jump to navigation

Going green to the extreme August 8, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,
trackback

Going green to the extreme

CNN Connect the World Blog, August 7, 2009

How much would you sacrifice to save the planet? Would you consider not having a child?

A new study by Oregon State University suggests having multiple children may be the most environmentally damaging of all human activities.

By having one less child, an American would save more than nine thousand metric tonnes of carbon dioxide – many more times what you could save by simply living a rigidly green lifestyle.

Professor Ben Zuckerman at UCLA suggests this could be a wake-up call for environmental groups. He says: “The mainstream environmental movement has entirely dropped the ball on this issue and I think its really been a disaster for our country… They have hundreds of trivial ways in which one can reduce one’s environmental impact of the earth but they don’t even mention population.”

For the record, it has not yet been scientifically proved that there is a link between human activity and global warming, even if there is a broad consensus on a connection.

Do you think environmental groups will be going well beyond their remit if they start advising against having children? Or do you think the situation has become so serious, each one of us should consider taking such drastic action if it’s relevant?

Comments»

1. justin ert - August 8, 2009

Deep green thinking is entirel based on Malthusian polulation control. But they dare not usher it too loud, lest it is interpreted the only logical way it can: eugenics. Cloaked at the heart of environmentalism is the same genocidal misanthropy that lead to the brutal authoritarianism of national socialsim and Nazism. Operating through soft outlets like the Optimum Polulation Trust with patrons like David Attenborough and Jonathan Porrit, those that seek to shape society through polulation control do so by advocating the coercion of children and women especially to have fewer or no children , all dressed in the name of saving the planet and humanity. Abhorrent.

2. papiertigre - August 8, 2009

“Do you think environmental groups will be going well beyond their remit if they start advising against having children? ”

Oh I wish they would start advocating for that. If they do I’ll make sure it’s plastered on every news service and message board in the country. Tac flyers on every lightpole.

Come on Greenpeace. Make my day.

3. Qwazil - August 9, 2009

Just because we’re a lot of sceptics why must you HATE all forms of sustainability and envrionmentalism?

I’m a SCEPTIC and i’m an ENVIRONMENTALIST.

“Hitler practised sustainability, that means anyone who lives a sustainable lifestyle and would rather adopt than have their own child because they think there are too many humans is a misanthropic enviro-fascist bastard”

I think a lot of you are getting AGW mixed up with environmentalism.

4. justin ert - August 9, 2009

I would worry that “anyone who lives a sustainable lifestyle and would rather adopt than have their own child because they think there are too many humans…” has actually been coerced and maniplulated into this belief through their perceptions of AGW in the public discourse. In this respect, it could be argued that AGW is a vehicle to leverage Environmentalist population control policies.
Will people be socially pressuriesed into decisions that are based not on a scientific fact, but on an ideological perspective? Or will they simply be legislated for and brutally enforced by a political regime intolerant of dissent and intent on deploying per capita restrictions on CO2 consumption that includes family planning?
When Juian Huxley – the first Director of UNESCO after it was formed at the end of WW2 – said:
“Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
I am not yet convinced that AGW and environmentalism can be separated with polulation control as the common denominator.

5. Vic Davis - August 9, 2009

Concerned citizens of the Earth may limit their child production but unconcerned citizens will not and will eventually take over the world thru thier population.
As it is now, several countries will become Muslin not thru war or battle but simply by having more babies than the dominant societies in place now.

6. EcoQ - August 13, 2009

@Vic Davis

Adopt imo

As long as there are starving orphans, I would have trouble justifying having my own children.


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: