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)
Study lists 4 high-impact ways to cut CO2 emissions:
-have fewer kids
-go carless
-avoid air travel
-go vegetarianhttps://t.co/gvRMqqgKUn— NPR (@NPR) July 19, 2017
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.
Read: NPR: Having That Extra Child Could Cause “Climate Trauma” »
(
Foreign home buyers scooped up a record number of residential properties in the United States in the last year, despite a rising dollar and political uncertainty, according to a survey released Tuesday.
(
While we busy ourselves greening our personal lives, fossil fuel corporations are rendering these efforts irrelevant. The breakdown of carbon emissions since 1988? A hundred companies alone are responsible for an 
Trump’s proposal to erect a wall along the border between Mexico and the U.S. generates the greatest opposition in the countries surveyed. Globally, a median of 76% disapprove of building the wall, while only 16% approve. Publics in Europe and Latin America are the most negative, with a median of about 85% in both regions voicing disapproval. In Mexico, 94% oppose building a wall on their border.
