Global warming derangement syndrome has taken a disturbing turn for the worse, as The Sunday Times published an article May 6 stating that parents should only have two children in order to avert climate change.
I kid you not.
The piece, despicably titled “Having Large Families ‘is an Eco-crime,'” unbelievably began:
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.
Amazed? That was only the beginning (emphasis added throughout):
The paper by the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) 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.
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. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.
“The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”
Forgive me, but this is an extremely irresponsible suggestion for reasons the Times piece diplomatically addressed:
The world’s population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the population 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. In some countries, such as France, the government is so concerned it has introduced financial incentives for women to have more than two children.
Despite this, Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions.
Let me be less diplomatic: this proposal totally ignores the financial realities of countries like Britain, France, Japan, and many others that are facing economic crises if their populations don’t start expanding soon.
To be more specific, as most of these countries have massive entitlement programs, they’re facing huge budget shortfalls in the very near future if the number of citizens paying into the system doesn’t begin to dramatically increase. This is why countries like France have been giving tax incentives for couples to have more children.
As such, if this global warming derangement changes people's reproductive plans, the financial problems of these countries will become a storm surge significantly more devastating than anything soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore hyped in his schlockumentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Noel,Thank you for finding
May 6, 2007 - 20:11 ET by Free StinkerNoel,
Thank you for finding this and bringing it to our attention.
I've always suspected that Liberals actually hate humanity. This sort of thing just makes me think I was right.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"George W. Bush simply reminds leftists everyday what they will never be. And they hate him for it." --Tammy Bruce
It is good to know. As a resu
May 7, 2007 - 12:08 ET by taznarIt is good to know. As a result of this, I went out and bought two child credits from my sister-in-law. I now have a clear conscience.
..."they could cut their
May 6, 2007 - 20:14 ET by saw the light..."they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York."
So, only the return flights?
How about the airlines just stop flying so the newspapers can stay out of family planning? Jut watch, having an abortion will become the new "green, earth-friendly" act.
On a lighter note, I have one four-year-old daughter. My wife and I plan no others. Anyone want to bid on an Additional Child Credit (ACC)? I will start the bidding at $10,000. Just think about how good you will feel to know that adding a third munchkin to your house will not have a detrimental effect on our dying planet. Come on, do I hear 10K? (chirping crickets)
How about 9K?
"Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb (insert terrorist-supporting nation here)"
Well, let's start the bidding
May 6, 2007 - 21:07 ET by saw the lightWell, let's start the bidding at $8,000. For one-quarter the price of a gas-guzzling, carbon dioxide producing, earth warming SUV, you can have the peace of mind to procreate as you see fit. Imagine, lying in bed with your significant other (spouse is too judgmental) and not having to worry about any protection.
At these prices, this ACC will not last! Come on, do I hear $8K?
"Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb (insert terrorist-supporting nation here)"
I may need your one, but I ne
May 7, 2007 - 12:11 ET by vrwc13I may need your one, but I need 4 more! I must have a carbon footprint of Bigfoot! I am so bad, but on the lighter side I tell my liberal friends "my kids will out vote yours!"
face piles of trials with smiles
Global warming savior- small families - or better yet none
May 6, 2007 - 20:15 ET by SportPoliticsGlobal warming savior- small families - or better yet none. So have at it with abortions, we have to keep them legal to save the planet murder the babies!
Secondly, there are hard working tax contributing hispanic from down south across the border that can migrate here and fill the ranks of social security contributors. Import more cheap labor, and get them anmesty, now. A full grown adult uses 200 less transatlantic flights of carbon output...
So, kill the babies and import the difference,to save the world.
Brought to you by the formerly censored democratic progressive party back room strategy committee.
Sickening
May 6, 2007 - 20:16 ET by Mr. BishopThis new line of thinking, runs right with the Chinese one child law. Limit the population -- that's communism at its "finest".
