Global warming is not a burning issue (no pun intended.) for me. This is not because I don't believe that anthropogenic climate change is a menace to humankind. It certainly is. But for one thing as an old man, I don't think that I will live long enough to see its dire consequences. However, before you dismiss me as an unfeeling geezer, there's more to the story.
From the time that I became an adult over 50 years ago, I, have been conservation-minded, and would like to think that compared to many other people, I, along with my wife, have left a relatively small carbon footprint, simply by living a modest life style. All the vehicles that we ever owned had only four cylinders, and we commuted to work public transportation, years at a time, when it was feasible to do so. We've been responsible consumers of both material goods and energy, such as by practicing recycling and setting our thermostat high in the summer and low in the winter. In short, like others who care about the environment, we've done our best to walk the talk.
The proportion of climate researchers who support the theory that global warming is caused by humans stands at 95%. Accordingly, various movements have sprung up in an attempt to put the brakes on this man-made climate change. However, there is a serious issue that as far as I'm concerned makes their efforts ring hollow: the failure to address the matter of overpopulation.
In fact in recent years the very topic of population control seems to have become unfit for discussion in polite company. Yet some experts say not to worry about such growth because overall the world's fertility rate is dropping, and further that the main problem is not too many people but overconsumption. However, even in a report that takes this position, there's disagreement. on which way the trend of fewer children per family worldwide is really heading, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa. On the other hand, another report reflects the tie in between population growth, resulting energy consumption, greenhouse gases, and warming as intrinsically linked throughout the world.
But for the sake of argument, assume that our planet could sustain continuing population growth beyond the almost 8 billion people who are already here. What about the environmental havoc that such numbers of people will further wreak on the world? Consider the ecological fallout from the recent fires that were deliberately set in the Amazon rain forest, or the trash that has
been found in such contrasting points as the Mariana Trench and
on Mount Everest, and in the bellies of sea life. . That reflects how little regard humankind has for what has been rightly called our only home. And yet we still want to crank out the 2 billion more inhabitants of this planet that are expected by 2050? It's true that the worldwide fertility rate is falling, but not fast enough to reduce the strain that already exists on our natural and man-made resources.
With that increase in mind, those who have remained child-free as my wife and I have done, are well within our rights to be especially critical of widespread irresponsible human reproduction in which people have children ''because it is God's will'' or just plain for ego, gratification, but for whom they cannot or will not adequately provide and nurture. It is such willful blindness that has greatly contributed to the population problem that the world now faces.
So how can we slow the population growth rate? One way is to change to the tax code in counties like the U.S. At present the IRS there rewards taxpayers for having large broods by offering them a child tax credit child for every baby they pop out. That law should be revised such that people who have more than two children are penalized for every additional child that they bring into this world. Further, there would be no tax penalty but no credit either for the maximum number of two children people wish to have.
Another solution is for the Catholic Church to end its ban on contraceptives. This is especially vital in poor and overpopulated countries where the Church holds sway such as the Philippines. This is why it's absolutely ridiculous for Pope Francis to profess concern about humankind's roll in climate change in light of his opposition to the utilization of this effective method in birth control and family planning.
Even if the need to reign in the world's burgeoning population is recognized, it's going to take will and determination on a national and on an international level to carry it out. That won't be easy, but using that prospect as an excuse for inaction or continuing to pretend that there is no overpopulation problem will only spell doom for other efforts to control global warning and in all likelihood for humankind itself.
