NFP, Overpopulation, and the Environment.

[mark46]

You contradict yourself, unless you believe that we certainly should consider things that are not in your opinion significant issues.

To be clear, if every member of a family and a carbon footprint of zero or less, then the size of the family would not add to carbon footprint.

In any case, there are so, so many choices that are far more damaging to the environment that our having of a mother child. n I guess if our habits are sufficiently bad, AND we are unwilling to change them, fewer children might help for awhile. Europe has shown us that reducing family size is NOT a solution.

Deforestation, the use of beef as food, the use of corn as fuel, the use of coal as fuel (or to produce electricity, the constant need for new (replacement) things, and the relative lack of recycling are what stands out for me.

We have almost no control of some items (use of coal to produce electricity). We have a lot of direct control of other factors. And some, like deforestation, we can help by contributing money to those actually directly affecting the issue (planting trees, providing employment for those who are deforesting, and many other projects).

 

[SolomonVII]

Angels don't leave carbon footprints. People must leave carbon footprints. Nobody has a zero footprint.
People living in highly industrialized consumer societies leave footprints according to the societies that they live in.

Europe is growing its population through immigration, which goes back to the original point.

 

[classicalhero]

Considering the fact that Carbon dioxide is consided a pollutant show how far the environmentalists have lost the plot.

 

[SolomonVII]

Considering the fact that Carbon dioxide is consided a pollutant show how far the environmentalists have lost the plot.

Simply breathing pollutes in that kind of a scenario.