Study Recommends Having One Less Child Because Climate

Three month old infant lying on stomach
Three month old infant lying on stomach. By Tognopop (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A new study has collated climate recommendations from other studies. Top of the list is convincing parents to have smaller families, one less child, to reduce the human carbon footprint. In my opinion, this advice, if translated to public policy, could trigger a damaging demographic crisis.

The most effective individual steps to tackle climate change aren’t being discussed

July 11, 2017

Governments and schools are not communicating the most effective ways for individuals to reduce their carbon footprints, according to new research.

Lead author Seth Wynes said: “There are so many factors that affect the climate impact of personal choices, but bringing all these studies side-by-side gives us confidence we’ve identified actions that make a big difference. Those of us who want to step forward on climate need to know how our actions can have the greatest possible impact. This research is about helping people make more informed choices.

“We found there are four actions that could result in substantial decreases in an individual’s carbon footprint: eating a plant-based diet, avoiding air travel, living car free, and having smaller families. For example, living car-free saves about 2.4 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year, while eating a plant-based diet saves 0.8 tonnes of CO2 equivalent a year.

“These actions, therefore, have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (which is 4 times less effective than a ) or changing household lightbulbs (8 times less effective).”

Read more at:

The abstract of the study;

The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions

Seth Wynes and Kimberly A Nicholas

Published 12 July 2017 • © 2017 IOP Publishing Ltd

Environmental Research Letters, Volume 12, Number 7


Get Flash Player

Download video Transcript

View all Environ. Res. Lett. video abstracts

Current anthropogenic climate change is the result of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere, which records the aggregation of billions of individual decisions. Here we consider a broad range of individual lifestyle choices and calculate their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developed countries, based on 148 scenarios from 39 sources. We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less). Though adolescents poised to establish lifelong patterns are an important target group for promoting high-impact actions, we find that ten high school science textbooks from Canada largely fail to mention these actions (they account for 4% of their recommended actions), instead focusing on incremental changes with much smaller potential emissions reductions. Government resources on climate change from the EU, USA, Canada, and Australia also focus recommendations on lower-impact actions. We conclude that there are opportunities to improve existing educational and communication structures to promote the most effective emission-reduction strategies and close this mitigation gap.

Read more:

The study contains a table which puts having fewer children at the top of their list of recommendations.

Behaviour Example Approximate CO2e reduced per year (kg) AUS CAN USA EU
High Impact Actions
Have one fewer child 23 700–117 700
Live car free 1000–5300 x
Avoid one flight (depending on length) 700–2800 x x
Purchase green energy <100–2500 x x x x
Reduce effects of driving Buy more efficient car 1190 x x x x
Eat a plant-based diet 300–1600
Moderate Impact Actions
Home heating/cooling efficiency Wall insulation 180 (Chitnis et al 2013) x x x x
Install solar panels/renewables Rooftop solar x x x
Use public transportation, bike, walk x x x x
Buy energy efficient products Energy Star x x x x
Conserve energy Hang dry clothes 210 x x x x
Reduce food waste No food waste 370 (Hoolohan et al2013) x x
Eat less meat 230 (Meier and Christen 2012) x
Reduce consumption Pay bills online x x x
Reuse Reusable shopping bag 5 (Dickinson et al2009) x x x x
Recycle 210 x x x x
Eat local 0–360 (Coley et al2009, Weber and Matthews 2008) x
Low Impact Actions
Conserve water Run full dishwasher x x x x
Eliminate unnecessary travel x x
Minimize waste x x
Plant a tree 6–60 (Freedman and Keith 1996) x x
Compost x x x
Purchase carbon offsets x
Reduce lawn mowing Let lawn grow longer x
Ecotourism Use Ecolabelled accommodation x
Keep backyard chickens x
Buy Ecolabel products x
Calculate your home’s footprint x
Civic Actions
Spread awareness x
Influence employer’s actions x x
Influence school’s actions x

Source: Same link as above

In my opinion the recommendations of this study are potentially very damaging. Most Western countries and even a few Asian countries are facing a potential demographic crisis due to a low domestic birth rate.

A declining population means countries have fewer active working people as a proportion of the population. As a declining population ages, the effort of providing for older people is shared amongst fewer active working people. Fewer resources are available to take care of the old and the sick.

China in particular, which for years had a one child per family policy, potentially faces an economically debilitating demographic crisis, as large numbers of older people reach the end of their working lives, and attempts to reverse the one child policy encounter resistance from a people who have grown used to small families.

China is not the only country facing demographic issues. Japan is also very worried about their demographics, along with Russia, and many countries in Europe.

Falling birthrate is an issue in the USA. It would likely not take much of a push to precipitate demographic problems in the USA on the same scale as many other countries are facing. Studies which recommend a reduced birthrate for any reason, if translated into public policy, could easily supply that push.

Correction (EW): h/t gareth – Removed quote marks from “one less child” in the title, the correct direct quote is “one fewer child”.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 13, 2017 10:05 pm

And who is going to pay for the non parents as they get older. Fewer tax payers and fewer family to help. Of course there are polygamist immigrants with many wives who may be happy to help out.
Of course, to have the power to order people not to have children, one would need a totalatarian dictator or equivalent.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  rogerthesurf
July 13, 2017 10:52 pm

Is there a ban on the work stupid here or what?

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 13, 2017 10:53 pm

This is a stupid statement. Germany is at birthrate of 1.47. One less would decimate the population. They would disappear.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 13, 2017 10:53 pm

Of course this line of thinking is what is behind the sudden international rush to accept gay marriage and gender deviation.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 13, 2017 10:58 pm

Ah, the banned word is sub-s a h a r a n
sorry for the mess but how about fixing your filters? All posts using that word get dumped totally, not even held for moderation.
I cannot image why there is a blanket ban on that !!

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 13, 2017 11:02 pm

I was trying to post that what they wanted to say was “one less” in sub-s a h a r a n Africa but that would not be “politically correct” so they make the stupid suggestion that it should apply to the whole world.
The main reason that poor countries do more children is that that is where their retirement and social security comes from. Keeping Africa poor and under developed as alarmists want to do will ensure they continue having large families.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 14, 2017 12:34 am

I was trying to post that what they wanted to say was “one less” in sub-s a h a r a n Africa but that would not be “politically correct” so they make the stupid suggestion that it should apply to the whole world.

Update your map. It is equatorial Africa, and not even all that is much an issue, since many countries with a high birth rate have low population density and low prospects of keeping the birth rate high.
Of all African countries, I consider Nigeria pretty much the biggest population issue. And while it’s population is more than Germany and France combined, it’s emissions are much smaller. So pointing with finger from Western countries does not look too good.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 14, 2017 12:35 am

Keeping Africa poor and under developed as alarmists want to do will ensure they continue having large families.

This we agree on.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 14, 2017 2:17 am

I do not get your point.
Here is the definition of sub Saharan Africa
very many of those countries have rapidly escalating populations of which I agree, Nigeria is the most concerning. However such countries as Ethiopia and others -however you want to define them-also have populations that are outstripping their countrys ability to support, hence the migration push to Europe.
Take a look at ethiopia-pre bob Geldof band aid concerts and the population today. It is an astonishing rise. I think that was Greg’s point
tonyb. ‘

Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 14, 2017 3:52 am

“The main reason that poor countries do more children is that that is where their retirement and social security comes from.”
In the west, where do you think government pensions come from?
You dont think its your own money do you?
Not in my country anyway, the taxpayers of the future pay for it here.
Not much different from a poor country is it?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 14, 2017 5:45 am

The main reason that poor countries do more children is that that is where their retirement and social security comes from.

Me thinks you all are quoting an oxymoron that was most probably thunked-up by a modern day “miseducated” sociologist with a PhD title that cost him/her a bundle.
DUH, the poor people in poor countries cannot possibly provide “retirement and social security” to the other poor people within that poor country.
There are two (2) reasons for large families, meaning multiple children per household.
From the 17th thru to the mid-20th Century, America was a per se, poor country of immigrant families and their descendant families and many to most said families (households) birthed multiple children (3, 5, 7, 12 or more). Multiple children were necessary if the family unit was going to survive and prosper.
The 2nd reason for large families (actually birthrates) in locales such as Africa is the fact that the males have no inclination to build themselves permanent housing and providing for their spouse and children ……. simply because he knows damn well that he could be killed, his wife and kids could be killed or his home and property destroyed or taken away from him at a moments notice …… and thus his primary interest is “self-survival” and copulating with the females. And constantly copulating females are highly prone to birthing a child every 12 to 18 months.
I was #10 of 11 children. And my parents were not Catholic, ……… just passionate Hillbillies.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 14, 2017 7:49 am

Another reason for third world population growth is quite simple. Knocking boots is free entertainment. When countries develop, their people have the ability to afford more entertainments, movies, dining out, skydiving, whatever, where child-rearing may interfere with all that fun.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 14, 2017 8:04 am

I do not get your point.

One of my points was that North Africa and South Africa do not have high birth rates.
So it is basically only Africa around the equator, which has clearly above replament birth rates. Total fertility rate may yield a little bit different results. Also, I understand sources may vary.

Knocking boots is free entertainment.
Oh this is nice! Of course, but contraception is available to many. As soon as child mortality comes down, we can expect the birth rate to drop as well. There are many equatorial African countries which look good in this sense. People just want to externalize problem i.e. population bomb to Africa so that they could point finger there. Calling China out is fair, but calling central Africa is not.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 14, 2017 8:05 am

In moderation. And unblockquote this please.
Oh this is nice! Of course, but contraception is available to many. As soon as child mortality comes down, we can expect the birth rate to drop as well. There are many equatorial African countries which look good in this sense. People just want to externalize problem i.e. population bomb to Africa so that they could point finger there. Calling China out is fair, but calling central Africa is not.

Reply to  Greg Goodman
July 14, 2017 8:40 am

“Of course this line of thinking is what is behind the sudden international rush to accept gay marriage and gender deviation.”
Except that this is only temporary. Now that it’s accepted and those who want to marry someone of their own sex can, they will not reproduce and any genetic variability that led them down that path will not get passed on to future generations.

old white guy
Reply to  rogerthesurf
July 14, 2017 4:44 am

they left out no more immigration.

Richard M
Reply to  old white guy
July 14, 2017 4:58 am

Yup, that would likely be the most effective policy of all but is not PC. This shows exactly why these people are not serious.

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  old white guy
July 14, 2017 5:49 am

Actually, they left out having less politicians..
I can dream.

Reply to  rogerthesurf
July 14, 2017 7:31 am

So I have no kids, have never been on a plane, drive minimally and have a salad every day for lunch. What do I win?

Reply to  Goldrider
July 14, 2017 8:04 am

I think after the alarmists are done, that will be normal life for everyone after they pay all their taxes so the elites can travel by air, eat extravagantly and enjoy all the vehicles that clutter their garages. God bless the elites.

Reply to  Goldrider
July 14, 2017 9:34 am

peace & quiet & minimal travel budget/fuel costs
& salad every day.

The Reverend Badger.
Reply to  Goldrider
July 14, 2017 12:45 pm

A free bag of charcoal.

