Environmentalists support restrictions on number of children per family

Here’s the first story from CNS News. (H/T American Spectator via ECM)

Here’s New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin.

Excerpt:

At the event, Revkin said: “Well, some of the people have recently proposed: Well, should there be carbon credits for a family planning program in Africa let’s say? Should that be monetized as a part of something that, you know, if you, if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward an accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn’t there be a carbon value to that?

“And I have even proposed recently, I can’t remember if it’s in the blog, but just think about this: Should–probably the single-most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius, it’s having fewer kids, having fewer children,” said Revkin.

“So should there be, eventually you get, should you get credit–If we’re going to become carbon-centric–for having a one-child family when you could have had two or three,” said Revkin. “And obviously it’s just a thought experiment, but it raises some interesting questions about all this.”

And here’s the second story from the UK Guardian. (H/T National Review via ECM)

And here’s the UK Guardian’s reporter Alex Renton.

Excerpt:

The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children. If they behave as the average person in the rich world does now, they will emit some 11 tonnes of CO² every year of their lives. In their turn, they are likely to have more carbon-emitting children who will make an even bigger mess…

In 2050, 95% of the extra population will be poor and the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit. By today’s standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis… As Rachel Baird, who works on climate change for Christian Aid, says: “Often in the countries where the birth rate is highest, emissions are so low that they are not even measurable. Look at Burkina Faso.” So why ask them to pay in unborn children for our profligacy..?

But how do you reduce population in countries where women’s rights are already achieved and birth-control methods are freely available? Could children perhaps become part of an adult’s personal carbon allowance? Could you offer rewards: have one child only and you may fly to Florida once a year?

After all, based on current emissions and life expectancy, one less British child would permit some 30 women in sub-Saharan Africa to have a baby and still leave the planet a cleaner place.

A lot of people ask why I am so concerned about getting married in a nation in which 77% of young, unmarried women voted for Obama and his radically leftist science czar and radically leftist former green jobs czar. (The science czar favored mass sterilizations and forced abortions). And now we can see part of the answer: the left wants to interfere with my reproductive freedom using state coercion.

And it’s not just environmental reporters who are against people having children. It’s Obama’s own nominees. These fears of overpopulation are like “Left Behind” novels for the secular left. The failed doomsday predictions of Paul Ehrlich are identical to the failed doomsday predictions of Jehovah’s Witnesses. There is something very strange about these people – and women should not have voted for them.

Recall that Social Security and other government programs are fueled by income taxes on younger workers. Except that the overpopulation nutters aborted the next generation of American workers. Ooops. So where are we supposed to get the money for these ballooning social programs from if the left keeps putting restrictions on pregnancy? Here’s my previous post about Britain’s looming demographics crisis.

10 thoughts on “Environmentalists support restrictions on number of children per family”

  1. Hey, isn’t this what Poison Ivy in the Batman & Robin movie wanted to do? Ok – maybe she was advocating to totally wipe out the earth-killing, nature-polluting human scum. But that’s where this is headed, right?

    Like

    1. Sometimes, I rally wonder at what their end goal is. I remember reading Tom Clancy’s “Rainbox Six” and thinking “there are some environmentalists who believe this”. Then Obama appointed them all to key posts in his government, and now I’m really concerned.

      Like

  2. I’m not for forced abortions, but the idea that we can keep exponentially increasing our population every 50 years or so without end, consuming the same amount of air, energy, food and producing the same amount of pollutants, and NOT have a potentially disastrous effect is ludicrous. Think for a moment: The earth and its resources are not infinite. I think an encouragement to not overpopulate could be a good thing, and certainly not the same thing as some sort of genocide that you are suggesting.

    There has to be balance. We absolutely need to have children (I have three) for humanity to keep going. But we also can’t have so many people on the earth that we can’t feed, warm and house them all. Eventually, population restrictions may be necessary if population growth doesn’t decrease on its own.

    God said “Be fruitful and multiply.” Great, mission accomplished. Lets move on to other issues.

    Like

    1. Craig, is it possible that adding more people allows us to have more workers and innovators that would support a larger population?

      Also, how do you intend to limit the number of children a woman can have when generous welfare programs encourage out-of-wedlock births?

      Also, how do you intend to solve the problem of entitlement programs when we do not have workers to pay for the retirement and health care of baby boomers?

      Like

  3. @wintery,

    Its possible, but I don’t see any evidence that this is the direction we’re going. New York City, while a booming metropolis and great homage to commerce, is not less pollutant, less consuming or “greener” because it has a high population. Neither is China. From what I’ve read, China pollutes and consumes far more now that they are adopting american style capitalism & consumerism, rather than being the primarily agrarian society they used to be. I realize they have population controls, but at the same time they are a highly populous nation. I’m not endorsing their political system, only noting that more people + free market doesn’t assume environmental innovation.

    Whether in-wedlock, or out-of-wedlock, our welfare system should not keep rewarding people for having children they cannot afford. On this much we agree. At the same time, we need to make it easier for impoverished people to limit their reproduction. I have a friend on welfare, who tried to get her tubes tied years ago when she was 21 and already had at least 3 kids. The doctor would not allow her to do so. The same for a another male friend who tried to get a vasectomy at age 19, and another guy I know who is on his third. In all cases they were told they were too young by the doctor.

    Programs like planned parenthood are a boon to these people who’s doctors are either afraid of getting sued, and are making choices for them even though they are already adults. I think organizations such as planned parenthood needs to be supported (despite the fact they perform abortions) and doctors need to be protected from getting sued from consenting adults who decide to get fixed.

    We also need to forget this “abstinence only education” in the schools. If sex according to Christianity is sacred and beautiful, then there should be nothing wrong with telling our children about it. We should give them all the information they can, so when they decide to have it (either within or without marriage) they can also decide whether to have children at the same time.

    Like

    1. So you favor abortion as a means of birth control and pre-marital sex as a recreational activity.

      Do you think that sex education increased the incidence of pre-marital sexual activity, and what is your opinion on the social costs of pre-marital sex (taxpayer funded abortion, increases in crime from abortion, increases in broken homes, increased health care costs, spike in out-of-wedlock births, etc., etc.) ?

      Have you ever heard of oxytocin? What would you say to all of the young people who have STDs as a result of not abstaining from sex before marriage? Do you think that infertility and post-abortion depression are serious problems? What is your opinion on the link between abortion and breast cancer? Do you think that the hook-up culture is a good substitute for platonic courtship?

      Like

  4. @Mathew,

    Interesting article, but not sure how true it is. I know populations are decreasing in some areas and hopefully that trend will continue. If it becomes a problem we can go back to “rewarding people on wellfare” for having children. :)

    I don’t buy this “outbreed the muslims”. Thats not a good reason to have children.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s