Would one child per couple Law for the Entire World = Reversal of Global Warming?

Answer 1

The biggest threat to the Planet is humans/people
Over Breeding ...And ignorance to other Animals...Over 6 billion savages and growing.

All people seem to do is have babies+babies+babies..
Having one is not enough with some people So they just keep pooping more babies..

ADOPTION WOULD STOP CHILD HOMELESSNESS..........if everyone would just adopt.!

Answer 2

We must all take responsibility for global warming. By raising the awareness that global warming exists and the need for conservation, we can accomplish more than by enacting laws.

Education and knowledge of the world around us would be more appropriate to every citizen, than drafting any law that would be difficult to enforce. Too often we feel a release of our responsibility by having the government create a law.

It is the government in conjunction with the educational process that needs to be addressed to confront the problems of global warming.

Answer 3

Bad plan. There are places that have lots of kids that don't much contribute to the Global warming effect because the country they live in is not an industrialized country, where as countries such as China which have limited Child Birth / family contribute more because of industrial polution. Also if you limit the population to 1 child per family then depending on the culture of the area one sex may be prefered over another which as China has shown will lead to the mass murder of infants of the "inferior" sex. In China's case this was female babies and now China is having a problem because there are WAY more men then women and they are wondering where their next generations are going to come from.

Answer 4

No, just more human rights abuses. The developed world is responsible for the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions, and has the lowest birth rate, based on this you would see an increased rate of warming, though that is far too simplistic. It also would be impossible to implement a world law of one child per couple.

Answer 5

One child per two for 100 years would be a start. The waste and consumption of Industrial Development needs looking at. Problems of technology solved by more technology - too many cars or not enough roads? Humans used to live without making much of a mark: pre Christian population levels were never going to eat all the trees, older wisdoms regulated ecological harmony better.

Answer 6

Don't think so, It's not a matter of population, the point is: How are we using the resources and how are we misusing the planet. On the contrary, Lots of well cultured\educated population may increase plants and reduce pollution and therefore; global warming shall be reduced simultaneously. It's not a matter of children (.).. it's a matter of how we get rid of chauvinism and racism.. how do we get to love each other to the extent that we abandon weapons that causes pollution.. Love.. That's the name of the game.

Answer 7

Any one child per couple rule would not necessary reduce Global warming by restricting the human output of atmosphere waste.

But it would certainly restrict the free will of billions of people and force them to live under tyranny.

Answer 8

The suns age has nothing to do with global warming...

one child per couple wouldnt solve anything, to little to late anything we do now anyway.

Answer 9

Yes eventually as the human race would die out. You would halve the population in one generation!

Answer 10

What?? Does everyone recycle? Did everyone vote last time? One child for those who can concieve...a son in every pot...Our future would be pretty bleak if this kind of thinking was contagious.