AGW Today: Having More Then Two Kids Is Irresponsible
OK, AGW Believers, step up to the truth detector: are you for or against this? Will you follow this advice? Or, will you finally admit that the anthropogenic global warming craze has gotten beyond absurd? Two children should be limit, says green guru
COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned.
Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.
A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that governments must reduce population growth through better family planning.
“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.
You know, I always had issues with Greenpeace and other extreme environmental groups because their actions made all environmentalists look like wackos. Instead of the people who were polluting being shown in a bad light, the groups and environmentalism as a whole were the negative focus. And now we have these insane AGW Believers dragging their insane feelings and thoughts into true environmentalism, in the name of AGW. Thanks, Believers.
So, what’s it going to be, AGW Disciples? We already know you won’t give up your SUVs, cause little Johnny has to go to soccer practice and little Suzy has to go to gymnastics (funny how back a couple decades ago parents had regular cars or a station wagon, but, now they need a vehicle the size of a small dump truck to do their errands, eh?). You voted in a president who jacks up the thermostat in the White House. You have the Goracle as a leader, who flies all around the world on private jets, uses way more then average for electricity at his home, and has a monster house boat. You follow the UN IPCC folks, who jet all over the world to exotic vacation spots, take limo’s, eat well, and then want the rest of us to change our behavior.
What is it, exactly, that you AGW folks want? You do nothing yourselves. And the whole thing is a farce.
Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion.
Do you approve, AGW Believers? Failure to answer the questions by Climahysterics in 3…2…1…
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove
Email This
Posted by William Teach on February 1, 2009 11:44 am
» Filed Under Abortion, Global Warming, Liberal World, News, Unhinged, environmentalism
Trackback URL:
- Steynian 320 « Free Canuckistan! pinged this post.
Comments
7 Responses to “AGW Today: Having More Then Two Kids Is Irresponsible”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Let’s see if these idiots put their money where their mouth is:
Namely, ask them if their proposals apply to:
1. Muslims, Mexicans, and illegal immigrants in general. And, if the answer is yes, if they also favor forcible return of the above to their home countries of origin as well as draconian border-enforcement.
2. How they would enforce their proposals if they actually get them enacted…and people ignore them.
3. How they would deal with a strong–even violent–reaction from people who either have “too many” or “the wrong kinds of” children.
.
What’s next, a two-child rule? Forced abortions like in China? These people are sick, potentially evil.
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
humans’ breath is poison
just one child hurts the world
worse than a jet engine
.
Shift money from curing illness to funding abortion? Really? Curious how they intend to do that, without blatantly telling SOMEBODY they’re gonna die in order to perpetuate the hoax of global warming.
What we have here is population control on BOTH sides of the nickel: Don’t let them breed AND force them to die from whatever illness they suffer from, many of which are the direct result of “interventions” like misuse of antibiotics (proven to have led to drug-resistant strains of bacteria like MRSA) or cancers caused by food additives that are carcinogenic, among hundreds of others.
Create the disease, release the disease, promise a cure for the disease, then shift funding to aborting the children of (mostly) women who choose wanton selfishness over personal responsibility… I’m impressed.
Instead of killing unborn babies, why not (1) return to the era of self-responsibility (i.e. don’t have sex if you don’t want kids) and (2) kill all the adults we don’t like first.
Idea #2 and abortion are both murder, so who do you prosecute for a crime? Afterall, it’s all in the name of saving the planet, right? Kill thousands to save millions. My first kill would be idiots like this guy who claim killing babies saves the planet.
Possibly the best post ever placed here.
Over population is the hidden(we’re forbidden to talk about because of religious political correctness) threat to the long-term well being of the world. Our country actually subsidizes large families through personal deductions and tax creditss. Encouraging smaller families is a WONDERFUL idea, eliminate governmental tax benefits for families with any more than two children. Larger families actually use more governmental services not less so why should they pay fewer taxes.
At present rates our country’s population will double in thirty years. We will have to cut our carbon emissions in half just to keep the total emissions the same.
The longer we wait the harder it will be to control. The world is already vacuuming every living thing from the sea. Pretty soon the only fresh seafood we’ll be able to order in a restuarant will be krill.
The TFR (Total Fertility Rate) for American families in 2006 was 2.06. This means that on average the American family has 2.06 children per household. So, as a median, 2 children per family is already the statistical norm. In my household, I have 2 siblings and my husband has one sibling. For the entire family units (5 families able to produce viable young) , only my husband and I have children (3). In theory, our family should have a combined total of 10 children. So, that leaves room for 7 children to be born to other families. If you want to reduce population, then the goal needs to be 0 population growth.
India will tap-out its groundwater within a couple decades. They depend on this for much of their agriculture…and have way too many kids. An NCEAS study predicted that global fish stocks will collapse in a generation, which means that fish-eating nations (rich ones like Japan, poor ones like Mauritania) will come to depend more on cereal imports. Also about this time, we’re expecting another one of the cyclical dustbowls here in the North American prairie wheatlands…which are being converted to housing for immigrants. More ‘climate refugees’ can be expected, as places like the Maldives export their people. Oil and gas aren’t so much running out suddenly as getting more expensive, which imposes costs on food production (ammonium nitrate) and transport. You can imagine what will happen when all that [edited] hits the fan. With India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons (and many Latin American countries having bigger standing armies than Canada), the security implications are pretty scary. Beware the rise of a thirdworld Hitler, Mussolini, or Hirohito. I’m not just fearmongering, because it’s more than just Lebensraum that the bulging developing world needs. The Axis countries thought it would be nice to have more land; these heavilly-armed (with nukes) thirdworld countries have to EAT.