A Karbon Kiddy Tax? Carbon Credits For Condoms?

I think this is a good idea. Society should be incentivizing people to have fewer children, not more. And the ways mentioned here are small simple ways of providing carrots and sticks to convince people to do the right thing. Of course, as mentioned at the end of the article, many people think it extreme to talk about doing the responsible thing regarding population control and think it normal to advocate/defend attitudes and policies that irresponsibly aggravate the population growth problem.

I am mostly in favor of the general concept. But I wonder how effective it will be in the impoverished countries, whose ability to actually collect taxes or promote condom use is limited. China had that 1 child per couple rule for a while but people still had more children. Plus I am a little wary of how religious controlled nations would view contraception (ie Islamic states). Roman Catholics technically can't even try to not have kids.

That tax would be fantastic news for us (humanity and the planet).
It's a great start that definitely needs to be implemented world wide!

I have always believed that our planet can not sustain the current population let alone any growth. I also wonder why we, govenments, economists, etc., always see growth as a positive. In this matter, I believe less is best.

ps. I am 52 and opted not to have children.

I would agree with this only if there are carbon taxes for other behaviors. It is entirely possible to have one (or no) children and to consume in a wild and irresponsible manner. It is possible to have have more than 2 children and not.

wow this is great, population control actually being talked about finally by government. Sure its in Australia but wow, a step in the right direction.

Financial incentive is a good first step. sterilization should be free to all who want it and more than 2 kids gets taxed on an incrementing scale.

Finally someone gets it right. Rising population makes any effort to "go green" futile. Hopefully this gets adopted into law.

Why not after the first kid? Why does everyone think they need 2 kids?

If the idea is to penalize people who produce more GHG emissions by having more children, wouldn't the same goal be accomplished by taxing overall emissions, regardless of family size? Either way the cost should be a disincentive to consumption (including by having more children), and it would avoid uneven penalization that could come as a result of taxing particularly per-member-efficient families as much as families that emit more per member.

but BernardBrown, in that approach you lose the initiative: to bring to the forefront human overpopulation. The need to cover, hide, and twist this issue to avoid what some people call a grey area has to stop. It is a fact that human population is out of control. Yes we all like babies, this is not against babies, it is about being responsible and knowing the limits that this earth does have.

The sooner we can get past population control as a sticky issue the better off we will all be. This is a step that must be taken.

Is overpopulation a problem? If populations began shrinking we would lose all of our economic growth. Since a slightly larger generation of workers every successive generation is what drives growth. Possibly we could make up for the loss from fewer people with vastly more productive people, but I think in general a little population growth is essential to the economy of every first world country, which is probably why they have incentivized children in AUS. I don't think people should be punished or rewarded for children, we should neither tax children nor give parents credit for them. But we do need a growing population to maintian our economy.

"Is overpopulation a problem?" > Yes--hugely so, from the point of view of the planet's carrying capacity. Elite overconsumption doubly so.
"If populations began shrinking we would lose all of our economic growth." > Not at all true. Growth is lessened by a growing populace. And quality of life is often far more compromised.
"a little population growth is essential [ . . .], which is probably why they have incentivized children in AUS." > No, this idea has legs only due to politicians' electoral and religious aims, not economic or environmental concerns.
"we should neither tax children nor give parents credit for them." > We should do exactly as we would have the people of China, India and Bangladesh do; and that is to not subsidize and instead to charge families in their population for over-growth, because it eats resources beyond carrying capacity, divides growth and impoverishes all. Our 1rst-world population density is perhaps lower, but our high rate of resource consumption makes population a concern here, too.

'Is overpopulation a problem?'
---Yes, overpopulation is a problem. It is a very big problem. It is arguably the world's BIGGEST problem. The stem root of virtually all of the world's major problems is overpopulation. I could rattle off an almost infinite number of problems that have little chance of being solved without population being brought under control. And if you insist, I will take the time to do so.

