Tag Archives: consumerism

Why Abortion Isn’t Green

A friend once asked me, “Why are you an environmentalist?” In essence, he was asking me why I cared so much. Of all the issues to be passionate about in life, why the environment?

I wasn’t sure how to answer him at first. I could have replied with any one of a hundred reasons. I thought about mentioning global warming, or cancer villages, or rainforest deforestation, or even oil spills. I had so many reasons that it felt impossible to answer the question with a single sentence.

But eventually, I decided to keep it simple. I told him that I was an environmentalist because I cared about protecting people.

In the end, I wasn’t an environmentalist because I cared that much about nature in itself. Preserving the earth’s ecosystems as its own end goal isn’t worth getting passionate about — but protecting people is.

Unfortunately, many environmentalists don’t share the same motivation. In their zeal to protect our planet’s beautiful ecosystems, they have forgotten the humane motivations behind their work. Instead of protecting people, they advocate that we kill them instead — in the form of abortion — to lower our environmental footprint (1).

They think that by having more children, we will only place greater pressure on the earth’s ecosystems. If we could only limit the birth rate, there would be fewer people alive to pollute, which would lower overall greenhouse gas emissions. Any method of population control, including killing the unborn, is a noble cause for the sake of the environment.

The Bible speaks so clearly against abortion that it leaves no room for debate. Even when a fetus is still in his mother’s womb, God considers him to be a human. As it says in one poem:

For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. (Psalm 139:13-15)

From the moment of conception, we human beings bear the likeness of God’s image. Human life has sanctity — no one is allowed to arbitrarily take life away. As it says in the Bible: You shall not murder (Exodus 20:13). Terminating the life of another human, no matter how young or how small, regardless of the noble environmental intentions, is still murder.


The irony with abortion is that it doesn’t really solve any environmental crisis. In fact, we have many reasons to suspect that more abortions will simply increase our net environmental footprint.

The underlying root cause of environmental crises is overconsumption, not overpopulation. In the past, hundreds of millions of people inhabited planet earth without causing any of the environmental crises we face today. There were no problems with carbon emissions, landfills, e-waste, smog, or shrinking oil reserves. So clearly, these problems aren’t caused by overpopulation alone. It takes a short-sighted, modernized, Western culture to produce such catastrophes on a global scale.

A country’s population actually has very little to do with its levels of pollution. That’s because not all people pollute equally. The amount of pollution a person generates is roughly proportional to his wealth, since money represents control over natural resources. 80% of the world’s global income is controlled by the hands of 20% of the earth’s population. These wealthy 20%, located mostly in Western countries, are responsible for the vast majority of oil consumption, e-waste, and global warming. The remaining 80% of mankind survive on less than $10 each day; they are simply too poor to do much harm.

Ironically, it’s precisely those countries with low birth rates that are causing the most environmental damage. These nations tend to be wealthier and have stronger consumer cultures. Think of it like this: A single wealthy suburban American can produce more pollution than a hundred African slum-dwellers combined. The American lives in a McMansion, drives an SUV, takes cruise trips to Europe, eats fast food, and buys tablet computers. Slum-dwellers can’t really afford to do much besides buy food and water. And even when it comes down to basic essentials like water, we somehow manage to waste more per person as Americans than the rest of the world.

Fertility rate by country. Notice that the women in the Southern Hemisphere have lots of kids (3+ children per family) whereas women in the modern, Westernized nations in the Northern Hemisphere have far fewer children.


Carbon dioxide emissions per person per country. Notice that the most of our carbon emissions is coming from Western nations in the Northern Hemisphere.


Average daily water use per person by country. The average American uses around 10-30 times as much water as the average person from the Third World.

Encouraging a Westernized, child-free lifestyle, along with abortion, will probably make environmental crises worse. This is because families with children tend to pollute less per person than families without children. If a married couple has ten kids, they will be forced to spend most of their income on basic essentials like shelter, food, and clothing. Even if they wanted to pollute, they wouldn’t be able to afford to — they have too many mouths to feed. However, a married couple with dual-income and no kids will have plenty of extra cash. They’re more likely to buy sports car, SUVs, mansions with private swimming pools, round-the-world plane tickets, cruise vacations, and wide-screen TVs.

