Personal carbon trading: a potential “stealth intervention” for obesity reduction?
Author: Barry N J Walters
Published online: 4 August 2008
In reply: I thank Smith for the opportunity to clarify some scientific points. The science behind climate change is undeniable and was reviewed in February this year. Moreover, “there is a greater than 90 per cent probability that the warming observed since the 1950s is due to human activities”. Therefore, attempts to prevent environmental calamity will not succeed with boundless population growth. In this sense, the more people there are, the worse it is for our earth. In particular, no nation should encourage population growth. I do not argue for compulsory sterilisation. I do argue that we recognise the cost of every extra human being to our overburdened earth.
Smith labelled my note of caution about limitless procreation as “offensive”. I believe such disparagement is founded on personal and cultural beliefs, not on science, which informs and guides medicine.
There is only one atmosphere. Australians occupy this planet with no more rights than others do. Racism is anathema to us. If others must observe population restraint, then so must we.
Contrary to Smith’s assertion, I plead that all should be able to “live on an equal footing”. Is this not the laudable basis of law? I share his concern for the world that his “children will inherit”; my concern embraces the children of others as well.
References
- Garnaut Climate Change Review. Interim report to the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments of Australia, 2008. http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/pages/reports-and-papers (accessed Feb 2008).
- Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, et al, editors. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm (accessed Feb 2008).