For too long, we have been locked in unproductive discourse on climate change. For too long, we have been debating the extent to which the men and women of this planet are responsible for turning the serene and measured Mother Nature into a meteorological Amy Winehouse.

But now comes a voice of reason. Now comes the Optimum Population Trust, a British group with the courage to confront the real menace in the fight against global warming — tiny, little babies.

That's right: babies. Don't be fooled by their soft skin and angelic demeanour: cute, adorable babies are destroying the earth!

Straight from the womb, infants are an environmental menace. Almost immediately they begin to engage in profoundly selfish and destructive behaviour, such as exhaling. Plus, the Optimum Population Trust has uncovered shocking evidence that some of these so-called "babies" eventually grow larger and go on in life to do irresponsible things like drink water or exist.

The solution? If couples have only two children instead of three, they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York, the OPT says. "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights," said the group's spokesman. In fact, researchers estimate that a person would have to live his entire life in the dark to make up for the impact of a single child — and so far only George W. Bush has demonstrated a willingness to do that.

I'm not surprised to learn of this alarming infanti-threat. I've always been wary of babies — the neediness, the mood swings, the way they eat all my Cheerios.

And now the OPT has determined that the "climate cost" of each new baby — as calculated over the course of his or her lifetime — is roughly $60,000. Contrast this with the cost of a drugstore condom, the Trust suggests. Compared to having a kid, spending a buck on birth control "represents a spectacular potential return on investment." (What's that? Condoms appreciate in value?! Think of the compound interest earned by that one I kept in my wallet through five years of high school.)

Better than raising taxes, more efficient than mandatory emission reductions — fighting global warming by halting the baby menace is "easier, quicker, cheaper, freer and greener," the Trust says. Plus it would totally bone those goddamn Wiggles. And it would bring about a whole new and exciting way for men to resist romantic commitment: I would love to impregnate you, honey, but I have too much respect for Mother Earth.

So how does the OPT plan to wage its War on Babies? By urging countries to adopt population controls, encouraging wider use of contraceptives and enlisting three stout men to ensure Brad Pitt keeps it in his pants. Also, and in all seriousness, the OPT wants governments to order their entertainment industries to use TV shows and movies to stress "the frequent sheer drudgery of motherhood" and play down "the glamorization of sex," possibly by showing Rosie O'Donnell having it.

Skeptics may point out that the Optimum Population Trust's plan to make life on earth a paradise appears to consist in its entirety of making life on earth a living hell. The group's chair was recently quoted rooting for a massive global recession and bemoaning the fact that, since way back in the good old days of worldwide conflict and chronic disease, humans have proved themselves annoyingly resilient.

"Even the great plague only caused a sort of blip on the upward movement of population," Valerie Stevens lamented to a British website. "Even the First World War, when so many were killed, didn't really stop the growth."

You have to admit it's a catchy slogan for an environmental group: The Great Plague — Soft on Humanity! Go Bird Flu!

As for now, the Optimum Population Trust is holding off on even stronger recommendations, such as enacting legislation that would outlaw having more than one child and forcing the cast of Eight is Enough be brought up on charges of crimes against humanity and, just to right a historical wrong, piss-poor acting. But the Trust remains adamant that "the decision to have children should be seen as a very big one" that's life and death for the polar ice caps.

Hmm, I don't know about that — I've always been led to believe by world leaders and Whitney Houston that children are our future. And if we don't have a lot of children, then we don't have much of a future. Plus, who'll pay for medicare to keep me hooked up to that Scarlett Johansson's Lap simulator for my last decade of life?

Print Article    Send to a Friend    Write a letter to the editor

Digg this Stumble It!   Post to del.icio.us Seed Newsvine   Share on Facebook Technorati links