That is the concept that to not have children is not a bad thing. It can often have better, more green offsets. The world is already overpopulated. To either not have children or to adopt would lessen the number of people polluting the environment, wasting resources, creating waste, etc. The movement recommends that if you do want children, then adopt. There are many family-less children in the world already, so go ahead and help them out.
Participants in the “Green Inclinations, No Kids” movement, or GINKS, actively choose to have less children for environmental reasons; it is a play on the “Double Income, No Kids,” or DINK, movement of the 1980s. The Daily Green reports that the carbon impact of one ‘extra’ person has a much larger effect on the planet than green/non-green factors, such as recycling, gas mileage and energy-efficient appliances. GINK advocates cite the non-existent costs, commitments and environmental impact as reasons why having no children is better for the environment and the couple. Of course, it is still up to each couple whether they have children or not.
Click here to cancel reply.
Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!
Don't have an account? Click Here to Signup
© Copyright GreenAnswers.com LLC