Reply to  rogerthesurf
July 14, 2017 8:27 am

This may actually be a good thing. The fools who bought in to the global warming hysteria shouldn’t be reproducing anyway ,,,

Reply to  rogerthesurf
July 14, 2017 12:01 pm

That’s the whole point of trying to decrease the world birthrate by 1 child. It puts the human race on a decreasing population curve and the burden of supporting or caring for the larger older generations will serve to decrease everybody’s standard of living .
Vastly fewer people and a radically lower standard of living are two major goals of the UN’s Agenda 21.

Hot under the collar
Reply to  rogerthesurf
July 14, 2017 1:50 pm

Was the author of the study called Herod?

Reply to  Hot under the collar
July 14, 2017 3:15 pm

Plus lots.

Eve Stevens
July 13, 2017 10:16 pm

This is part of the drive to make people live “small lives”. Which I believe is the intent. Live in a small house, don’t eat meat, don’t have children, don’t travel by air, don’t own a car and don’t mind the millions of muslim immigrants your government just let in.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Eve Stevens
July 14, 2017 3:51 am

Very perceptive, Eve. You’ve see through the facade.
Live “small lives”.
Acknowledge your guilt. Find salvation. Atone. Submit.
Have you noticed the “tiny house” movement?

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Alan Robertson
July 14, 2017 5:33 am

Should add:
Accept the hierarchy. Eliminate aspirations.

Reply to  Eve Stevens
July 14, 2017 7:34 am

Stop eating meat and your life will be SHORT and sick, never mind “small.” You cannae change the laws o’Nature, Keptin!

July 13, 2017 10:33 pm

From selective-child to one-child. Perhaps we can look to China as a model for our future. It’s likely more accurate than the physical models constructed from extrapolation of observations in isolation and “fudge” factors.

Reply to  nn
July 14, 2017 8:07 am

Good point, let’s all observe the carbon reduction China experienced after their drastic one child policy. And we know “only” children are always eager to do with less.

July 13, 2017 10:41 pm

As usual, the Regressives should lead by example. Have one less child themselves. If they have no children – well, most of their States do support assisted suicide…

Reply to  Writing Observer
July 14, 2017 7:35 am

Well, given their rate of LBGTQWERTY and abortion, I think they’re about done breeding anyway!

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Goldrider
July 14, 2017 12:50 pm

They just “wife” swap .
Have two sets of L neighbors, both have grandchildren .
Where there is the will , there is a way …8>))

Reply to  Goldrider
July 14, 2017 1:13 pm

well said. The massive promotion of abortion and forced acceptance of Lb..querty of the overeducated elitist means all the poor they import to be ‘service class’ will repopulate the earth without them. 80 years ago the dog slept in the barn and had a real job, now there are pet clothing lines, special water, and insurance polices for these surrogate children. Meanwhile women in poor nations would love to have fewer kids, and keep them alive and healthy.

Leonard Lane
July 13, 2017 10:47 pm

It never surprises me when those promoting fewer people on earth never, never lead by example.
If they sincerely believed it, were honorable people, and really wanted to accomplish that goal, why don’t they lead by example?
Reminds me of Algore with his mansions, jet setting around the world, and preaching that no one else should do the things he does. Hypocrites, all of them–they never practice what they preach.

Roger Dewhurst
July 13, 2017 10:52 pm

First of all the problem is overpopulation in the third world and a low reproductive rate in the first world. There is an ideal sustainable population for every country in the world. The ideal is that which will provide the best average standard of living for its population. That should be the target for every patriotic politician. His or her duty is to those who are in the country lawfully, not to anybody and his dog on the other side of the world who claims to be a refugee. For most countries of the first world it is a ,lower population. For all countries in the third world it is a much lower population. It is simply assinine to enlarge a country’s population simply to pay the pensions of the elderly already there. Where do you draw the line at that stupidity? When every bugger is standing on some other bugger’s toes? Get real. Get a clue. Let first world populations drop by perhaps 50% and then introduce policies which will maintain the reproductive rate at about 2.11. Shut the doors. No immigration. Instead of spending money on muslims who will never fit to society, spend the money on the education of the locals.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Roger Dewhurst
July 14, 2017 12:49 am

world population needs to drop by 90%.
Use robots to look after the old.
Declare a moratorium on debt.
Start again.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Leo Smith
July 14, 2017 5:13 am

Please lead they way and be the first to voluntarily begin the reduction.

John M. Ware
Reply to  Roger Dewhurst
July 14, 2017 3:50 am

“Overpopulation” is mostly nonsense. Last week I was driven from central Virginia to southeastern Pennsylvania, both populous eastern states. It was a relief to go through the parts of those states away from the megalopolis (New York to DC, with leaps to Boston and Richmond). However, for those tired of living in the huge cities, there is lots of empty land still available. We drove, sometimes for an hour or more, without seeing a house, and meeting very few cars. Western Virginia could take hundreds of thousands more people and not be crowded. West Virginia has few people per square mile. Pennsylvania and western Maryland have huge tracts of undeveloped–perhaps unexplored–wilderness and forest. We drove through highly-developed states in the mid-Atlantic region–this was not Wyoming or Montana. When flying over our country, one sees that the vast, preponderant majority of the land is unoccupied. Overpopulation is far less of a risk than die-off and desertion.

Reply to  John M. Ware
July 14, 2017 5:55 am

“We drove, sometimes for an hour or more, without seeing a house, and meeting very few cars.”

Land owned by farmers?

“Pennsylvania and western Maryland have huge tracts of undeveloped–perhaps unexplored–wilderness and forest.”

National parks or land owned by grabbermint?

“When flying over our country, one sees that the vast, preponderant majority of the land is unoccupied.”

When one flies over my country of Australia, it’s largely desert and uninhabitable.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  John M. Ware
July 14, 2017 6:18 am

John M. Ware: ““Overpopulation” is mostly nonsense.” – overpopulation implies that a species propagates beyond its local environment’s ability to support that species. If that were to occur, the species would soon become decimated in that locality. There must be many examples of this happening in nature, right now, around the world. And yet, I’m not aware of any.

Reply to  John M. Ware
July 14, 2017 6:21 am

The problem, John, is the ivory-tower acadumbmics are always looking out of their tower-offices at the surrounding megalopolis & think that’s what the whole world is like. My MD county (Allegany) is 90% forested! Garrett Co is similar.

Reply to  John M. Ware
July 14, 2017 6:32 am

Revolution. Mostly forest.
There is no such thing as land that is uninhabitable. There is land that you can’t grow crops on. However, that’s the best place to put the people, leaving the arable land for crops.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  John M. Ware
July 14, 2017 8:16 am

I have lived in NJ all my life and do not think of the state as overcrowded although I wouldn’t care to live in the city generally and any NJ city particularly. There is a lot of rural area in our 8,700 square miles. We are the most densely populated state in the union. We are, in fact, as densely populated as India. If the US were half the population density as NJ there would be nearly 2 billion citizens.

Reply to  John M. Ware
July 14, 2017 9:22 am

With 2 billion citizens, maybe we could finally field a decent soccer team.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John M. Ware
July 14, 2017 10:17 am

And if you bother to stop and get out or your car, you will probably encounter fences and “No Trespassing” signs. Just because the area isn’t overbuilt with tract homes, shoulder-to-shoulder, doesn’t mean the area is available for the taking. Is your idea of an ideal world where every available piece of land has a house on it, where you can’t hunt, fish, bird watch, collect minerals, or just go for a walk in the woods and enjoy the solitude? I can assure you that there is no part of Maryland that is unexplored!
I grew up in a rural area of northern Illinois, near McHenry. I had free run of a fairly large area of forested glacial drumlins. When I went back there a few years ago, neither adult or child could roam freely there because people had built homes in all the reasonably flat spots, blocked off the old roads, and even filled in a wetland that gave me many hours of pleasure observing the wildlife.
From my point of view, the human population of the US passed its optimum before the time the bison, wolves, and grizzlies were nearly exterminated. I can’t think of a single so-called environmental ‘problem’ that wouldn’t be improved, if not solved, if there were far fewer people in the country. I would not want to live in a city like New York, and I certainly would not want to live in a country where every buildable plot of land had a structure on it.
One of the reasons we have such a political dichotomy in the country is because something like 80% of the population lives in artificial environments called cities. The respected landscape architect, Ian McHarg, narrated a film called “Multiply and Subdue the Earth.” In it he claimed that 4 out of 5 Manhattanites had serious neuroses, and 3 out of 5 had serious psychoses. If that is what city living does to people, then we should seriously think again about the trend to urbanization.
For those who might be inclined to ask me to volunteer to reduce the population, I will be shuffling off this mortal coil soon enough. If I’m lucky I might live another 20 years; If I’m unlucky, I might live another 30. And, I will be leaving no children behind, that I’m aware of.

Roger Dewhurst
Reply to  John M. Ware
July 14, 2017 2:35 pm

The world is not the USA and the USA is not the world though you might like to think that it is.

Reply to  Roger Dewhurst
July 14, 2017 4:09 am

the biggest reason for population ‘growth’ (not growth at all) is population inertia
Due to engineering, transport, cheap power and health advances people are surviving longer, fewer are dying from disease and older people are progressively living longer.
Simply looking around sure, there’s more people – but that easily leads to the knee-jerk reaction ‘we need to cut births’. (insert image of the Robot waving arms shrieking ‘Danger Will Robinson!)
If this panic occurs or the numbers induce self selection reproduction suppression it leads to a lag in population birth rates below replacement rates as seen in most Western countries. The consequence of this is devastating – China will be demonstrating this soon enough as the majority of their population will be beyond the working age and there’ll be very few people left to look after the elderly and fewer still to do things like maintain roads, run schools, operate business, feed the people -all the kind of important things that keeps a country from collapsing into mayhem. In essence even if China ramped up today they’re still facing a total economic collapse not too far down the track. They need 1.8 minimum, they’re way below that.
Replacement rates are going to be different for different countries too – although 2.1 is considered normal and allows for a certain number of deaths before the breeding and child rearing age.. but when you see countries running at 1.4 you can bet they’ll be in for a shock when the elderly start retiring and there’s too few people doing work.
I read that Japan has recently realized what this could mean, with an anticipated fall of nearly a million people a year. Their 125.6 million population fell 300,000 last year. That won’t be good.
Australia has always had a falling population and relies on immigration to keep the place going, so much that a former government created a ‘baby bonus’ to encourage breeding. it was mocked by many.. but we’ve already had the retirement age raised – what’s next, work to 85.. 90? Fine IF you can do it.. I’d love that, but my health is already shot at 51 and I’ve been unemployed without any government assistance for over 9 years already. I get it’s just tough luck.. however I am lucky, I live frugally and managed to accrue a small savings (hence the no assistance bit). That’ll run out soon .. Others may not even have that. Sure the government has bowed to pressure groups and police, military and certain other service staff have been excluded from this elevated retirement age but seriously.. What of laborers and others outside the protection of bureaucratic unions? Even then, I can’t see dementia ridden bank staff keeping the place going for ever. ,
If we were being sensible we’d smooth the reproduction rates much as smoothing traffic flow reduces the stop-start jerky waves that occur which cause so much traffic problems – but who wants that level of micromanagement? What would be better is to stop filling people’s heads with theoretical garbage about ‘population bombs’ and just tailor the influx of immigrants to suit the actual demographics of the country in question – this could result in stable populations rather than boom and bust cycles.
If we find it helps us, we can even do sensible things like fund schools, hospitals and so forth in less wealthy countries to ensure the immigrants we take in our wealthy countries are educated and appropriate for our societies – and in time as they themselves build their populations to the levels of critical mass where they too can have good roads, power, hospitals and such, we can possibly be a little less war-like, a little less nationalistic (the bad parts that is) and a bit more co-operative across national borders.
I think the Authoritarians have had their go, so to the doomsayers who scream the sky is falling because too many people. it’s those ‘too many’ that make our lives easier and we need to accept that fact sooner rather than later.
The U.S. has a total fertility rate (TFR) of 2.0–nearly the replacement rate–with Hispanic immigrants leading in birth rates. Western European countries have low fertility rates below the replacement rate of 2.1.
Germany: 1.4 (its total population is 81.9 million, of which 8.2% are foreigners).
Holland: 1.8 (16.5 million, of which 4.4% are foreigners).
Belgium: 1.8 (10.8 million, of which 9.8% are foreigners).
Spain: 1.4 (46.1 million, of which 12.4% are foreigners).
Italy: 1.4 (60.2 million, of which 7.1% are foreigners),
Sweden 1.9 (9.4 million, of which 6.4% are foreigners),
Ireland and the U.K. also have high TFRs, at 2.1 and 1.9, respectively, but these are from non-European immigrant parents.