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
In fact, Beijing --- sensit
May 6, 2007 - 21:16 ET by GalvanicIn fact, Beijing --- sensitive to new scrutiny that challenges its exemption from the Kyoto Accords --- is now citing its draconian "One Child Per Family" Law as not only a population-control success, but as its major contribution to carbon-reduction.
Liberals INCESSANTLY contradi
May 6, 2007 - 20:25 ET by stanleygoodspeedLiberals INCESSANTLY contradict the will of God.
Psalms 127:3-5
(3) Lo, CHILDREN ARE A HERITAGE OF THE LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
(4) As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
(5) HAPPY IS THE [just, righteous] MAN THAT HATH HIS QUIVER FULL OF THEM : they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.
If they want to limit atheists, homosexuals, islamic fundamentalists, and any other group that lives under constant devil spirit influence, fine ... but NOT Christians or anyone who lives a just life.
This is even more insidious than may first appear
May 6, 2007 - 20:26 ET by RJThis is even more insidious than may first appear. If western countries are convinced to produce a population "shortfall", third world contries will need to massively fill the void, changing the character of those countries.
(This is not an anti-immigration rant, but looking at the realities of massive immigration.)
RJ it's happening already i
May 7, 2007 - 03:25 ET by motherbeltRJ it's happening already in some European countries, where the reproductive rate is below replacement level. Immigration is being encouraged, in order to have workers to fund their socialist systems. Many of the new immigrants are Muslim. Whether for good or for bad, this can't help but change the character of those countries.
I know, motherbelt
May 7, 2007 - 08:14 ET by RJYup, and the GW socialists want to use that template around the world.
It's even worse than that.
May 7, 2007 - 08:47 ET by AtillaKahunaIt's even worse than that. Currently in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, if you remove immigration (legal and illegal), our population growth is dangerously close to zero. Zero. One more time: ZERO.
I personally am doing my part. We currently have three childre, are in the process of adopting two boys from Ethiopia, and we are planning on having at least one more, if not two.
My pastor said it best: "If we can't convince them (liberals) that their ideology is wrong, we'll just breed them out of existence!" Yes, my PASTOR. He gets it. They don't, simple as that.
Kahuna
"adopting two boys from Ethopia"
May 7, 2007 - 16:02 ET by RJ"adopting two boys from Ethopia"
That's wonderful, AK. Your living by example is heartwarming. I spent time in Ethopia, and I have good feelings for the country and the people. Unfortunately, the country has been under pressure from Islamic forces who have specifically identified it as a target for changing it's religious makeup.
Surprising the liberal line
May 6, 2007 - 20:30 ET by GregESurprising the liberal line wasn't to point out that awe-inspiring rule in China of one child per family.
And scoring points with the abortion crowd.
Memories.....
May 6, 2007 - 20:33 ET by acumenI'll be sure to remember this insanity the next time some leftist tells me how beneficial it is that at least now we are having a public discussion about supposed human-induced global warming.
China's one child policy has
May 6, 2007 - 21:07 ET by alamojbChina's one child policy has resulted in more males than females. This may actually be encouraging sex slavery. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200603%5CCUL20060307a.html
One thing that has already i
May 6, 2007 - 21:20 ET by GalvanicOne thing that has already impacted Chinese society is an increasing frustration -- even anxiety -- among young Chinese adult males, that there aren't enough Chinese females to marry. The math says that some men will be left without a chair when the music stops. Whether this leads to a sex slave trade, or merely a robust mail-order bride industry, remains to be seen.
Galvanic, this is already h
May 7, 2007 - 03:31 ET by motherbeltGalvanic, this is already happening. I can't remember the details, but I did read about the ill effects of too few women for the men in China. Like it or not, women and marriage have a "civilizing" effect on men. Without them, there is an increase in antisocial behavior and crime.
This is nothing new. Envir
May 6, 2007 - 21:10 ET by motherbeltThis is nothing new. Enviro-wackos have said for a long time that the earth would be in much better shape without man.