'If populations began shrinking we would lose all of our economic growth.'
---No, we would not. There are a large number of factors that make up economic growth. And economic growth is a measure that very superficially reflects upon societal well-being. It is not necessarily the case that population declines will lead to economic declines. And it is not necessarily the case that GDP growth signals overall improvements in standards of living. You are taking a very simplistic view of economics - a field which is itself a simplification of social reality. It is more than possible to increase economic growth with population declines. And it is more than possible that a society experiencing economic growth is experiencing in parallel decreases in standards of living. As an example, there are numerous third world countries that are experiencing good economic growth but nevertheless per capita standards of living are stagnant or decreasing because of high population increases. And there are countries experiencing population declines that yet have robust economic growth (Russia pops to mind as well as a number of other eastern European countries). Furthermore, many countries with high population growth are left in a position that they need extremely high economic growth rates to ensure social stability does not break down whereas if population growth was stagnant or decreasing, it would be possible for these countries to increase per capita standards of living with very low rates of economic growth. Population growth is in no way a determinant to economic growth and in most cases is a serious obstacle to generalized improvements in the standards of living of the population.

'Since a slightly larger generation of workers every successive generation is what drives growth.'
-Again, this is simply wrong.

'Possibly we could make up for the loss from fewer people with vastly more productive people,'
---No, not possibly. We can. And this has been demonstrated in numerous places in numerous ways. Furthermore, I would go on to say that the planet is experiencing decreasing returns. If you have taken even a basic microeconomics course, you will be familiar with this term. On a small plot of land, one worker can produce 10 units. Two workers can produce 11 units each. Three workers, 12 units each. But you then get to a point where an extra worker on that small plot of land is just an obstacle to the efficient work of the other workers and is more than what the land can sustain. So with four workers, you get 10 units per worker. With five workers, you get 8. The planet has limited physical resources. At some point, more fishermen don't produce more product per fisherman - they produce less. And at some point, the excess number of fishermen cause a collapse in fish stocks (as has happened way too many times) - at which point ALL of those fishermen become inefficient and redundant. In any number of areas adding more workers doesn't add anything to economic well-being and may actually do damage to standards of living. With modern technology and rates of R&D, societies have it within their ability to greatly increase worker productivity, if this were to be coupled with decreases in population then standards of living in most parts of the world would shoot up.

'but I think in general a little population growth is essential to the economy of every first world country, which is probably why they have incentivized children in AUS.'
---No, it is not essential to any first world country. The reason that first world countries incentivize population growth has to do largely with government welfare pension obligations. The demographic curves of virtually all first world countries is top heavy, meaning that pay-as-you go pension systems will be unable to cope in the coming decades with the very large numbers of retirees without either raising inexorbitantly welfare contributions from future workers (which they won't accept) or decreasing pension amounts (which will be illegal) or increasing the retirement age (which most first world countries are slowly doing) or by somehow managing to increase the workforce numbers (by pushing more women and unemployed into the workforce, or increasing the effective retirement age, or increasing immigration, OR INCREASING BIRTHRATES). Some countries incentivize native population growth for other reasons as well, such as trying to stop a demographic change in which immigrants make an ever larger share of the countries population, or trying to maintain political influence by retaining voting power tied to relative population numbers. I don't think that in absolutely any case where a first world country incentivizes population growth, it has anything to do with economic growth.

'I don't think people should be punished or rewarded for children, we should neither tax children nor give parents credit for them.'
---I'll be explicit. Worldwide populaion growth is a serious problem for all societies. Population growth needs to stop, and current population numbers need to eventually drop. Obviously, there are too many people who either can not or will not see the seriousness of the problem and therefore will not take it upon themselves to do the responsible thing concerning their reproductive choices. This means that societies need to start incentivizing individuals to limit the number of children they have through a combination of financial and regulatory carrots and sticks. And I believe starting with small incentives, such as those listed above, is the correct place to begin.

'But we do need a growing population to maintian our economy.'
---Let us be clear. We DO NOT need a growing population to maintain our economy. We do need a growing population if we are to maintain pension systems in their current unmodified state without bankrupting the pay as you go pension systems. These are two very distinct and different things. The pension system mess needs to be fixed without pushing a solution (population growth) which causes way more social problems than social benefits.

You can't give carbon credits to someone who has no kids because you have to establish that they would have had kids anyway. Giving carbon credits to someone would mean that they could trade them and only verifiable emmision reductions would be eligible for carbon credits. I agree that sterilisation should be free to all concerned but would take it one step further...only an abortion (birth control) would actually qualify for carbon credits but the incentive would have to be high enough to encourage people not to have kids but not so high as to encourage serial pregancies and abortions to obtain credits.

Perhaps the worst idea ever introduced! Governmental and corporate responsibility and accountability are the answers to our current crises. The taxation of the European peoples out of existence cannot be the answer. Because it is only Europe, Australia and N. America that will pay, the rest of the world’s population (the majority) would only laugh at such a preposterous proposition. Be thankful your grand-parents weren’t this naive!