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  Karl
July 14, 2017 7:01 am

“Australia has always had a falling population and relies on immigration to keep the place going, so much that a former government created a ‘baby bonus’ to encourage breeding.”
The US has a subsidy for having children. It takes the form of federal income tax breaks when you check the “number of dependents” box.

Roger Dewhurst
Reply to  Karl
July 14, 2017 3:05 pm

Clearly there is an optimum population for every country. Policies should be aimed to achieve that.
Obviously if a reproductive rate of 2.1 in not achievable there will be an incentive to import others. The only others available will be from third world countries. Those from third world countries will reproduce at rates higher than 2.1. The inevitable outcome is that the native population, white, will be replaced by a majority from the third world. With a third world majority comes with a third world culture. Are you happy with that?
I prefer to see a fall in the population of first world countries coupled with policies which will boost the reproductive rate particularly among the educated. Perhaps tie the child benefit to the education or earning potential of the mother. I think that Lee Kwan Yew tried something like that and there are few, very few, politicians smarter than him or who have achieved what he achieved in such a short time period.

Reply to  Roger Dewhurst
July 14, 2017 5:14 am

I have some (leftist) relations who always used to bring up how terrible the problem of overpopulation was, and how we all need to take it seriously.
I was naughty, and kept pointing out to them that the real problem was that Rich White People were having a very hard time trying to figure out how to stop so many Brown and Black babies from being born. If I felt particularly mischievous, I would remind them that at least Margaret Sanger had been honest about this.
I doubt they ever changed their minds, but they sure don’t talk about it if I’m around anymore.

Reply to  wws
July 14, 2017 5:50 am

I’ve never understood why the democrazies want to eliminate their base……

Reply to  wws
July 14, 2017 10:34 am

Wrong that is not what leftists think. Not this one anyway. The problem with overpopulation is the eradication of so many of the other species on the planet — either for food or out of some kind of fear.

Reply to  wws
July 14, 2017 1:12 pm

I realize it was a mistake to imply that leftists ever “think” about anything in depth.
The fact remains – if anything is ever to “be done” about overpopulation, it is going to take the form of Rich White People figuring out how to get rid of all of the surplus (in their view) brown and black babies. And now you know why Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood.
The model for what Leftists desire are the actions of Germany in what is now Tanzania, what at the time was known as German East Africa. The Germans thought that it should be a wonderful wildlife park for the elephants, They were annoyed that the local peoples, specifically the Maji-Maji, kept killing animals and generally crawling all over the place. After a few preliminary rounds, in about 1904 the Germans finally sent troops and hired bounty hunters to dispose of the Maji-Maji as though they were rabid dogs, piling their bodies in huge heaps and burning them. They also destroyed all of their existing food supplies so that all of the remaining Maji-Maji women and children would starve to death, and they did.
It was the first great genocide of the 20th century, a kind of dress rehearsal for the Holocaust. And it was done in the name of European Concern for the Animals.
THAT is what leftists want to repeat, whether they are smart enough to know it themselves or not.

Roger Dewhurst
Reply to  wws
July 14, 2017 3:52 pm

Perhaps you leftist relatives are not so keen on seeing the streets blocked with brown and black bums pointed skywards while their owners pray to Mecca. Although they are leftist I can see their point of view.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  wws
July 14, 2017 6:30 pm

David G, you need to be a bit more difficult to convince. Otherwise you are an empty vessel to be filled up by “your betters”. One idea fits all makes it easy to harness the masses. That’s why lefty education philosophers invented designer brain curricula a couple of decades ago. And that’s why I can diagnose that you are a young fellow, millennial much Dave?
Walt Whitman said it best and it was a portrait of earlier Americans that made America Great:
“To The States, or any one of them, or any city of The States, Resist much, obey little; Once unquestioning obedience, once fully enslaved; Once fully enslaved, no nation, state, city, of this earth, ever afterward resumes its liberty.”
Now I’m not even American but I’ve read” Leaves of Grass”. You won’t know your country’s best poet because no lefty is going to leave this ‘subversive’ stuff lying around!

Reply to  wws
July 16, 2017 5:07 pm

“I doubt they ever changed their minds”
@wws: A true “dyed in the wool” revolutionary Progressive isn’t burdened by a mind that can be changed in any way. It’s not a matter of logic, it’s one of belief and faith. They will (and historically have) attempted genocide, there’s no reason to believe that might end.
But there still is the matter of overpopulation, led primarily in the “third world”. It’s not politically correct to even discuss the subject since the National Socialists and Progressives have made such a public debacle of their own attempts.

Reply to  Roger Dewhurst
July 14, 2017 6:30 am

The world isn’t over populated. Not even close.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2017 10:35 am

With that, I suddenly had an image flash in my mind of Indians on the shore of the Ganges River, packed together like sardines in a can.
However, the real issue is how one defines “over-populated.” Could we support more people? Yes. The question, however, should be, “What is an optimum population to maximize personal freedom and quality of life?” The Japanese long ago recognized that, to support high population densities, people had to give up certain freedoms. Indeed, there is an old Japanese aphorism, “The nail that stands up gets hammered down.”
Liberals understand that governing large populations is like trying to herd cats, and it takes a strong authoritarian hand to keep things under control. It is ironic that liberals accuse Trump of being a fascist because liberals are concerned about telling people how to act and what they can say. Consider the position of Democrats on private ownership of guns. Consider that socialism gives the government financial control over people and their lives. Personal freedom is inversely proportional to the population density.

Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2017 10:35 am

Did the animals on the planet get to vote in your democratic decision?

NW sage
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2017 6:06 pm

According to the IPCC dogma this statement isn’t true.
Climate change (as defined) is caused by humans. Therefore, to ‘fix’ climate change the human race must be eliminated. Thus the eugenics talk – reducing the birth rate by one is merely the first step.

Reply to  MarkW
July 16, 2017 5:24 pm

Clyde writes: “With that, I suddenly had an image flash in my mind of Indians on the shore of the Ganges River, packed together like sardines in a can.”
John Brunner wrote about this. How many people can Stand on Zanzibar? It’s really not about “carrying capacity” unless you view humans (and yourself, very personally) as livestock.

Reply to  MarkW
July 16, 2017 5:32 pm

davidgmillsatty asks: “Did the animals on the planet get to vote in your democratic decision?”
David, do you husband animals? Raise them? Look out for their well being? You seem a poser.
What breed of free range chickens do you sell?

Reply to  Roger Dewhurst
July 14, 2017 7:43 am

Here’s what happened:
Early 20th-century invention of mass refining of grains and sugars, and long-distance spoilage-free shipping capability caused an unprecedented influx of cheap, available calories replacing traditional diet sources and enabling an ENORMOUS world population explosion, exacerbated by immunization and antibiotics eliminating most sources of infant/early childhood/young adult mortality.
Ergo, nowadays most can expect to see old age, everyone has the opportunity to achieve the Darwinian imperative (even by hi-tech means, if necessary) and most will die of metabolic diseases formerly associated with wealth and longevity.
NO WAY was that population expansion more than a momentary bump in the road, and we are now discovering exactly the price paid for a diet based on refined grains and sugars. As the job market is replaced by robotics, there will be employment for FAR fewer people, FAR MORE will be of necessity living those “small lives,” and the money will not be there for raising any family, let alone a large one (present estimate of raising a child from conception to adulthood in the USA is running $300,000.00 plus).
Third-world gluts of population will take care of their own problem the moment they are out of dirt-level poverty; the other challenge is how the First World will care for its elderly, both physically and financially, with a far smaller population of descendants and less money coming after them. This has been known about ever since the Baby Boom ended–it isn’t “news.”

Reply to  Roger Dewhurst
July 14, 2017 8:01 am

introduce television, educate women and give them proper jobs and the birthrate plunges.
Iran has got 2 out of 3 which is not quite enough.
In eastern Europe you’ve got 3 out of 3.
The countries are not rich but the birth rate has plunged and educated women are leaving in droves.
If the same thing happened in Africa you’d see the end of much of the poverty.
Jut a problem with management in most African countries.
Common wealth is not a concept that has taken root

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  GregK
July 14, 2017 10:39 am

So, what you are saying is to give people an incentive to have fewer children instead of enforcing a limit as China had done. All the cited article did was to encourage people to voluntarily have fewer children.

Reply to  GregK
July 14, 2017 2:10 pm

I saw one scientist prove that just a simple washing machine (electricity needed) spares women in ‘undeveloped’ nations and leads to fewer kids, more opportunity, health for all. Plus women WILL prefer and use birth control, over seeing multiple sickly dying infants. Current projects that provide women ability to raise pigs, have economic independence etc for every kid fewer she has also enriches the village and raises standard of life. “Dwarf wheat’ solved the per acre food production issue in the west. But eventually when we can no longer grow enough for the ever bigger, healthier,medicated populations EACH having just one or two healthy kids living to reproduce, then we will see natural drop in reproduction via starvation or other disasters. The China preference for males, killing female babies lead to millions of men without a mate, or having to bring in other females (poor Vietnamese women) as wives. Mucks up both cultures, and China has 100 Million adults soon to be 80 and they can’t import Filipino, Indian, or Ugandan females as caregiver/maids as the rich Saudis do. I don’t think we CAN keep inventing solutions to keep 8-10 billion alive and fed.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  GregK
July 14, 2017 7:42 pm

The population worry seems to occupy the majority on this thread. We’ve had a never ending chain of ugly prognoses and ugly solutions since the eighteenth century that never came to pass The population is going to peak about at ~10b and with prosperity settle about at ~9b. We are over 80% there. We don’t have to do anything, especially anything intrusive designed to carve out a planned population. To visualize this mass of humanity, Lake Superior could hold all of them with 10sq m each to tread water in. The rest is roads and buildings and such. These will evolve into something you can’t imagine. Human ingenuity is the confounder of all the linear thinking on this subject, mostly by “thinkers” who are not doers.
The planet is greening, croplands will shrink much further while bounty increases. Energy will be ultimately from the boundless atom. Plenty will remove the causes of wars. Malhusians, Carthusians, totalitarians, Rotarians, Champagne sоciалisтs, campaign Bolshevists, witch doctors, Climate Doctors, will disappear. We may bring the dodo bird back as a pet.

