Comments on: The Pitter-Patter of Little Feet and Those Ghastly Carbon Footprints

By: Erica

Erica — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 04:20:09 +0000

Wow!!! Amen sister

By: linda

linda — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 04:12:40 +0000

I feel very sorry for people who genuinely think having more children will increase the global footprint. It seeems to me that climate control is a continual debate with no foregone conclusion, tho’ we must be good stewards of course. Unfortunately socialism wants you to have less kids so your teenagers become peer dependant, less respectful of adults and less family dependant. so that they can get them while their young and when they’ve screwed up their lives with humanism its too late, they’re too late and their kids won’t listen to them either. Once you’re screwed up money etc fill the void- great! Japan had an isolationist policy for years to protect them from the problems of their asian neighbours, unfortunetely they’ve bought into western capitalism/humanism with gusto, to their detriment they took the good not the bad.Don’t let your kids become peer dependant, give them a loving supportive family,God will take care of the footprints. From Linda

By: Sarah @ This Heavenly Life

Sarah @ This Heavenly Life — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:11:47 +0000

This gave me chills and thrills to read Very well said in addressing some really frustrating viewpoints. Bravo!

By: Mrs. Anna T

Mrs. Anna T — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 08:19:34 +0000

Every word is true and thanks for linking to me!

By: botanyhead

botanyhead — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:13:37 +0000

Nice stuff.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:21:25 +0000

Hear, Hear!!!
I have five girls and have encouraged all of them to have as many children as God will allow. What Organizing Mommy said is true. The more children we had, the less stuff we bought for each one and the less we went out. Once we upgraded to a 15 passenger van several people thought that even with 5 kids that size van was overkill and a waste of money (and gas), but you should try to fit 3 car seats, 1 LARGE diaper bag, 1 emergency bag, at least one stroller and your husband’s wheelchair in a mini van – impossible, and that’s not even on grocery day!! But, by the time we got it we weren’t running around as much either, so we weren’t using any more gas or spending any more money. On top of that, we don’t own a single game that requires an outlet; no game boys, Xboxes, playstations; nothing that requires them to vegitate in front of the TV. Also, they don’t have TVs or computers in their rooms. They have to play the old fashioned way, and outside as much as possible.
As far as what NP says, I have also read research, and seen a documentary that expresses the view that global warming is a natural process, driven by activity on the sun. Makes much more sense seeing as how the world has expirienced hot and cold peaks before that couldn’t possibly be explained by internal combustion engines and large manufacturing plants.

By: RMN

RMN — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:04:39 +0000

I agree with what you are saying. Everytime I hear this argument, my response is, that if population control was the answer, then China would have a decreasing carbon footprint, as they have been legislating population control for a few decades now. However, that is not the case.

By: NP

NP — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:57:40 +0000

I wouldn’t worry too much; with people like you, who don’t believe on birth control, on the rise, and like us Muslims and even Jewish multiplying at the rate we are, i think we are going to fill in the gap for the one-child and no-child couples.
In the end, the environmentalists are just depriving themselves of passing on their genes, I think this is one of the only things they are achieving with their approach.
On the other hand, and sort of off topic, has anybody heard of the not so orthodox theory of global warming taking place as a natural phenomenon and not due to our influence? And what the people who claim we are causing it really want to achieve is complete control of our lives, things like where we can live, where we can drive, the children we can have, etc. It takes one to really think out of the box to even contemplate the thought for a second.

By: suzy

suzy — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:04:54 +0000

I love this article! I totally agree with you, we are having far fewer children than ever, it is our consumerism and lifestyle choices that effect environmental change more than any other factor.

By: L.

L. — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 05:14:59 +0000

Actually, it’s all part of the whole, isn’t it? I’m one of those people who chose to limit my family size partly due to environmental concerns, so not to tax the world’s resources (for other reasons, too, but that was certainly among them). My family happens to live in a huge city (Tokyo), and I believe having another baby would indeed have made one of those ghastly carbon footprints. My husband was unwilling to consider adoption for cultural reasons, so our family size will in all likelihood stay small, even though it means my husband will forever pine for all those unborn babies he longed to hold in his arms.

The birth rate in Japan has fallen to less than two children per couple — and less than one per couple in Tokyo. I always say that Japan can solve this problem by letting in more immigrants, but so many Japanese people say that no, too many non-Japanese people would destroy their precious culture (and pollute their gene pool, a few have even said to me). I’m afraid that argument has absolutely no impact on (non-Japanese) me!

Anyway, it’s exactly as you say: It’s not the sheer number of kids per family that makes a difference. I know a few families with six and seven kids who are truly able to minimize their environmental impact, and probably have a much smaller carbon footprint than many single people I know!