Governments and schools governments should be teaching kids to have fewer children in order to reduce climate change.

That’s according to a study published in Environmental Research Letters, in which University of British Columbia grad student Seth Wynes and Sweden’s Lund University professor Kimberley Nicholas calculate how individual actions cut greenhouse gas emissions.

They claim having one fewer child is a “high impact action” far eclipsing any other in effectiveness.

The study has received widespread attention, reported uncritically in the mainstream media, such as the left-leaning U.K. Guardian, and generating controversy across the conservative blogosphere and Twitter.

But Steven Mosher, president of the Virginia-based Population Research Institute, blasted the suggestion as “ridiculous” and “dangerous,” and the study as “climate extremism masquerading as science.”

The study “is not science but rank speculation, and should emphatically not be used as the basis for government policy,” he told LifeSiteNews in an email.

The study looks at the effect of individual actions on cutting carbon emissions, which has to happen to meet Paris Agreement goals, the authors contend.

Everyone must “grow up accustomed to a lifestyle that approaches the 2.1 tonnes per person annual emissions budget necessary by 2050 to meet the 2 °C climate target” of that agreement, which 195 countries signed on to in 2015.

“It is especially important that adolescents are prepared for this shift,” write Wynes and Nicholas.

A World Bank data-map alleges that Canadian emissions are at 13.5 tonnes per person, U.S. and Australian at around 16 per person, Russian at 12.4, and Saudi Arabia at 18.

Going car-free was an annual savings of 2.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide, not eating meat a savings of 0.8, and cutting back one transatlantic flight a year saed 1.6, they calculated.

But having one fewer child would save 58.3 tonnes per year, the study alleges.

The authors also surveyed high school textbooks from seven Canadian provinces and discovered that none of these textbooks taught that having fewer children would reduce climate change.

That should change, say Wynes and Nicholas.

Teenagers “should be informed of the environmental consequences of family size as they are likely becoming sexually active,” the study states.

Wynes told LifeSiteNews it’s not necessarily about having fewer children.

“Although every person added to the planet adds more emissions, the central issue is not having more children, but the high-consumption society that those children are born into,” he said.

“If national emissions decrease drastically, then the effect of having an additional child can be 17 times less.”

Nevertheless, the authors appear to have anticipated pushback.

“Some high-impact actions may be politically unpopular,” they write, “but this does not justify a focus on moderate or low-impact actions at the expense of high-impact actions.”

  • suezz

    if your muslim it is okay though because we all those 10 dollar hour engineers from india to man the help desks so we can unemploy some more amedicans

  • chris

    i say they start with the duggar clan. their insanity is already starting in the next generation.

    • Nimadan

      I say you stop watching mass media propaganda, break open some books, and try to catch a clue.

      • chris

        i say you stop ASSuming i watch propaganda. perhaps you need to follow your own advice. it seems you think humans cause climate change. lol lol

        • Nimadan

          I don’t believe in AGW, nor was there anything in my post
          that would give any reasonable person that impression.

          YOU on the other hand are stupidly repeating lamestream
          media memes demonizing the Duggar family.

          My original post stands.

          • chris

            idiot. i made a general comment about the article and telling people to have less babies to prevent global warming. my sarcastic comment about the duggar family was way over your head, from that you decided to respond ,accusing me of what exactly. i suggest reading comprehension before you butt in and respond erroneously to anyone.

          • Nimadan

            This is a public forum on the internet: There are no nonverbal cues nor is there expectation of privacy. There was nothing in your original post to indicate you weren’t dead serious. Get over yourself.

          • chris

            i suggest you follow your own advice ,get over yourself. it seems you are seriously lacking in quite a lot of areas such as your agw beliefs. which are all propaganda. i bet you blew a fuse when frump pulled out of the paris climate scam. lol lol any person with a modicum of humor would get my reference to the duggar clan in regards to the article. but you saw it as “demonizing’ i take it you see nothing wrong with those people spewing out 18 plus children and starting on the next generation of spewing. ugh. any normal person,which you are not would find that a woman who does nothing but shoot out kids is repulsive.

          • Nimadan

            And, yet again, you are regurgitating the lamestream propaganda demonizing the Duggars that you’ve been brainwashed to repeat.

            “your agw beliefs. which are all propaganda.”

            Your reading comprehension is abysmal.

          • chris

            demonizing the dugars? wtf , how is that ,do tell. so you think its ok to shoot out over 18 kids? wow. i guess the article went over your head too. as for comprehension, poor thing, it looks as if you follow al bores fringe carbon scam claims. i suggest you refrain from commenting any further. you think its ok to have multitudes of kids i guess. pathetic.

  • Sink Chicken

    Why a picture of a white child? It is not whites that are breeding uncontrollably. How about birth control medicines in all food aid to overpopulated countries?