Clearly, what matters is not the absolute number of people on the planet, but our per person rate of pollution. This rate is determined by how much a society is influenced by our Western, consumer culture.

Sadly, most policymakers still think that murder by the millions is the appropriate solution. They’re even trying to export this atrocity to the developing world. Yet at the same time that we advocate abortion, we’re also advocating the American Dream.

We have seen this policy fail before. Since the 1970s, China has followed a one-child policy, which fines families for having two or more children. As expected, China’s population growth is slowing. However, its carbon footprint is growing exponentially. Within a few decades, it may even surpass the USA!

This child-free, consumer culture may also catch on in India. Yes, abortion would result in fewer people, but expect the total pollution to skyrocket. If more Indians start driving cars, eating fast food, and buying consumer electronics, pollution will rise even as the population remains stagnant.


Ultimately, there are two ways to view our planet earth:

On one hand, there are those believe that earth’s resources are scarce. Life is nothing more than an endless competition for limited natural resources like food, water, land, and oil. To survive, it is necessary to steal, attack, and kill. Unborn children aren’t human beings — they’re just competitors. So the less children we have, the greater our own share. Ultimately, this belief is either fueled by ignorance or by sheer greed.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that the earth has plenty. If society would only plan for sustainable development, there would be enough to share. Wise stewardship, not competition, would be the solution to our present environmental crises. If we only gave up consumerism, it would be possible to house, feed, and clothe all of earth’s billions of people.

There’s no false dilemma between caring for the environment and caring for humanity. They are one and the same. After all, that’s why I’m a Greenimalist — so that our future children can enjoy the earth for decades to come.

  1. Abortion is murder, plain and simple. However, most environmentalists are willing to consider it. Grist, for example, consistently advocates this atrocity. These environmentalists forget that the reason we protect the environment is to protect people, which include the unborn.
  2. Photo credits: tonrulkens, CC BY-SA. PlatypeanArchcow, public domain. Dbachmann, CC BY-SA. Date 360, United Nations Human Development Report 2006.

Our Future Water Crises

In the past few years, we’ve made great strides in energy-efficiency. With climate change entering the mainstream, people are starting to drive less, carpool more, and take out their old bicycles. It has helped us to save money, spur our economy, protect our forests, and reduce our dependence on oil.

Despite our progress in energy-efficiency, this is no time to rest on our laurels. It’s actually a cause for great concern. Subtly but surely, sustainable living is being reduced to nothing more than the single issue of reducing carbon emissions. Our society talks about carbon dioxide as if greenhouse gas management is all that there is to caring for the earth. Environmental protection, however, means so much more than not burning gasoline.

One vital issue that has been sorely neglected is water conservation. Very few people realize that water, much like gasoline, is a scarce resource that’s being depleted at unprecedented rates. In fact, water production may someday peak, just as oil will. As of today, the world has managed to increase water production to temporarily meet rising demands. In the future, however, water supply may hit an apex and then slowly decline. The world has already seen how declining oil reserves can hurt economies and increase political instability. But the situation will be far worse with water, since without this essential resource, drought and famine can devastate entire civilizations.

The situation already looks dire. In America, about one quarter of all irrigated land relies on the Ogalla aquifer. The precious groundwater from this aquifer is vital to agriculture in the Midwest: we use it to raise livestock and grow wheat, corn, and soybeans. In the last two decades, groundwater levels have declined at alarming rates, with the water table declining by over 30 feet in some areas. New wells must be drilled ever deeper to extract groundwater that is quickly running out.

Water shortage is a looming crisis for the rest of the world, too. Even though India is not a dry country, it struggles to supply enough water for drinking and agriculture for its population of over one billion. In more arid regions, prolonged drought can force communities to ration water. In the last few years, Australia has been forced to undergo strict water rationing to avoid permanently damaging the Murray-Darling basin. Farms in this region have been forced to shut down, and local communities have even been forced to limit showering in efforts to conserve water.

Global water crises are only getting worse. Consumer culture is putting an ever greater strain on the earth’s limited supply by increasing unnecessary industrial use of water. Global warming also threatens to change rainfall patterns, which will make the water situation more unstable. If climate change occurs, moist areas are likely to experience heavier rainfall, which will lead to flash floods. Dry areas, however, are prone to becoming even drier, which may lead to deserts.