Monna M
Reply to  Roger Dewhurst
July 14, 2017 11:14 am

Roger Dewhurst, who gets to decide what is the “ideal sustainable population for every country in the world”? You? There is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone. The problem is not lack of food, it is the fact that much of the food is controlled by authoritarian and corrupt people.
We could also put every person in the world (7.5 billion people) in Canada (3,85 million square miles) and each person would have about 1/3 of an acre (14,310 sq ft) to him- or herself. This would hardly be the equivalent of “every bugger … standing on some other bugger’s toes”.

Roger Dewhurst
Reply to  Monna M
July 14, 2017 3:25 pm

Clearly governments would determine their own optima. The ideal population is that which provides, on average, the highest standard of living, NOT the the largest economy. As for your half baked Canadian example most would be water, swamp or snow! At some point a line has to be drawn or the population starts to behave like an overpopulation of rats. They kill each other to maintain a stable population. “every bugger standing on some other bugger’s toes” may be a bit of an exaggeration. Humans would be killing each other before that point is reached. Probably “highest standard of lifestyle” is perhaps a better target.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Monna M
July 14, 2017 6:01 pm

Monna M,
It seems to me that the question should be, not how many people the world can support, but how many can be supported at a high standard of living, have a moderate impact on the environment, and allow for a diversity of recreation opportunities other than watching TV and attending live ‘gladiator events.’ That is, some people might want to hunt, fish, or enjoy solitude, which are impossibilities in an urban environment.

Roger Dewhurst
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 14, 2017 6:19 pm

Well put. There are many whose lives do not revolve around shopping, TV, football and cinema.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Monna M
July 14, 2017 6:10 pm

Monna M,
I have heard similar claims about putting all the people in the world in Texas or some such nonsense by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. First of all, such ‘academic’ exercises neglect to take into account the infrastructure necessary to support all the people. That is, right-aways for roads, sidewalks, power lines, water lines, railroad lines and right-aways, sewer lines, plants to produce power, plants to process sewage, shopping malls and their parking lots, and, most importantly, arable land has to be set aside for growing food. By the time one takes into account the realities of how the modern world works, you will have “every bugger … standing on some other bugger’s toes”. You haven’t thought this through!

Michael darby
Reply to  Monna M
July 14, 2017 6:22 pm

Clyde, on a more basic level, suppose we put all 7 billion people on this planet in Texas for a week. Since the 7 billion people produce 2.5 million tons of feces per day, there would be over 17 million tons of feces to dispose of.

How many pay loaders and dump trucks would be needed to clean up the mess?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Monna M
July 14, 2017 6:41 pm

Hence the need for an infrastructure and why such scenarios are fallacious.

Monna M
Reply to  Monna M
July 14, 2017 7:13 pm

My point is, that there is plenty of “room” for everyone. Obviously, we would not pack 7 1/2 billion people into every available nook and cranny in Canada. Roger’s comment about everyone jostling for a place to stand is absolute nonsense. It simply isn’t happening.

Roger Dewhurst
Reply to  Monna M
July 14, 2017 7:46 pm

It has not happened YET but if population growth is not limited where limitation is needed population densities will increase to the point at which societies break down. If societies are homogeneous they will support higher population densities without friction. In some countries notably in north west Europe the inhomogeneity has already led to massive intercultural friction. Britain, Sweden, France and Germany provide examples. How many more examples of islamic terrorism are needed before the outbreak of civil war? The higher the population density and the lower the population homogeneity the sooner the breakdown of society will occur. Ever increasing authoritarianism may delay the breakdown but this brings loss of freedom and decline in the quality of life. Do you really want to live like laboratory rats on the verge of eating eat other? I do not think that you or anyone else wants to but you are so wet and PC that you cannot see the inevitable even when it it stuffed beneath your nose, the latter no doubt decorated with the pig rings fashionable among those of your persuasion.

Reply to  Roger Dewhurst
July 15, 2017 10:15 am

We will never be stepping on each other’s toes.
The entire population of the world can fit on Vancouver island with enough room so swing a cat.

July 13, 2017 10:56 pm

There are already great demographic problems in Italy, Germany, Greece and the UK. In the UK, the demographic problems mean that the state pension is fast becoming unsustainable and the retirement age has gone up to 70 in some cases and will have to go up further. In Italy (traditionally a country with large families) the problem is so bad the Roman Catholic Church is appealing for women to have more babies.
Of the European Union countries it used to be the case that only Ireland was replacing its population.
Even if the policy was followed and there was ‘one less child’ what about childless persons? who will do the work? how will they support the aged? The argument that the world is overpopulated has been so successful that now the world is largely underpopulated with all the consequences for the sustainability of human kind in general.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Knoweuro
July 13, 2017 11:36 pm

You mention pensions. In the USA, the Social Security system was designed to keep the poorest people from becoming paupers in their old age. The concept is for current workers to pay, previous workers receive. Then benefits were increased and numbers of those on the receiving end expanded. Also, the perception changed. Many years ago, Al Gore claimed the benefits were in a “locked box” and he would protect them, and his opponent wanted to spend those funds. Al isn’t too bright. Many people believe the money they paid in was (somehow) invested and the earnings are supporting them. False!
Firemen, police, teachers — all have been unionized and promised benefits on a local basis. When counties and cities shed private sector jobs there are fewer workers to pay the benefits. Money for everything else (streets, water systems, public safety) has to go toward the legally binding pensions. Taxes go up and more people and jobs leave.
And many more.
Your list of countries should include Russia and Japan.

Reply to  Knoweuro
July 14, 2017 2:19 am

Are you seriously suggesting that the Uk’s population need to increase yet More!!!
We are very overcrowded . the young will get old one day and need even more young to support them

richard verney
Reply to  climatereason
July 14, 2017 2:53 am

Let’s hope not.
The UK’s population is probably already over 70 million, and the UK is forecast to be the most heavily populated country in Europe within the next 20 years.

Reply to  climatereason
July 14, 2017 5:16 am

No, the problem can be easily solved if a lot of the older people die a good bit sooner than they would prefer.
I’ve heard that the NHS is making very good progress in this area.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  climatereason
July 14, 2017 6:20 am

Tony, You are absolutely right.
In my comment at 11:36, I implied (but did not say) the systems western governments have set up are based on ever increasing growth. In the USA, where there are thousands of local promises of pensions, Detroit is the poster child for what can go wrong. At a larger scale, we have the State of Illinois. Issues are less apparent in the USA at the national level because population and the economy continue to grow. In Russia and Japan the problems are now here.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  climatereason
July 14, 2017 8:27 am

You are at about half the population density of (660/sqmi vs 1,219/sqmi)NJ. You’ve got a long way to go to get to “very overcrowded”.

Reply to  climatereason
July 14, 2017 8:52 am

D J Hawkins
Firstly, not everywhere is suitable for mass habitation in the first place-mountains, marshes, flood plains, areas of outstanding natural beauty etc.
Secondly, not everywhere is somewhere that people want to live.
Thirdly, many of the more desirable places are already full (because they are desirable) and encouraging many more people will degrade quality of life of those already there.
There is a fourthly and a fifthly, but I need to go out and protect my small garden before someone decides to live there…..

Reply to  Knoweuro
July 14, 2017 7:52 am

I think the whole idea of “retirement” is obsolete in an information-based world. Back in the days of mostly manual labor for men, (industry, farming, construction) one was mentally and physically pretty shot at 65. A company pensioning workers at 65 could expect to support them for only a few years as most men died before 75. Today, assuming normal cognition, there are few reasons one can’t push pixels around a screen until one’s 80’s–it’s not ditch digging any more. The idea that one will be free to screw around idly for 35 or 40 years past working is no longer necessary–or realistic. Because, economics.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Goldrider
July 14, 2017 6:39 pm

While I’m still a force to be reckoned with, I clearly don’t have the short-term memory I used to have. And while my ‘crystallized’ memory still provides a lot of vivid experiences, it tends to shortchange me on a lot of the details I acquired during my long education. It is the old story of “use it or lose it.” So, as we move into the information age, I may not be a broken body incapable of lifting a pickaxe, but I’m clearly at a disadvantage to a younger person who is mentally quicker and has a better memory. This is especially true for jobs like computer programming. Modern, unstructured languages put a premium on being able to remember details when debugging uncooperative code. So, I’m not sure just how practical it is to abandon the idea of retirement.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Knoweuro
July 14, 2017 10:45 am

You said, “Roman Catholic Church is appealing for women to have more babies.” Hasn’t the Catholic Church always implicitly encouraged women to have more babies?
Robots are taking the place of workers in factories. It is only fitting that robots should be caregivers to the elderly. Automation is changing the economics of the world. There are many changes coming, not all of which will be welcome. But, I don’t think that there is any way of going back, short of a collapse of civilization as we know it.

July 13, 2017 10:56 pm

These studies usually just put the lipstick on a pig that has already been chosen by the author. In other words, the study shows more about the biases and prejudices of the authors than it does about the real world.

Greg Locock
July 13, 2017 11:00 pm

A modest proposal- I can solve two problems at once here. If we started eating children we could still have meat, and they wouldn’t be a CO2 burden down the track. Win Win!

Reply to  Greg Locock
July 13, 2017 11:30 pm

It’s been done before.

Greg Locock
Reply to  Hivemind
July 14, 2017 5:01 am

I am really hoping you know what “a modest proposal” refers to

David Cage
Reply to  Greg Locock
July 14, 2017 12:02 am

Why do eco nuts always put thing in such a way the wrong action will result? Instead of one less child it should be a maximum of three to allow for the zero and one child families and the countries that should take note of this are the very ones breeding like manic rabbits especially the drought and starvation ridden ones in Africa. Will they? Of course not so shut up and get real eco nuts. PLEASE.
As for allowing religions that allow three wives they should be confined to camps with sealed borders and be forbidden to preach elsewhere.

Reply to  David Cage
July 14, 2017 12:27 am

very ones breeding like manic rabbits

In my opinion, calling people manic rabbits for a birth rate that resembles Western ones less than 100 years ago sounds not so intelligent.

