View From The Glen

Monday, February 2, 2009

Kids and the Environment

I just read an announcement from Jonathan Porritt, Chair of Britain's Sustainable Development Committee, who said,

“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate.”

“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible."

Oh dear.

Andrew and I consider ourselves pretty committed to the environment. You know, the whole raise our own food, and contribute to animal biodiversity thing that makes sense to us and makes everyone around us shake their heads. We conserve water, keep the thermostat low, recycle. Heck, despite a busy schedule, I even manage to line-dry our clothes in the summer months. And we’ve just spent a fortune making environmentally friendly energy upgrades to our old farmhouse (actually we’re still spending the fortune, - and may I say how thrilled we are we actually get to take advantage of the government’s $1300 renovation tax break!).

So yeah, we do our part. We could live quite comfortably off our own land if:
1. We didn’t have to work to pay boring things like a mortgage and the hydro bill; and
2. I knew how to spin wool and turn it into clothing (instead of actually being unable of sewing a hem – Andrew does all the mending in our house.)

But oops!

We have three children. Bright, intelligent, articulate, socially and environmentally conscious children, and that, according to Mister Chair of Britain's Sustainable Development Committee, is irresponsible.

To which I reply that I am equally unapologetic about asking Mr Porritt to go and take a flying leap off a short pier if he’s so serious about decreasing the world population.

As for me, if I could have more kids right now I would – we’re obviously going to need more bright, intelligent, articulate, socially and environmentally conscious people in the world if we’re to have any chance of combating this kind of regressive short sightnedness.

1 comment:

Julie said...

Hi Denise - It will hearten you to know that at a conference that I attended the speaker suggested that all families should have at least three children to allow the NA population and future job markets not to suffer, as this will offset the number of us singles and couples who do not pro-create and therefore do not contribute to future population numbers. Although that woman in California with the octuplets and six other children is of some concern.