These days there’s a lot of talk about reducing one’s “carbon footprint.” Environmentalists want us to recycle, use less energy, and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. All of this is in an effort to “save the planet.” This of course is based in the unproven belief that the planet needs saving and the arrogant assumption that humans can save it. But regardless of whether or not environmentalist thinking is correct, we’re seeing more and more hybrid cars, windmills, energy-saver light bulbs, etc.

But a recent study out of Oregon State University indicates a way to have a much greater impact in reducing one’s carbon footprint: Don’t have as many kids. (Save the Planet: Have Fewer Kids)

The statisticians who conducted this study came up with some interesting numbers:

• “…in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than… things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.”
• “…each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent – about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.”

The story linked above mentioned the “added challenge” of “continuing population growth.” Of course, the average person in the United States is allegedly much more damaging to the environment. Even though other countries have high populations and growth rates, their environmental impact is “reduced by shorter life spans.”

So, the bottom line of the study: If you really want to save the planet, have fewer kids.

What does this have to do with universal health care? Glad you asked.

It is no secret that those who actually think that humans can save the planet are among the same group (the Left) that is calling for government-run universal health care. What did the study above find were two things that greatly helped the environment? Fewer kids and shorter life spans.

Now, say you have the extreme environmentalists influencing health care decisions. Could they push for policies that would reduce the number of children by forcing women to have abortions, or by killing infants or young children after they are born? Could they seek to reduce life spans by ending the lives of elderly patients, or by withholding medical care from them so that they eventually die?

This wouldn’t be the first time that environmentalism would impact policy. The “Cash for Clunkers” program destroys functional, older vehicles in an effort to get more fuel-efficient cars on the road. Why couldn’t environmentalism influence government-run health care policy too?

Now you may be thinking, “Isn’t that a little extreme?” Maybe. I hope it is. But keep in mind that human history is full of sick, twisted, and evil people. Why do we think there are no people like that today? Why are we so convinced that since we live in a “civilized” society that the government would be incapable of such atrocities? (By the way, this is the same “civilized” society that has allowed 50 million unborn babies to be aborted since 1973).

The researchers who conducted the study stated they were “not advocating government controls or intervention on population issues.” But they aren’t government officials either. Even if we assume that the politicians currently in office pushing for more and more power to the federal government have only our best interest at heart, there is still a danger. The danger is that others could come along later and abuse the powers that the current Administration and Congress are leaving for them. That danger should not be ignored.

I do not bring these things up to sound like an alarmist. Rather, I want all of us to seriously consider the potential consequences of a government that is so influenced by special interest groups (like the environmentalists) running the health care system.

The bottom line is this: We need more limited government that has less power over our lives.