I wonder if there's any merit to this OSU study regarding the impact human populations have on the environment? It seems like a no-brainer, but if we accept that mass human activity is the primary cause of climate change, it should stand to reason that the human population has exceeded the planet's capacity to provide resources to sustain all of us.
Solution: reduce the number of people back to a more manageable level and the planet would be able to start healing itself again.
Of course, it would be rather impractical to just machine-gun down all the unnecessary people in the world. That would be an environmental disaster all by itself, 'cos, like how are we going to dispose of so many bodies responsibly? Burial on that scale is sure to cause further deforestation 'cos nobody wants a mass grave in their backyard; cremation is out of the question 'cos we're trying to reduce our carbon footprint, not create a whole new cloud of CO2 and soot to choke up our atmosphere any more than we have already.
So, fine, we have to let everyone who's alive right now continue to live, but have fewer babies. The study projects that "in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives – things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs."
By this reasoning, I could defend my right to not have kids, live like a pig and still feel good that I'm saving the world, one carbon atom at a time. Yes.