Detroit, Mich. – Michigan just experienced its coldest July on record; global temperatures haven’t risen in more than a decade; Great Lakes water levels have resumed their 30-year cyclical rise (contrary to a decade of media scare stories that they were drying up due to global warming), and polls show that climate change doesn’t even make a list of Michigan voters’ top-ten concerns.
Yet in an interview with the Detroit News Monday, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) – recently appointed to the Senate Energy Committee – made clear that fighting the climate crisis is her top priority.
“Climate change is very real,” she confessed as she embraced cap and trade’s massive tax increase on Michigan industry – at the same time claiming, against all the evidence, that it would not lead to an increase in manufacturing costs or energy prices. “Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I’m flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes.”
And there are sea monsters in Lake Michigan. I can feel them when I’m boating.
Here’s a neat way for the zero population kooks to support their cause. Blame kids for global warming. (Emphasis added)
For people who are looking for ways to reduce their “carbon footprint,” here’s one radical idea that could have a big long-term impact, some scientists say: Have fewer kids.
A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices people might employ during their entire lives – things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.
Those of you planning to have children are just being selfish when it comes to saving the planet. You really should think of the carbon consequences before you reproduce. Do you really need that “extra” child? Don’t forget that the “extra” children you make today could commit the mortal environmental sin of having “extra” children themselves. This time we really do need to “think of the children”.
Reproductive choices haven’t gained as much attention in the consideration of human impact to the Earth, Murtaugh said. When an individual produces a child – and that child potentially produces more descendants in the future – the effect on the environment can be many times the impact produced by a person during their lifetime.
“Many people are unaware of the power of exponential population growth,” Murtaugh said. “Future growth amplifies the consequences of people’s reproductive choices today, the same way that compound interest amplifies a bank balance.”
BTW, I’m not sure what constitues an “extra” child in the United States. I know in China it’s more than one. ( I wonder if we can get carbon credits for every abortion.)
Here’s another concern: my mother had three boys. I guess two of us have to go. If you have siblings you may want to start thinking which of you are “extra”. That could become important down the road.
Not to worry though, they really aren’t suggesting a law or anything like that.
The researchers note that they are not advocating government controls or intervention on population issues, but say they simply want to make people aware of the environmental consequences of their reproductive choices.
Thank goodness! But, you know that will come next. These people really will stop at nothing.