From today’s Globe and Mail:
Contraception is a cheaper means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies, The Daily Telegraph reports, according to research by the London School of Economics. “Every £4 [$7] spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global carbon-dioxide emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 [$34] would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, according to researchers. The report, Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concluded that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.”
Just wondering: How do they estimate that number of unintended pregnancies? Do they go around asking pregnant women how they feel about things? Do they just pick a number at random?
_________________________
Tanya’s mind reels: What about the greenhouse gasses emitted during the production of these “family planning” methods? Oh, and the effects of their subsequent “disposal.” Did you know that 100% natural latex is completely biodegradable? But that nearly all condoms are not made of 100% natural latex, but contain synthetics? Furthermore, one of the main causes of yeast infections among women is condom and/or spermicide use. Clotrimazole, which is the leading treatment for yeast infections, is associated with major environmental risks. Oh, I could go on and on…
by 
“How do they estimate that number of unintended pregnancies? Do they go around asking pregnant women how they feel about things?”
I imagine so. Send someone to talk to lots of pregnant women, ask if they were deliberatly attempting to get pregnant. This is about unintended pregnancy, not unwanted pregnancy – the former is much easier to define and to ask questions regarding.
And what about the estrogen being dumped into the water system, they know this is estrogen artificially made and it is coming from the urine of women on the pill. It is changing the ecology of the water systems, and scientists have produced studies on fish that are changing their sex organs. More female fish, less male and a third fish that seems to be a combination of both male and female.
What is the cost of that to the environment? When David Susuki was asked about that, he declined to comment. I don’t understand why the environmentalists don’t get upset about the pollution of birth control, oh wait, they have to use it themselves. Can’t speak about it because everyone is dependent upon it – hedonism requires it.
I leave the concerns about hormones to the scientists who study them. As far as I am aware they pose no significent threat to human health. At worst, bad for fish.
But surely hormones in the water systems affect us all eventually. Water is the most recycled element in the world, turning into rain, watering crops, feeding animals, and eventually back to us. Of course estrogen dumped into rivers is going to affect the health of everyone.
Tanya @ Suricou Raven: Reminds me of a quote by Belgian poet Maurice Maeterlinck. “They believe that nothing will happen because they have closed their doors.”
Rain is effectivly distillation – it’ll clean all the estrogen out easily, along with all other pollutants. This doesn’t mean it isn’t a potential problem – merely that it’s only a potential problem for the people living downstream.
I did a little googling… It’s a bit tricky to find reliable sources, it’s mostly all either socially conservative publications with an axe to grind against contraception for political reasons or those neo-hippy natural gaia-worshipers I hate so much who would (and have) sign a petition to ban water if told it was a pollutant. Neither of which I would trust. This is something beyond my level of familiarity with the field. I’ve found a few real scientific studies that show estrogen or estrogen-like chemicals in water will really screw up fish populations, but nothing except dodgy anecdotes about real-world effects.