Voluntary family planning to minimise and mitigate climate change

Recent developments have made female permanent contraception an increasingly attractive option, and pregnant women in particular ought to be counselled about it

“…It has become apparent that fossil energy consumption needs to be limited, and that land and water for food and fuel production are finite and climate change will ― and probably is already ― affect food security [ 11 , 77 – 79 ]. Therefore, sustainable, equitable global development ― including a catch-up operation for those left far behind ― seems even more unrealistic if unintended pregnancies ― 85 million annually, of which around 42 million (other studies find different numbers, e.g.…”

“…The immigration/refugees upheavals are much less abstract for many voters than climate change. Klein is also dismissing, against evidence to the contrary, the estimated 225 million women in the developing world, and those not well quantified in well-resourced circumstances, who want to avoid pregnancy and are not using a modern method of contraception [ 1 , 3 – 11 , 80 , 82 ], as a factor that needs urgent addressing. For example, a study from Oregon University claims that, in well-resourced circumstances, the lifelong climate-stabilizing efforts (vegetarianism, use of local products, (re)cycling, good isolation, electric cars, solarpanels, windmills, no air miles, etc.)…”

“…Klein’s position is possibly an attempt not to antagonise the Vatican, a powerful climate ally. It is estimated that the Catholic Church operates more than 5300 hospitals worldwide [ 89 ], representing both an enormous amount of alleviated suffering, and unnecessary misery on the individual and collective level by undermining modern contraception and sex education via all possible platforms [ 11 , 90 , 91 ]. A recent example, women in some regions in Latin America were told by health officials to postpone pregnancy because of Zika, and regional religious officials told them, not publicly contradicted by the Vatican, not to use modern contraception and have, regarding the poor, often the influence to make them.…”

“…It seems, for example, elementary to try leaving Nigeria (and/or to have an offshore nest egg) if the population will indeed increase from 182 million in 2015 to, medium variant, 752 million in 2100 while oil income will probably evaporate even more and while there are already many very poor, malnourished and hungry Nigerians [ 94 , 95 ]. The above population projections could easily be underestimates because use of modern contraception has not increased in the period 2008–2013 in Middle and West Africa while the above projections assume decreasing fertility rates [ 11 , 49 ]. Conversely, the associated future increased mortality might cause overestimation.…”

“…this is probably a much more effective contribution than exchanging a SUV for a Prius. One could argue there is a moral imperative for the above fruit harvesting because “Medical science bears much responsibility ― albeit without intent ― for the population “explosion” of the past 200 years” [ 11 ]. Many a misery prevention opportunity, including providing the option of PC in case of CS or vaginal delivery, is missed [ 5 , 14 , 18 , 90 ].…”