Australia should introduce a baby tax 'to save the planet'

[Honey]

Every newborn baby in Australia represents a source of greenhouse gas emissions, says professor Barry Walters


Australia should set a lifelong baby tax on parents with more than two children to offset the carbon dioxide emissions produced by their additional offspring, a medical expert said.


Parents should have to pay a 5,000 Australian dollars (£2,155) levy for each child after their first two, according to Barry Walters, an obstetrics professor with the government-funded University of Western Australia.
Walters said there should also be an annual tax of up to $800 (£345) to plant enough trees to offset the emissions generated over each child's lifetime
In a letter to the editor of the Medical Journal of Australia, he recommended that citizens who use contraceptives or undergo sterilization should be entitled to reduce their annual income tax using carbon credits.
"Greenhouse gases constitute the largest source of pollution, with by far the greatest contribution from humans in the developed world," Walters wrote.
"Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing, but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society."
In a supporting letter, Garry Egger, the director of the New South Wales state Center for Health Promotion and Research, said population control "remains crucial" to preserving the environment.
He called on doctors to counsel their patients on the ecological consequences of their family planning decisions.
Critics, including the Australian Family Association, dismissed the recommendation, saying that multi-child households use less energy per person than smaller households. Far from penalizing large families, the government currently awards a $4,000 (£1,724) "baby bonus" to the parents of each child born in Australia, part of a plan to reverse falling birthrates.

Australia should introduce a baby tax 'to save the planet' | the Daily Mail

[A*O]

Oh purleeze. All the tree hugging loonies are on the warpath here now that our new Prime Minister has signed up to the Kyoto Protocol. He's currently in Bali along with several other ministers and other hangers on at a climate change summit trying to look concerned. How much greenhouse gas did your first class air travel produce then eh?

[sputnik]

people should be automatically sterilised after their 2nd child.


















j/k
but i do think something has to be done about people that breed willy nilly and don't have the means to look after their spawn.

[crumpet]

It seems contradictory to get a birth bonus and then to be taxed on the baby. Am I missing something? I thought Aussies were being given some $$$$incentive for having a kid?

[Tati]

Originally Posted by crumpet

It seems contradictory to get a birth bonus and then to be taxed on the baby. Am I missing something? I thought Aussies were being given some $$$$incentive for having a kid?

Ditto ditto ditto. Does not compute. How 'bout just do away with the damn baby bonus?

[Dixie Normos]

Won't work. They imposed the 1 kid only rule in China, now the poor parents dump the baby girls in trash cans and orphanages, the middle class abort their fetuses, and the rich ones immigrate to Vancouver.

[A*O]

Yes, there is a Baby Bonus here which the Govt hoped would boost the Aussie birth rate which, believe it or not, is falling. So lots of 16yr olds thought it would be cool to get a couple of grand from the Govt, got knocked up, went on welfare and spent the Baby Bonus money on XBoxes and plasma TVs for their boyfriends. Genius.

[twitchy]

His letter in full for anyone who's interested:
Personal carbon trading: a potential “stealth intervention” for obesity reduction?
Barry N J Walters

MJA 2007; 187 (11/12): 668

To the Editor: Egger makes novel and valid points in his portrayal of individual human effort as a potential contributor to offsetting greenhouse gas emissions by personal carbon trading.1 Of course, there is an even more potent strategy humans should adopt to modify climate change through their own activities — population control.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gases constitute the largest source of pollution, with by far the greatest contribution from humans in the developed world. Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing, but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society.

What then should we do as environmentally responsible medical practitioners? We should point out the consequences to all who fail to see them, including, if necessary, the ministers for health. Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and thereby rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a “Baby Levy” in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the “polluter pays” principle.2 Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children (Sustainable Population Australia suggests a maximum of two3) should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being. The average annual CO2 emission by an Australian individual is about 17 metric tons,4 including energy usage. As the biomass of trees in a mature forest sequesters about 6 metric tons of CO2 per hectare (104 m2) per year,4,5 each child born should be offset by planting 4 hectares of trees, to allow for the time they take to reach maturity, and attrition through crop losses, bushfires, dieback and so on. This infers a levy per child of at least $5000 at birth (to purchase the land needed and plant trees) and an annual tax of $400–$800 thereafter for the life of the child (for maintenance of the afforestation project) (based on 1990 figures,4 and probably much more now).

By the same reasoning, contraceptives, intrauterine devices, diaphragms, condoms and sterilisation procedures should attract carbon credits for the user and the prescriber that would offset their income taxes, and lead to rewards for family planning clinics and hospitals that provide such greenhouse-friendly services.

As David Attenborough said:
. . . instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, we should control the population to ensure the survival of the environment.6

As doctors, I believe we need to think this way. Our responsibility extends further than the patient on the other side of the desk. As Australians, I believe we need to be less arrogant. As citizens of this world, I believe we deserve no more population concessions than those in India and China.


Barry N J Walters, Clinical Associate Professor of Obstetric MedicineDepartment of Women’s and Infants’ Health, University of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, WA.
barry.waltersAThealth.wa.gov.au

1. Egger G. Personal carbon trading: a potential “stealth intervention” for obesity reduction. Med J Aust 2007; 187: 185-187. <eMJA full text>
2. Chisholm A. Carbon taxation: an evaluation of options and outcomes. Australian Government Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Mar 1996. Taxation and the Environment - Carbon Taxation: an evaluation of options and outcomes (accessed Oct 2007).
3. Sustainable Population Australia. How can you lower the birth rate? SPA :: Help lower the birth rate (accessed Oct 2007).
4. Cline WR. The economics of global warming. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics, 1992: 221-222.
5. Ward P. Cool Antarctica. Carbon offsetting — tree planting. http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica% 20fact%20file/science/carbon_offsetting_tree_planting.htm (accessed Oct 2007).
6. Attenborough D. The life of mammals [television broadcast]. BBC television, 2002. Quoted by: Attenborough D. Letter to Professor John Guillebaud. The environment time capsule. David Attenborough Letter (accessed Nov 2007).

eMJA: Personal carbon trading: a potential &ldquo;stealth intervention&rdquo; for obesity reduction?