This jerk goes so far as to r
May 7, 2007 - 08:07 ET by Seabeach4348This jerk goes so far as to refer to humans as "viruses":
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070506180903.aspx
Read his suggestions on what lifestyle changes all of us should make. I'd bet his parents smoked too much dope back in the 1960s and that's why he's all screwed up.
He says that the Memnonites didn't need cars and neither do we. Well, next year I'm looking for the biggest SUV I can find with the biggest V8. And after post this I'm going to turn on ALL the lights in my house, and that will produce lots of CO2!
Damn! I'm so sick of losers like this guy telling the rest of us how we should live our lives. And I'm tired of the Lamestream Media falling all over themselves to find people like him.
If there are too many people may I suggest that we start by culling the liberal envirosocialist population? They shouldn't complain; after all, it will help save the earth and it's "for the children".
“The greatest thing anyon
May 6, 2007 - 21:16 ET by Tom1969caWhy only one less? The article talks about the advantages of having two children instead of three. Why not only one instead of two?
Why not examine the advantages of having no children? I mean, wouldn't having no children cut the average family's carbon footprint by the equivalent of 1,860 round trip flights between London and New York?
~~~
If Hillary is the answer, it must've been a stupid question...
Well OK then..... Now we know
May 6, 2007 - 22:00 ET by MidAmericaWell OK then..... Now we know what to say when the dems complain about all the children without healthcare therefore we need national healthcare. Health care is bad for planet.
We need to do away with the FDA and auto safety standards, encourage smoking and best of all cook my french fries in trans-fat and smother them with cheese!
Noel,I think this is the stup
May 6, 2007 - 22:02 ET by BlondeNoel,
I think this is the stupidest thing I've ever read.
They'd have us all doing a Jim Jones and drinking the Kool Aid, so they could grab our money.
Having said that, I've decided I am totally over "carbon footprints" and all of this other silly blather.
I am going to turn my AC down to 65 degrees (well, I'm sunburned, so that will be fine)...I'm going to start putting high octane gas in my car....T-bird says thank you, finally!), I'm going to continue to drive way over the speed limit, just to burn more gas.
And anything else I can possibly do to conspicuously consume whatever it is I wish to consume. Filet mignon, sushi grade tuna, caviar, champagne. (And I may even have my mum's mink & sable coat remade....not that I'd wear it in Florida...but what they hey....I'll wear it with my new $100 jeans and cowyboy boots)!
Why not? I earn it, I am going to spend it. And the hell with the socialists who'd try to spend it for me.
Sheesh!
Blonde,I am 100% behind you.
May 7, 2007 - 07:40 ET by msh1973Blonde,
I am 100% behind you. You go on with your bad self...LOL!
Overpopulation
May 7, 2007 - 13:36 ET by DanDanOverpopulation
Here are some numbers
Please give the following some serious consideration----
Take the world population----- 6,593,583,936 people
IN THE ENTIRE WORLD and put them on the Island of
Puerto Rico--- which has an land area of 3559.09 Sq. Miles---- 5280 times 5280 gives you 27,247,800 Sq. Feet in a Sq. Mile times 3559.09 = 99,221,734,656 Sq. feet on the Island
Divide Sq. feet by people and each person in the world
have 15.04 Sq. feet to stand on or about HALF on a 4x8
sheet of plywood-- How go to the map and find Puerto Rico --you may have some trouble, it's down there by Cuba someplace, in fact Cuba is a HUGE when you compare the two.
Now you tell me ---- that anyone that has any ability to
THINK, can really believe the Human race has the power the change the World Climate--we are not that GOOD---If the Earth is warming it is more likely the position of the Planets has something to do with it.