Great idea only if the people having litters of babies actually knew what a carbon credit is - or gave a crap - or knew how to use a condom. Has anyone seen Idiotracy? Terrible movie, but the truth hurts.

Pay men big bucks to get the boys clipped. Then we'll get somewhere.

Population growth isn’t the problem. Our real concern should be consumption growth. Fertility rates in most developed countries are in steady decline and population sizes would be falling were it not for immigration. Yet energy and resource consumption continues to increase.

Australia’s fertility rates are 1.77 per woman [1] - below the natural population replacement rate. The only reason Australia’s population is growing is due to immigration. (This is why the Government is actively encouraging couples to have children through policies such as the $5000/baby payment and various family payments through the welfare system).

The question shouldn’t be how many people are consuming the world’s resources, but rather, how are those resources being consumed and distributed. While fertility rates fall, cars and homes are getting bigger, we have more TVs in our homes, and they’re using more energy.

The world started living beyond its means in 1987 [2]. In 1987 the world’s economy was booing. Nobody at the time would have suggested that life in the developed world was materially uncomfortable. We didn’t consider ourselves materially poor. Yet we consumed less, had smaller houses, used less energy, had less ‘stuff’ and consumed fewer of the world’s resources. Family sizes were, on average, slightly larger than they are now.

Children who ride bikes to school emit less carbon that kids being driven to school in SUVs. A large family with only one TV has a smaller ‘TV footprint’ than a small family in a McMansion with a TV in each room.

20 years later, we have the technology to use energy more efficiently. We can build buildings more efficiently, build hybrid cars, recycle resources, make solar electricity, and utilise wind and wave power. We are far better able to efficiently use and re-use the world’s resources and spread them among greater numbers of people.

Some of the world’s most populous nations have the world’s smallest carbon emissions and ecological footprints. It is possible, with wise management of resources and application of technologies, for populations to live with small ecological footprints while living healthy happy lives. (-You don’t need an SUV, an air conditioned McMansion, a plasma screen and an annual holiday on the other side of the planet to be happy and healthy)

Environmentalists tend to get worked up about population growth as the cause of our problems. We should be getting worked up about reducing consumption growth as a means to a solution.

[1] http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytitle/C5F935614146DE94CA2572360000E3D4?opendocument

[2] http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/10/ecological_debt.php

At first, i thought "this is a great idea! make people pay to have babies!" and so i went on my rant about overpopulation and so forth.

And i got a lot of great comments back. Namely - a tax on birth will target mostly women (since mothers are easier to track down than fathers, obviously), could lead to people having children "off the map" to avoid paying a tax, would target low income families, would really only even theoretically work in developed countries anyway, might lead to more dangerous abortions... punishing people for having children won't work.

However, in the US (and AUS and other countries) there is the incetive to HAVE children, in the form of tax deductions. IMHO, get rid of those first. Why should we pay people to have kids?

Second, the decline of the birth rate in developed countries is (in part) because people are better educated (and, therefor generally wealthier) where as there are still many lower classes and those uneducated who have many children. I believe there is a correlation here.

The government can only do so much. What changes people is not always taxes or whatever, but changing their minds and how they feel and think about things. And that comes through education.

I also agree with what a number of people said - just because you only have 2 kids, doesn't mean your carbon footprint is smaller than a family of 6 living "green". While I firmly believe that our population is getting to large for the planet to handle, there are things we should be doing (and, should have been doing all along) to reduce consumption and to preserve what valuable resources we have

a hateful, stupid, short-sighted, self-defeating, and damning idea.

the right of a family to have children is basic to any society. even the communist chinese don't actually enforce the 'one child' policy--what standing would a 'democracy' have if it began such an intrusive plan?

the threat to the environment isn't children or families.

'Population growth isn’t the problem. Our real concern should be consumption growth. Fertility rates in most developed countries are in steady decline and population sizes would be falling were it not for immigration. Yet energy and resource consumption continues to increase.'

