Melbourne has recently seen a number of protest events linked to the Extinction Rebellion. At the same time, the pro-life lobby were conducting their annual protest against the Victorian Government’s Abortion Law.
It’s quite ironic to see some people advocating for a response to climate change, while others are effectively campaigning for population growth. Yet we also understand that the current global rate of population growth is probably unsustainable; and increased human activity is a major contributing factor to greenhouse gases.
An article from a couple of years ago suggested that having fewer children and living car free were two of the most effective individual choices we can make to reducing our carbon footprint. Of course, some argued that such individual choices were “nonsense”, and would likely undermine the effort for political action on climate change.
For myself, I don’t have children (and don’t plan to), and I don’t own a car (although I sometimes use ride share services). I don’t have an exclusively plant-based diet, although I tend to eat less meat than I used to (side note – if we were meant to be vegan, why do honey and yoghurt taste so good, especially together?). I do travel overseas fairly regularly, but if household water and energy consumption is anything to go by, I think I am well below average.
I don’t think that making appropriate and voluntary individual choices to reduce our carbon footprint negates the responsibility of governments to implement collective change. Nor should individual decisions be seen to be undermining political action on abating the effects of global warming. But policy makers and climate activists alike should recognise and acknowledge that some people are willing (and yes, in some cases, able) to make individual choices that contribute to reducing greenhouse gases.
As for the pro-life lobby, I wonder what they made of the film “Capernaum”? In it, a child sues his parents for the “crime” of giving him life. What astonishes him is their general neglect and disregard (bordering on abuse) for him and his siblings. He can’t understand why any responsible adult would willingly and knowingly expose their children to the life they lead. There is an implication that the parents see their offspring as economic bargaining chips, and of course, there are religious, societal and cultural “norms” that underpin many of the parents’ decisions. With so many unwanted and unloved children brought into the world, and sometimes to parents who may end up mistreating them or worse, I guess the thing that frustrates me with the pro-lifers is their apparent unwillingness to accept that not everyone is fit or able to be parents. We need a license to get married or drive a car, but we don’t need a license to procreate…. Equally, not everyone chooses to be parents, and therefore pro-choice is not so much about the right to “murder” unborn children, it’s about the right to plan our lives and to ensure we are able to meet our personal obligations.
Next week: Notes from Auckland