Saturn , Jupiter and Uranus were all in line back in 1998 -- we started to cool again after 1998 but we don't hear about that --- We should all quit drinking our Coke or Pepsi --- what do you think makes the fizz -- CO2 don't ya know --
I used to be a Liberal but I got tired of being wrong --Lee
\
]
You go on and do that. Me,
May 7, 2007 - 13:51 ET by SarahAnnieYou go on and do that. Me, not having as much capital, will do what I can when the Man gets back from South Korea, by getting knocked up and having another baby to kill the planet. I was thinking perhaps 3 children would be enough, but heck, how about 5 or 6?
Nebraskans for War: Peace through StrengthEnvironmentalism is the lef
May 6, 2007 - 22:13 ET by robert108Environmentalism is the leftie war against our traditional family structure.
You know, I have no problem
May 6, 2007 - 22:22 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveYou know, I have no problem with people that have large families (as long as they properly provide for them), I don't have problems with people that choose not to have children.
I do have problems with people that have a particular hatred for people with "big" familes. In my experience (I have 4 brothers, an Aunt with 8 children, my wife comes from a family of 6 children, several friends with 5+ children) the children in large families are typically well cared for and usually turn out to be industrious, productive, and good law-abiding citizens, which in turn contributes to the betterment of society and the economy. Nowdays very few people choose to have large families, and more and more couples are chosing to forego raising children, so where's the problem? I could see it being a problem if EVERYONE was having large families, but that's hardly the case. The global warming alarmists will continue to grasp at straws to further their agenda. Pretty soon I could see them saying we need to go back to dirt roads because concrete and asphalt retain too much heat. If the GW people did get us back into the 18th or 19th century I wonder how many of them would be willing to hunt to put food on the table...I imagine it would be very few as many of the GW people are also afraid of guns.
"Believe what you want. You work your side of the street, and I'll work mine." --Frank Bullitt
My Mom came from a big family
May 7, 2007 - 02:45 ET by Dan The Man 2My Mom came from a big family and I have 14 sets of aunts and uncles with over 50 1st cousins. When we go to family reunions we all have or family tree and priograms to tell who is who. No joke on that one.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.
well, I guess these assh*l
May 6, 2007 - 22:37 ET by MilesDwell, I guess these assh*le enviro-mentals have no grudge with the communist Chinese
how can any rational people deal with this any more
you mean the chinese with the
May 6, 2007 - 22:39 ET byyou mean the chinese with the low grade coal power plants?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
well no problem with them n
May 6, 2007 - 22:46 ET by MilesDwell no problem with them now I guess!
So, jerks out there who want to coddle them into becoming "world citizens" and sign Kyoto, give them a break because of their "family planning" efforts, won't you?
Oh certainly, the Chinese hav
May 6, 2007 - 22:51 ET by BlondeOh certainly, the Chinese have such a model mode of family planning.
One child per family. Mandatory. Very civilized, n'est pas?
I read this article before
May 6, 2007 - 23:07 ET by jrock81I read this article before I came here to see the headlines, and knowing that the ultimate aim of most of these liberal think tanks is the downfall of capitalism and values, I did some research into this group (OPT). Their website doesn't mention socialism explicitly, but it does say that one of their primary aims is
"To oppose the view generally held by politicians, economists and the commercial world, that a perpetually expanding economy, with perpetual population growth, is desirable and possible."
Another gem from their website, which sounds like a fairly liberal ideal:
"Family planning facilities and advice should be available to enable all men and women to avoid unwanted conception and women to terminate early pregnancy if they so choose."
How long before these reccomendations become mandates?
I know a sure-fire way to a
May 6, 2007 - 23:46 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love"to enable all men and women to avoid unwanted conception and women to terminate early pregnancy if they so choose."
I know a sure-fire way to avoid unwanted conception...ABSTINENCE! In fact, it is the only way to ensure no conception happens. And best of all, abstinence is entirely free...it doesn't cost tax payers anything.
