Really, Harry? There are better ways to help the planet

While it’s true that we could all be doing more to help tackle climate change, being lectured by jetsetting royals to whom the manor has been gifted feels more than a little rich, writes Darren Levin.

Every child brings wealth into the world. At least that’s what my wise nana told me when I confessed my concerns about the financial impact of having kids at the height of the GFC. Since then we’ve had three kids (it’s not our fault! We had twins!) and global concerns have shifted to a climate crisis that’s gone from an “inconvenient truth” to “OK, it’s getting pretty toasty right now and we may have completely cooked it.”

Were she asked the question today, perhaps my nana would instead be saying, “Every child brings waste into the world”. That’s the general consensus among a growing community of BirthStrikers, celebrities, experts, and climate stress heads who believe the best way to limit their environmental footprint is to avoid creating footprints in the first place.

MORE FROM DARREN LEVIN: The parenting style that unites us all

They’re probably right, you know. According to research from Sweden’s Lund University, the greatest contribution you could make to the fight against climate change is to have one less child. (Yes, it’s even more impactful than getting a KeepCup, going vegan, or bravely refusing a fistful of Lion King Ooshies at the supermarket checkout.)

Prince Harry has said he and Meghan Markle plan to have no more than two children in a bid to help the environment. Picture: Dominic Lipinski/AP

Having just one fewer child would reduce a family’s CO2 emissions by 58.6 tonnes a year, the report says. It’d also reduce your wine consumption, Instagram posts, ice-cream intake, crippling debt, exposure to tantrums, couch stains, and awkward interactions with other parents.

Like all good trends, the “one fewer kid” message has now made its way to the 1 per cent, with the newly woke Duke of Sussex (aka the artist formerly known as Prince Harry) announcing by royal decree that he and wife Meghan shall have only “two children, maximum” for the sake of the planet. The parenting style that unites us all

RELATED: What the hell are Meghan and Harry playing at?

There are few things more insufferable than the chatter that surrounds the arrival of a Royal Baby — will it be called Arthur? Or Victoria? Or Steve? — so I’d like to personally thank Harry and Meghan for sparing us from a few more TV specials about what an unborn child’s name is going to be.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s stance may not be as extreme as celebrity birth striker Miley Cyrus, who has pledged to have no children at all until the climate crisis is fixed. However, it’s still an act of selfless nobility not seen from the royals since Wills and Kate shared an official Mother’s Day photo of Prince George hanging out with the family dog in 2014.

There are a myriad of ways that we can help the environment, Harry. Picture: Chris Jackson/Getty

The cynic in me wonders whether we should be applauding the climate stance of a couple who live rent free on an extensively renovated 10-bedroom country estate, presumably with perfectly watered lawns and a bigger electricity bill than the MCG.

But if the royals would have fewer babies (or no babies at all) there’s no doubt the world would be better off.

If you consider that a regular Brit emits nearly 10 times as much carbon as someone from India or Vietnam each year — and more than 100 times more than your average Ethiopian — can you imagine how much carbon a royal baby would spew into the atmosphere over the course of their privileged lifetime?

MORE FROM DARREN LEVIN: Celebrities are ruining school holidays for the rest of us

In the past year alone Harry, Meghan and what I can only assume would be a Beyonce-sized entourage have travelled to Australia, Fiji, Tonga, New Zealand, Zambia, Norway, Morocco, the Netherlands and Italy. I don’t really have time to calculate the carbon cost of all those flights, but even Harry’s comparatively quick trip to Rome for a polo tournament put as much CO2 into the atmosphere as a Paraguayan does in a single year.

What? The polo match was in support of kids living with HIV in Africa? That definitely does sound like a worthy cause, but couldn’t they have picked an activity less problematic than a horse-soccer hybrid in a place a little closer to home?

Then again it’s better than Kate Middleton wanting to bring a fourth royal into the world, as according to “a friend” she reportedly does.

That’s going to be a really awkward conversation at the next family gathering at Balmoral.

Darren Levin is a columnist for RendezView.com.au

Originally published as Really, Harry? There are better ways to help the planet