Contraception is 'greenest' technology

[wpsedgwick]

Source: Green Technology Daily

Are condoms and birth control pills more cost effective than windmills and solar panels as tools to curb global warming?

Yes, and by a wide margin, contends a recent study from the London School of Economics asserting that family planning is nearly five times more cost effective in mitigating global warming emissions than green energy technologies like wind and solar power.

Each $7 spent on basic family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton. To achieve the same result with low-carbon technologies would cost a minimum of $32. The UN estimates that 40 percent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.

“The taboo on mentioning this fact has made the whole climate change debate so far somewhat unreal,” said Roger Martin, chairman of the Optimum Population Trust, the British environmental group that sponsored the study.


Read more: http://www.greentechnologydaily.com/tips/566-contraception-is-greenest-technology

[HuckleB]

1. That sounds about right.

This goes along with the thread about pets and carbon footprints from yesterday.

Link to the dog thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7294741&mesg_id=7294741

[wpsedgwick]

9. Thanks!

Sweet! That was a great post!

[progressoid]

57. And yet that thread isn't on the Greates Page...

Weird huh. :eyes:

[Blue_In_AK]

2. I think contraception is a far better way to control population

than warfare, which seems to have been the default position for thousands of years.

[Hello_Kitty]

7. Wars tend to increase populations in the long run.

Soon as the war is over people get busy having babies.

[Blue_In_AK]

8. I guess it's some form of equilibrium.

I've just been trying to figure out for some time now how war benefits humanity from an evolutionary standpoint, since it seems to be part of our makeup, at least among "civilized" nations. It seems counterproductive to send your healthy young men off to die, but maybe there's a "survival of the fittest" thing going on? I don't know. ...

[Rozlee]

12. I'm sure I've belabored this point before, but people can

change evolutionary directives. In our society, where we count a great deal on our intellect to get ahead in life instead of brute force, women are becoming leaders of industry. We are becoming bread-
winners and even in some cases, taking men for our use and pleasure instead of our need for protection for ourselves and our offspring. In the military, where we use technology to defeat the
enemy, women can man equipment just as well as men. And with birth control, we can control our bodies. Sure, if a nuclear war or world disaster hit, it would be back to the old status quo, but is this male dominated evolutionary system really written in stone? It seems that if it were, we wouldn't be able to deviate from it at all. And modern evolutionary science has shown that women
don't necessarily mate just with the alpha males in primate societies and other animal species. We
hedge our bets and mate with other males so that a guessing game will ensue that will keep all males
dedicated to preserving our young. Sneaky, eh? But, they fall for it.

[wial]

19. it's a remnant from a prior evolutionary stage

basically what happened was it was adaptive to reward the powerful males who defended the herd/tribe with sexual favors/babies, but humans evolved past that by developing a capacity to extend sympathy infinitely.

Unfortunately, the way evolution works, once something gets into the sexual selection feedback loop, barring some kind of external pressure to stop it, it tends to get exaggerated endlessly, like bird of paradise tails. This is how evolution can break out of its normal conservative bonds and develop solutions for problems it hasn't even encountered. A trait springing from sexual selection feedback (think of a microphone and an amplifier) can meet new environmental pressures and get worked back into the usual evolutionary harmony.

With humans, that sometimes happens with the "I love a man in a uniform" gene (or gene complex) but usually it's just very maladaptive, as in WWI, and we can't stop it any more than we can switch from the QWERTY keyboard at this point.

If only we'd evolved from bonobo. Then our primary adaptation of sympathy could have expressed itself with fewer unfortunate remnants from the past.

Darwin wrote about the winning adaptation of sympathy extension (John Lennon) vs our martial imperfections (John McCain), by the way, in Descent of Man.

[Blue_In_AK]

25. I've seen two recent TV series,

about "primitive" people who are so much more advanced than we are, at least in my opinion. One was "Meet the Natives" on the Travel Channel http://www.travelchannel.com/TV_Shows/Meet_the_Natives and another was about a particular indigenous tribe in Colombia that regards itself as the protector of the earth. The people of the tribe referred to all of the civilized people as "little brothers" because they (we) are so unruly and ill-behaved and have so much to learn. Both of these groups were entirely peaceful and lived harmoniously within their surroundings. They were so inspiring to me. I envy their lifestyle.

I think that if we all go down in flames, our civilizations crumble, these gentle people will be the ones who survive and thrive because they so deeply respect the planet and each other. Maybe that's the underlying meaning of "the meek shall inherit the earth."

[JerseygirlCT]

85. Yes, and I think contraception is completely connected to

women's rights and freedom.

