Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

NYT Environment Reporter Floats Idea: Give Carbon Credits to Couples That Limit Themselves to One Child

Expand Messages
  • aditmore@juno.com
    ... From: Mark O Connor To: PopForum@yahoogroups.com,publicpopForum@yahoogroups.com Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:43:29 +1100 Subject:
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 8, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
       
      ----- Forwarded Message -----
      From: Mark O'Connor <mark@...>
      Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:43:29 +1100
      Subject: [PublicPopForum] NYT Environment Reporter Floats Idea: Give Carbon Credits to Couples That Limit Themselves to One Child
       
      Greetings from Los Angeles, where later this week, Population Media Center will receive one of three Peter F. Drucker Prizes for Nonprofit Innovation.
       
      Thanks to Joe Bish for this article.  See http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55667 where you can also see a video of Andrew Revkin making his proposal.
       
      NYT Environment Reporter Floats Idea: Give Carbon Credits to Couples That Limit Themselves to One Child
      Monday, October 19, 2009
      By Edwin Mora

      Washington (CNSNews.com) – Andrew Revkin, who reports on environmental issues for The New York Times, floated an idea last week for combating global warming: Give carbon credits to couples that limit themselves to having one child.

      Revkin later told CNSNews.com that he was not endorsing the idea, just trying to provoke some thinking on the topic.
       
      Revkin participated via Web camera in an Oct. 14 panel discussion on “Covering Climate: What’s Population Got to Do With It” that was held at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C.  The other participants on the panel were Dennis Dimick, executive editor of National Geographic, and Emily Douglas, web editor for The Nation magazine.

      At the event, Revkin said: “Well, some of the people have recently proposed: Well, should there be carbon credits for a family planning program in Africa let's say? Should that be monetized as a part of something that, you know, if you, if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward an accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?

      “And I have even proposed recently, I can't remember if it's in the blog, but just think about this: Should--probably the single-most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius, it's having fewer kids, having fewer children," said Revkin.
       
      “So should there be, eventually you get, should you get credit--If we're going to become carbon-centric--for having a one-child family when you could have had two or three," said Revkin. "And obviously it's just a thought experiment, but it raises some interesting questions about all this.”

      When CNSNews.com later followed up with questions about his comments, Revkin responded in an e-mail.

      “I wasn't endorsing any of this, simply laying out the math and noting the reality that if one were serious about the population-climate intersection, it'd be hard to avoid asking hard questions about USA population growth,” wrote Revkin.

      “By raising the notion of carbon credits for, say, single-child American families,” he continued, “I was aiming to provoke some thinking about where the brunt of emissions are still coming from on a per-capita basis.”
       
      In a Sept. 19, 2009 blog entry, “Are Condoms the Ultimate Green-Technology?” Revkin cited an August 2009 study by the London School of Economics that highlighted having fewer children as a solution to diminishing our carbon footprint.

      The study was sponsored by the British activist group Optimum Population Trust, which advocates reduced population growth.

      “More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions,” blogged Revkin. “And recent research has resulted in renewed coverage of the notion that one of the cheapest ways to curb emissions in coming decades would be to provide access to birth control for tens of millions of women around the world who say they desire it.

      “I recently raised the question of whether this means we’ll soon see a market in baby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation,” he later added. “This is purely a thought experiment, not a proposal.”

      Furthermore, he blogged: “But the issue is one that is rarely discussed in climate treaty talks or in debates over United States climate legislation. If anything, the population-climate question is more pressing in the United States than in developing countries, given the high per-capita carbon dioxide emissions here and the rate of population growth. If giving women a way to limit family size is such a cheap win for emissions, why isn’t it in the mix?”

      Revkin earned a Master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University and a biology degree from Brown University.
       
      Here is a transcript of that portion of Revkin’s remarks at the Oct. 14 panel discussion in which he suggested the possibility of giving people carbon credits for having fewer children:
       
      “Well, some of the people have recently proposed: Well, should there be carbon credits for a family planning program in Africa let's say? Should that be monetized as a part of something that, you know, if you, if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward an accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?
       
      “And I have even proposed recently, I can't remember if it's in the blog, but just think about this: Should--probably the single most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius, it's having fewer kids, having fewer children.
       
      “So should there be, eventually you get, should you get credit--If we're going to become carbon-centric--for having a one-child family when you could have had two or three. And obviously it's just a thought experiment, but it raises some interesting questions about all this.”
       
      Best wishes,
      Bill
      ---
      William N. Ryerson
      President
      Population Media Center and Population Institute
      145 Pine Haven Shores Road, Suite 2011
      P.O. Box 547
      Shelburne, Vermont 05482-0547
      U.S.A.
      Tel. 1-802-985-8156
      U.S. Mobile: 1-802-578-4286
      International Mobile: +44-(0)79-3608-8038
      Fax 1-802-985-8119
      Email: ryerson@...
      Web site: www.populationmedia.org
      Skype name: billryerson
      Follow us on Twitter
      Become a fan of PMC on Facebook
       
      We want to hear from you!  Check out our blog,  www.populationmedia.org/pmc-blog, where you can read and comment on the articles distributed via my daily population email listserv.
       
      *Please note that it may take up to 48 hours for this article to appear on the website.
       

      This email is from
      Mark O'Connor       Civil Marriage Celebrant     Email: mark@... 
      Home Phone:  (+61)  2 6247 3341. 
      Cell phone (carried only when travelling --use the landline for preference) 
      0415 317 466.

      MY WEB SITE IS AT  www.australianpoet.com



      ____________________________________________________________
      Diet Help
      Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.