Is forced population control the solution to climate change?

What is the carbon impact of a child being born?

Every new child, has to be fed, clothed, warmed, buying a new car, etc...and this consumes fossil fuels. Its not enough to have this be voluntary. Forced population control is the answer, if global warming is as bad as people claim it is.

If you have a child, you are killing the earth.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/07/local/me-greenspace7

 

There should be a carbon tax on newborns, worldwide. :MARIS61:

 

When you get a virus, you get a fever. That's the human body raising its core temperature to kill the virus. Planet Earth works the same way: Global warming is the fever, mankind is the virus. We're making our planet sick. A cull is our only hope. If we don't reduce our population ourselves, there's only one of two ways this can go: The host kills the virus, or the virus kills the host. Either way...The result is the same: The virus dies.

 

Well, the Chinese just eliminated their law restricting couples to only one child, so it sounds to me like we're screwed on the population control front.

 

Ask and you shall receive;

Element Percent by Mass
Oxygen 65
Carbon 18
Hydrogen 10
Nitrogen 3
Calcium 1.5
Phosphorus 1.2
Potassium 0.2
Sulfur 0.2
Chlorine 0.2
Sodium 0.1
Magnesium 0.05
Iron, Cobalt, Copper, Zinc, Iodine
Selenium, Fluorine

 

Start with China and India.

 

Is that how we should approach climate change? Let them deal with it.

 

Plant more trees too. Mostly Carbon and they glean it from the air.

"Environmentalists tend to avoid the topic of population control."

The failure to look at the carbon foot print in total rather than continually focusing on the individual foot print has been my complaint for years.

I sent Wyden a letter several years back concerning immigration. I said, I would be for more immigration when there are, fish to eat in our rivers again. I remember went it was true and I did catch my dinner more than once. If every person tried that now... well I doubt you could get to the river.

 

Pollution is a product of consumption. Consumption is a product of people. The more people there are, the more consumption there is, especially in wealthy countries. Therefore, population control should start in the countries with the highest consumption per capita.

 

Spot on sir! The US has failed completely to lead in this area, We continue to import labor to staff our mills as if this were sustainable forever. This is the image we present to the rest of the world.
And they attempt to emulate. Now we are near the end of this trail with more people than mills, no fish in the rivers, and hoards more on the way. The liberals continue to shout, we are a Nation of immigrants, it not fair to shut the door, you racist!

Finally one young man sees the picture. You made my day.

 

Kind of talking about something more extreme. Hard limits on the number of kids one can have, etc unless one pays a fee to have additional kids. There should probably a tax on births to offset the carbon footprint.

 

Hell, we are alright, up until a few years ago, the US birth rate was low enough to result in a population reduction. We grow because of immigrants. Stop that and extreme measure are not required.

 

I would think lower socioeconomic backgrounds would tend to have more children. That may be directly related to illegal immigration however. With more dual income families, it's harder to maintain having kids.

 

True. Might have to take some measures to discourage this reality.

 

Research, science and investments in energy fields and in our youth. Education and technology together will take care of the situation if we pull together soon and do what needs to be done. If we wait too long, fucksville. When is it too late? don't know.

 

Population control will probably have a much faster effect. The act of actively reducing a larger population is probably more impactful than solar energy and education. Sounds fucked up but it's probably true. I mean the impact of driving an electric car for years can probably be negated by simply eliminating one child birth. Multiply that on a national scale, and the economic and environmental boon would be tremendous.

I mean we can tax the rich to kingdom come or make everyone drive hybrids, but limiting the population should at least be on the table.

 

I think with nuclear, hydrogen, solar, wind and other research, we could have our carbon footprint reduced tremendously within 20 years if we put in the time, money and effort. It needs to be our mission to the moon. Then additional research to correct current imbalances and bring us back to an optimal sustainable level would be the concurrent goal. We are resourceful and intelligent enough to lick this issue if we can concentrate on it. Otherwise, have fun on the way out.

 

And population control is a bandaid, i want a cure.