Where women are able to control their reproduction, society benefits - across the board.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Historically the larger families were on the farm. The well to do and early urbanites

started the trend to smaller families.

My wife and I had two daughters and called it quits. Truth be told I am not sure I could have handled a third child, let alone another daughter.

[kestrel91316]

4. Yep. The issue that NO ONE wants to talk about.

[PeaknikB]

5. It doesn't make sense if you still allow immigration

There is no reason to have a small family if immigration is still allowed.

[boppers]

27. What does people moving around have to do with it?

Not following your point.

[PeaknikB]

40. More people in first world countries = more consumption

It doesn't make sense to abstain from children as long as people continue to be imported. They will use the same amount of resources. If the problem is limited resources and carbon footprints, it doesn't make sense to bring in more people.

[boppers]

46. Wasteful people and frugal people live in different places.

It's not like a person comes to the US and automatically starts living a wasteful life, by dint of their location.

[PeaknikB]

50. Yes they do.

They will consume far more here then they would if they stayed where they were from. Do you see anyone living in mud huts growing their own food?

[boppers]

51. I grow about 30% of my food. Going for 50% by next year.

I don't live in a mud hut, though. I do know people living 100% off the grid, I'm still partially attached.

[mimitabby]

6. yeah

the last time i brought it here on DU i got chastised...

[zazen]

11. on other sites and with other "colleagues" I've been called a "eugenicist" for raising the issue

Didn't matter how much I focused on arguments that, once educated, third world women overwhelmingly support controlling their own reproduction and reduce their family size. They get it. We just need to get contraception into their hands, in the middle of various patriarchal tribal cultures that are threatened by women having that freedom to make their own decisions.

But God forbid we actually talk about multiple approaches at once. Yes, we lazy privileged Americans need to reduce our carbon footprints. Doesn't mean that trying to prevent apocalyptic levels of starvation can't be tried too.

[WriteDown]

24. That is all well and good, but eventually the uneducated outnumber the educated in...

your plan since proper education takes time.

[KakistocracyHater]

29. and a small number of Neocons got us(& U.S.) into this mess, with an

equally small number of the Other Right now continuing their disaster politics-so? There has always been a smaller percentage of the population that are leaders, deisn't make the op untrue.

I vote for bontraceptives, it's better than malnutrition, plague(aas various forms of 'old diseases' have made a comeback), war, & simply not having enough water. I still can recall seeing an Iraqi kid holding an empty bottle to the gutter to get a drink; if they privatize water here like they did in South America........it's not survival of the fittest but survival of the sneakiest.

[maxsolomon]

26. haven't the marginal improvements in health care & nutrition in these cultures

led also to the exponential explosion in population, also?

given that the patriarchal cultures are so hostile to women's education and freedom, and our ability to change this so limited, how are we to limit population growth in areas beyond our control?

[PeaknikB]

30. They are going to starve themselves

once food distribution networks break down.

[maxsolomon]

37. i didn't want to say that

but if that happens, we're going to have so much trouble feeding ourselves that we'll have to cut africa adrift, and millions will starve.

will we take in refugees at the rate they want to immigrate? i doubt it.

[PeaknikB]

41. I think we will

Have serious problems of our own that will result in many people here going hungry. Food stamps are no good if there is no food to buy.

[quakerboy]

55. Nor is a big bank account

If there isnt food, there isnt food, And your money ain't worth a damn.

[PeaknikB]

75. If you use that money

and purchase tangible things you will be better off.

[quakerboy]

84. Not really.

Come the point there is no food, truely no food to be had for the masses, whoever can would take what they can from whoever cant stop them. What you had wouldn't matter so much as what you could defend.

Anyway, your comment about Foodstamps caught my interest. I read it as a cheap shot missing any context. If there is no food, it dosnt matter if you are rich as god because you invented and produced the pet rock or outsourcing, or if you are poor as dirt and have to take food stamps to make ends meet. Everyone will suffer. At some point it all devolves.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. I think we should be expressly advocating free contraception for every country with a birth rate

higher than, say, 3.0.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

How's that sound?

[Gregorian]

Wow. Wow. Wow! Am I really reading this?

We're finally talking about something REALLY important. I post about population as the one big factor in this equation. I get mostly flames, but sometimes a little voice of agreement. And rarely do I see or hear the word population. I was amazed when I heard RFK jr. mention it on one of his first Air America show.

I'd recommend this a billion times if I could.

[femrap]

42. I've been screaming about this as well....

and for a long time. These people with big families are, imho, irresponsible. We no longer have an agrarian society...we don't need big families. The world doesn't need big families.

