Global Warming Alarmists Propose Limiting Population ... to the Point of Extinction

In a statistical study entitled “Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals,” published in Global Environmental Change by Murtaugh and Shlax of Oregon State University, and again published here , the authors propose that the potential savings from reduced reproduction rates among humans are some 20 times more effective than the savings wrought by life style changes.

It is clear that the authors follow the Liberal mantra of the ends justify the means.  If we can reduce carbon emissions by reducing the number of children, then we should do it, they gloat.  It appears that carbon reductions trump even “life” itself.  They summarize:

Much attention has been paid to the ways that people’s home energy use, travel, food choices and other routine activities affect their emissions of carbon dioxide and, ultimately, their contributions to global warming. However, the reproductive choices of an individual are rarely incorporated into calculations of his personal impact on the environment. Here we estimate the extra emissions of fossil carbon dioxide that an average individual causes when he or she chooses to have children. The summed emissions of a person’s descendants, weighted by their relatedness to him, may far exceed the lifetime emissions produced by the original parent. Under current conditions in the United States, for example, each child adds about 9441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female, which is 5.7 times her lifetime emissions. A person’s reproductive choices must be considered along with his day-to-day activities when assessing his ultimate impact on the global environment.

The following very compelling video analysis explains the study in some detail:
 


By the authors’ desires, if we would limit every couple to having only one child, we would solve the Global Warming problem for every one.  Again, humanity itself is the cause of all the woe, and the best thing for us to do is just stop procreating -- or just drop dead.  Living human beings are bad for the planet.

Indeed, the authors purposely fail to mention that their proposal puts humanity on a fast-tack extinction curve, as reproduction rates fall below population replacement rates.  Surely, as statisticians they know this well.  Within a few generations, there wouldn’t be any one around to measure, least wise care, about carbon emissions.  We would all be dead.  

But golly, we would save the planet!  Just goes to show you, Liberals are all about death and destruction.  They absolutely live for it!    

I’ve got a thought, why not have liberals first show us how it’s done…. Go ahead liberals -- take the lead in this thing.  Limit your own population first, and the rest of us might, “maybe,” consider what you have to say.


In a statistical study entitled “Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals,” published in Global Environmental Change by Murtaugh and Shlax of Oregon State University, and again published here , the authors propose that the potential savings from reduced reproduction rates among humans are some 20 times more effective than the savings wrought by life style changes.

It is clear that the authors follow the Liberal mantra of the ends justify the means.  If we can reduce carbon emissions by reducing the number of children, then we should do it, they gloat.  It appears that carbon reductions trump even “life” itself.  They summarize:

Much attention has been paid to the ways that people’s home energy use, travel, food choices and other routine activities affect their emissions of carbon dioxide and, ultimately, their contributions to global warming. However, the reproductive choices of an individual are rarely incorporated into calculations of his personal impact on the environment. Here we estimate the extra emissions of fossil carbon dioxide that an average individual causes when he or she chooses to have children. The summed emissions of a person’s descendants, weighted by their relatedness to him, may far exceed the lifetime emissions produced by the original parent. Under current conditions in the United States, for example, each child adds about 9441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female, which is 5.7 times her lifetime emissions. A person’s reproductive choices must be considered along with his day-to-day activities when assessing his ultimate impact on the global environment.

The following very compelling video analysis explains the study in some detail:
 


By the authors’ desires, if we would limit every couple to having only one child, we would solve the Global Warming problem for every one.  Again, humanity itself is the cause of all the woe, and the best thing for us to do is just stop procreating -- or just drop dead.  Living human beings are bad for the planet.

Indeed, the authors purposely fail to mention that their proposal puts humanity on a fast-tack extinction curve, as reproduction rates fall below population replacement rates.  Surely, as statisticians they know this well.  Within a few generations, there wouldn’t be any one around to measure, least wise care, about carbon emissions.  We would all be dead.  

But golly, we would save the planet!  Just goes to show you, Liberals are all about death and destruction.  They absolutely live for it!    

I’ve got a thought, why not have liberals first show us how it’s done…. Go ahead liberals -- take the lead in this thing.  Limit your own population first, and the rest of us might, “maybe,” consider what you have to say.