Pitter-patter of small feet, without big footprints

[depakid]

here are ways of making green babies, none of them too alien, writes Simon Webster.

THERE'S no doubt about it: humans are bad for the environment, and the sooner we're all wiped out by plague, pestilence and rising oceans, the better off we'll be.

If only we didn't reproduce, all our problems would have been solved long ago. But even the greenest of eco-warriors will keep having eco-nookie, the naughty things, and the result can all too often be a little bundle of greenhouse gases just waiting to be emitted.

Selective population control is the answer. Plasma television owners should be limited to one child. Non-plasma owners would be allowed two children. Dilemmas readers who can produce a barcode from today's Herald would be allowed as many as they like on the grounds that the babies will be clean, green eco-machines.

Let's start at the bottom. The typical baby goes through 6000 disposable nappies, says the NSW Department of the Environment and Climate Change. About 800 million nappies a year are added to Australian landfill, where those cute little pictures of Winnie the Pooh are mummified for centuries.

You'd think that would make the decision easy. However, studies comparing the environmental impact of cloth and disposable nappies have come up with wildly different results.

Advocates of disposables cite a much-debated 2005 life cycle analysis by the British Government's Environment Agency that found little difference in the environmental impact of disposables, cloth nappies that were washed at home and cloth nappies provided and washed by a laundry service.

However, it did note that for cloth nappies the main source of environmental impact came from generating the electricity to wash and dry them.

While reducing the environmental impact of disposables is up to manufacturers, reducing the impact of cloth nappies washed at home is something we can do, by signing up for Greenpower and using eco-friendly laundry methods.

Don't forget to dry in the sun: it not only saves the world, but also helps get rid of obstinate poo stains at the same time. Using the same nappies on subsequent offspring further reduces their impact.

More: http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/pitterpatter-of-small-feet-without-big-footprints/2008/08/12/1218306901783.html

[Nederland]

1. Very confusing

THERE'S no doubt about it: humans are bad for the environment, and the sooner we're all wiped out by plague, pestilence and rising oceans, the better off we'll be.

Who exactly is the "we" in that sentence? Cockroaches?

[Howzit]

2. I kid thee not; how about baby offsets?

At 46, I haven't got any kids and I promise not to have any. I can offset two kids someone else had in excess when they purchase my kid credits. If you can trade carbon credits, why not population credits?

The concept has already been applied to potential breeding opportunities: http://www.cheatneutral.com/

[stuntcat]

3. are they trying to be funny?

"just how lovely and wholesome it will be when it comes out the other end." yeah delicious.

Maybe they think environment stuff is some little idea we can be all lighthearted and cute about :p For real there is nothing 'green' about making another human being.

[depakid]

5. Ozzie humor

:evilgrin:

[The2ndWheel]

4. "humans are bad for the environment"

No, we have our place. As one of many species, we contribute to the diversity of life. However, as THE species, creating a global monoculture, and attempting to control everything we can measure, number, and categorize, we have a greater impact than most, if not all. Every species has an impact on the environment, nothing can escape that. You eat a berry, you change the environment. You eat an unhatched egg, you change the environment. You get eaten, the environment changes. You miss chasing down a zebra, the environment changes.

The way I see it, our modern problem is that we don't want change to happen. Well, no, that's not completely accurate. We want the good part of change, but not the bad part. We want to privatize the profits, and socialize the costs. We want to use more energy, but not increase our impact. I don't think it works that way. We want clean, unlimited energy to fuel a growing global civilization...and think we can have the impact of a fruit fly.

Humans, by ourselves, can only do so much, good or bad. It's the machine that increases our impact to such a scale. Which, on the one hand, helps humans, because it makes everything and everywhere more conducive to standardized human life. On the other hand, it fucks up the environment, because it makes everything and everywhere more conducive to only standardized human life.