The paper is available on Hall's website at http://www.esf.edu/efb/hall/.%5Cpdfs%5CHall_etal_1994_population_envi.pdf . The authors take per year, per capita impacts (not marginal impacts) and multiply by 75 years -- a deeply questionable methodology, since we don't know what new technologies, values and environmental problems will emerge in a few decades.
Jane Shevtsov Geoffrey Poole wrote: > Perhaps my recent post deserves a bit more explanation. > > In a posting prior to mine, a statement was made that the environmental > footprint of the author's children was smaller than that of an SUV. I > don't know the environmental footprint of an SUV (or even how to > calculate the footprint of something not living), but the Hall et al. > paper demonstrates that there are large environmental consequences > associated with having a child in the U.S. This is what I meant when I > said I hope we were not underestimating the environmental consequences > of having a child in the U.S. > > I made the statement that "I'm not against having children" because I > didn't want readers to assume that I was suggesting that people should > be *prevented* from having children. > > The reason I added the "no more than two children" provision is that the > current rate of global environmental degradation leads me to believe > that the world is already beyond its long-term carrying capacity for > human beings. Because of this, I believe it is irresponsible for those > of us in developed countries to have more than two children. I realize > this view is unorthodox and makes many people uncomfortable or even > angry. I realize that it is politically incorrect. Regardless, that is > the conclusion I have drawn. > > Apparently, it's OK to say, for instance, that people shouldn't eat > meat, or shouldn't drive an SUV, or should car-pool, or should turn down > their thermostats, or should change their light bulbs -- all because of > the environmental consequences. But I guess it's not OK to say that > people should have smaller families. That's a sacred cow. > Unmentionable. Just don't go there. > > If the global population continues to expand at current rates, isn't > everything else just window dressing??? > > But let me be clear. While I believe that people who live in a > developed country should limit family size, I would **NOT** support > draconian governmental enforcement of such a policy as they have done in > China (where, I believe, the limit is one child per couple). > > And yes, developing countries have a huge role to play. However, for > several reasons, I have a harder time stating that people in developing > countries have a moral imperative to limit their family size to two > children. Other circumstances must change in developing countries > first. For instance, many children in developing countries will die > before they reach adulthood, and in many developing countries, children > provide for their parents as the parent grow older -- thus children are > a necessity. > > Ed Sismour is right when he says that population growth rates in the > developing world present an extraordinary environmental challenge. I > agree that this problem is complex and will be very very difficult to > address as we move forward. But I believe that it will take significant > investment from developed countries to help stop the population > hemorrhage in developing countries. Our thirst for resources and wealth > contributes mightily to the dire conditions and environmental > degradation in many developing countries. > > I've been asked two questions to which I will respond: > > First, I was asked about the methods of Hall et al. 1994. I read that > paper about 8 years ago and can't find my copy of it. The UGA library > is 60 miles from where I work/live, so I can't get a new copy easily. I > don't remember the details of the methodology, mostly because I don't > think the methods were especially critical to the underlying message of > the paper. Even if the true figures were 1/10th of what Hall et al. > reported, the numbers seemed staggering and sobering. > > Second, I was asked if I am "only now becoming aware of this issue, now > that [I've] been through the diaper years?" > > I agonized about the environmental consequences of having a child for > about 20 years before, at age 38, I finally allowed myself to have a > child despite those consequence. She is 22 months old, and thus, I am > still mired in "the diapers years" -- potty training occurs a little > later than 22 mos for most children. Despite the diapers and *ALL* of > the other sacrifices I have made for her (including significant career > sacrifices), she is the light of my life. > > Unfortunately, the reality is that, despite my family's efforts to live > more lightly than average, she is a member of a family with a pretty > large environmental footprint (17 acres per person vs. a U.S. average of > 24 acres, see http://www.myfootprint.org). My wife and I continue to > try to reduce our footprint. One way we have chosen to contribute is by > having no more than two children -- perhaps only one. > > The idea that I'm somehow diluting the societal gene pool with this > decision is, to me, laughable and smacks of elitism. What's the answer > here folks? Do we limit reproduction only to those who have attained a > certain education level and environmental awareness? If not, I guess we > have no choice but to play hard-ball and just out-procreate all the > ignorant folks in order to save the planet. > > Yes I'm exaggerating and dripping with sarcasm, here. Sorry. But > really -- I just don't understand the thinking... Can't get my head > around it. > > As a final note, I can't help but point out that Hall's paper was > published in "A special section for Correspondence and Controversy." > Seems it was appropriately placed. > > -Geoff >
