Birth control could help combat climate change, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 18-9-2009 @ 11:33 AM by uswgo
Source news.yahoo.com...

Fri Sep 18, 9:29 am ET

LONDON – Giving contraceptives to people in developing countries could help fight climate change by slowing population growth, experts said Friday.

More than 200 million women worldwide want contraceptives, but don't have access to them, according to an editorial published in the British medical journal, Lancet. That results in 76 million unintended pregnancies every year.

If those women had access to free condoms or other birth control methods, that could slow rates of population growth, possibly easing the pressure on the environment, the editors say.


Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread Page):
AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events, or important information from other sites; please post one or two paragraphs, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.



[edit on 20/9/2009 by Mirthful Me]


reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 11:49 AM by mikerussellus
reply to post by uswgo



So. . . . we cull the herd, and
global/climate/green/cooling/heating/melting/foggy/wet/dry/hot/cold
problems will be fixed?

Hmmff.

What's the next step? The two kid rule, like China?

Not sure I'm liking this.


reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 12:17 PM by uswgo
Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to
post by uswgo



So. . . . we cull the herd, and
global/climate/green/cooling/heating/melting/foggy/wet/dry/hot/cold
problems will be fixed?

Hmmff.

What's the next step? The two kid rule, like China?

Not sure I'm liking this.



yeah this is beyond scary, whats next will they say murder will be legalized for protection of the planet! It could happen! Just take a trip and see the Georgia Guide Stones and it says that the population cannot exceed above 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.



reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 07:02 PM by burdman30ott6
Want to cut greenhouse gases? Don't provide birth control to developing countries... those people for the most part are contributing something so tiny it can't even be classified as a blip. Don't provide birth control to the average citizen in the industrialized world, either... again, it's a large enough contribution to be called a blip safely, but nothing more. Supply birth control in high quantities to the Hollywood and political elite, PARTICULARLY the Al Gores, Nancy Pelosis, and Alec Baldwins of the world.

I used this site:
www.whatsmycarbonfootprint.com...
to calculate my so-called "Carbon Footprint." and then looked into some of the footprint contributions of various activists crying wolf.
(In the interest of full disclosure, I consider the theory of Global Warming to be the biggest PONZI scheme running today. It is all bunk, but since they say it's meaningfull, let's judge them by their own rules and see how they're doing....)

So, according to the aforementioned site, my "carbon footprint" is, drumroll please:
22.1485 Tons of CO2 per year. WOW!

OK, so I've got a small herd of elephants spewing into the atmosphere courtesy of my household's activities. I drive an SUV as well, so according to THEM (cue ominous voice echo) I am Satan incarnate (particularly so since I could not give a single dry rat dropping about what my CO2 "footprint" is in the first place, but I digress...)

So, based on these facts, Al Gore must be way under that figure, right? I mean he went so far as to commission a people lifter to show how high up his projector screen our CO2 emissions were in comparison to history in an Inconvenient "Truth", right?

WRONG!

Based solely on Al Gore's public record of having paid out $2,439 a month on average for electric and natural gas at his eco-un-friendly mansion a couple of years ago PLUS an assumption that Al Gore takes 5 "long" flights per year *I'm having a hard time averting the snickers over how ridiculously lowballed that assumption is!* and assuming (hoping) Al recycles and drives a 30MPG hybrid (those pictures of him getting out of black SUVs were clearly photoshopped). Big Gay Al's carbon footprint is
(da, da, da!)
190.2515 Tons of CO2 Per Year... WHAT!?!?!?
Using even the most conservative of assumptions he uses 8 and a half times more CO2 than my family does? There must be a mistake somewhere here!

So, in summary, if we're gonna stop new births to save the planet from greenhouse gases, then let's start at the top and prevent these hypocritical jackasses from breeding because they're the ones destroying the planet (at least if you use their formulas... which I think is only fair)


reply posted on 18-9-2009 @ 08:13 PM by burdman30ott6
reply to post by dooper



I like your logic, but on the other hand (pun 100% intended and unabashed) proper lubrication achieves the same goal.

Ilm still cheesed about this GW nonsense in general. Bareback sex is bad, beef is bad, alcohol production is bad, SUVs are bad, farting and belching is bad, I've even seen them try to tie sports to global warming because of increased electric usage to broadcast and view games... When are they just going to come clean and tell the truth about what the global warming movement really is? That being a further attempt to emasculate men by villianizing some of our favorite manly activities and passions?
Pages:     ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 16 hours ago, 113 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 11 hours ago, 98 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 10 hours ago, 63 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 6 hours ago, 58 replies
Free will
  Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 14 hours ago, 50 replies