---I have commented extensively before on this issue. And I will repeat what I have mentioned on other occasions. Whether or not the world will be able to cope with its environmental problems (which in turn create numerous social problems) will depend on several factors: how quickly the world deals with overpopulation, how quickly the world learns to live with less, and how quickly technology develops. Developments in these three factors will determine the evolution of our environmental problems. Shrink populations and these problems ease; increase populations and these problems worsen. Shrink human profligacy (consumption growth) and these problems ease; increase profligacy and they worsen. Increase adoption and development of appropriate technology and they ease; decrease adoption of them and problems worsen. Some people wish to believe that the only thing that matters is technology. Develop the right technologies and our environmental problems go away. As if overpopulation and overconsumption have nothing to do with those environmental problems. Some think overpopulation is the only problem - solve that and you solve the environmental problems. And some think that our only problem is overconsumption. ALL of these three things are key determinants of the evolution of our environmental problems. While it may be possible that some point far out in human history, we have achieved such a high state of technological development that we can effectively ignore population increases and overconsumption patterns, that point is too far out for us to sit back and wait for. Our environmental problems can not go unchecked until we reach that technological utopia because those problems threaten to break our societies today and in the near future. As for decreasing resource consumption rates due to lifestyle choices, there is no way to to solve our environmental problems focusing solely on this. Even if everyone on the planet went back to living like hunter-gatherers (the most natural and least damaging lifestyle for ecosystems), there are simply way too many of us now to support such an existence. The only reason the world population started to deviate upward from its puny 'natural hunter-gatherer' base population some 10,000 years ago is because man learned how to alter the environment (agriculture) to meet his needs at the expense of the needs of other components of the ecosystem (the forest that is cut down, the fauna that is displaced, etc.) While the planet can sustain a lot of damage and still manage to keep ticking, we have done so much damage to the planet over the past hundreds of years and our numbers have increased so much that it is no longer guaranteed that the planet's self-healing mechanisms will be able to cope in such a way as to ensure that mankind's needs are safeguarded. The only way now to slow and eventually stop, and hopefully one day reverse, the dangerous levels of damage we have done to the ecosystems that we depend on is to seriously reduce levels of resource consumption (through lower population, simpler lifestyles, and better technology). And this simply will not happen JUST through westerners living simpler lives. Don't get me wrong, I think it needs to happen, but this alone will not solve environmental problems because as westerners reduce their lifestyle, people in the third world will increase theirs. And it is only just that the many billions of poor people in the third world that live in abysmal conditions are able to achieve a lifestyle that we in the west would consider a bare acceptable minimum.

