ENVIRONMENTALISTS have come in for so much criticism of late that further comment from me might seem like kicking a man when he is down, writes Neil Everitt, ACR News editor.
So let me state first of all that while I am not surprised that some of the contributors to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been accused of suppressing or manipulating data and the IPCC itself has admitted to a number of well-reported gaffes, it does not necessarily mean that the whole concept of climate change - whether anthropogenic or naturally occurring - is without foundation.

As I have said previously, with the environmental movement attaining almost religious proportions it is no surprise that a few zealots should get a little bit too carried away.

However, I find one of the most incongruous aspects of the global warming message is those who maintain that we need to make changes for the benefit of future generations, our children and our childrens' children. This angle was used to great effect recently in the government's £6m 'bedtime story' tv campaign - with a message aimed squarely at the parental heart strings.

While I'm sure most of the public got the general message, I was more concerned as to what effect a father reading a night-time installment from the global warming book of Armageddon would have on his young daughter's state of mind. I'm not sure it would have led to an uninterrupted night's sleep for the young girl, let alone a dry one. Knowing how influential tv has become do we now have parents considering the latest Stephen King novel as suitable bedtime story reading?

Anyway, I digress. A still from the advert, of the doting father scaring the bejeezers out of his young daughter is used on the Act on CO2 website with the line 'Change how the story ends...find out what you can do to reduce your carbon footprint.'

They seem to have missed what to me is the obvious point that not having a child in the first place would have been the greatest contribution to reducing a carbon footprint.

Population control is not a popular theme even amongst most environmentalists, probably because they recognise it as a vote loser. They are very keen to talk of sustainability but what is blatantly obvious is that one thing which is definitely not sustainable is unfettered population growth. There is a finite number of people that this planet can support.
If you want the latest 'inconvenient truth', that is it.

Researchers at Oregon State University have now come up with a figure for a parent's carbon footprint or, rather, how much carbon a parent can save by not having a child. Using lifetime average carbon CO2 emissions for a US resident, the report uses average fertility figures and assumes a parent is 50% responsible for a child's carbon footprint, 25% responsible for a grandchild's footprint, and so on.

Based on per capita emissions remaining constant, the report suggests that an American who forgoes having a child would save a staggering 9,441 tonnes of CO2 - six times the amount of CO2 they would emit in their own lifetime. According to comments on the report in The Guardian newspaper, if the same American drove a more fuel-efficient car, drastically reduced their driving, installed energy-efficient windows, used energy-efficient lightbulbs, replaced a household refrigerator, and recycled all household paper, glass and metal, he or she would save fewer than 500 tonnes.

While a UK resident's carbon footprint is currently only half that of his American counterpart, the figures are still astonishing.

Personally, I'm not an advocate of population controls. Being childless, I have no parental urge to save the planet for my little ones, and I'll be out of here in a few years time anyway (maybe sooner). I believe saving and protecting the resources of this earth is important but I do object to being lectured on my own carbon footprint by parents with multiple kids.

What I do find mildly amusing in this is that the mother in the 'Chelsea tractor' is roundly criticised for using such a gas-guzzling piece of machinery for ferrying her children to and from school.

What the critics fail to recognise is that the CO2 emissions created by her 4x4 pale into insignificance when compared to the carbon footprint she bears for needing to carry out the school run in the first place.