TBW Posted July 29, 2022 Report Share Posted July 29, 2022 1 hour ago, SecretSam said: Who made you the parenting expert? You saying it's okay to not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted July 29, 2022 Report Share Posted July 29, 2022 On 27/07/2022 at 14:27, TBW said: Could be worse. They could be advertising IVF. Via Wynes & Nicholas, Environmental Research Letters the below would (per person taking action) save the specified number of tonnes of CO2 per year... Have one less child, 58.6 Live car free, 2.4 Avoid one transatlantic flight, 1.6 Buy green energy, 1.47 Switch electric car to car free, 1.15 Eat a plant based diet, 0.82 Replace typical car with hybrid, 0.52 Wash clothes in cold water, 0.25 Hang dry clothes, 0.21 Recycle, 0.21 Upgrade light bulbs, 0.1 Despite my better counsel I have a question. Is the 58.6 tonnes the amount that the child produces or is it the amount extra that the parent produces through caring for that child? It's a bit unclear. I'd also expect that not having a third child would save less than not having a second, which would save less than not having a first? Correct or do I miss something? PS. Reading's kit is a bit weird, especially the sleeves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAmNick Posted July 29, 2022 Report Share Posted July 29, 2022 (edited) 25 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said: Despite my better counsel I have a question. Is the 58.6 tonnes the amount that the child produces or is it the amount extra that the parent produces through caring for that child? It's a bit unclear. I'd also expect that not having a third child would save less than not having a second, which would save less than not having a first? Correct or do I miss something? PS. Reading's kit is a bit weird, especially the sleeves. I think I've seen the study they use before, and if it's what I'm thinking of it's complicated. They aren't just talking about how much CO2 a child uses, but they are extrapolating forwards as well to say that you (as a parent) are responsible for 1/2 of your child's emissions, 1/4 of your grandchildren, 1/8 of your great grandchildren, and so on (while you're still alive). So that 58.6 / year I believe takes into account not just your potential child's life, but a portion of the emissions of the children they may have, and also their children - over the timespan that the original child (yours) is still alive. Edited July 29, 2022 by IAmNick 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted July 29, 2022 Report Share Posted July 29, 2022 (edited) 11 minutes ago, IAmNick said: I think I've seen the study they use before, and if it's what I'm thinking of it's complicated. They aren't just talking about how much CO2 a child uses, but they are extrapolating forwards as well to say that you (as a parent) are responsible for 1/2 of your child's emissions, 1/4 of your grandchildren, 1/8 of your great grandchildren, and so on (while you're still alive). So that 58.6 / year I believe takes into account not just your potential child's life, but a portion of the emissions of the children they may have, and also their children - over the timespan that the original child (yours) is still alive. So it's your children's and other descendants' emissions. Not yours. And it assumes that your line continues to propagate rather than cease at some point. And presumably assumes that each of those people lives four score year and ten, and lives a comparably CO2 heavy lifestyle? Right. Edited July 29, 2022 by ExiledAjax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.