Of course, you were focusing your comments on what people in the West need to do. And I agree that the primary concern for rich countries is reductions in resource consumption patterns and excessive lifestyles. As you said, fertility rates in virtually all rich countries are below the replacement rate. But as you also said, even though birth rates are low, rich country populations continue to grow due to immigration. And this will continue to be the case as long as rich countries remain much richer than poor countries. So all rich countries will continue to have population growth because of immigration. You rightly point out that consumption rates in the First world are super high relative to world averages, and they need to come down. But as we all know this will be extremely difficult. Many people have strong emotional attachments to their jet-skis. So do you really think it wise to allow a rich population that thinks SUV ownership is a divine right to increase in population? Immigrants to rich countries will try to emulate these consumption patterns, and even though most of those rich people are reproducing well below the replacement rate, the majority of those immigrants will not be - they will bring with them their preconceived notions of appropriate family size, which in most Thirld world countries is well above replacement rate. It takes several generations for these preconceived family-size notions to be filtered out of the mindset of the descendants of those immigrants. So the kind of taxes mentioned in the article will have virtually no impact on the native population since they are already reproducing below the replacement rate; those taxes will simply encourage immigrants to adjust faster to the birth rate norm of their new country. Furthermore, you state that even though birth rates are low, consumption rates continue to increase. Do you not think this is in part due to increases in population? Doesn't more people mean more consumption?
'The only reason Australia’s population is growing is due to immigration. (This is why the Government is actively encouraging couples to have children through policies such as the $5000/baby payment and various family payments through the welfare system).'
---Sounds right to me. The population is growing WITHOUT incentives to increase population growth due to immigration, so the primary concern of the Australian govt. is that one day there will be less white faces than non-white faces. But I think this policy only leads to greater increases in the numbers of non-whites. The group of people who will most benefit from this payment are legal immigrants, and it is their numbers that will most increase. Whereas getting rid of this payment and putting a tax will lead to just the opposite outcome.
'A large family with only one TV has a smaller ‘TV footprint’ than a small family in a McMansion with a TV in each room.'
---This argument is simply misleading. It only holds true if you suspend social reality and apply unrealistic assumptions. First, the only way this argument could be taken at face value is if you assume reality is static. In other words, neither of those two families will reproduce in future. As soon as you include that reality into the equation, and assuming consumption patterns remain fixed per person, it is only a matter of time before the accumulated consumption of the descendants of the more frugal family far outstrips that of the more voracious family. Rabbits eat little in comparison to a wolf, but if it weren't for wolves controlling their sky-high reproductive rate, rabbits would strip the planet bare. Second, the assumption is that all members of a large family will adopt a frugal lifestyle and that all members of a voracious family will adopt a profligate lifestyle. It could very well be that a large family living in a tiny home with frugal consumption ends up producing many kids who as adults become profligate consumers for the very reason that they felt deprived as children - I have seen numerous examples of rich profligate individuals who derive from just such circumstances - and on top of that these kids as adults may then end up having large families because they see it as 'normal'. Whereas single kids from rich profligate families may grow up to be individuals who are more concerned about other issues besides accumulating wealth and toys and end up living frugal lifestyles with a small family. There are numerous other fallacious assumptions implied within your argument that run along a similar vein. The simple fact is that large families - whether frugal or not - will end up resulting in very large consumption sooner or later down the line.
'20 years later, we have the technology to use energy more efficiently. We can build buildings more efficiently, build hybrid cars, recycle resources, make solar electricity, and utilise wind and wave power. We are far better able to efficiently use and re-use the world’s resources and spread them among greater numbers of people.'
---This argument fits into the one I mentioned before about technology magically solving the world'd environmental problems. Yes, we are far better able today to efficiently use and reuse the world's resources and spread them among greater numbers of people, but the fact remains that there are way too many of us and we are consuming way too much for technology alone to be able to make a significant impact in solving the environmental problems that vex our societies. The technological utopia that will eliminate the need to control our population numbers is way too far in the future for us to ignore our current population numbers. And to say that we can put off population control because of that distant utopia is to gamble with the very well-being and stability of human civilization by putting all our chips on a blind crippled horse.
'Some of the world’s most populous nations have the world’s smallest carbon emissions and ecological footprints.'
---I am somewhat in shock that you would make such a statement. It is both completely true and completely unacceptable. There is a reason that some of the world's most populous nations have the world's smallest carbon emissions and ecological footprints - it is called POVERTY. Most people living in those countries - China, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc. - live in conditions that would probably be legally classified as torture if we forced inmates of Guantanamo to live under. Global society is trying to IMPROVE the material conditions of the poor of those countries to a minimum level that dignifies human existence. And that will mean that each individual will consume much more in resources than they do now - more clean safe water, more energy, more food, more communications, more transportation, education, health care, housing, sanitation, more transportation infrastructure, communications infrastructure, energy infrastructure, etc, etc, etc. Improvements in material conditions mean more RESOURCES and considering how low most people in those countries are we are talking about huge increases in resources. Just look at China. Twenty years ago the average Chinese was much poorer than today. They lived a miserable existence with almost no possesions. Today the average Chinese is still poor but consumes many more resources than before. And they will continue increasing at a high pace their resource consumption per capita for a good while to come. There is no telling where it will level off at. It may approximate that of a typical American, or of a typical European, or somewhere below. But to compare current CO2 emissions and footprints of the poor in the Third World to those of the rich in the First World to demonstrate how westerners can live with less is to inappropriately imply that the poor should be and want to be at the level they are at and to assume that they won't end up in future with continued high growth at a level similar to that of the West. In my opinion, Westerners consume way too much, but if society has to make a choice between either decreasing population, increasing technology or decreasing resource consumption. I would first choose technology increase followed by population decrease and then lastly resource consumption decreases. Because societies don't want to loose levels of material well-being - no matter how ridiculously exaggerated they are. And I do think in America, and a few other western countries, lifestyles are excessivly over the top.
'It is possible, with wise management of resources and application of technologies, for populations to live with small ecological footprints while living healthy happy lives. (-You don’t need an SUV, an air conditioned McMansion, a plasma screen and an annual holiday on the other side of the planet to be happy and healthy)'
---I completely agree.
'Environmentalists tend to get worked up about population growth as the cause of our problems. We should be getting worked up about reducing consumption growth as a means to a solution.'
---First of all, environmentalists care about the environment, which means that they care about everything that helps or damages the environment. I care about the environment because I care about people. People depend on the proper functioning of the ecosystems that they life off of. Destroy those environments, and you destroy the sources that maintain those people. Degrade those environments, and you degrade the well-being of those people. There are many things that damage the environment and many things that help it. I get worked up about all of those things which damage ecosystems, including BOTH overpopulation and overconsumption. As an environmentalist, I don't say to myself: I will allow this thing that is damaging the environment (overconsumption) to 'get me worked up' and this other thing that is damaging the environment (overpopulation) I won't 'get worked up' about. I get worked up about it all. And in my opinion, anyone else who considers themself an environmentalist should do the same - get worked up about anything damaging the environment. Furthermore, considering that overpopulation is such a FUNDAMENTAL underlying reason for most of the world's environmental problems (along with excessive western lifestyles), I get VERY 'worked up'. As should anyone else that considers themself an environmentalist.
Second, there is more than enough documented evidence that overpopulation plays a key role in any number of environmental and social ills and that these problems will be very difficult to solve WITHOUT solving the overpopulation problem. This is the internet. Go to google, type in 'overpopulation problems', look for the websites of organizations and states that you trust (UN, EU, US, WWF, Red Cross, whatever), and start reading. Trust me when I tell you that you will have enough reading material to keep you busy day and night for several lifetimes.
And third, it is not just environmentalists that are seriously concerned about overpopulation. It is virtually everyone who is concerned about social well-being and social progress. Do you really think the Chinese leadership was thinking 'green' when they instituted the one-child policy? I think they were more concerned about social stability: 'how the hell are we going to feed and clothe 3 billion people in 50 years' is probably what was running through their minds. Again, this being the internet, do a quick search and you will see a never ending stream of organizations, institutions, states, etc. (the majority of which are NOT environmental groups) that are seriously concerned about overpopulation. It most definitely is not just environmentalists.