Reply to  David Cage
July 14, 2017 6:03 am

It’s not breeders but vegans causing Climate Change™©® because they eat all the plants that absorb CO2. Maybe we can simply follow Nature since no carnivore eats another (well.. rarely) and eat them too.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David Cage
July 14, 2017 10:59 am

While long term, a replacement rate of 2.1 children is desirable, there are many who feel that the world has already passed the optimum population. Therefore, it would be necessary to have fewer children for a couple generations to avoid enforcing ‘suicide’ or eating the children, as Locock proposes.
The social dislocations that Worrel refers to are nothing new. Major wars have disrupted the ratio of men to women in the past. The end of the Second World War led to a brief rise in births, which is now haunting us with all the Baby Boomers retiring. It used to be that there was a high mortality rate amongst children, and soap and antibiotics solved that problem, creating a new problem of a runaway rise in population, which was something Man had never before experienced. The human fecundity and male-to-female birthrate evolved over time to ensure the survival of primitive humans. We have eliminated many of the natural controls on population and are now experiencing a very unnatural rise in population. What we don’t have the wisdom to control, will be taken out of our hands by Nature. I think that the classic study on the behavior of mice raised with unlimited food and water should be considered very carefully.

George Daddis
Reply to  Greg Locock
July 14, 2017 7:36 am

We’ll have to ask Mr. Swift, and I don’t mean Tom.

Reply to  Greg Locock
July 14, 2017 8:58 am

presumably you are referencing that great satirist jonathan swift?
incidentally when writing in 1729 it was the start of the warmest decade in CET until the 1990’s

Reply to  Greg Locock
July 14, 2017 2:18 pm

Gahan Wilson, famous cartoonist, had one drawing showing an elderly male in a supermarket picking up a box of frozen “Tiny Toddler fingers and toes.” And wasn’t there an article (“Onion news style” ) about parents surgically sterilizing their own kids at birth? That REAL decision making the progressive elites should consider.

John F. Hultquist
July 13, 2017 11:07 pm

Replace climate experts with demographers and the scary stories will be much more believable.
I’ve been banging this drum for years.
Of the other things, many have already done them — “pay bills online”;
stamps got expensive.

July 13, 2017 11:12 pm

YAASS – Yet again another stupid study

John in Oz
July 13, 2017 11:14 pm

Is Seth thankful that his parents did not follow his advice so that he can now blame them for having too many children?

July 13, 2017 11:20 pm

Title should be “How nations can effectively commit suicide” and authors could be Krusty & all. – lab. of experimental immiserisation – St Malthus’ university

July 13, 2017 11:23 pm

‘Climate Change’ is simply a ruse for social engineering.

Gunga Din
Reply to  phaedo
July 14, 2017 3:39 pm

Global Warming .Climate Change is just a lever to achieve an end, just as “The Hockey Stick” was just a lever.

July 13, 2017 11:27 pm

The West is already in demographic crisis, with or without the latest gender-flexible fashion trend.
If having one child less is that good, then surely 2 less would be better? How about 3 less?

Reply to  Asp
July 14, 2017 6:06 am

Better math: If having one child is good, how about 2 or 3 less than that?

July 13, 2017 11:28 pm

Naturally this will not apply to Muslims who will breed like rabbits to apidly outnumber Kaffirs, become a majority, and vote in Sharia Law, thereby reducing non-Muslims to Dhimmi status. Climate Change is not part of ShariaLLaw and will be forgotten immediately. The law of unintended consequences still applies.

July 14, 2017 12:10 am

Warmunista should not be allowed to have children! Breed them out so there’s space for rational reasonable people in the World.

July 14, 2017 12:12 am

Tell the Muslims that…..and that’s not going to happen as they are only interested in the caliphate.

July 14, 2017 12:15 am

So Climate 1.0 is really Ehrich 2.0 or maybe Malthus 3.0? There must be some kind of ancient memory of trauma in our DNA that causes us to obsess over the end of the world. The end is near.

Reply to  chaamjamal
July 14, 2017 7:55 am

It’s called “The Bible.”

July 14, 2017 12:23 am

Most Western countries and even a few Asian countries are facing a potential demographic crisis due to a low domestic birth rate.

It would be possible to say all Asian countries, exluding Afghanistan and Jemen, are at or below replacement levels.
If you recommend having less children, basically you are talking only about the poorest coutries. Industrialized countries (China, Russia, US, Australia, Italia, etc) have no way of having less children without causing a big crisis, much worse than the climate change. Having less children means worse taxpayer to elderly ratio, and it is already too bad in many Western countries, and getting worse fast.
I have zero biological children, so don’t blame me on the Ehrlich bomb. I’m also past the age.
However, as always, I would like to point out that while Greens want less children and mean less Western children as they are not racists /sarc, there is no reason to go to hate speech at Afghanistan, Jemen, or equatorial Africa, which are the only places above replacement birth rate. They will follow, when they get energy and education running.
It is also funny that people who calculated that baby to lightbulb emission ratio is mentioning lightbulbs at all. If you read that article, it is evident that stuff like shopping bags and lightbulbs are completely meaningless compared to population size.
Also, I wonder if there people actually work through the details. We can’t stop using cars, because our society depends on them. Housing, work, airports are away from each other, and used with a time table that does not allow carless living. If we stopped, we’d stopped working and a chaos would result. And if we replace cars with new housing near factories so that there is no need to commute, we need to build a lot of buildings including schools, shops and daycare. A lot of emissions would result.
It is easy to propose solutions and easy to calculate precise numbers, and difficult to get them right.

Reply to  Hugs
July 14, 2017 1:54 am

Sorry spelling. Yemen.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  Hugs
July 14, 2017 12:14 pm

I knew exactly what you were referring to because it was all Greek to me.

July 14, 2017 12:29 am

Ban domestic pets. An average dog has the carbon footprint of a Range Rover.

Reply to  Tony
July 14, 2017 12:39 am

Lol yes, but many Greens are exactly people with a herd of pets. Some Greens want to stop all animal “use”, including pets, though. Those people are the most dangerous activists that could be considered as potential terrorists.

Reply to  Hugs
July 14, 2017 7:59 am

Y’know who the biggest “green” mouths are near me? Precisely the people who have 3 kids, an 8,000 square foot house, climate controlled and wired to the nines complete with wine cellar and home theater, 2 vacation homes at least one of which is in the Caribbean, a Tesla and a Range Rover keeping the Mercedes company in the 3-car garage, a lawn service that mows and blows twice a week, 2 Labradoodles that get “spa” level care, and hollow-chested pajama-boy kids “on the Spectrum” because they didn’t have ’em until SHE finally ditched the Pill at 45 in favor of in-vitro, and HE needs 3 Viagra to perform. They’re the ones trying to outlaw my pickup truck and wood stove. Thank God for Trump!

Reply to  Hugs
July 14, 2017 8:07 am

Y’know who the biggest “green” mouths are near me?

The double faced elite is not dangerous, just possibly stupid.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Hugs
July 14, 2017 9:51 am

Goldrider, it’s called guilt.

Reply to  Tony
July 14, 2017 1:12 am

Nah. How about adopting the biggest dogs in the pound and driving them around in an SUV instead? And adding a few more exclusive carnivores like cats. Effective way to communicate a skeptic opinion without a word.

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
July 14, 2017 8:00 am

Five big dogs, 6 horses, 4 cats and I eat meat 3 times a day. MAGA!!!

Reply to  Tony
July 14, 2017 4:56 am

“Current anthropogenic climate change is the result of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere, which records the aggregation of billions of individual decisions.”
The study is based on this premise. I stopped reading at that point!

Reply to  Ron
July 14, 2017 8:03 am

The Snowflakes are so overly impressed with their own importance that they DEVOUTLY BELIEVE their penchants for fair-trade organic cotton racer-back cami tops and yoga pants made by women’s co-ops in Sri Lanka and organic kale smoothies and soy lattes are SAVING THE PLANET!!
Proving, of couse, that their expensive college educations were an utter waste of money.

Reply to  Ron
July 14, 2017 8:09 am

organic kale smoothies and soy lattes are SAVING THE PLANET

You made my day!

July 14, 2017 12:53 am

Children are ruining the outside air, unless they live in a tree and eat leaves? While some are jetting across the heavenly firmament to preach something around these lines? Sounds more like a tipping point in about 14 years than sustainable to me.

July 14, 2017 12:58 am

“Fewer”, not “less”
And the quote should read “one fewer child” because that’s what they actually said, as shown in the body of the article, not “one less child” as in the headline.
Why is this important? Because “if they can’t even get that right, what else is wrong?”

Reply to  gareth
July 14, 2017 2:11 am

As I don’t speak English natively, I’m a bit confused. Do you mean “one fewer child” is grammatically incorrect, yet they used that? And how can you have “one less” in a country where most natives have zero, one or two children, all of which are below replacement levels? I’m worried what they mean by having a negative number, it sounds unhealthy.
I’d like also to hear what would be the optimum fertility rate according to these people? Are they proposing lowering fertility is not a problem? Or do they mean the falling fertility should be fixed by mass migration from high fertility countries? That would be pretty odd way of double thinking.

Reply to  Hugs
July 14, 2017 2:57 am

Yes, child is a countable noun, so is should be one fewer child. Less is for uncountable nouns.
Less milk, fewer cookies.
This video may help you:

Check at 1:00. ;P
BTW, I am not an English native speaker either.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Hugs
July 14, 2017 8:22 am

Hugs The excellent word fewer unfortunately is lost from the language. 8x ‘less’ is illiterate but what can you do? Formerly one would have used ‘one eighth’ the emissions, both mathematically and linguistically correct! We may as well forget about the fine word ‘lesser’, which is never seen at least outside of UK perhaps.

Reply to  Hugs
July 14, 2017 8:31 am

Well, if it is a word crime, it still won the popular vote already. Now that you said it, I think I have heard this. Though I think “one fewer cookie” sounds gay. I like gays, but that does not mean I like to use expression like that.

Reply to  Hugs
July 14, 2017 8:35 am

8x ‘less’ is illiterate but what can you do

Sorry, Gary! I understand mixing countable and uncountable is a major crime, but people never get them right in foreign languages. Sometimes not in their own…

Reply to  Hugs
July 14, 2017 8:56 am

By the way, “8 times less than” is much better than many people think. By fellow mathematician wrote an article about x times more and x times less, where the trouble appears to be that some people seem to think x times more “should” mean “multiplied by (x+1)”, where most (all) people use it as “multiplied by x”. Most of the anger becomes from modelling language as mathematics in a stubborn way against what most people actually think. But not to initiate a war: just observe what people say and what they mean with that. 🙂

Gunga Din
Reply to  Hugs
July 14, 2017 4:02 pm

Love it.
I hope one of the Mods saves it for our temporarily absent host.

William Astley
July 14, 2017 1:20 am

Politically correct makes it extraordinarily difficult to solve any problems.
The total fertility rate for OECD countries is 1.7 below the replacement rate of 2.1.
The fertility rate in Africa is 4.7.

The total fertility rate has been quite low; it was 1.74 in 2010 and 1.70 in 2011 for OECD countries. A replacement fertility rate, which maintains population at its current level, is 2.1 for most industrialized countries. Therefore, the total fertility rate for OECD countries is below the replacement fertility rate. In 2011, the total fertility rate were 1.61 and 1.89in Canada and the U.S. respectively.

Then there is Africa, where women give birth on average to 4.7 children and the population is rising nearly three times faster than in the rest of civilization.

