 |
Near our house some kids play basketball in their drive sun up to sun down. After, say, six hours listening to dribbling, shooting, and constant shouting, I'm ready to hear the left-wing nuts say that kids are wrecking the earth . . . |
Posted on 05/12/2007 2:20:32 PM PDT by Lorianne
HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.
The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.
Full coverage: Climate change in-depth
John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.
"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."
In his latest comments, the academic says that when couples are planning a family they should be encouraged to think about the environmental consequences.
"The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account," he added.
Professor Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.
The world's population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the growth will take place in developing countries.
The population of developed nations is expected to remain unchanged and would have declined but for migration.
The British fertility rate is 1.7. The EU average is 1.5. Despite this, Professor Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
I agree that some kids are bad for the environment. Take my newborn son, for instance. I’m tired of changing diapers.
Why don’t these wackos do the planet a favor and commit suicide?
It’s deja vu all over again. It worked once so the leftists are trying it again. If you ever want to know how wildly off their predictions are see below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
bookmark
For sure, we’ll see them trying to change the laws too, to support their anti-human agenda.
|
Near our house some kids play basketball in their drive sun up to sun down. After, say, six hours listening to dribbling, shooting, and constant shouting, I'm ready to hear the left-wing nuts say that kids are wrecking the earth . . . |
If those reasons and "back-stop" were somehow insufficient, enter now the guilt-laden being-able-to-afford-our-rightful-carbon-offset burden.
HF
My son’s carbon footprint is much larger than my daughter’s ever was.
This only works on the stupidly credulous.
I live in the country and I have to deal with smells from the neighbor’s cows (my horses smell perfectly fine) so we all have a “cross to bear”.
Children bad for the planet? But essential for the future!
You're just one of the little people, in case you didn't know, and you've just identified yourself as non-green greedy, doll.
The remaining population will be just that much easier to control once we weed out your malformed thinking. /heavy, heavy sarc
HF
“... if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family’s carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.”
Factoids for the innumerate. They’re off by about a factor of 20.
The eventual extinction of humanity (or at least the ending of our current way of life in the west) is something they embrace; to them, humanity is a virus, with America being the most virulent form. Any movement perceived to be instrumental to "curing" this "infection" is, in turn, embraced - thus the (at best) tepid support of terrorism, communism, ecofascism, anti-theism (militant atheism), moral degeneracy, subsidization of failure, obstruction of success (excessive taxation, over-regulation), subversion of law (disregard for the Constitution, criminal-as-victim), and multiculturalism (where the assimilation of members of inferior cultures is viewed almost as a crime, while, at the same time, the goal is to erode the dominant culture by way of government fiat via an explicit extension of more 'positive rights' for cultures, activities and behaviors that would otherwise self-correct).
Is it any surprise that population control is also embraced? Sure, they invite it with an environmental pretext (finite resources, increasing resource use per person = "overpopulation") but make no mistake - they push it because they hate our way of life, they hate everything America and the western world stands for. They wish to slow the spread of the "virus". The vast majority don't even realize what they are trying to "progress" towards.
Isn’t that the truth. This a** should have taken a few math courses. What orifice do these people pull their statistics out of?
The leaders must remain to supervise the outcome. Sorta like Jim Jones and The Peoples Church in Guyana.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.