'a hateful, stupid, short-sighted, self-defeating, and damning idea'
---Well, that's a mouthful of intellect. This comment sound a little bit, well....hateful, stupid, short-sighted, self-deating, and damning. That about sums it up.

'the right of a family to have children is basic to any society. even the communist chinese don't actually enforce the 'one child' policy--what standing would a 'democracy' have if it began such an intrusive plan?'
---We all have rights. And reproductive choices are one of those rights. But with rights comes responsibilities. With freedoms come obligations. You can not divorce them. They are two sides of one coin. And some people are more than willing to take their rights and ignore their responsibilities. Society can not be sustained when its members take this attitude. You can not say: I have a right to reproduce, so I will reproduce as much as I want even if it causes social harms. Just like you can not say: I have a right to free speech, so I will scream 'fire' in a crowded theater if I so choose. Just as each and every society circumscribes virtually every other right that we have to ensure that we do not abuse them, society can circumscribe our reproductive rights to ensure that they are not abused. Reproductive rights are no more important than the right of free speech, of free press, of due process, of religion or assembly or voting, etc. etc. etc. NONE of the rights that we have are absolute; they are set in tight parameters by the law. And those parameters are determined by the needs of society. Furthermore, our reproductive rights are already circumscribed in any number of ways throughout the world - including western countries. Making abortion illegal is one way of circumscribing reproductive rights - FORCING people to have children they do not want. Taking away newborn babies from women seen to be unfit for motherhood is no different than forbidding them to get pregnant - and there any number of western countries that do this too. Denying fertilization treatment to women past a certain age can also be considered a form of circumscribing of a woman's reproductive rights - this too happens in numerous countries. The list goes on and on. And you yourself mentioned China's one-chilld policy. As for the statement that it wasn't and isn't enforced, tell that to the millions who have been forcibly sterilized. It is enforced in China, but sometimes and in some places it is enforced more thoroughly. Considering everything said, and all the possible options for getting people to have fewer children, a carbon tax or some other kind of tax on a third child is not only more than acceptable, it is an option that in essence leaves people with the freedom to continue having an irresponsible attitude: I will have as many kids as I want no matter what the social harms. So they really shouldn't be complaining.

'the threat to the environment isn't children or families.'
---No the threat to the environment isn't childern or families. One of the main threats is overpopulation. And overpopulation doesn't come from having children or families. It comes from having TOO MANY children.
As an aside, interesting way to get support and sympathy for a position - framing it with the terms childern and family. Kind of like people couching weak arguments behind terms like 'God bless America' or the red-white-blue or 'terrorists', etc. Words and concepts that tend to trigger instinctive reactions in certain populations. Next time say: 'The problem isn't children or families or puppies.' It will encite a stronger instictive sympathetic reaction in people.

people r getting paid for making babies they should be charged for it -if u cant afford to support another human till the age of 20 you shouldn't tax me for it!!!

houston,

In your lengthy response to my comments above you raise many issues. I’m not going to respond to them all separately. It would take too long. I’ll just make the following points.

