NPR: Having That Extra Child Could Cause “Climate Trauma”

NPR, which receives approximately 14% of it’s funding directly from money the government takes from taxpayers (probably more, since 12% comes from universities, which receive lots of taxpayer funding), has finally chimed in on the “study” that says people should have one less child. (via Twitchy)

From the link

We’ve all heard of ways to reduce our carbon footprint: biking to work, eating less meat, recycling.

But there’s another way to help the climate. A recent study from Lund University in Sweden shows that the biggest way to reduce climate change is to have fewer children.

“I knew this was a sensitive topic to bring up,” says study co-author Kimberly Nicholas on NPR’s Morning Edition. “Certainly it’s not my place as a scientist to dictate choices for other people. But I do think it is my place to do the analysis and report it fairly.”

The study concludes that four high-impact ways to reduce CO2 gas emissions include having fewer children, living without a car, avoiding airplane travel and eating a vegetarian diet.

Again, what, exactly, constitutes “fewer children”? If you were going to only have two, does that mean just one? If you wanted a big family, 5 or six, does that mean 4 or 5? And will the people at NPR follow through in their own lives on these four recommendations?

Nicholas says they also found that worldwide, many government resources on climate change did not focus on the top lifestyle changes in order to reduce carbon emissions.

“Something really important we found is that most government recommendations weren’t really talking about what makes the biggest difference, and they weren’t qualifying how big of a difference it made,” Nicholas tells NPR’s Steve Inskeep.

Is it really the government’s place to do that? Should the Government really be telling people to do these things? Especially since the Government uses vast amounts of fossil fuels themselves? In Warmist world, yes. In fact, in Warmist world the Government should be forcing Other People to give up their cars, eat a vegetarian diet, almost never fly, and have few children. Climate change is a political movement, not a scientific one.

Here’s where it gets really fun

“I think the decision to become a parent is a really personal decision,” she says. “I think the way people relate to it in terms of climate change depends on their view about climate change. If they don’t believe or don’t know the science, I feel like it makes them angry. I think if they do know the science and are overwhelmed by it, they feel guilt or despair.”

There’s already a word for this: climate trauma.

For some activists, climate change isn’t only an intellectual problem. It’s a “heart problem,” says Josephine Ferorelli, co-founder of Conceivable Future. She spoke with NPR’s Jennifer Ludden last year on having kids in the age of climate change. That story cited a study from 2010 that came to similar conclusions about the impact of slowing population growth on global carbon emissions.

These people really are nuts.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

11 Responses to “NPR: Having That Extra Child Could Cause “Climate Trauma””

  1. Jeffery says:


    Climate change is a political movement, not a scientific one.

    “Climate change” is real, based on overwhelming evidence, and the implications are eye opening. By necessity the response will be political.

    The response of the US right-wing IS political, ignoring the science.

    Opioid abuse is a scientific health crisis, but by necessity, the response will be political.

    That is not to say that certain political actors will not try to take advantage of a crisis to further their unrelated political issues. We have to carefully pick the political wheat from the chaff.

    • david7134 says:

      No, climate change is all about a political change, but Jeff is a fool and makes foolish statements.

  2. Jl says:

    Jeffery repeats the “science is settled mantra” like most alarmists, while offering zero evidence.

    • Jeffery says:

      Science is never settled, but sometimes the evidence is so overwhelming that it is irrational to continue to question the results.

      HIV causes AIDS, cigarette smoking causes cancer, the Earth is spherical etc

      And yes, human generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        And yes, human generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm.

        So little jeffuckery provide us with that overwhelming evidence.

  3. Jl says:

    “Implications are eye-opening”. Translation means I can’t tell you what those negative implications are, but trust me. Only implication so far is a greening of the earth.

    • Jeffery says:

      Heat indices of 110+ in midwest this week!

      If we’re very, very lucky the Earth will only warm another 1C (making 2C total). If we’re unlucky (i.e., follow the Con Men) the Earth could warm an eye-opening 4C!

      Those of us typing here will be dead and gone, but our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will suffer.

  4. Friday morning links

    Pocket knives and .22s: Times Change Out From Under Us  (H/t Am. Digest)   NPR: Having That Extra Child Could Cause “Climate Trauma”  LIBERAL TALKING HEADS TURN AGAINST THE WEST  When Institutions Go Left  John M

  5. Dawg says:

    So can we eliminate Leonardo, Algore, and the other Gulfstreamer 1% that are so superior to us?

    HAHAHA like that will ever happen.

    But they are coming after your hamburger.

Pirate's Cove