A while back I commented on a local newspaper article that analized the habits of a few families and suggested some nice little things the family could do to go green. I observed that none of these proposed actions would do anything to abate CO2 in any meaningful way, and argued that the hidden agenda of such articles was to make the discussed aggresive CO2 reduction targets seem easy and painless to reach.
In that article, they parise a couple of families for their efforts. I observed that these families had between three and four kids, and that the people running the global warming movement would not be satisfied with their reusing of water bottles. They would demand that similar families in the future give up their kids. I wrote:
- Everything you buy requires fossil fuels to produce, so you may only have half as much. That means food for you and your kids too.
- In the next generation, no one is going to be having five and four kids. Certainly those green Europeans would never do something as damaging as having four or five kids. If you had aborted a few of the little darlings, just think how much CO2 you would have avoided?
- The article says all your kids play sports. OK, pick half of your kids, and tell them they don’t get to play sports any more. Gotta cut that driving in half. The good news is the other half of the kids can still play.
- Those vacations you took last summer, to escape the heat in Arizona, well cut them in half as well. That little play area in the mall makes a nice alternative to seeing Yellowstone, and all those tourists are just environmentally damaging Yellowstone anyway.
Writing in today’s Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child’s lifetime.
Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and "greenhouse-friendly" services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.
And he implied the Federal Government should ditch the $4133 baby bonus and consider population controls like those in China and India.
Professor Walters said the average annual carbon dioxide emission by an Australian individual was about 17 metric tons, including energy use.
"Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society," he wrote.
So you thought that the socialists, the anti-growth / anti-technology folks, and the anti-globalization rioters all have gone silent over the last few years? WRONG! They have all joined the global warming movement — in fact, in many cases, they are driving the movement. They have found that the global warming packaging can help them resell their failed ideas. That is why no one in the global warming catastrophist movement wants to talk about the science. Because its not about the science. It is about the ends that they desire, and they have discovered that the global warming panic is the best possible vehicle for reaching those ends.