This is the problem with any suggestion that we voluntarily limit our carbon-emitting activities. If we take the argument to its logical conclusion, we should all stop reproducing altogether.<p>It&#x27;s the &#x27;dead great-grandfather principle&#x27; [0]:<p><i>&quot;He’s much greener than you, you cannot compete with that. If you move into a smaller apartment, your grandfather is in a very, very small apartment. It’s underground, there’s no lighting, there’s no heating, he doesn’t have any broadband.&quot;</i><p>I don&#x27;t disagree with you or the parent comment at all, I absolutely believe that we should be limiting our carbon emissions. But at its core this is a philosophical problem as much as a scientific one. To what extent do we have the &#x27;right&#x27; to change the climate? Should we have a per-person carbon allowance? A global one child policy?<p>[0] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;2011&#x2F;02&#x2F;transcript-of-reboot-11-speech-by-bruce-sterling-25-6-2009&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wired.com&#x2F;2011&#x2F;02&#x2F;transcript-of-reboot-11-speech-...</a>