The article "Chilren come with high carbon cost", points out the connection between the discharge of carbon dioxide and population which includes the rate of the birth. In the article, Paul Murtaugh, a statistician at Oregon state university in Corvalls, says "if you have a child, you and you partner are each responsible for half its emissions. If that child has kids, one-quarter of their emissions are down to you, and so on." Also, the writher says "With rising future emissions, each extra child in the US would eventually result in eight times the lifetime carbon footprint of the average US resident today. Even with constant per-capita emissions, it's nearly six times - or nearly 10,000 tonnes of CO2." What do you have in your mind to read those things?
When I read this, I was depressed because I felt that it's trying to encourage us to have birth control. I disagree with this article because it just caluculated the rate for the duscharge of carbon dioxide and population. Do you think we need to choose to have the control of population which includes the rate of the birth to save the earth?
__________
References
2009, March 15 Children come with high carbon cost New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126994.200-children-come-with-a-high-carbon-cost.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Before you click the blue "Publish" button for your first comment on a post, check ✔ the "Notify me" box. You want to know when your classmates contribute to a discussion you have joined.
A thoughtful response should normally mean writing for five to ten minutes. After you state your main idea, some details, explanation, examples or other follow up will help your readers.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.