As a starting point, we used a Guardian article with an arresting headline: Want to fight climate change? Unless we seriously address these questions, I cannot see any significant change or serious solution to climate change. He is passionate about protecting the planet and has called on everyone to care for creation, particularly as climate change disproportionately impacts the poor. If someone is ambivalent about doing so, I add into the decision-making the idea that having more children impacts climate change. Given the evidence that having fewer children isthe greatest decision one can make to combat climate change, do the panel think that society can switch from having a pro-reproduction stance, where policies promote reproduction and society views having children as the “correct” choice, to a neutral stance, where having children is considered optional and policies are made to promote other means of having a fulfilled life?

Source: The Guardian October 07, 2017 11:37 UTC