As water supplies continue to shrink, less water will be available for agriculture. This food scarcity will result in a prolonged spike in food prices. This could be catastrophic for the poor, who spend much of their income on food alone. Climate change, combined with underground water depletion, could devastate our agriculture and harm our economy. Unfortunately, water shortage is an urgent environmental crisis that the public is failing to grasp.

To appreciate the importance of water, it helps to understand the water cycle. It all begins when the sun heats saltwater from the ocean. As water evaporates, it forms water vapor which can condense to form clouds. If these clouds move over land, water droplets can precipitate as rain, which can fall on vegetation or the bare ground. Rain that hits vegetation provides the water for photosynthesis, a biological reaction that helps plants grow. Water that hits bare ground can run-off the surface to pool in larger bodies of water, which helps forms streams and rivers.

Much of the water that falls on the ground surface will evaporate once again to reform water vapor. However, some of the rain water can also infiltrate into the soil, where it can collect as groundwater. In the diagram, the water table is the surface at which all sediment beneath it is completely filled with water. The height of the water table can increase or decrease, depending on factors like the rate of rainfall. Groundwater doesn’t always stay underground permanently. It can naturally resurface at lower elevations to form springs on the surface, or it can be extracted by man-made wells.

All of these processes — evaporation, condensation, precipitation, and infiltration — are occurring constantly to form the water cycle.

Although the earth has plenty of water, most of it is not fit to drink (the water is not potable). Most of the earth’s water is saltwater, which cannot be used unless it is desalinated by expensive, energy-intensive processes. Less than 3% of the earth’s remaining water is freshwater, but unfortunately, even these sources are often undrinkable. Most freshwater is frozen in glaciers; of the remaining freshwater, much of it has been tainted by pollution. In the past, rivers were often contaminated with biological pollution including human feces, which transmitted disease such as typhoid and cholera. Today, however, modern pollutants involve chemicals like mercury, lead, and pesticides. Pollution can make it difficult, if not impossible, to safely purify water for drinking.

There are many methods to collect water. One method is to catch rain as it falls. Using rain catchment systems (1), it’s possible to store rain for drinking during dry seasons. In the same fashion, farmland in moist areas might rely entirely on rain instead of using irrigation to grow their crops.

Besides rainfall, we also turn to rivers and springs for water. Unfortunately, a civilization’s demand for water usually exceeds what’s available on the surface. That’s because people are generally terrible at conservation. Besides satisfying our basic needs for food, drink, and hygiene, we like to indulge in water-intensive luxuries. Modern man enjoys living in deserts, wasting food, watering lawns, taking long baths, and owning private swimming pools. Given our insatiable appetite, surface water just won’t cut it.

To deal with this water shortage, we often build underground wells that tap into the ground water. There is about sixty times more groundwater than there is surface water, so in the short run, this vastly improves our supply. Our wells extract water from underground aquifers, which have collected infiltrated rainwater through the centuries. Because these wells pull from a large reservoir, they can supply far more water than is normally replenished through rainfall.

But cheap water is a mixed blessing. Whenever a scarce resource appears to be virtually unlimited, we tend to waste it with devastating consequences. In only a few years, it’s possible to squander groundwater that took centuries to deposit. Usually this groundwater is not allowed to replenish naturally, which results in shrinking reservoirs each year. This can result in the formation of deserts and massive water shortages in the future.

This environmental catastrophe can lead to human catastrophes like economic collapse and even water wars. What makes these crises so tragic is that they’re mostly preventable. Our planet has plenty of water for all if we chose to build a culture centered around sustainable development.

We must act conserve and we must start now. Time, along with our water supply, is quickly running out.


  1. Here’s a video of a simple, off-grid rainwater barrel that’s worth checking out. Collecting rainwater is a great idea, mostly because it helps the average homeowner to appreciate the scarcity of water.
  2. Photo credit in order: Schilling 2, CC BY-NC-ND. Kbh3rd, CC BY-SA.
    United States Geological Survey, public domain.
    US Geological Survey, slight modification to make words look clearer.
    National Department of Agriculture Rural Inforeach, PDF file.

Sustainable Means Cheap

A solar cooker is sustainable because it requires no electricity to run. You can build one for about a dollar.

