Should contraception qualify for climate funds?
Contraception would be the cheapest and most effective way to reduce carbon emissions worldwide between 2010 and 2050, according to a study by the London School of Economics.
The report, "Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost," (PDF) determined that if contraception was made widely available between 2010 and 2050 to women and men around the world who wished to use it, the reduction in unwanted births could result in saving 34 gigatonnes (one billion tonnes) of carbon emissions. That's roughly 60 years worth of U.K. emissions or 6 years worth of U.S. emissions.
The cost for supplying, and distributing contraception over those 40 years would cost an estimated $220 billion, or $7 for each tonne of carbon emissions avoided. It's cheaper than the next most efficient low-carbon technology, wind power, which would cost $24 per tonne or $1 trillion to prevent the same amount (one billion tonnes) of carbon emissions from being produced, according to the report.
In its per-tonne cost analysis, the report also calculated $51 for solar, $57 to $83 for coal plants with carbon capture and storage, $92 for plug-in hybrid vehicles, and $131 for electric vehicles.
The contraception as carbon reduction conclusion was based on United Nations statistics that 40 percent of worldwide pregnancies are unintentional. If contraception was made available to people who wanted it, those unintentional births could be reduced by as much as 72 percent. Between 2010 and 2050, that would result in curbing the world population growth by half a billion people, according to the UN statistics.
That is a conservative estimate, according to the report, since the UN figures are based solely on the lack of contraception access for married couples, and did not include unintended pregnancy statistics for unmarried women.
The study was funded by the U.K. environmental group Optimum Population Trust (OPT), which has argued that a more responsible attitude toward reproduction could be the answer to many environmental issues such oil, food, and water shortages.
The group has said that family planning programs in poor countries should qualify for environmental aid, since fewer people result in less energy use and fewer emissions.
"It's always been obvious that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions--the carbon tonnage can't shoot down, as we want, while the population keeps shooting up," Roger Martin, chair of OPT, said in a statement.
Is the practical idea too controversial to be considered because of moral reservations, or will countries warm up to it as not only climate change, but world water supplies become an issue?
"The taboo on mentioning this fact has made the whole climate change debate so far somewhat unreal. Stabilising (sic) population levels has always been essential ecologically, and this study shows it's economically sensible too," said Martin.
In a software-driven world, it's easy to forget about the nuts and bolts. Whether it's cars, robots, personal gadgetry or industrial machines, Candace Lombardi examines the moving parts that keep our world rotating. A journalist who divides her time between the United States and the United Kingdom, Lombardi has written about technology for the sites of The New York Times, CNET, USA Today, MSN, ZDNet, Silicon.com, and GameSpot. E-mail her at candacelombardi@gmail.com. She is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not a current employee of CNET. 
Funny how none of these schemes remove any CO2 that is in the air already. You know, the stuff that will melt almost all of the ice on earth if it is not reduced.
What?s that line about being ?doomed to repeat? history? ;-)
Is it not a GOOD thing, regardless of the 'climate change' consequence to waste less? Is it not a good thing to have cleaner air? To have a rich biodiversity for future generations and our own. Is it not a good thing to find sustainable methods of operation rather than ones that produce harmful bioproducts?
If we applied you rationale to medicine, we would be without all forms of drugs because, after all, all this disease nonsense is being ramned down our throats by the scientists when we all know it is really just demons and the planetary shift in relation to the position of constellations. Who needs pyschologists when you can just have an exorcism? Who needs penicllin when what you really need is some good ole blood letting.
I know that you can say the same for people who use contraception now but I think its a fair question.
Funny thing is, a more certain way of reducing population is to raise the living standards of the third world, to the point where kids can be expected to survive into adulthood, and parents don't have to rely on making a large family to serve their retirement plan.
If you look at Western Europe, most nations there have declining birthrates among their native populations... their sole growth (or in some cases mere stability) is provided by immigration.
Their collective ideologies, while hateful and brimming with ignorance (both willful and otherwise), was only one of many nasty side-effects.
Eugenics itself began long before even World War I. Margaret Sanger (who later became the founder of Planned Parenthood), was a huge proponent of Eugenics. It was her opinion that anyone who wasn't a white married protestant of "high moral character" (her term) was simply unfit to have children, and should be discouraged from doing so.
Now today's movement for "population control" includes a lot of people who are likely faithful to that cause for logical reasons, but I wonder how many would still wish to remain associated with it if they knew what really lurked behind the history of that movement.
Let me put it another way: There are perfectly logical reasons why limiting overall human population is considered a good idea - resource demands and ecosystem impact are chief among them. But then, the majority of this contraception will likely be distributed in countries where the majority of the residents have brown, yellow, or black skin tones. I wonder - how do the proponents intend to decouple their movement's history from that particular bald fact?
Besides, everyone knows that it's far easier to coerce than to force.
Here's a better question. Should "climate funds" forcibly looted from those of us who work for a living even exist?
Or should those who want to fund pet projects do so with their own resources and whatever they receive voluntarily, just like every honest venture, rather than with other people's money given to them by politicians feeding at the public trough?
We are not just hermits living separate from each other. We live in societies and need a common set of rules and pool of money to look out for the society as a whole. Free market forces may foster innovation but they also foster the win-at-any-cost mentality. If we didn't have government controls our society would eventually collapse due to the intense redistribution of interests to the top of the wealth pyramid and the disregard for the community as a whole. I'm not saying that there aren't philanthropists out there but their efforts would not be enough.
Environmental regulations are not "pet projects" but an important effort to keep us all alive and healthy. A pet project is the Iraq war where our government has funneled huge amounts of money to companies like Haliburton.
Err, there's a HUGE difference between enforcing anti-pollution laws and pushing a pet project like contraception.
