That Third Kid Might Cost You: Proposal for Carbon Tax on Babies?

The carbon trading market is growing and one Australian academic sees kids as fair game for a carbon tax.

According to ABC News, Barry Walters, an associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia, has suggested a proposal to reduce the human ecological footprint and population growth…

a carbon tax on babies!

Dr. Walters’ proposal has been published in the Medical Journal of Australia and, although it has raised many an eyebrow, it has also refueled some interesting debates on what many consider a taboo subject.

While suggesting a limit on kids might sound a little strange at first, consider that many governments ‘encourage’ people to have children - to cover costs of caring for the aging, retired sector of the population. Australia is one of several countries that offers financial incentives for people to have kids. Having a kid in Australia and you will, at current, get a Federal Government bonus of $4,187. Next year it goes up to $5,000.

Germany has similar incentives which add up to a couple hundred dollar per month stipend. And remember “Family Contact Day”? The Russian sex day to boost births where one governor offered prizes to couples who have babies on Russia’s National Day. Family Contact Day was, of course, scheduled accordingly. Russia pays big bucks for new babies, something like $9,000 for second or third kids.

It seems that Dr. Barry’s proposal is pointing out that while these incentives may be economically advantageous, in theory anyway, they aren’t environmentally friendly. The premise of Barry’s suggestion is based on how population increase leads to more greenhouse gas emissions.

So what’s the suggested carbon cap for kids?

“Two people per couple would be a reasonable ‘tax-free’ number, because it represents ‘replacement value’”, according to proposal supporter Garry Egger, an adjunct professor of health sciences at Southern Cross University in New South Wales.

Of course, with the incentives people have a choice and with a carbon tax on kids there are some other subtle issues that aren’t as easy to address with a flat out tax.

I see the point but really don’t think it’s that simple. While population growth is a real environmental concern I have to think that there are better ways to deal with carbon footprints of individuals. After all, it’s really about more than just population numbers, it’s about consumption patterns per individual.

At least they’ll give you two freebies I guess - a carbon kid compromise.

Put Carbon Tax on Babies: academic at ABC News

*(photo AAP: Mario Borg)