The continent of Africa, however, is not following this pattern. Now home to 1.2 billion (up from just 477 million in 1980), Africa is projected by the United Nations Population Division to see a slight acceleration of annual population growth in the immediate future.
From any big-picture perspective, these population dynamics will have an influence on global demography in the 21st century. Of the 2.37 billion increase in population expected worldwide by 2050, Africa alone will contribute 54%. By 2100, Africa will contribute 82% of total growth: 3.2 billion of the overall increase of 3.8 billion people. Under some projections, Nigeria will add more people to the world’s population by 2050 than any other country.

Reply to  William Astley
July 14, 2017 1:51 am

For compensation, please read late Hans Rosling’s presentation from here:

So the only way of really getting world population [growth] to stop is to continue to improve child survival to 90 percent. That’s why investments by Gates Foundation, UNICEF and aid organizations, together with national government in the poorest countries, are so good; because they are actually helping us to reach a sustainable population size of the world. We can stop at nine billion if we do the right things. Child survival is the new green.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Hugs
July 14, 2017 2:47 am

Hugs – July 14, 2017 at 1:51 am
To add to what contributed also from Mr Rosling.
‘Don’t Panic – The Facts About Population’
Whoever put this study together is not well read in the traditional sense and should know about the work of Hans Rosling. However, Hans Rosling is not ‘on message’ with what he is observing and one online commentator considered him dangerous because of his ‘views’ on population.

William Astley
Reply to  Hugs
July 14, 2017 8:12 am

It makes me sad, deeply disappointed, when I see and hear idiotic thoughtless politically correct rhetoric.
The politically correct movement is a weird type of chaos propaganda (sort of a virus meme) which makes it impossible to solve problems.
P.S. We need a series of articles the politically correct movement/rhetoric and on the unintentional consequences of the liberal politically correct movement. A consequence of politically correct is fake news and fake science. Fake news and fake science leads to chaos.
‘Critical’ analysis is called critical as it includes facts that are not politically correct, facts that do not support the current fad of the decade. Facts matter.
It is a fact that hundreds and hundreds of millions of poor people have very recently been lifted out poverty by economic development and the development of honest/effective governments.
What is required to lift the African countries out of poverty and stop the ridiculous, unsustainable birth rate, is economic development and a forced end to corruption which includes as a result/necessity, access to 24/7 electricity and of course normal survival rate (similar to developed countries) for babies and young children.
Sending more and more money to corrupt, inefficient African countries makes the problem worse.

Why foreign aid fails – and how to really help AfricaThe idea that large donations can remedy poverty has dominated the theory of economic development — and the thinking in many international aid agencies and governments — since the 1950s. And how have the results been? Not so good, actually. Millions have moved out of abject poverty around the world over the past six decades, but that has had little to do with foreign aid. Rather, it is due to economic growth in countries in Asia which received little aid. The World Bank has calculated that between 1981 and 2010, the number of poor people in the world fell by about 700 million — and that in China over the same period, the number of poor people fell by 627 million.
But huge aid flows appear to have done little to change the development trajectories of poor countries, particularly in Africa. Why? As we spell out in our book, this is not to do with a vicious circle of poverty, waiting to be broken by foreign money. Poverty is instead created by economic institutions that systematically block the incentives and opportunities of poor people to make things better for themselves, their neighbours and their country.

Corruption and dysfunctional governments

The logic of poverty is similar everywhere. To understand Syria’s enduring poverty, you could do worse than start with the richest man in Syria, Rami Makhlouf. He is the cousin of President Bashar al-Assad and controls a series of government-created monopolies. He is an example of what are known in Syria as ‘abna al-sulta’, ‘sons of power’.
To understand Angola’s endemic poverty, consider its richest woman, Isabel dos Santos, billionaire daughter of the long-serving president. A recent investigation by Forbes magazine into her fortune concluded, ‘As best as we can trace, every major Angolan investment held by dos Santos stems either from taking a chunk of a company that wants to do business in the country or from a stroke of the president’s pen that cut her into the action.’ She does all this while, according to the World Bank, only a quarter of Angolans had access to electricity in 2009 and a third are living on incomes of less than $2 a day.

Reply to  Hugs
July 14, 2017 9:02 am

In the center of the problem is that when you say “economic development”, the left wing does not comprehend at all. They only understand words like “development aid” and “child mortality”. They don’t understand “economy” as “good living”.
Nigeria needs economic development, with that child mortality will drop, and, as Rosling notes, pretty much instantiously the birth rate drops. The population will continue to grow, but the growth is more driven by people living longer rather than the real population bomb.
The moral of the story is. Let people use more energy. That will stop the population growth that was created by some energy. And you can throw Malthus out.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Hugs
July 14, 2017 9:55 am

Hugs July 14, 2017 at 9:02 am
As they used to say in the 70s; ‘right on’.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Hugs
July 14, 2017 11:18 am

William Astley,
The problem Africa is confronted with is that the well-meaning Western World exported death control but did little about birth control. Thus, the equation became unbalanced. There are also cultural issues that are difficult to address as well. Until recently, there was a woman from upper-class Rwanda with 4 teenagers living next door. I remarked to her once that I felt she was spoiling her kids. She responded to me that she didn’t want them to hate her because she expected them to take care of her in her old age. So, among the poor, they have little option to prevent unwanted pregnancies; among the rich there is little incentive to have smaller families because children are seen as their Social Security.

July 14, 2017 1:25 am

Still the delirium of climatic alarmism.

July 14, 2017 1:26 am

Make children: their CO2 balances are excellent for vegetation and crop yields.

July 14, 2017 1:37 am

Does this just apply to white parents?

July 14, 2017 1:38 am

David P Goldman (writes as Spengler in Asia Times) begs to differ. Within two/three generations, underpopulation in the technically advance west will be the problem, On the other side of the world Japan is a “greying” nation. Iran has gone from 4-5 children per woman in the 70s to a well below replacement 1.3 children per woman. The nation is no longer wealthy & Iranian women have to find ways to support themselves. Search on-line about temporary marriages, but here’s one article from 2014 that highlights the Iranian problem.
We who support WUWT know the truth about the climate change scam & how the elites have lied to us. It’s a clear as daylight to us. It’s the same with demographics. DPG has written a number of books, but if there were only one, then this should one be required reading.

July 14, 2017 1:43 am

Further to the above, there will be naysayers, of course. Those who can’t handle the truth. However, the numbers are writ large. Nations decline & fall when they stop breeding. Muslims now breed in Europe, because they have all but destroyed their countries of origin. Even Bill Gates now acknowledges that Europe will be overwhelmed by illegal immigrants from Africa.
When a nation ceases to protect, support & defend its culture, it passes into the pages of history. Europe won’t be Europe if it become Islamic.

July 14, 2017 2:24 am

A very good example of the old adage: Rubbish in, rubbish out!

July 14, 2017 2:35 am

The report says:
a kid is 23 700–117 700 ~ 70700 on average
a tree is negative 6-60 ~ 33 on average
It means that it’s enough to plan 2142 and you’re CO2 neutral
2200 tree saplings cost around 1000 USD (in Poland)
So what’s the big deal?? It’s cheap and there so much unused land to plant them…
This AGW discussion is so silly.

July 14, 2017 3:01 am

Well, “emissions” is not a problem to begin with, so why are they trying to solve a non-problem?

Reply to  Urederra
July 14, 2017 8:06 am

Lacking a legitimate problem, liberals have to go and create one as a way to steal other people’s money.

Reply to  Urederra
July 14, 2017 10:38 am

“They” are not trying to solve any kind of a problem. They have THE solution and they are searching for an applicable problem.
They are democrats and/or progressives.

old construction worker
July 14, 2017 3:06 am

“Top of the list is convincing parents to have smaller families, one less child, to reduce the human carbon footprint.” And some of you In the U.S. want to have Row Vs. Wade overturn. If that would happen then our government could and would demand a one child policy.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  old construction worker
July 14, 2017 12:34 pm

If Roe V Wade is overturned it just kicks it back to the states. California might try what you suggested, but they’d never get away with it at the federal level.

July 14, 2017 3:13 am

Wouldn’t be effective. What we need is one less China.

July 14, 2017 3:19 am

So does this mean it’s OK to go and kill my sister? 😀

July 14, 2017 3:22 am

I always wondered why there were not teams of psychological researchers monitoring China’s population after they instituted their “one family,one child” rule. For some reason I’ve heard no one remark about a society in which everyone was an only child. I don’t think we need that much non-diversity. Scary.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  arthur4563
July 14, 2017 6:26 am

I recall a classmate (Chinese mother of two) explaining to someone that she was, in effect, granted special permission to keep both of her twins.

Reply to  arthur4563
July 14, 2017 6:44 am

I’ve heard it described as the Little Emperor Syndrome.
Just imagine it. One child, two parents, 4 grandparents.
Spoiled rotten from the get go.
PS: People have been saying that China’s having an out of whack male/female ratio means they are more likely to start a war. However, the Little Emperor Syndrome is going to make this difficult. Can you image a nation of spoiled children being forced into the military? Beyond that, what kind of social disruption will happen when there are millions of parents and grandparents who have lost their only heir? Especially if the war isn’t popular to begin with?

July 14, 2017 3:37 am

Time for the government to show some leadership. Postpone retirements of all government employees to the age of 70.

michael hart
July 14, 2017 3:38 am

Noticeably absent from the list are useful things such as “Study engineering or a real science, not global warming.”
Genuinely useful human knowledge scales supra-linearly, which is one reason why we should celebrate a higher human population if we can direct their energies towards productive outcomes. The technological problems of the world will likely be solved by the millions of Chinese engineers, not by the handful of Western environmental activists frothing at the mouth while they make laws about carbon dioxide and fantasize about controlling other peoples’ sex lives. Green perverts.

Reply to  michael hart
July 14, 2017 4:04 am

Western engineers should get some credit.

Reply to  michael hart
July 14, 2017 6:47 am

400 years ago, it took the efforts of whole of society, including children and elderly to produce enough goods so that the population could survive the winter. (Even then a lot didn’t)
Today we can feed the population with only 5% of the population. There is a lot of surplus wealth which enables a lot of people to spend their time studying, instead of making stuff for others to use.
A few years back I read that 90% of the scientists who ever lived, were alive today.

July 14, 2017 3:42 am

We (the wife and I) only had 4 kids. We (when we were having kids) preferred small families. We were not Catholic.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  M Simon
July 14, 2017 5:17 am

two too many.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  Tom in Florida
July 14, 2017 12:41 pm

If he purchased 2 kid credits from a childless couple would he be OK?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom in Florida
July 14, 2017 2:01 pm

Coming soon to a “green” society near you.

July 14, 2017 3:51 am

Eat a plant-based diet? What exactly do these writers think we eat now? If they are referring to a vegan diet, Willis Eschenbach recently wrote a good article about that. He concluded that a vegan diet does not reduce CO2 release because of the inefficiencies in essential protein production if animal products are eliminated. As to one-child, check China on that one.

July 14, 2017 4:08 am

The climate propaganda is relentless and, get this, funded by taxpayers. Unbelievable.