Adopt the unwanted that we already have.

k and r

[Psephos]

47. Unfortunately, the solvency of many social net programs depends on a growing population.

I agree with you completely about population. However, the pols know damned well that their Ponzi scheme programs must be kept alive, so the chance we'll see good population policy does not exist.

[femrap]

69. It's a

cruel cycle.

I remember being at one of those Social Security Town Hall meetings during the W years where he wanted to put the SS funds into the stock market. One old dude got up and said, "We gotta quit letting women have abortions...those people could be paying my SS now."

[PeaknikB]

76. I imagine in the future

There will be far more people required to work the land.

[femrap]

78. Or it could be that there

will less land? But we have too many people now...

[onehandle]

10. We've done our part.

We are baby free.

Emphasis on free.

[LuvNewcastle]

13. K&R

[jus_the_facts]

14. Never did want any children....a plus that it reduces my *footprint* to boot. n/t

[Odin2005]

15. K&R

[jgraz]

16. Even greener

http://www.vhemt.org

[The Stranger]

17. YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!

Somebody gets it.

[Missy Vixen]

18. We are happily childfree

We have a dog, though, which is, evidently, the newest "green" no-no.

All insurance companies should be offering coverage for costs of contraception. It's cheaper than the alternative.

[WriteDown]

23. You are a horrible person...

for having that dog. :eyes:

I've heard the hysteria about dogs too.

[Scout]

36. very happily child free here as well ... but i have an SUV and 2 big dogs--uh oh n/t

[Lorien]

58. Doesn't have to be if you want that dog to live a long life:

http://dogsinthenews.com/issues/0209/articles/020918a.htm

[Le Taz Hot]

65. Unless you purposely bred the dog

I'm assuming the dog was already here and you just took up caring for him/her. If that's the case, YOU had nothing to do with adding a carbon footprint -- someone else did. Now, if you bred the dog or bought it from someone who makes their living by breeding more and more animals while millions are euthanized every year, that's a different story.

[Missy Vixen]

73. Our dog is a rescue

We have two Maine Coons that were not. They were neutered shortly after we brought them home.

[Auggie]

20. Beats the repuke plan to do it through mass starvation

[Triana]

21. It's about time someone said it! Bravo! n/t

[cbgb2112]

22. Most Republicans will agree

as long as they are black or brown babies; they are loosing the majority race place soon.

[Psephos]

48. Abortion has eliminated 50 million black babies in the US.

The current rate is 1500/day. Black mothers are 13% of the child-bearing population, but get 37% of abortions.

This doesn't sound like a repug problem to me.

[bhikkhu]

28. Yes, but using less energy is still good for the "already here"

contraception has the greatest direct benefits in industrialized countries, where any child would be expected to grow up being a massive consumer like the average US individual.

The second easiest way to reduce CO2 emissions is to stop consuming so much. We can talk about how hard it is and how our standard of living will suffer, but the numbers point to huge waste here, that we use twice what they use in Europe to maintain the same standard of living. Which is pretty much crap anyway, as most high-volume livers I know are pretty desperately unhappy about their lives...but that's ranging off topic.

[PeaknikB]

31. Jevons paradox

Any energy you "conserve" is just expended elsewhere through increased productivity, mostly in places like China and India.

[bhikkhu]

35. Lame argument against personal responsibility

If you know someone is going to rob the bank, why not just take the money yourself? But Jevon's Paradox is a bit more complicated than that, and refers to the effect of efficiency on the cost and use of an abundant resource. That doesn't apply to the OP or my statement.

I'd imagine what you are saying is that where the market for energy is fully utilized, choosing to limit your own consumption has no impact on net human CO2 emissions. There are two sides to "the market", however, those being energy produced and energy consumed. If demand drives price and price drives production, a decrease in demand reduces price, increases availability, and decreases the production of new energy.

What we have in the current recession is a good example: the first immediate effect of reduced economic activity is a reduction in the consumption of energy, directly causing a decline in the price of energy due to over-supply. The second effect is a reduction in the production of energy, reducing CO2 emissions. The third and long term effect is the reduction in plans to produce more energy - the infrastructure for capacity increase is not built unless demand is sufficient to provide profits.

So what I suggest as the right thing to do on an individual level is reduce the amount of consumption to a sane and feasible level. Contrary to "standard of living" concerns, I've found that life spent a little more slowly is also more enjoyable.

[Lenomsky]

32. I'm with you ^^

Comsuming the vast % of world output is ridiculous!

Hail China I think they have the right idea 1 child per family .. ethical or not the Earth can only support so much.