1) There is a strong correlation between decreasing population growth and increasing education rates - particularly education of women and girls. This is well documented. Improving education among poor people (including family planning education) is a far more effective means of reducing population that taxation. Imposing taxes on poorly educated impoverished populations will only increase poverty and further limit their access to education.

2) I accept your comments regarding reduced consumption, improved technology and controlled population growth. My comments stemmed from a concern that many people seem to get worked up about the latter while ignoring the first two.

Issues relating to immigration are too broad to be discussed here and go beyond the scope of this forum. Suffice it to say that it hasn’t been my experience that it takes ‘several generations’ for “preconceived notions of appropriate family size to be filtered out…” My experience of immigrant communities in Australia is that it takes about one generation. You underestimate the ability of immigrants to integrate. Similarly, I think your comments about “white-non white” population growth are misinformed generalisations (why does race even need to be brought into it?!?!), contain several inaccurate assumptions about Australian immigration patterns and immigrants’ levels of education, and I’m not going to correct those points here.

My point about lower ecological footprints in the global south wasn’t to imply that all poor people should continue to live forever in abject poverty. My point was to counter the myth that population growth in the global south is responsible for climate change. Too often the populations of the global south are demonised for causing climate change. Despite the fact that the bulk of the world’s population growth occurs in the global south, the bulk of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions either occur in the global north, or are caused by industries in developing countries which sell goods to the global north. The devastation of Indonesia’s rainforests for example are a direct result of the north’s insatiable desire for palm oil.

The populations of developing countries must be allowed to improve the standards of living in those countries. This can be done in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD). In improving their standard of living, developing countries need not repeat the same mistakes that we have made in the west/north/MDCs. I’ve travelled in India, China and South East Asia and have witnessed the poverty to which you refer. While I saw huge environmental problems, I also saw many examples in which standards of living can be improved with minimal impact on the environment. I saw more solar hot water systems in western China than I have any where else in the world. Micro hydro-electric generators are used in Yunnan to provide a sustainable form of renewable energy, and by 2020 China will have more wind power capacity than is needed to power up the whole of Australia. In India, composting systems convert household waste to methane which is used for home cooking, reducing the need for LPG and or fire wood. This not only reduces GGEs but improves air quality. There are numerous other examples.

As education levels in developing countries improve, population growth will slow. Poverty can be reduced, and must be if population growth is to be arrested, but in order for that the happen, developed countries need to assist with foreign aid, technology transfers and education programmes. Demonising poor people and imposing taxes - both in developing countries and in the west - will not improve things. It will only increase inequity and entrench further poverty.

I can't believe there are still people who just don't get it!

WAKE UP! You do NOT have a "basic right" to have large families any more than I have a "basic right" to kill and eat your kids.

The over-population that has screwed us over has, in the process, caused death, disease, famine, and environmental collapse. That's fine if it's a consequence of individual struggles for survival - that means it's just been the natural suffering of finding ourselves without the resources we need.

When it's not about survival, and you choose to INCREASE needs anyway, then it's obscenely inhuman; more responsible minds deserve the resources more than you do.

Hopefully, no matter how selfish and destructive a person is, people won't start punishing offenders kids for it.