Reply to  PiperPaul
July 14, 2017 8:09 am

But practically no one’s reading it, except the hand-wringing “elites” in the Acela bubble and those of us here at WUWT who get their buttons pushed by it. It’s a big yawn for the entire rest of the world, who have real and immediate problems to solve and have long since “moved on.”

Craig W
July 14, 2017 4:18 am

This only applies to developed Western nations no doubt.
The left moans continually over the world population, then wants to save people in third countries, going as far as lifting the DDT ban every 6 months to knock down the spread of malaria.
Don’t get me wrong, I think using DDT is a good call.
But, it’s like a leftists professor/lawyer in Lansing, MI once said, “The rich get richer and the poor have children.”
The left’s view of the world is like looking through a pile of broken glass … scattered and fragmented.

July 14, 2017 4:24 am

There is a big demographic problem that we already have.
Urbanization reduces the birth rate. link Lots of city dwellers can’t have one less child because the already have none.

Eustace Cranch
July 14, 2017 4:52 am

“What is not forbidden will become compulsory.”

Steve from Rockwood
July 14, 2017 5:18 am

The bigger issue is immigration of people from low-carbon footprint countries to high-carbon. It does no good to lower the birth rate if immigration continues to increase the population and increase total carbon use.
But you can’t have this argument because you will be racist. When immigrants move to western countries they adopt western carbon footprints. Western countries are looking for immigrants to pay future bills. So don’t expect carbon use to decrease. This is why governments are now taxing carbon as well as income.

July 14, 2017 5:20 am

I remember watching a documentary some years ago call The Demographic Winter.

George Taylor
July 14, 2017 5:24 am

Right off the bat there is the mention of CO2, “Current anthropogenic climate change is the result of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere.” It seems as I read the list of high, medium and low impact which I am doing in some cases (e.g. Limit flying which I have done once in the last 5 years) but not all. Perhaps this article needs to be sent to our former president who has been canvassing the globe. Imagine the amount of CO2 his travels have put into the atmosphere, compared to the average person just trying to get ahead in life and provide for their families. Articles like this make me sick. I hear this crap from the elites, but seldom read what their doing to minimize their carbon foot print. Seems like we ought to stop existing altogether and allow the planet to go on without all of us.

Tom in Florida
July 14, 2017 5:27 am

The biggest contribution to any civilized area being overpopulated is building upwards. If all residences were restricted to only one floor then the population would be self limiting based on living area available. Sure there may be a few homes that have an overabundance of rug rats running around but most would not. A way to implement that would be to change the formula for school property taxes from ad valorem to square footage of living space.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
July 14, 2017 6:49 am

For the most part, value and square footage are pretty well correlated.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2017 7:27 am

No that is not true especially in Florida.

Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2017 9:30 am

I used to live in Florida, near Tampa. It was true then and there.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2017 9:49 am

So a house on waterfront property is valued the same as a same sized one in an older non waterfront neighborhood? How about a 1973 built house with no upgrading being equal to the same size brand new home? C’mon Mark. You know it is location, location, location, age of home, interior design, quality, and much more that determines price.
But back to my original point. Why should a condo with two bedrooms pay more school taxes than a 4 bedroom house? The house has much more potential to use those taxes than the condo. Just because a small condo may be on the water or be in an exceptional complex where property values are higher doesn’t mean they should pay more school taxes than an older house with a bunch of kids who will be using the school system for many, many years.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2017 1:05 pm

Using that kind of logic why should a person who has no kids pay any school property tax?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2017 2:02 pm


Steve from Rockwood
July 14, 2017 5:38 am

In 2015 there were roughly 390,000 births in Canada and 280,000 new immigrants – for a total of almost 700,000 additional people. Over 40% growth was through immigration. The birth rate was 1.6.
Another issue affecting child-bearing in western countries is the age of the woman at first child, climbing from under 24 to over 28 from the 1970s to present. Many women are into their 30s by the time they have their second child.
It is difficult to see how a lower birth rate could offset immigration. But I do hear Richard Branson in the background preparing to comment on taking fewer flights…

July 14, 2017 5:59 am

The greenhouse emissions per capita in the USA is less than 20 tonnes CO2e. The reduced CO2 emissions of one less child of 23.7 to 117.7 tonnes must include the air they breath, or else is a gross overestimate.
The authors of the study should also acquire a bit of perspective. The global population is around 7500 million, of which only 4% live in the US. Convincing a few people to change behaviors will do nothing to change global emissions.

David L. Hagen
July 14, 2017 6:04 am

That exposes “green’s” true goal – reject God and all He has done. Deny that God said all he made was “very good”. That is a sure path to cultural destruction. Europe is already shrinking because its birthrate is so low.

Reply to  David L. Hagen
July 14, 2017 6:37 am

First, they came for God, because He is an absolute reference for a religious/moral (i.e. behavioral protocol) philosophy, and replaced Him with mortal gods that would guide/direct the people according to their vision. It’s not God or faith/trust that is the issue per se, for most people (and His philosophy) separate the logical domains: science, philosophy, fantasy, and faith; but the philosophy He propounded, which is full of inconvenient truths about the consequences of progressive (e.g. generational) liberalism or monotonic divergence, and flat-Earth consensus about phenomenon in the scientific logical domain (i.e. near space and time or observable and replicable).
Anyway, whether it is God or a mortal wannabe, judge a philosophy by the contents of its principles. The modern Church of Pro-Choice is based on principles that are internally, externally, and mutually inconsistent (i.e. irreconcilable) and thereby a first-order forcing of dysfunctional convergence, which has infected everything from popular culture to scientific enterprise.
In summary, boys and girls just want to have fun. And egoistic men and women just want to rule and reap secular rewards.

July 14, 2017 6:19 am

So, it is now not
“think of the children”
it is now
“think of not having the children”.

Reply to  JohnWho
July 14, 2017 6:37 am

Better hope the progressives are working on a new catch phrase!

July 14, 2017 6:37 am

I’m half-way to saving the planet: no kids and never fly! I eat mostly vegetarian or wild game, so maybe three-quarters there. All the while not belonging to the progressive movement nor believing in global warming as a bad thing. Who knew?
Wonder if I could create a study that looked as cool as this one, said what the journals want to hear and get it published? Some days I’m highly tempted. It’s all gobbledegook anyway. I had plenty of education in BSing with philosophy and psychology. Just a thought.
Great news! Millions of immigrants will be happy to increase our population. Not to work to support those who are elderly, but that’s a minor detail.

July 14, 2017 6:44 am

It sounds like they are advising establishment of a suicide cult (e.g. evolutionary dysfunction). They should consider the problem is not absolute numbers, but rather population density. Insead of encouraging (e.g. democratic leverage, labor arbitrage) and forcing (e.g. elective wars) mass immigration, they should pursue emigration reform to address local causes and development.

Terry Warner
July 14, 2017 6:47 am

Arguing that reproduction is necessary to avoid a “demographic time bomb” only means that when the explosion inevitably comes it will be bigger and more damaging.
Mankind needs to realise that consumption of all limited resources (water, food, metals, land etc etc) creates stresses and will likley be the principle driver of war, hunger, disease, illegal immigration etc.
There are 7bn of us on the planet. In the natural world we regard a few hundred or a few thousand as a threatened species. There are some very good arguments that a stable human community need be only 5-10% of current levels – 700m would be mare than enough to ensure the survival of the species, diversity in talents etc.
Issues of green vs carbon based energy would be irrelevant. Water, food, minerals etc would be sufficiently abundant long into the future.
The biggest threat to mankind is not climate change but uncontrolled population increases. Now is probably the best time to do something about it – people can work longer in better health, automation can eliminate jobs freeing up resources etc etc

Reply to  Terry Warner
July 14, 2017 6:52 am

The world could easily support 3 to 5 times our current population.

Curious George
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2017 8:11 am

That’s not a reason to go there.

Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2017 9:31 am

It’s a reason to avoid panicking in regards to the current population.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2017 11:28 am

I presently ‘own’ one cat. I could easily afford to own 100 cats. However, I wouldn’t want to live in that house!

Roger Dewhurst
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2017 4:31 pm

At a massively reduced standard of living perhaps. To achieve a decent standard of living in Africa and the Middle East it would be necessary for the first world to move in, shoot all the tyrants, the corrupt, the imams, expunge islam entirely and set up orderly governments. But that is not very PC and will not happen.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Terry Warner
July 14, 2017 8:02 am

I’d rather live in a crowded free world than an uncrowded authoritarian world.
By a mile. No contest.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
July 14, 2017 11:39 am

You have it backwards! It is more probable that a high population would require stringent controls on people’s behavior than a low population. Crime rates, particularly homicide, are typically higher in urban areas, with a positive correlation between population and rates. People, understandably, are unhappy with that, and pay more in taxes to support a larger, better armed, police force. Many people see a solution in gun control, taking away the choice of ownership of self-protection. Gangs are an urban problem. Do you have the ‘freedom’ to go for a walk at night when you know that there are violent gangs that might rape or kill you?
The larger and more complex a society becomes, the more control bureaucrats have over your life in telling you where you can go and what you can do. They use computers to monitor your every expenditure so that they don’t miss out on the taxes necessary to support the law enforcers.
You need to think about your evaluation of the relationship between population density and freedom.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
July 14, 2017 1:02 pm

Missed the point, by a light-year.
I don’t want to live in a world with authorities in charge of how many children you or I may have. Is that plain & simple enough for you?
Please don’t tell me what I “need” to think about, and I’ll do the same for you. Deal?

Roger Dewhurst
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
July 14, 2017 4:37 pm

Population density and freedom are inversely related. As countries populations increase their freedoms decrease. Your crowded world would not be free. It would indeed be authoritarian. There is no need for authoritarianism in an uncrowded world. Your choice is non-sequiter, and daft as well!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
July 14, 2017 6:16 pm

No deal! If you want to offer an opinion in a public forum you can expect to be called out if you say something indefensible.
I don’t want to live in an authoritarian world where some bureaucrats tell me what to do either. However, the probability of you and I getting what we want is much better in a country with a modest population density.

Roger Dewhurst
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 14, 2017 6:24 pm

Good one.

Reply to  Terry Warner
July 14, 2017 9:33 am

Terry Warner. The reproduction rates in developed countries is low and undeveloped countries it is high. The logical answer is to promote development.
Development occurs when people are freed from chores to pursue education, invention and prosperity.
Affordable, available energy bestows that freedom.
The last people that should be allowed anywhere near policy creation that ignores that logic are either low in comprehension and reason or just plain nasty people that would support those even nastier in their bid for power.
Just as history warns.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  Terry Warner
July 14, 2017 1:24 pm

“The biggest threat to mankind is not climate change but uncontrolled population increases.”
The biggest threat to mankind is greed that drives men to covet that which belongs to others.

July 14, 2017 6:53 am

If we do not commit suicide right away, we are all going to die! I am feeling very scared right now..
Meanwhile people of the same ideology are
1. promoting third world immigration to a) counter the effects of low birth rates (wasn’t that the solution?) and b) to give the migrants access to more resources (wasn’t that the problem?)
2. calling everyone a racist who dares to criticize the high birth rates in Africa or ethnic groups
3. demanding economic expansion in third world countries, which will unavoidably multiply the consumption of resources and CO2 emissions.
Are you sure it is about climate change???

