This question is finally on the table here at GrowthBusters, as I’ve observed mainstream media finally giving ink and airtime to the heavy environmental impact of each additional child brought into the world. Why is that?

One reason is that scientists have now documented choosing to conceive just one fewer child will reduce your carbon footprint a LOT more than any other “green” action. You’ll find that study VERY interesting. It’s bottom line: “until the emissions associated with desired services are reduced to zero, population will continue to be a multiplier of emissions.” Multiplier is the key word here.

That ought to be a “duh” statement, but – until recently – overpopulation was rarely mentioned, and DOING something to ease human population back to a wise and sustainable level was never mentioned in the scientific reports or news coverage of climate change. But that is finally changing. . . .

July 11 is World Population Day. We recently passed 7.6 billion humans alive on the planet, while scientists’ best estimates place sustainable world population at about 2 billion. This is an important occasion to have a conversation about our procreative choices.

Isn’t it time for the recommendation to go out far and wide that young couples should choose to have no children, or at most one child, until world population coasts back down to a sustainable level? The connection between family size decisions, climate change and carbon footprint has been getting more and more press, so we at GrowthBusters wondered if the time had finally come.

Is the public ready to acknowledge we have a moral responsibility to have fewer children? . . .

Learn about an exciting paradigm-shifting initiative at the next free GrowthBusters webinar.

Please join me for an engaging conversation about how we can catalyze the needed paradigm shift to a life-sustaining society. You’re invited to join this GrowthBusters webinar at no cost.

I’ve invited Andrew Gaines of the Great Transition Initiative to tell us more about the project. It’s gearing up to help catalyze the system change we need in order for human civilization to stick around on planet Earth awhile longer.

Date and Time: Wednesday, June 14 at 9pm EDT. Register Here

Registrants receive a link to view a replay in case they cannot attend live. The webinar will last one hour and 15 minutes.

On the webinar we’ll pick Andrew’s brain and explore how he thinks we can align to solve the major bottlenecks challenging our transition to a sustainable society. How can we go past ‘preaching to the converted’ and bring a critical mass of the general public into considering the consequences of big picture trends such as ever-growing global economy and population, global warming, and peak everything? . . .

REGISTER FOR THIS WEBINAR

Did you know our relentless pursuit of robust economic growth is liquidating the planet of vital resources much faster than it can regenerate them? We are “burning down the house to keep warm.” There is another way.

If this idea intrigues you, please join us for an enlightening conversation February 15, 2017 with Brian Czech, author of Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train and Supply Shock: Economic Growth at the Crossroads. Brian is president of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy, and he’ll explain the need for, and benefits of, a steady state economy.

Brian is a conservation biologist who taught ecological economics for over a decade at Virginia Tech. He is frequently invited to speak to groups and writes for Huffington Post and the Daly News. I love his sense of humor and way with words. Registration for this webinar entitles you to participate both in the February 15 session and a more advanced followup webinar on February 22. Both webinars begin at 9 pm U.S. Eastern Time and last one hour and 15 minutes. Registrants will receive a link to view a replay of the webinar. . . .

Here’s the 7th and final installment of questions from our Solving Overshoot webinar. I’m sharing the questions we didn’t have time to address, and I’m including comments received from Madeleine Somerville and Paul Ehrlich, our panelists. If you missed the first few installments, start here with installment one. Your comments are welcome below. I’ve jumped in and offered some of my own thoughts because of the importance and relevance of these. I look forward to reading your thoughts.

24. Libby Sharpe asked: “I hate to be the one to raise the immigration question, but any thoughts about that? I am compassionate toward immigrants, but it seems to me that unfettered immigration just disseminates populations without lowering birthrates, as much of the immigrations is from countries where there is high selective pressure for increased birth rates.” . . .