Seriously - I could use a brand-new Mercedes Benz right about now... it would save a huge amount on emissions over driving my old 1991 Jeep. Since I was just now able to demonstrate (to those who subscribe to AGW) a logical link between getting a nice a new car and climate change, where's my government grant to get a new Benz for free?
Get your head out of wherever you are keeping it. Even better, in your words, get yourself over to your local death panel and stop wasting our air.
Death panels? Are you serious? It's obvious you watch too much Fox News.
Yes, I agree that we use a lot of stuff that started with mining. Some corporations make a mint off of mining but guess who's paying to clean it up? Yep, the government with your money. Maybe you think it's okay that these mining corporations have left a huge polluted mess and decimated towns. If you want a death panel, just move to one of those towns and drink the water. It probably would have been cheaper to have some environmental regulations set up in the first place. We know better now (or at least we should).
Why do you think that just because we have benefited from mining that we should excuse the methods? Does the end always justify the means to you? Is the current status quo always the best? Could we have done things better in the past? Can we do things better now? You're the one that needs to get his head out of wherever it is. Wake up and move forward.
Serious retardation... and by that I mean progress is being retarded by simple-mindedness and selfishness.
You must be mad you missed the Cash for Clunkers program, eh?
But seriously, some programs are worth funding, others not. Every idea does not have to get funding just because it does some good. Costs have to be considered. I'm pretty sure that's the point of this article. They are proposing big environmental results at a small cost. It's at least worth debating.
II swear that Al Gore is behind this.
But to the point, Al gore is selling carbon credits, so he will make a mnt on selling credits for abortions. Sweet. Who will go first?
And AGW is not global warming. AGW is a natural process of heating and cooling of planets that occurs over very long time periods. The issue with global warming is the alarmingly short time period and the stakes involved - life.
Are you freaking serious?????
In case you hadn't noticed, religious people breed like rabbits. Catholics even forbid birth control.
You crack me up.
And for the record, I am not even religious!!! Moron!
Better yet, we stop feeding the truly useless people like gov't funded scientists.
You will however achieve government sactioned genocide due to both starvation and empowering the uprising of militant forces (a result of people losing power/education and desperation to escape this). It does seem like a dichotomy but the reality is, cut off aid and you'll increase the population not decrease it - all you'll get is more people suffering rather than less people overall.
Link to Hans Rosling presentation on 'why not just let the poor kid die?'
http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-stops-population-growth/
Unless, you are referring to the govt. corporate welfare seen in the current carbon trading scheme proposals that seek to compensate polluters rather than force them in the direction the population wants.
In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm, except during periods of glacial expansion during ice ages.
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period). Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example:
* During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
* The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
* The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today.
* To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today -- 4400 ppm.
According to the greenhouse theory you hear from the alarmists, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, when CO2 levels were at their highest, global temperatures were no warmer than today or often lower.
The following quote sums it up in a nutshell:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.?
- Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister
It couldn't have been stated better. Let's now review the history and the facts:
Global warming is something that has been happening for a long time. The temperature of the Earth has been increasing more or less continuously since the time of the cave man.
Approximately 18,000 years ago the Earth began a gradual process of warming up after more than 100,000 years of Ice Ages. Much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice. By about 15,000 years ago the Earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise. By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bering Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America. Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice.
From a geological perspective, global warming is the normal state of our accustomed natural world. Technically, we are in an "interglacial phase," or between ice ages. The question is not really if an ice age will return, but when.
How about that it is simply good practice to not rape, pillage and waste? Conservation is not just about climate change, it is about conserving the current environment lest we lose all of our natural resources (and natural resources are not just fossil fuels). How is sustainable energy (which is cheaper in the long term and therefore more accessible) a bad thing?
The initiatives proposed to reduce climate change impacts in most cases also have large positive social impacts. Family planning for example, is a documented step in the evolution of modern societies. Contraception, for example (dare I keep to topic), allows for family planning which then reduces birth rates and population levels.
So even if you don't believe in climate change, it does not mean the actions to mitigate it are bad. Also, you may claim that climate change is propaganda but I would argue that you are the one who has been brain washed by the fossil fuel corporate sponsored paranoia brigade who cares not for anyone but themselves and the $ in their back pocket.
It is people like you that said Copernicus was insane and should be killed. People like you had the scientists killed for suggesting the immune system fought disease and not Angels. People like you that claim mental illness is simply demonic possession.
The irony here is that the benefits of responding to climate change will be go to you and your children despite your hostility and if we as a race do not respond, all our children and those now, will pay - I suppose you can be happy about that as we'll all have way too many demons.
- by screamapillar September 22, 2009 9:33 PM PDT
- I think an even bigger issue relating to use of contraception is ignorant governments and religons refusing to endorse/educate on it. It is socially irresponsible to refuse to give sexual education, contraception and support for young families - the US is one of those countries. Massive levels of teenage pregnancy yet this misinformed belief that educating people and supporting young and/or single parents will increase teenage pregnancy (as if teenagers set out with pregnancy as a goal and support is an incentive).
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by screamapillar September 22, 2009 11:05 PM PDT
- Just a side note - have a look at Professor Richard Wilkinson's book relating health, social ills and inequality in society for reference re: my point above. It demonstrates, for example, that nations that support single teen mother's the least actually have the highest rates of teen pregnancy - ergo, the ideology around supporting teen mums as endorsing teen pregnancy is false, rather, by supporting them we break the cycle.
- Like this
-
- by Random_Walk September 25, 2009 2:29 PM PDT
- Err, where did you get that massive (and highly misinformed) generalization?
- Like this
-
(47 Comments)Contraception availability will not rid us of ignorance.