July 14, 2017 6:57 am

To get the replacement rate up first replace the drooling baby picture with a smiling one. Drooling babies are a turnoff….

Dave Irons
July 14, 2017 7:02 am

The premise assumes CO 2 drives climate change, which I doubt. It seems to me we should increase CO 2 emissions in order to increase crop yields to feed that growing population.

Thomas Stone
July 14, 2017 7:12 am

I wish that Pauline and Albert Gore had only one child -Nancy, Al Jr’s older sister

Dr. Strangelove
July 14, 2017 7:44 am

Fake study! How can one child reduce 58.6 tCO2e per year when the annual ave. per capita in European Union is only 6.7 tCO2e? The child is equivalent to 8 people. She must be driving a monster truck to school! Baby girl, time to go to schoolcomment image

Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
July 14, 2017 9:32 am

I want one of those.

Bruce Cobb
July 14, 2017 8:00 am

Once you accept the premise that CO2 is “bad/evil/killing the planet”, then by logical extension you wind up with a death cult.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 14, 2017 9:04 am


Curious George
July 14, 2017 8:09 am

Wrong premise, wrong conclusion. Overpopulation is indeed a problem, and it should be handled – but it is so politically incorrect, that no one is willing to touch it. But to limit the number of people in countries that produce food for starving countries is not the best approach.

Reply to  Curious George
July 14, 2017 9:33 am

Overpopulation is not a problem and most likely never will be.
Some cities are over crowded, but the solution is simple. Those who don’t like it can leave.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2017 11:42 am

Such is your opinion. However, I think that you would be hard pressed to justify the opinion.
Is the space ship ready?

Curious George
Reply to  MarkW
July 14, 2017 5:12 pm

People of Africa are leaving. Educated people of India are leaving. Mark, how many uneducated Indians can you accommodate?

July 14, 2017 8:10 am

Can we make Justin Trudeau a case study of this philosophy? Or any of the other mouthpieces promoting this lifestyle? David Suzuki? Al Gore? Obama? ANY Hollywood starlet of your choosing? Mikey Moore?

joe schmoe
July 14, 2017 8:16 am

Any people contemplating having children and adhering to this study would help the world more by taking their own “carbon footprint” out of the equation.

July 14, 2017 8:22 am

The bitter deadly fruit of Malthusian delusions.

July 14, 2017 8:33 am

Population management! How delightfully Totalitarian!! A concept only seriously considered by sociopathic megalomaniacs.

Reply to  tadchem
July 14, 2017 9:03 am

Exactly. Enviro extremism is totalitarian and rabidly misanthropic at heart….or heartlessness….

Andrew Cooke
July 14, 2017 8:47 am

This is an excellent study. We need to send this to all or our friends who believe in CAGW and suggest they do their part by not having any children at all. Indeed, any and all progressive Malthusians should prove their adherence to the prevailing belief system by not reproducing in any way shape or form.

Gary D.
July 14, 2017 8:48 am

The day began to draw to a close. The Twelve came to [Yeshua] and said, “Send the crowd away, so that they can go and get lodging and food in the towns and farms around here, because where we are is a remote place.”
But he said to them, “Give them something to eat, yourselves!”
They said, “We have no more than five loaves of bread and two fish — unless we ourselves are supposed to go and buy food for all these people!” (For there were about five thousand men.)
He said to his talmidim, “Make them sit down in groups of about fifty each.”
They did what he told them and had them all sit down. Then he took the five loaves and the two fish and, looking up toward heaven, made a b’rakhah, broke the loaves and began giving them to the talmidim to distribute to the crowd. Everyone ate as much as he wanted; and they took up what was left over, twelve baskets full of broken pieces.
— Luke 9 (CJB)

July 14, 2017 9:19 am

C’mon now! This was not entirely unexpected, was it?
It is. it was and it will always be about control.
By nasty people.

Reasonable Skeptic
July 14, 2017 9:19 am

Not sure if this has been brought up, but Alarmists are looking at this is the wrong way. They are desperate to lower their emissions so much so that they recommend people only have one kid. If they are truly that serious about reducing emissions there is a huge and obvious way to achieve exactly what they want and it really is within their power to do so. Emigrate to a low emissions country and live their lifestyle. Living poor with kids is far better than living rich without them.
If they wanted to reduce emissions in developed nations they would recommend stopping immigration and developing policies to support emigration, but of course that is absurd, to thy choose to tell people to have less kids.
Don’t demand of others what you refuse to do yourself. You want to lower emission? Move to Chad and work a farm with your hands.

July 14, 2017 9:20 am

I need someone to help me decide which child to get rid of.

Reply to  DonM
July 14, 2017 9:35 am

The left wing answer would be, “someone else’s”.

Gary Pearse
July 14, 2017 9:20 am

It’s truly politically incorrect to even have a post on demographics these days. Even the article referred to re one fewer child, fails to define that Caucasians already can’t possibly have one fewer so they mean Africa the Middle East,… In Europe, political correctness would exclude non Caucasians from such an edict.
PC also prohibits discussion of the de facto case that male Caucasians are excluded from ‘diversity’ because they are predominantly implicated in the egregious and subverzive initiation of the age of enlightenment and we’re the thoughtless rogues who foisted the industrial revolution on an unsuspecting world.
Because of our confessed guilt to these charges, we are now sentencing ourselves to dismantling of what, in our hubris, we called civilization and, so it will never happen again, we are also charged with arranging our own marginalization if not extirpation. Well yes there are all those Nobel Prizes, but the committee has already arranged to have Cracker Jack™ distriubute the prizes in their fine caramel corn product to dilute the traces of the crimes over the coming centuries/sarc
Does anyone actually see that this guilt and self loathing by progressive Caucasians and their determination to whittle themselves down ‘to size’ is the most monstrous case of яасisм against non Caucasians ever promulgated??

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 14, 2017 11:45 am

Guilt is indeed a very powerful motivator. That is why the Left often tries to use it.

July 14, 2017 9:34 am

Their top 4 recommendations have the same root:
1. Restrict peoples freedom
2. Restrict peoples freedom
3. Restrict peoples freedom
4. Restrict peoples freedom
For the left, all problems, either real or perceived, seem to have the same basic solution: restrict peoples freedom! Stated another way: control the masses so that they must do what we say.
No matter how noble the cause or how flowery the rhetoric, the ultimate goal of the left is power and control.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  jclarke341
July 14, 2017 11:49 am

Perhaps you need to re-read the abstract. They present recommendations for people to voluntarily adopt. While I don’t agree with what I think are generally shallow suggestions, they are not recommending that governments enforce any of them.

Andrew Cooke
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 14, 2017 12:44 pm

What a precious fantasy world in which you live. If given sufficient power, do you honestly believe that the Malthusians would not enforce this with smug superiority? Do you really think that these people signed on to this silliness because they actually love their fellow man?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 14, 2017 6:24 pm

It isn’t clear that you directed your comment to me. However, I’ll respond to it. As Roger Dewhurst remarked above, “Population density and freedom are inversely related. As countries populations increase their freedoms decrease. Your crowded world would not be free. It would indeed be authoritarian. There is no need for authoritarianism in an uncrowded world.” The probability of your feared Malthusians both having an excuse to exercise power, and the circumstances to garner that power, both increase with an increasing population.
It is you who are “Naïve.”

July 14, 2017 9:48 am
I quickly counted over a hundred countries where the birth rate exceeds five children per woman.

Michael Jankowski
July 14, 2017 10:12 am

Avoiding a few flights is bigger than living car free. Most everything else is a pittance. To think jet-setting Algore called the internal combustion engine the greatest threat to humankind.

July 14, 2017 10:20 am

“Not tonight, dear, I have a climate”

July 14, 2017 10:42 am

It’s the same Greenshirt Culture of Death everytime. It long predates climate change belief systems but perhaps a majority of skeptics refuse to connect the dots.
Do you really think a better spaghetti chart or logic argument would stop these people?

Tom O
July 14, 2017 11:19 am

I thought gay sex education being pushed into the school system would take care of the “having one less baby” thing, yet it is still a worry to some. Having a plant based diet out to help a lot since we have to eat a lot more plants. That ought to really cut down on the O2, not so sure about the CO2. Anyone want to bet that the authors live “car free” or “fly less?”

Clyde Spencer
July 14, 2017 11:59 am

Tom O,
“You said, “I thought gay sex education being pushed into the school system would take care of the “having one less baby” thing, yet it is still a worry to some.” You may not be too far off on this. If Progressives push homosexuality, it will result in a lowered birth rate. Then, there is the classic experiment with mice which were allowed to breed until they ran out of space. Catatonic states, mothers abandoning their offspring, and homosexual behavior would seem to all be ways Nature ‘corrects’ overpopulation. Some would rather have the ‘natural’ treatment than try to exercise some control over their destiny. But, then, humans are not really rational creatures. They are only capable of rational behavior for short periods of time to achieve their irrational goals.

Joel Snider
July 14, 2017 12:16 pm

Gotta get that pesky, invasive HUMAN species under control.
I’ve said this a hundred times – Warmism is worse than Eugenics. Eugenics targeted ‘mongrel races’ to SAVE the human race. Warmists target the human race itself – to save the planet FROM humanity.
For who, exactly, I’m not sure.
But never mistake this for anything other than an elitist, anti-human ideology, ALWAYS endorsed by those who consider themselves above the sanctions imposed.
And never doubt that there are those who believe a little ‘culling’ might be in order, rather than just simply restricting reproduction (and isn’t it funny how ‘reproductive rights’ fall by the wayside the deeper you get into Progressivism?).
In the days before moral relativity, you might have just gone ahead and called it bone-deep evil.

The Reverend Badger
July 14, 2017 1:00 pm

The sun on the meadow is summery warmER.

July 14, 2017 2:27 pm

They should just get it over with and offer payments to commit suicide which is the indirect messaging anyway.

July 14, 2017 3:25 pm

The proposal is so wrong from so many angles and on so many levels its impossible to know where to start. Gross stupidity and utter ignorance.

Edward Katz
July 14, 2017 6:19 pm

This is typical of the fantasy world that climate alarmists inhabit. Let’s all ride bicycles; let’s not travel anywhere by air; let’s have only one child; let’s not bathe or wash clothes too often; let’s go back to a pre-industrial era; and all of these actions will save the planet. Is it any wonder that these types of characters not only lack credibility but also earn the horse laugh with any of their proclamations.

July 14, 2017 9:53 pm

The death culture is nothing new;
Neither is the link of 19th century human hating aristocracy of “get off my land” in relation to Gaia Greenshirt policy of today. The left has become the Party of game wardens more concerned for animals and nature then people. Consider this old communist ballad of a time gone by and ask yourself what they would think of the present green form?;
Soylent Green culture is upon us. More irony? Do windmills, solar panels and batteries help or hurt the nature they claim morale superiority and authority over??

July 17, 2017 12:34 am

How they always forget this: shoot yourself! most effective way to reduce carbon footprint. It’s instant and will not leave the question as to who will take care of the ageing carbon-footprint-reducer population.