Want to fight global warming?

Ideally, you could have more abortions or die much, much sooner or both (though the order would be important):

To heck with carbon dioxide. A new study performed by the London School of Economics suggests that, to fight climate change, governments should focus on another pollutant: us.

Every new life, the report says, is a guarantee of new greenhouse gases, spewed out over decades of driving and electricity use. Seen in that light, we might be our own worst emissions.

The activist group that sponsored the report says that birth control could be one of the world's best tools for fighting climate change. By preventing the creation of new polluters, the group says, contraceptives are a far cheaper solution than windmills and solar plants.

...

In the United States, each baby results in 1,644 tons of carbon dioxide, five times more than a baby in China, and 91 times more than an infant in Bangladesh, according to the Oregon State study. That is because Americans live relatively long, and live in a country whose long car commutes, coal-burning power plants and cathedral ceilings give it some of the highest per-capita emissions in the world.

Seen from that angle, the Oregon State researchers concluded that child-bearing was one of the most fateful environmental decisions in anyone's life.

Recycle, shorten your commute, drive a hybrid vehicle, and buy energy-efficient light bulbs, appliances and windows -- all of that would cut out about one-fortieth of the emissions caused by bringing two children, and their children's children, into the world.

"People always consider the financial costs, and they consider the time cost," said Paul Murtaugh, one of the Oregon State researchers, who said that he does not have children but that he is open to the idea despite his research. "We're just attempting to put on the table the ballpark estimate of the environmental cost."

So what, exactly, is the world supposed to do with this information?

The researchers behind both studies are emphatic that they do not want people to be forced not to have children. But Martin, whose group sponsored the British study, said governments could help stop unwanted pregnancies by offering contraception and in some rare cases, abortion.

The British study found that $220 billion, spent over the next 40 years, might prevent half a billion births and prevent 34 billion tons of carbon dioxide. The cost, measured in 2020, would be about $7 for each ton reduced, the report said -- far cheaper than solar power, at $51, or wind power, at $24.

But, for now, the world does not seem very interested.

Being the thoughtful guy that I am and wanting to in some way find common ground with the authors of the study and the ideology being promoted... I have an idea.

Why don't we test this theory initially in Muslim countries?

*chirp*   *chirp*  *chirp*

Comments

[twitter.com/JeremiahFilms]

Global warming has more to do with worshipping the pagan god "mother earth" than it does science. Science is the search for the understanding of how things work, and honors questions - not much of that can be found in the global warming rhetoric.

CO2 is not a problem, Plants are designed to grow faster with additional CO2. CO2 is self balancing. Jeremiah films archive on the Global Warming Anti-Science is located here

Citizens of this country have the requirement to stop our country from falling for this foolishness. The true motivation is one to take away our freedoms, money and to lord economic power over people. It is a pernicious lie, water vapor is a bigger green house gas than co2. It is out of control pride that makes people think we could change the temperature of the earth. And if you eliminated humanity, other animals would replace us.

[tim aka The Godless Heathen]

"Why don't we test this theory initially in Muslim countries?"

Ah yea!!!

[me]

people like global warming 2012 we all die