Children - a huge carbon footprint

OK, I'm going to kick off this blog once again. I'm increasingly of the opinion that I need to shout my views much more loudly to try & talk some sense into the misanthropic & myopic numpties who seem to be driving environmental policy these days.

There is an awesome amount of sense in this recommendation by an Australian professor. There should be a tax on large families, reflecting the implicit environmental impact of children.

Obviously it's necessary to have sufficient offspring to maintain the human race, although arguably the planet would be better off with a smaller and more 'sustainable' (ugh, horrific word) population.

But fundamentally, one of the largest drivers of climate change is the ever-growing human population. I find it mindboggling that many environmentalists assert that there should be a per-capita carbon allowance, without simultaneously introducing a cap on the permissible population. Otherwise countries or individuals will inevitably try & game the system by encouraging extra population growth, subjugating many of the new members of society and stealing their carbon allocation.

Just as Kyoto is pegged to 1990 emissions levels, any follow-on treaty must be pegged to 2000 population figures. Otherwise countries with falling populations (eg Italy and Japan) will find themselves held hostage by their peers that encourage fecundity.

Children are a choice. Having too many (unless they are twins or triplets) should be seen as being as self-indulgent as choosing a gas-guzzling car or an insulated home.