Perhaps they should refuse to breed and reduce their own population
(Delmarvanow) In a classic case of confusing root causes with symptoms, an environmental report on the United States’ rising contribution to climate change during a recent 15-year period was titled “The Carbon Boom.â€
It should have been titled “The Population Boom,†as virtually the whole increase measured in carbon dioxide emissions came from more people, not from burning more fossil fuel per capita.
This remains, approaching every environmental solution in terms of reducing our carbon (or nitrogen or land-use) “footprint,†lowering our per-capita impacts — seldom even discussing the other major part of the solution, the size of the population.
So, it’s people, not fossil fueled vehicles. For a change, though, they aren’t aiming at poor people in 3rd world shit holes
In their paper, Population Engineering and the Fight Against Climate Change, Travis N. Rieder, a Johns Hopkins bioethicist, and his colleagues Jake Earl and Colin Hickey, of Georgetown University, examine a range of techniques societies could use, or use more widely, to stabilize population. The authors, all moral philosophers, rule out the most coercive policies, such as sterilization and mandated family sizes. They would aim stronger population-slowing measures at wealthier, more developed countries to avoid unfairly targeting poorer, more desperate and less educated people.
Of course, the wealthier nations already have a much lower birth rate
The authors point out that our reproductive choices have a “carbon legacy,†as every child’s contribution to climate change continues for generations and expands with that child’s children and grandchildren, and so on. It’s enough to utterly swamp all the reductions one might make in their own impacts.
Sure looks like they’re aiming at everyone, though. And for all the protestations about not being anti human, they’re anti human.
