environmental competition?

This just seems to be passing the buck, "We're creating tonnes of pollution, so quick, blame Africa!"

[Rian]

Yeah, it's a pretty obvious dodge to blame developing countries for emissions when the US is currently emitting at six or seven times the sustainable level.

That said, improving access to birth control in developing nations can have a lot of local economic benefits as well. If women aren’t trapped into having and raising more children than they can reasonably support, then fewer of them will be impoverished and more of them will be able to contribute to the economy. Fewer unwanted children can also mean less unemployment, crime, etc. because their parents are more able to provide for them, and better birth control access means less maternal death and less reliance on abortion (both legal and illegal.)

Unfortunately, there's a lot of suspicion in some regions toward any kind of external efforts to promote family planning. People still believe to some extent that there's strength in numbers, and worry about powerful western nations trying to weaken them by reducing birthrates. Some of the arguments start to sound like you're promoting eugenics, when in fact it's to everyone's benefit if women are able to take charge of their own childbearing capacity. It's a sensitive issue.

[Sushi]

I still favor moving back to horse & buggy.