However, Paranoid Peter was making a point about such things being a waste of time if you then continue to grow the population, and therefore get back on the pollution treadmill.

It is not only the encouragement to solo mums; it is also things like the ‘working for families’ package.

This scheme takes money from one group of people, and gives it to another. For what purpose?? To encourage the latter group to focus on producing children.

It is all wrong.

If there was a ‘money tree’ growing somewhere these things would not be such a problem. However we put too much effort into shifting money from one part of the population and giving it to those who contribute to overpopulation.

How about we give the money to those who are frugal with energy instead??? (Namely me…)

It’s interesting that on the one hand there are those who say that we shouldn’t take any steps to reduce or conserve our energy consumption because what NZ does won’t make any difference (moral leadership anyone?) but on the other hand we should be taking steps to punish single mothers who are in fact a tiny minority of a small population - I don’t get it.

I vote we link our population growth to our energy policy.

If we can’t find more ‘green’ energy, we don’t import more people, and we don’t give financial incentives for more births.

Sorry if that sounds offensive.

By the way, being a solo mum is not a bad thing. (my wife was a widow when we married)

However, having fiscal policies that ENCOURAGES solo mums/dads IS a bad thing.

“but children should not be born into a one parent home struggling for financial means.” Maybe not, but if they are then we all have some responsibility for helping those children to become good citizens. I was widowed at a young age with small children; one of my sisters was left - neither of us chose to be single with small children and as for getting work and decent child care then - forget it!

Fortunately, we had some state support for a (short) while and all our kids are good citizens despite some early struggles. Who are you to judge ‘good’ and ‘bad’ parenting?

There are plenty of two-parent families who neglect, over-indulge and otherwise are in my view ‘bad’ parents - what kind of sanctions do you suggest for them?

This thread was about energy - as I said earlier, population is only a part of it and the ones you most despise probably use less of it.

bliss says: Along the way bad parents (how ever you judge such a thing) will be encouraged too. The question is, what is wrong with that? Should they be punished until they decide to become good?

bliss…what I was saying is that it is morally wrong for a government to provide financial incentives for bad parents to have more children.

You say that you don’t want the state to be involved in direct population control.

I agree, but in a different way…I don’t want the state to be actively involved in population promotion.

Current policies encourage more babies: “we need more growth”, and also encourage more BAD parenting: “any baby is a good baby…we will still fund you to have more kids regardless of how good a parent you are and what kind of homelife you provide”

We have to get beyond wanting policies that seem sweet, gentle and palatable, and accept a “bad” sounding policy…we ought to encourage parents who provide good parenting, and stop boosting the numbers of bad parents.

Look at the USA policy…if a solo mum continues to have more children while she is a solo, then the government refuses to fund them.

Yes, it “sounds bad” to say it, but children should not be born into a one parent home struggling for financial means.

If you choose to have your children that way, it is no business of mine, but I say that other people should not have to fund you to do it. It would be a bad parenting choice, and undeserving of government support.

The world is not desparate for citizens. Lets raise the bar

Clearly the world cannot develop every where in the same wasteful way the West did. But it must develop.

paranoid peter Says:

Anyway my personal view is we are wasting our time until we get the population under control.

I am afraid of what you might do if you get the population under control. This is not something you can use state power to do. Any direct way of controlling population violates non-violence and appropriate decision making. I am against it.

greengeek Says:

Sorry that it sounds so bad, but where is the good in providing encouragement for poor quality mothers? (except that it provides an extra conduit for businessmen to clip the ticket on every purchase)

It sounds bad because it is bad. We (being you, me and every body else) will be doing good to provide encouragement for mothers (and fathers). Raising the next generation is important work and we should value it. Along the way bad parents (how ever you judge such a thing) will be encouraged too. The question is, what is wrong with that? Should they be punished until they decide to become good?

peace
W

I am in favour of an “energy allocation” to each household. A set kWh figure available to each home dependent on their head count.

To avoid being labelled a raging communist, I suggest you add ‘after the allocation, above-market rates with an income tax cut’ or something along the lines of the other user-pays/revenue neutral type schemes the Greens like e.g. carbon tax, residential and commercial water etc…

It does mean that we need to discourage excess energy use by the rich. (Higher electricity prices??). Although don’t forget that renewable energy technology is generally discovered/developed/funded by the richer countries.

Maybe the ONE real answer is to ensure that EVERYONE pays the real price for the energy they use…no more subsidies, no more benefits, and a whole heap of appropriate taxes where necessary.

I am in favour of an “energy allocation” to each household. A set kWh figure available to each home dependent on their head count.

If you want a heated swimming pool, you either heat it from the available sun, or some other ‘green’ energy source, or you pay huge taxes to ‘download’ the power from the national grid.

etc etc.

Even if you somehow managed to reduce the birthrate in Africa, India and South America and forced a few thousand young NZ women to adopt their children out, you wouldn’t make any real difference to energy use or consumption, except perhaps less demand for firewood in some places.

China has already slowed its birthrate as has Europe - but their energy demand is right up there with the US. No single, simple answer.