It's that double edged sword if people stop buying people lose jobs so we are designed to comsume and the cycle continues till we implode it's not like the never ending Universe it's a pyramid scheme ther will be an End Game just maybe not in our lives.
I buy the absolute necessary and the odd luxury and unemployment sucks but I survive.
Spend what you can afford in CASH money don't allow these snakes to poison you with EASY Credit!

/ramble :)

[WriteDown]

68. Not exactly true...

"use twice what they use in Europe to maintain the same standard of living."

The European lifestyle is different in several ways. The main one being housing. Home ownership in places like Germany and France is much more unusual. Most homes that are owned are handed down through the generations. Its not uncommon for a family to live in a flat or flats there whole lives.

[rhett o rick]

33. Especially Republican contraception. nt

[dysfunctional press]

34. so what kind of tax breaks will i be getting for my vasectomy ?

and in the same vein- maybe taxpayers should only be getting tax breaks/credits for one child, instead of every child, as a way to help discourage enormous broods.
larger families made somewhat more sense in the past, when we were a bit more agrarian, and the kids were needed to help work the family farm.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. If you think mentioning *this* is taboo, try bringing it up in the context of

which countries and regions where population growth and birth rates are actually a big problem.

[AusDem]

43. Not only is it green, but it improves quality of life,

reduces the chances of catastrophic famine, wars and disease, and obviously the burden on the ever shrinking pool of resources that we have on this finite planet.

its tough to deal with however because having children is probably the most fundamental right after breathing, drinking and eating. as a living organism, its our purpose to procreate. our superior intellect (in most cases :D) and control over nature however has made our existence unsustainable, and the balance that normally occurs in the natural world has been thrown out of whack.

So given that our superior intellect and control over resources has brought us to this stage, I think its only fair that we can use those things to bring back some balance.

sadly though, the only way I think that's going to happen is by "natural" means (ie outside of our control), when we start bumping up against hard limits such as water availability, land availability and skyrocketing prices of food, and other natural resources. This will basically mean a great deal of pain for a large number of people as they adjust to not being able to get what they want. Expect HUGE amounts of political turmoil this century as these hard resource limits are reached.

There are only two ways I can see that would break us out of this cycle:
1. Enforced or heavily backed contraception in most countries to bring down the birthrate to less than replenishment
2. Leaps in technology to ensure resources continue to be available to as many people that need them as birthrates continue to fall

Having said that, I don't see that there is any way to avoid the turmoil that we're bound to see in the next 100 years. It could potentially get very ugly.

[AlphaCentauri]

44. Let me try to explain this to the Pope and the Mullahs

:tinfoilhat:

[theHandpuppet]

45. A big K&R!

Until and unless we are willing to tackle the issue of human overpopulation, this planet is fucked. I simjply cannot believe the number of deniers still out there, even here on DU.

[PeaknikB]

52. They must have enjoyed

Solvent Green so much, they want to live in it for real.

[we can do it]

49. Finally - However, The Flat Earthers Won't Care

[ozone_man]

53. Contraception and negawatts.

We have to change the way we think and consume, and start revering the planet and other life besides human life. The time to be fruitful and multiply is over, dominionist thinking.

[PeaknikB]

54. Maybe if you're

smart enough to realize that, you should be having children. We don't need any dysgenic effects of birth control.

[ozone_man]

56. We can't solve the overpopulation problem that way

By creating an even larger population, and it sounds too much like eugenics. We need negative population growth for the rest of the century probably, until we can level out at a sustainable level. Maybe half of what we have now. Having 2.2 kids per couple for zero population growth was a good idea, but the developing world populates much faster than that.

Poverty, inadequate education, and unsustainable economies are the problems we have to fix. It's made harder by the fact that our capitalist system, which is being emulated by the developing world, doesn't put any intrinsic value on the environment or quality of life. So, we have to change that. Whether we will or not, in time to save the planet, I don't know. But, we should try our best.

And energy efficiency is still the cheapest and least polluting energy source. The negawatt.

[PeaknikB]

61. Well then...

I guess we get to wait for a Malthusian Catastrophe and Darwin gets to select what traits survive.

[BigBluenoser]

81. I'll probably get a kick in the balls for this but...

I personally disagree strongly with folks who say things like "...and start revering the planet and other life besides human life" and you said it in about the lowest key way I've heard it phrased (or read in this case!).

