Today’s “Babies Are Bad For Climate Change” Story

The alarmists just cannot help themselves, including over at Treehugger: Is Birth Control the Cheapest Answer to Climate Change?

From overpopulation as the elephant in the room, to the idea that less sex and more TV might be the answer to India’s growing birth rate, overpopulation isn’t exactly a taboo subject here on TreeHugger–but it doesn’t get anywhere near the attention of, say, wind energy, electric cars, or the amazing biodiversity of compost. All that has to change, says Peter Preston over at The Guardian, if we are to have any hope of tackling the threat of climate change.

In an article on why the human numbers don’t add up on climate change, Preston first notes that saving the planet feels a little bit like last year’s news these days. With students rioting in the streets over tuition fees, and the latest climate talks barely warranting a mention in the media, he does have a point. But the problem is deeper than just a lack of attention or interest in the topic, argues Preston, it is also the fact that the debate over climate change focuses on energy, but does not register when it comes to some of the most important societal debates of our time. Take the UK’s struggle over child benefits, for example:

Trending: The 15 Best Conservative News Sites On The Internet

The article then goes on to describe how the welfare system that Democrats/liberals created, which gives money to people who have babies, is Very Bad. And how discussing China’s one child only policy should not be considered a human rights violation, but wise policy, and ends with

As a relatively new green dad, I am by no means anti-baby. I love my beautiful little carbon footprint as much as the next parent. And I fully understand that rich, fossil-fuel addicted Westerners have precious little moral high ground from which to lecture the rest of the world. But the idea that discussing how the number of babies we all have impacts our environment, and our society, should somehow be off limits seems like a dangerous concept to me.

It’s good to see someone saying what needs to be said.

Back before the issue of anthropogenic global warming became a big subject, in the mid-1990’s, people who said this would be shunned as wackos and unfit for interaction in society. They’d be the fringe, and even their parents would “forget” to invite them to family get-togethers. Now, they actually have the audacity to write for a major environmental site owned by The Discovery Channel.

Oh, look, they said that the Midwest would have a wicked hot winter. How’d that work out?

Looking pretty sharp so far! Only off by fifteen degrees or so, but they can forecast one hundred years from now to within one tenth of a degree.

Harbor Seals are being seen more and more off Long Island, as the waters get colder further south from Arctic melting due to global warming.(?)

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!