Green living can never catch on if people can’t afford it. Sustainable living, then, isn’t just about taking care of the earth; it must also be sustainable financially. It would be great news, then, if living sustainably could save us money. What better incentive could there be to care for the earth?

Logically, it makes sense why green living ought to be cheap. Money is a store of value, and part of that value includes natural resources like water, wood, metal, and oil. The more money we spend on shopping, the more resources are used to produce our products. All other things being equal, conserving money should result in conserving our limited natural resources, which in turn lowers our environmental impact.

But by now, we’re all too familiar with sustainable products that cost double or triple of what their conventional counterparts cost. Our logical analysis doesn’t seem to match at all with reality. If money is truly linked to resource use, why is sustainable living so expensive?

The truth is that sustainable solutions truly are cheap — so cheap, in fact, that they’re often not worth selling. Real green solutions are often completely free of cost, requiring only a little cleverness and some elbow grease. But because a lifestyle can’t be sold as a physical, tangible product, businesses can’t make profits selling it. As a result, we don’t see green solutions sold on warehouse shelves like conventional products would be. So lifestyle solutions are rarely advertised, which mean that, tragically, they go totally unnoticed.

What gets advertised instead are the imitations. These greenwashed products are similar enough to their conventional counterparts, but tweaked slightly so that advertisers can call them sustainable. A greenwashed product will use a little recycled paper here, avoid a few chemicals there, but otherwise remains essentially the same. It still wastes energy, produces garbage, and destroys natural resources. Yet because these imitators don’t require any real lifestyle change, they are profitable enough to sell.

The prices in this table are ballpark estimates. Notice how the sustainable alternative is often practically free.
Conventional Greenwashed Sustainable
Conventional electricity ($0.15/kWh) Solar electricity ($0.35/kWh) No electricity (free)
Tissue paper ($1/box) Recycled tissue paper ($2/box) Reusable hand towels (free)
Toilet paper ($0.50/roll) Recycled toilet paper ($1/roll) Bidet water (free)
Bottled water (soda) ($1/bottle) Recycled plastic (aluminum) bottled water (soda) ($1/bottle) Water fountain (free)
Disposable diapers Biodegradable diapers Reusable, cloth diapers
Cotton t-shirt ($10) Organic cotton t-shirt ($20) Second-hand t-shirt ($5)
Stove Energy-efficient stove Solar cooker ($1.50 to build, free to operate)
New hardcover/paperback book ($20) Paperless e-reader ($200) / e-book download ($20) Library book (free)
New car ($15,000) New electric car ($40,000) Used bicycle ($150) / Bus passes ($600)

A serious flaw with greenwashed products is that they are expensive, often double or triple the price of their conventional counterparts. Consumers then find themselves facing a false dilemma: pay extra, or walk out the store feeling guilty.

Why do we keep falling for the same old deceptive marketing?

From a young age, we’ve been trained to think of ourselves as consumers. Out of instinct, we view everything in life as a commercial transaction. Eventually, we become dependent on shopping to solve all of life’s problems. If it’s not shrink-wrapped in plastic and sold in a big box chain store, we don’t even consider it.

  • If I want to work-out, I’ll buy a new treadmill instead of jogging in the park.
  • If I want to read, I’ll buy a book instead of borrowing one from the library.
  • If I want some entertainment, I’ll buy a new game console and some DVDs instead of playing sports.
  • If I’m thirsty, I’ll buy soda from a vending machine instead of using a water fountain.
  • If I need to sneeze, I’ll buy tissue paper instead of reusing a cloth handkerchief.

Our gut reaction is to throw money at every problem in life. So it’s no surprise that we approach the issue of green living with the exact same consumer mentality: buy a solution from the store. We want to be able to walk into the mall, waste our money, and walk out with a shiny new trinket in a bubble-wrapped, styrofoam-packed, cardboard box. It’s reaffirming to our Western way-of-life.

The consumer lifestyle will never be cheap, nor can it ever be truly sustainable. To be truly green, we have to step outside of consumer culture. Instead of purchasing new, we should be reusing and improvising. When we shop less, we spend less money and waste fewer resources. Not only will this lifestyle be gentler on the planet, it will be gentler on the wallet. It’s sustainable in every sense of the word.


  1. Photo by EBKauai, CC BY.