Big Families HELP the Environment

This is a gem of an article. We’ve been feeling this stuff for years. Read the complete article, but here are some nuggets…

Isn’t it true that we “lotsas” are using more than our share of natural resources, burning more than our share of carbon, and just plain taking up too much space? Probably not.
Many large families actually have a smaller carbon footprint than a typical family with one or two kids.
It’s not the numbers that count; it’s the lifestyle.
Two or three kids fit in a bathtub at a time. The oven stays on 350 degrees for 45 minutes, no matter how big the meatloaf.
Most large families I know don’t live in energy-hogging gigantic mansions.
We happily trade a second income for another armful of babies. The quick and easy methods of saving the environment that make the news daily are hardly news to cash-strapped families.
Children of families that are open to life also know something much more important, something that rabidly utilitarian environmentalists still don’t seem to realize: A human soul is more than the sum of how many kilowatts he consumes.
Grown children of large families tend to be what you might call natural conservationists…A small crowd of perfect environmentalists.
Love your children, and teach them to love each other; and if you and your brood feel like a sign of contradiction, then that’s a good sign.
There is no contradiction between loving and caring for the earth and supplying it with inhabitants: We are commanded to do both.

Can you think of more? Add to the list below…I’d love to hear how we are helping the environment by having more children.

Debbie

What about the foods we buy? We buy foods in bulk, much less processed ,less packaging,buy from second hand stores often. All lower carbon imprint then those who buy all new items,all packaged fast foods, lots of junk including all the cases of soda you see under most everyone’s cart. We spend our money more wisely.
http://path31.blogspot.com Jenn

a 12 passenger van MPG (13) times the 12 passengers=195

While a prius MPG (36) times the 1 passenger=36
Sarah M. in MI

LOVE IT! I KNOW we use less of everything then the wealthy famous people who try to guilt us into being green, but have big houses and private jets.
Thanks for posting!
Sandie

Our furnace heats our house and 11 people, for the same price as it would if the same house was inhabited by only 2 people.
When we turn our lights on, 11 people enjoy the benefits.
We always run full loads in our dishwasher and washing machine.
We stay home more than families with only 1-2 kids.
http://jent-manyblessings.blogspot.com JenT

Larger families tend to stay home more, so less exhaust in the ozone. A lot of larger families have gardens and/or fruit trees and bushes; less grocery shopping – more self-sufficient. Plus growing more plants to help the carbon dioxide-oxygen exchange. Can’t think of any more right now, but might be back if I do.
mollie

My son is doing a report on articles about going green. We are going to use this one… I wonder what his liberal/worldly teachers will think about this!
http://www.jeubfamily.com Chris & Wendy

My friend John Fuller (6 children) likes to refer to MPP, or “Miles Per Person,” rather than MPG for his 12-pass van. He’s done the math and likes to brag about how environmentally superior he is to the yuppie in their Prius. 8 people at 12mpg vs. 1 person at 32mpg = 64 MORE miles per person than the hybrid. Heh.
http://itsasunnylife.blogspot.com rachel w

We live in a “redneck” area of San Diego. A local man mows his commercial property by simply changing the length and location of his goat’s leash. My husband commented that he has always felt that the lower a person’s income the more resourceful and non wasteful they are.
Joan

We recycle our clothes, shoes, other stuff and pass it from one to the next.
http://www.ronstauffer.com Ron Stauffer, Jr

This is great!

Rachel and I saw an article on Yahoo a few years ago about how families should calculate their “carbon footprint” to see how they can minimize their impact on the environment. So I took their online carbon calculator test.

The results were laughable–the “footprint” for our family of four was less than the score for most single individuals. When I took the test, we had the two of us and two babies in our two bedroom apartment and shared one car (that ran on biodiesel). Our carbon use was a fraction of their suggested average for a family our size.
http://www.ronstauffer.com Ron Stauffer, Jr

[Didn't see your question at the bottom of the post.]

Economy of scale. Larger families in the same size house as smaller families (as they often are) requires fewer homes, less energy consumption, fewer furnaces burning fossil fuels, etc. Larger families recycle clothing, toys, and other consumer goods. More people in fewer cars.

It is almost as taxing on the environment to have one child as it is two. Every child after the first will add only minimal cost and demand on the earth. Plus, statistically, every working and productive member of society over his lifetime will contribute far more to the environment more than he will ever take from it.

More people = more solutions. More Einsteins, Edisons, Pasteurs and Salks to contribute. And larger families accomplish this with fewer parents and fewer resources (per person).
danielle

You have a lot of property. Maybe you can use some of it to grow food? Check into permaculture gardening or food not lawns. The more natural you go, the less work it entails.
http://thejoyfulmother.blogspot.com/ Karen

I’m all for cutting back on pollution but it really irks me to see people talking about “carbon footprints” and global warming because it’s all a bunch of hooey. There is no such thing as global warming – it’s all money making/ population control scheme. In the 70s they told us we were heading to the next ice age and they were probably right!

There’s a very good children’s book called “The Sky’s Not Falling” about why global warming is not true.
Penny

I love Danielle’s comment! We just moved from the city to a 5-acre farm. We are raising animals for meat, eggs and milk. We are growing a 75×100 garden, enough to put up for a year. We feed scraps to the animals, we compost anything else. We can a lot of our own food, saves many packaging items from landfills. We love to stay home now. We don’t have to dress fancy. We are waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy more enviro-friendly than our previous life-style! We have 9 children.
Joanne

First, I should say that I don’t agree with all of the environmentalists on population control, global warming, etc. They clearly don’t feel that God has is in control of all this and we in some way have charge of our destiny. But one of the things that bothers me about this discussion is the part about housing. No one seems to want to mention that while one home houses all of these growing children efficiently, when grown, each will have their own house. Fifteen children will have fifteen houses (or half that if married). That’s a lot of housing. I guess the real estate market will be happy )