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.
Our esteemed host wrote:
Actually, that’s already happening: conservatives tend to have more children than liberals.
Most of the articles on this are about ten years old, but the trend remains the same. Liberals tend to congregate in urban areas, where there’s less room for children, black women — who vote almost exclusively for Democrats — have an abortion rate thrice that of white women, and homosexuals, who are very heavily liberal, cannot reproduce normally.
Hence our transition from a Republican plutocracy to a Republican idiocracy…
Of course they do. For one thing have you seen how ugly leftist hags are? Look at the Wookie compared to Melania. Secondly, conservative men actually have penises whereas leftist gurlymen need help in their Pajama Boy suits (and they need written permission or it’s “aggression”). Real women don’t want leftist men.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WnoRhkoBm9g/UrKc-5zJRDI/AAAAAAAAMfM/b_nsS9NmM50/s400/Pajama+Boy+Can+Do+It.jpg
Ahhh, leftist women!
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2860/269/original.jpg?w=800&h
At least Moochelle is adapting!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-24oMj1ClnTc/Vp3ErrnZC9I/AAAAAAAA7IE/rh8EveRg3ak/s1600/1ninetymiles5Elit1rw5dlyo1_540.png
Rev KKK,
How would anyone ever get the idea that Trumpatistas are racist slimebags? Hahahahaha
Or maybe it’s just you. Nah.
Are you a christian reverend for real, or is just another of your myriad lies?
Why would you attack a woman for her appearance? You own insecurities as a “man”? Hahahaha
Jeffrey wrote:
It ain’t conservatives who’ve become so stupid that they can’t even tell the difference between males and females anymore.
How would anyone ever get the idea that Trumpatistas are racist slimebags? Hahahahaha
Or maybe it’s just you. Nah.
Are you a christian reverend for real, or is just another of your myriad lies?
Why would you attack a woman for her appearance? You own insecurities as a “man� Hahahaha
Rev KKK,
And now we know why christianity is dying. It was captured by the conservatives and we all know that cons have no kindness in them.
“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” LOL Except Negroes, Mexicans and Muslims.
Racist assholes such as yourself always deny it, yet you keep typing racist things. Why is that?
IF the AGW crowd in the USA were legit….they would be demanding the removal of illegals and refuse to allow anything but the agreed upon Immigration per year.
Why?
Because Immigrants once the get to the USA use significantly more CO2 then do their counterparts in south America. We have researched this and found that their carbon footprint will increase 7.5x’s fold by arriving in the USA and to begin a consumer life rather then eeking out an existence in South America.
IF I WAS AN AGW’er I would be demanding a wall.
Hahahaha. Is that all you got? I point out you are always about race and your answer is I am? Again, I don’t think you fully understand what “racist” means. Hahahaha. And we all know you are The Great Projectionist.
BTW, exactly what have I typed that is racist? Because I have several instances of you being racist. Here’s one so you can see just how ugly you are:
Of course that was in October before you and your fellow racist lefists got your asses handed to you by Trump. Hahahaha. Still, you haven’t learned that calling names is for losers. I hope you never do.
Laim,
Your reductio ad absurdum argument, as sound as it is, just doesn’t go far enough. If AGW is so threatening why aren’t supporters advocating killing off the elderly who sit around all day using electricity but not contributing to society?? Why not mandate max indoor temperatures during winter and minima during summer? Ban all internal combustion engines? Ban all fossil fuel generation of electricity? Mandate that Jan 1 all electricity generation come from solar, wind and nuclear?
All these actions would quickly bring down CO2 production. So why aren’t these actions being seriously considered? Balance. Context. Human rights. The Constitution.
Beside getting rid of Mexicans, are there other federal actions you support for reducing CO2 emissions? Why not ban all immigration EXCEPT from nations with greater per capita CO2 emissions than the US, i.e., Qatar, Trinidad, Curacao, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Brunei, Luxembourg, Kuwait and Bahrain? If we let them immigrate, maybe even recruit these folks, global emissions of CO2 would go down!!
Are you OK with fewer Mexicans but more Muslims? If your interest is actually in reducing emissions you should be.
Rev KKK,
If you voted for Trump you’re likely a racist. Not all conservatives are racists, but all racists are conservatives.
racism: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior
Is it your belief that your “race” is superior to other races?
Are you prejudiced, do you discriminate, are you antagonistic against those of a different race?
Do you support government policies that benefit your race over another race?
Rev KKK,
Do you even understand “race”? I suspect you think only of White, Black, Yellow, Red. Of course there is no good definition of race by scientists. Sociologists consider race to include any set of defining characteristics that identifies one group from another.
Is it your de facto belief that your religion is superior to others? Are you somehow better than Muslims? Are you superior to Wiccans or Unitarians? Episcopalians? The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America?
We find there exists insufficient evidence to support belief in supernatural entities such as gods, demons, spirits, miracles, angels, souls, afterlife, heaven, hell, purgatory etc., whether based on Hinduism, Shintoism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Satanism, Judaism, Islam, Jainism, Wicca, Sikkhism, etc. In fact there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of non-religious supernatural phenomena including ghosts, magic spells, paranormal activity, witches, telekinesis, ESP, UFOs and BigFoot. But we fully admit we could be wrong, and in the highly unlikely event that reliable evidence is presented, we could change our mind. Do these positions make us racist?
Boy you’re an idiot. Like I said, you don’t know what the word means. Once again the leftist brain cannot understand the difference between “different” and “superior”. Recognizing the differences among people is not racism. Refusing to see and learn from them is pure ignorance.
In some things and in others my race is inferior. If we can’t face the truth we are doomed to ignorance which breeds fear and racism.
No, no, and why would anybody be “antagonistic”? You seem to be an oikophobic, that is you don’t like your own race, your own culture and your own country. Why is that? Why is being proud of one’s race, culture and country somehow racist, bigoted and prejudiced? If I was racist I would not be married outside of my race nor would I be the Godfather for three charming Black American kids.
All Americans should be treated equally under the law. I believe government policies should never benefit nor pit one race against another. That includes set asides, special considerations, quotas and affirmative action all of which are racist and designed to favor or disfavor one or more races.
I believe the democrat policy of soft bigotry of low expectations has severely harmed the black family in America and must be reversed. Blacks are no longer the slaves of the democrats and are not here to be exploited for votes and political support in return for government largess.
Rev KKK,
When so-called “differences” are used to oppress a group it is racist.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/university-offering-course-problem-whiteness/
So what differences are being used to “oppress”?