WETZSTEIN: Birth control seen as ‘green’

Question of the Day

Is it still considered bad form to talk politics during a social gathering?

View results


With a global conference on climate change looming in Copenhagen in December, it should come as no surprise that a flurry of studies have been released.

What caught my eye are three reports that conclude that people are the problem. Basically, they say we’re gasbags. We exhale carbon dioxide (CO2), which has been deemed a worrisome greenhouse gas. We also breed too often.

These reports deserve mention, as they offer fresh calculations about how humanity threatens Earth.

But the American public should be crystal clear about one point: The “people are the problem” line of reasoning is not new. It’s been around since Thomas Malthus (1798), and is a key factor in the decades-long push for government-funded birth control.

Here’s a quick review of the new reports.

From the London School of Economics and Optimum Population Trust (OPT), a British think tank, comes a paper that explains that birth control is a very inexpensive way to combat climate change. For every $7 spent on birth control, one metric ton of CO2 emissions could be cut, the OPT study says. If all unintended births worldwide could be prevented for 40 years, 34 billion tons of carbon dioxide could be prevented. Hence the headline, “Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost.”

Another report, from the Center for Environment and Population in New Canaan, Conn., argues that population issues (i.e., family planning) must be included in any plan to save the environment. Population and climate change are “inextricably linked,” says the report titled “U.S. Population, Energy & Climate Change.”

Finally, a study from two Oregon State University professors, published in the journal Global Environmental Change, showed how the descendants of each person swamp Earth with their emissions, and it’s better to have one child than two.

Specifically, it said, if an American woman spent her life driving a fuel-efficient car only when necessary; used energy-efficient windows, lights and appliances; and recycled paper, glass and cans, she would be able to save about 486 tons of CO2 emissions.

That’s all well and good. But if she goes ahead and gives birth to two children, she will eventually add 18,882 tons of CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere. Bad mommy.

Numbers like that would have inflamed Hugh Moore, the wealthy inventor of the Dixie cup, who died in 1972.

I had never heard of Mr. Moore until I read Donald T. Critchlow’s book, “Intended Consequences: Birth Control, Abortion and the Federal Government in Modern America.” But apparently Mr. Moore passionately believed that overpopulation was destroying Earth and he eagerly funded birth control groups.

Mr. Moore was also a tad radical, in that he believed that if people wouldn’t willingly stop having children, “individual rights might have to be disregarded,” as Mr. Critchlow graciously put it.

None of the three reports I mention explains in detail how future populations should be reduced, although words like “noncoercive” and “voluntarily” are often used when talking about birth control.

Story Continues →

View Entire Story
About the Author
Cheryl Wetzstein

Cheryl Wetzstein

Cheryl Wetzstein covers family and social issues as a national reporter for The Washington Times. She has been a reporter for three decades, working in New York City and Washington, D.C. Since joining The Washington Times in 1985, she has been a features writer, environmental and consumer affairs reporter, and assistant business editor.

Beginning in 1994, Mrs. Wetzstein worked exclusively ...

Latest Stories

Latest Blog Entries

blog comments powered by Disqus
TWT Video Picks