Pregnancy is a natural consequence of having sex. The selfishness of these people that must have sex only to later decide they don't want the responsibilities associated with having sex robs an innocent child of their right to life. In essence, they murder in order to have "consequence free" (in their minds) sex.
Other consequences will come...maybe not in this life...but eventually they will occur. Revelation 20:12
"Believe what you want. You work your side of the street, and I'll work mine." --Frank Bullitt
When liberals use analogies
May 6, 2007 - 23:03 ET by In ExcessWhen liberals use analogies like 'equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York',
they lose me. I've never been on a transcontinental flight so it
doesn't connect with me at all. Call me ignorant, but I love visiting
as many parts of THIS great country as possible.
What is sad is that the MSN a
May 7, 2007 - 05:30 ET by ArchConservativeWhat is sad is that the MSM actually gives space in their publications or any time at all in their 22 minutes of news at night to these communists. Is it any wonder pubs like the NYT are in freefall. Like Homer Simpson has said: "Anger rising..rising...RISING!"
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
- President George W Bush September 2001 speech to a joint session of Congress.
As mentioned above, why only
May 7, 2007 - 05:47 ET by old croAs mentioned above, why only the equivalent of 620 "returning" flights. Why not send 620 moonbats "over there", like they promised to go anyway, and relieve that problem and mine in one fell swoop. My son and his wife just had their forth, a boy, so I will warn him to beware of strangers and wierd cryptic paintings in blood on his door just to be safe. Sheesh, just when you thought you've heard it all.......
"The average American's day planner has fewer holes in it than Ray Charles's dart board."
Dennis Miller
The problem for us is the nut
May 7, 2007 - 07:21 ET by dscottThe problem for us is the nut jobs who think they can impose the final solution on the world. There are groups of scientist who have espoused killing off large portions of the world population through diseases and then there is the Human Extinction Project. If you find someone babbling on about the need to reduce the population by any means necessary, report them to the FBI. Remember the only serious domestic terrorists have been the ELF eco nuts.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Humans are a virus
May 7, 2007 - 07:34 ET by EllisWyattHere's another one:
"Eco-Extremist Wants World Population to Drop below 1 Billion"
Sea Shepherd founder says mankind is a 'virus' and we need to 're-wild the planet.'
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070506180903.aspx
If you're not outraged at the media, you haven't been paying attention.
Sort of like the ROP? "I'm
May 7, 2007 - 11:08 ET by old croSort of like the ROP?
"I'm like Bush, I see the world more like checkers than chess."
Dennis Miller
nut jobsYes, it's not just t
May 7, 2007 - 12:14 ET by dahliatraversnut jobs
Yes, it's not just that their solutions are extreme. It's that their perception of the underlying problem is seriously warped.
I thought liberals believed i
May 7, 2007 - 07:36 ET by msh1973I thought liberals believed in reproductive freedom....I guess that only pertains to abortion. What hypocrites!
There is no shock in the c
May 7, 2007 - 08:14 ET by kathleenirishThere is no shock in the contempt and hatred the Left has for humanity, especially children and unborn babies ('cuse me: translation to their language: "fetuses"). They are just a little more honest about it these days.
You'd think since they supposedly love "Nature" and that "Nature" endowed us with big brains and therefore, we are a successful species...it would make sense in their "natural" minds that this IS "Nature's" plan for us?
Married couples having families: That's a problem for the Leftie libs.
" 'Fred's Slacks' is a winner!!"
Yeah, my favorite response to
May 7, 2007 - 12:06 ET by vrwc13Yeah, my favorite response to liberals is "my kids (6) will out vote yours!"
face piles of trials with smiles
The Optimum Population Trust
May 7, 2007 - 12:24 ET by dahliatraversThe Optimum Population Trust (now there's an oxymoron) should have done a little more research before publishing this paper. According to the stats you posted, Noel, the developed world has already met one of their objectives - a reproductive rate of two babies per couple.
Now what, honorable trustees?