Here's a challenging 'new' accronym that is sure to get the hackles rising and the tongues a wagging – the GINK – green inclinations, no kids.

The article I stumbled upon on Grist got me thinking. I was delighted actually. You see, we've had 'only' one child. I say 'only' as whoever we interact with (usually parents and grandparents) rather tactlessly refer to our decision as 'just' the one, or 'only' one, as if we've suffered a loss and the 'other' is missing.

Or as if we're unfortunate in some way – we usually get the dead sympathetic look that implies that we must have gone wrong somewhere, or couldn't manage another. I've even had someone suggest I try hormone cream!

I can believe that those who've chosen to have none at all go through much the same thing – 'so when are you having children', 'do I hear the sound of pattering feet' – yadda yadda.

As a GINK you can make a statement. Well, we can't. Not really. We've had one. But we've chosen not to have more for very much the same reasons that GINKs decide to have none at all – more time for ourselves and each other, more money to do the things we want to do, the ease of spontaneity (alright, not quite yet, maybe in another 5 years' time), time to read and sleep over weekends (at the moment we vie for this luxury), a clean floor devoid of crumbs...

But there are also green reasons for not having a child, and the article on Grist sums them up rather succinctly:

We're on track to hit a global population of 7 billion people next year or the year after.  We've spewed enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to push it past the safe point, which many climate scientists agree is 350 parts carbon dioxide per million; we're already at about 390 and rising fast.  And Americans are among the most carbon-intensive people on earth.  The average American generates about 66 times more CO2 each year than the average Bangladeshi—20 tons versus 0.3 tons. (don't ignore this stat because you're SA, the average middle class SA is probably in this league)

A person who cares about preserving a livable environment has lots of options for doing her bit, and you've heard all about them: live in an energy-efficient home in a walkable neighborhood; bike or walk or take public transit when possible; drive an efficient car if you drive one at all; fly less; go veg; buy organic and local; limit purchases of consumer goods; switch to CFLs or LEDs; slay your vampires; offset carbon emissions; vote for climate-concerned candidates, and hold them accountable for their campaign promises.

But even in aggregate, all of these moves don't come close to the impact of not bringing new human beings—particularly new Americans—into the world. 

Here's a simple truth:  For an average person like me—someone who doesn't have the ability of an Al Gore to reach millions, or of a Nancy Pelosi to advance (if not actually enact) landmark environmental legislation, or of a Van Jones to inspire (and piss off) whole new audiences—the single most meaningful contribution I can make to a cleaner, greener world is to not have children.

Without doubt this article, and the one on Grist, is going to raise a number of contentious issues (and eyebrows). It is also going to make parents out there rather indignant.

But actually this article isn't aimed at parents. It isn't a criticism levelled at those who have decided to have children. Rather it's for those who don't want to have children, and feel socially ostracised for their decision.

Read the whole article on Grist, before deciding to tackle the thorny issue.

pic: www.theawl.com