'1) There is a strong correlation between decreasing population growth and increasing education rates - particularly education of women and girls. This is well documented. Improving education among poor people (including family planning education) is a far more effective means of reducing population that taxation. Imposing taxes on poorly educated impoverished populations will only increase poverty and further limit their access to education.'
---1)Nowhere in my previous comments did I state directly nor indirectly, explicitly nor implicitly, that this correlation does NOT exist or does not apply. Yes, that correlation is well-documented. And I completely agree that this correlation exists. And I agree that increasing education is more effective than taxation - again, nowhere did I directly nor indirectly argue that this isn't the case. Right now I am wondering why you went to the trouble to bring this point up considering that nowhere in my arguments I challenged these statements nor brought them into question? It is also well-documented that putting more women into the workforce also leads to reduced birth rates, which is another reason that they are so low in the First World. Having said that, I will reiterate what I mentioned earlier: there will always be those who can not or will not acknowledge that overpopulation is a problem and that they have a moral responsibility to limit their family sizes. You have to look no further for proof of this than some of the posts left in this thread by supposedly well-informed, well-off 'environmentalists'. Laws that circumscribe freedom of speech are not aimed at that majority of individuals who use this freedom responsibly; they are there to ensure that the minority who uses speech irresponsibly is incentivized to be responsible in their speech. Just like carbon taxes in Australia would not be targetted at the majority of people who already are being reponsible in their reproductive choices; they would incentivize those who wish to be irresponsible to not be irresponsible.
2)This article is discussing Australia, is it not? The carbon taxes mentioned are for Australia, are they not? Again, I never once said that carbon taxes should be imposed in the Third World. Obviously, for some reason, you took my arguments to mean that this is what I advocate. Since there was confusion on this point, I will be explicit: I think carbon taxes on the third child in First World countries is a good idea. A better idea still is personal carbon rationing, which I believe will be more comprehensive and coherent than implementing carbon taxes on every activity, service, product, habit, etc. that contributes to GHGs. But I think carbon rationing has even less chance of being implemented than carbon taxes on individual things, such as third children. If your comment about imposing taxes on 'impoverished populations' was meant to address immigrants in First World countries, then I disagree. Carbon taxes on third children will not lead to more poverty for these individuals. In the vast majority of First World countries, these immigrants receive more than sufficient financial help from the government - taking away some of that state money through carbon taxes simply incentivizes them to be responsible in their reproductive choices. Now you may say that the majority of immigrants do NOT get help from the government; and this would be true since the majority of immigrants in most First World countries are ILLEGAL. But ILLEGAL immigrants don't pay taxes, do they? So such a carbon tax would not affect them.
'Issues relating to immigration are too broad to be discussed here and go beyond the scope of this forum. Suffice it to say that it hasn’t been my experience that it takes ‘several generations’ for “preconceived notions of appropriate family size to be filtered out…” My experience of immigrant communities in Australia is that it takes about one generation. You underestimate the ability of immigrants to integrate.'
---I have not lived in Australia. I can not talk from personal experience about Australia. I will simply have to take your word for it. But I have lived in Texas. I have lived in Germany. I have lived in Finland. And I do live in Spain. All of these places have significant immigrant populations. And from my personal experience of immigrants from numerous Thirld World countries, it is very often the grandchildren of the immigrants that end up having two children or less. This is my personal experience. I have noticed differences depending from where these immigrants originate. Eastern Europeans do not have high birth rates, for instance. North Africans do. I think maybe you overestimate the ability of many immigrants to integrate. Then again, maybe there are important cultural differences in the types of immigrants arriving in Australia and those arriving in Europe and the US. I am not saying that I do not think immigrants don't eventually integrate, just that in my experience they do not integrate (in some aspects) as quickly as your experience suggests.
'Similarly, I think your comments about “white-non white” population growth are misinformed generalisations (why does race even need to be brought into it?!?!), contain several inaccurate assumptions about Australian immigration patterns and immigrants’ levels of education, and I’m not going to correct those points here.'
---Again, nowhere do I express an opinion about 'white-nonwhite' population growth. I do not know what the rates of growth of the white and nonwhite population in Australia are. I do know what you explicitly pointed out: 1)Birth rate of the 'native' Australian pop. is 1.77, 2) Total Australian population nevertheless INCREASING, so 1) + 2) = 3)Immigrant population increasing relative to Australian population. Assuming that you know what you are talking about (and I have no reason to question the validity of 1 and 2), YOU are the one that informed ME about the respective rates of increase and that the percentage of the immigrant population is increasing relative to that of the native population. And it is YOU that brought up the issue of immigration into Australia to begin with, correct? And it is you who pointed out that the Australian govt. implemented a policy of paying 5000 per child because of that immigration. To quote you: ''The only reason Australia’s population is growing is due to immigration. (This is why the Government is actively encouraging couples to have children...). Since you make it clear that Australia's pop. is growing even WITHOUT any incentives to get people to have children, there must be some reason OTHER THAN getting the population to grow for the Australian govt. to put such incetives in place. While I am not an expert on Australia, I do read the world news every day. And I do not have a short memory. I do remember of the sudden rise of the extreme right-wing racist, anti-immigration One Nation political party led by Pauline Hanson in the late 90s. They won a significant minority vote in federal elections. And this for a party that really only had one basic policy: ke