We Can Totally Stop ‘Climate Change’ By Giving Girls Birth Control

Wired’s Robin George Andrews thinks she totally has the solution to fixing this whole (made up) issue


CLIMATE CHANGE IS a ubiquitous hydra, a many-headed beast that affects everyone and everything in some form. Solutions to climate change range from the effective and the practical to the potentially catastrophically dangerous—but, in this somewhat heated debate, a potent weapon in our arsenal is falling by the wayside: the empowerment of women.

Last year a coalition of scientists, economists, policymakers, researchers, and business people published Project Drawdown, a compendium of ways to prevent carbon dioxide from escaping skywards. Drawing from a plethora of peer-reviewed research, the document ranks 80 practical, mitigating measures—along with 20 near-future concepts—that could push back the oncoming storm. (snip)

But two lesser-known solutions also made this most practical of lists: the education of girls (number 6) and family planning (number 7). This is a stunning revelation, one that couldn’t be more pertinent, and yet, for the most part, discussions of mitigation and de-carbonization focus heavily on other matters, from the perceived perils and bona fide benefits of nuclear power, to just how quickly solar power is proliferating.

Got that? We have to educate girl because of Hotcoldwetdry. Not because they deserve education (most education systems in the 1st World are run by leftists: why are they not educating girls already?), but because of a manufactured issue based on junk science. Hey, I wonder if these same Warmists will finally take on Islam, and especially Islam, for their treatment of women?

Then there’s family planning, something that’s indivisible from the education of girls. The planet is overpopulated, and the demands of its citizens greatly exceed the natural resources provided by our environment.

Contraception and prenatal care is denied to women across the world, from those in the United States, to communities in low-income nations. It’s either not available, not affordable, or social and/or religious motives ensure that it’s banned or heavily restricted. As a consequence, the world’s population will rise rapidly, consume ever more resources, and power its ambitions using fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere.

What they really mean is contraception to make sure “minorities”, ie, Africans and Asians, in 3rd world countries do not breed, via contraception and abortion.

It’s farcical that this isn’t forming a major part of the debate over climate change mitigation. It’s not entirely clear why this is the case, but I’d suspect that regressive societal attitudes, along with the tendency of commentators to focus on the battle between different energy sectors, play suppressive roles in this regard.

Or, it could be that some people, even in the high end Warmist community, think it’s a Bad Idea to make the racist notion of aborting, sterilizing, and reducing the population in 3rd world countries a top shelf talking point. Even though this type of eugenics idea has been part of Progressive dogma for over 100 years.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

28 Responses to “We Can Totally Stop ‘Climate Change’ By Giving Girls Birth Control”

  1. Dana says:

    I’m sorry, but where in the United States are girls “denied” access to contraception? Is there a place in the US where girls are not allowed to go to the public schools?

    • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

      Denied access = not paying for someone else’s personal lifestyle choices. That’s why women’s healthcare access means that the taxpayer must pay for a $8k abortion.

  2. McGehee says:

    The future belongs to those that show up.

  3. McGehee says:

    It’s either not available, not affordable, or social and/or religious motives ensure that it’s banned or heavily restricted.

    Q: Who went ballistic when conservatives proposed making birth control available over-the-counter?

    A: Planned Parenthood.

    • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

      I am morally opposed to abortion and resent being forced to be a part of infanticide through my tax dollars. I know that despite a plurality of citizens being against abortion it will never be allowed to be banned or heavily restricted. I would settle for tax dollars being banned from funding abortion or going to any entity that performs abortions (funds are fungible). I have a sneaking suspicion that demand would dry up when the client had to pay $8k for it.

      Of course the judiciary would never stand for it because the constitution calls for infanticide on the public dime, or something.

  4. Jeffery says:

    Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:
    February 20, 2018 at 6:28 am
    Now breakdown their (legal) income by procedure…

    Now be our guest… breakdown away. Do you have a point?

    • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

      You’ve had econ, yes? An abortion that is billed to Uncle Sugar for $8,000 @345,000 is a better part of their bottom line than $50 billed to same @2.7 million units.

      • Jeffery says:


        You may be confused.

        Planned Parenthood does not bill the government for abortions. Although it varies year to year based on its annual reauthorization, the Hyde Amendment prevents the use of federal funds for abortion (some years abortions after rape or incest are permitted). Some years conservatives ban paying for abortions after rape or incest! The House passed a bill in 2017 making the Hyde Amendment permanent… waiting on the Senate. You should read up on the Hyde Amendment.

        PP gets about one third of its funding from government, some from the feds, some from the states.

  5. Jeffery says:

    o0Nighthawk0o says:
    February 20, 2018 at 7:02 am
    …that’s 1,051,713 murdered children last year.

    You stand by while a million children a year are murdered??? You don’t even believe that yourself, or you’d do something about it. It’s propaganda.

    You even call contraception murder! By your definition Jesus murders more children a year than PP, what with the spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) he oversees. (There are more miscarriages than therapeutic abortions.)

    Murder is illegal. Abortion is legal. Contraception is legal, and desirable (at least for women).

    • Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

      You are being intentionally obtuse, “emergency contraception” is the marketing name for an early stage chemically induced abortion.

      • Jeffery says:

        We understand the mechanics of emergency contraception, which is also legal. Do you view emergency contraception, which is used when an unwanted conception MAY have occurred, as murder? If a woman is raped (or in tRump-speak, “gives in”) is it murder to take a pill that either blocks ovulation or prevents fertilization?

        Can you cite the medical literature that EC is an abortifacient (even if it is, it’s legal).

        In your world would you strain the expulsion for signs of an embryo before you charged her and her druggist with murder? Would those guilty of “murder” of an embryo face the same penalties as a man who shoots kids?

  6. McGehee says:

    A black person defending Planned Parenthood is a little like a rabbi defending Hitler.

  7. Jeffery says:

    The abortion rate was halved from the Reagan peak (29.3/1K) to the Obama trough (14.6/1K). Will it go back up under tRump?

    White patients accounted for 39% of abortion procedures in 2014, blacks for 28%, Hispanics for 25% and patients of other races and ethnicities for 9%.

    Seventeen percent of abortion patients in 2014 identified as mainline Protestant, 13% as evangelical Protestant and 24% as Catholic; 38% reported no religious affiliation and the remaining 8% reported some other affiliation


    54% were christians, including 13% evangelicals, 24% catholics…

    And the Con Men want to reduce access to contraception even though contraception access decreases the abortion rate. Is it “babies” you care about, or controlling your women?

  8. Jeffery says:

    Some 75% of abortion patients in 2014 were poor or low-income. Twenty-six percent of patients had incomes of 100–199% of the federal poverty level, and 49% had incomes of less than 100% of the federal poverty level ($15,730 for a family of two).

    Slash the safety net AND make contraception harder to obtain, and you get more abortions.

    Are you sure you are interested in “babies”?

    • david7134 says:

      And all of these patients have Medicaid which will pay for the abortion and other medical needs. Planed Parenthood is a redundant expense and does not serve a purpose except to channel money to the Democrats.

  9. drowningpuppies says:

    Interesting fact:

    The population of St. Louis is aborted each year.

Pirate's Cove