I don't need to revere my house to take good care of it. I take care of it because I want it to be snug, safe, aesthetically pleasant place to dwell and I want it to be around for as long as possible. There are lots of good, rational and cost based (such as omfg how expensive is it going to be to fix - if possible - when it completely falls apart - huge % of GDP!!!) reasons to be concerned about the planet without needing to elevate anything to the such a plane. While I may not care much about the endangered "insert vermin critter here" for the sake of the critter that it is, I can sure appreciate it for what it means to the Arctic Silver Fox for example. Everything is a web of relationships as we all know. Call me a scientific-anthropocentric-conservironmentalist. I don't believe in mystery or holding anything sacred.

No faith, reverence, love or worship is necessary for everyone to hold. It doesn't work for all of us, and is in fact a huge turn-off. That said, it does seem to be necessary for some. So to each her / his own.

Edit: I am a gungeon dweller btw :)

[Withywindle]

59. Thank you for saying this!

And meanwhile, I still get a whole run of Nosy Noras demanding to know what's wrong with me?, why did I never have children?, I still could you know I'm only 40 but I better hurry!, am I "barren"?, I must be "selfish"!, I'll regret it!, who will take care of me when I'm old!, blah blah ad infinitum.

Even after all the advances, even in the "first world," women are still under ridiculous pressure to reproduce whether we want to or not. Even some strains of feminism seem in their writings to define pregnancy, birth, and motherhood as some kind of sacred defining aspect of womanhood, and our uteri as the center of some spiritual thing.

In light of this environmental awareness, I am not asking for any special recognition for doing the right thing. I'm only asking to have my decision to not have children BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER WANTED TO respected.

There's no legitimate reason to ever pressure a human woman to have children. We are not an endangered species.

[Blasphemer]

60. K&R... nt

[Vidar]

62. K&R.

[Hekate]

63. It's been proven again & again for decades that bc is the most effective in every sense of the term

... when it comes to food, water, the environment, individual families' economies, maternal and infant health, health of other children, girls' education--oh, and did I mention the health of the environment?

Hekate

[Enthusiast]

64. It is about time

someone said it.

[Le Taz Hot]

66. I'm child free,

a recycler, bus rider, gardener and avid environmentalist. I've done about as much as I can while living in the city.

[kenfrequed]

67. Meanwhile...

The Quiverful movement is gaining ground in certain fundamentalist circles.

[Hamlette]

70. I only had one child for that very reason and let me tell you how pissed vegans make me

when they have more than one child and tell me I'm harming the environment by eating animal products. They never bother to think I'm doing my part. (Of course, I find a nice way to tell them and it usually shuts them up.)

[amborin]

71. +1000

exactly right: a taboo about mentioning this


everywhere you look: massive destruction due to over-population....take Indonesia, as one example.....cities being constructed---illegally---in the middle of supposedly protected wilderness areas....

or, take a look at the U.S.: celebrities with their own biological kids already, hiring surrogates to have even more kids.....setting an irresponsible example

current projections place world population at, what, 9 billion in just 17 more years----

say goodbye to any biodiversity

why do humans think it's ok to exterminate all other species?

[David__77]

72. Population growth is a good thing.

Human potential increases positively with population density.

[PeaknikB]

74. When areas become reliant on food imports

They are unsustainable.

[David__77]

79. True.

That's why it's good to keep population growth centered in areas that have better resources, while working to gradually transform the less well off areas.

[Odin2005]

86. You must have failed ecology 101.

Go read up on Carrying Capacity.

[valerief]

77. Don't forget abortions! nt

[rayofreason]

80. Rich, educated societies...

...have fewer children. The global answer is for every society to get rich. However, that would undermine the Ponzi scheme of social security.

Two other thing produces fewer children. One is spiritual and emotional collapse of a society to the point where young people see no future. This is the case in Iran, where the fertility rate among young people has plummeted since they see no future and even less spirituality under the theocratic regime. The corollary is that large numbers of Iranian women have become prostitutes, choosing commerce above motherhood. The second is draconian authoritarianism, such as the one-child policy in China. This has led to a generation of "little emperors" and will produce a huge social dislocation when these young folks have to support a far vaster number of older pensioners. Look for a historic period of upheaval in China from 2025-2055 as the horrendous consequences work themselves out.

I prefer that countries become rich and adiabatically move toward zero population growth or slight decline to minimize dislocations. But then a new model will have to be found for social programs since the current models in Europe and the US will be completely unworkable. In fact, our breakdown and that of Europe's (of social security) will occur in close temporal proximity to China's, though they will be less catastrophic.

[FLPanhandle]

82. Absoutely!

Not having children is a greener choice than not driving a Hummer, not eating meat, turning off lights all combined.

[FLPanhandle]

83. n/t

[Sultana]

87. In the future, I plan on having 2 kids

:P