I'm not meaning to industry, but to people!
Here's a great example of how our welfare states themselves are the
greatest contributor to the carbon footprint:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2741085/Mum-of-13-I-wont-
stop-until-Ive-had-twins.html
Here's an unmarried "mum" who's on kid 13, and says she's going to
keep going at least until she achieves her dream of having twins.
And why shouldn't she? It's all made possible by a social services
net that pays all her hospital bills and at this point rewards her
around $83,000/year for having so many kids, and will continue to do
so.
I thought hard about writing this particular blog entry, because it is certain to draw the ire of those in the general public who believe that any kind of family planning goes against nature and certain religious strictures.
But there is a very real link between climate change and the number of people on this planet, which is the view put forth by a newly published report from the United Nations Population Fund (UNPF) called “The State of World Population 2009.”
The thrust of the report is twofold:
- First, that women in emerging nations bear the brunt of the negative effects of climate change, such as drought, fierce hurricanes or floods. That’s because they rely mainly on agricultural activities to make their living, and because many live in regions susceptible to floods or rising seas and storms.
- And, second, women who have access to education and more economic opportunities tend to have smaller families. This tends to have a beneficial impact on the climate, according to the report, as it contributes to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions over the long term.
I am not an anthropologist, nor do I have an answer to the question posed in my headline. But as your business looks for additional ways in which to positively effect the environment, it seems logical that you research the role of women’s education in the communities where your company could have an impact.
Soils hold more carbon than vegetation and atmosphere combined. And soils are depleted. Regenerating soils reduces atmospheric carbon, and can lead to food and water security. Fire plagued Australians are, out of necessity, leading the way on this one. Five, ten, or more tons of CO2 per acre per year turned into topsoil. Multiply by 12 billion acres. Let me know if you need help with the math 
