From today’s Globe and Mail:
Contraception is a cheaper means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, The Daily Telegraph reports, according to research by the London School of Economics. “Every £4 [$7] spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global carbon-dioxide emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 [$34] would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, according to researchers. The report, Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concluded that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.”
Just wondering: How do they estimate that number of unintended pregnancies? Do they go around asking pregnant women how they feel about things? Do they just pick a number at random?
Tanya’s mind reels: What about the greenhouse gasses emitted during the production of these “family planning” methods? Oh, and the effects of their subsequent “disposal.” Did you know that 100% natural latex is completely biodegradable? But that nearly all condoms are not made of 100% natural latex, but contain synthetics? Furthermore, one of the main causes of yeast infections among women is condom and/or spermicide use. Clotrimazole, which is the leading treatment for yeast infections, is associated with major environmental risks. Oh, I could go on and on…by