Climate-change activists call for tax policies to discourage childbirth

By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Friday, August 19, 2016

Climate-change activists are mobilizing to cut the birthrate, arguing that richer nations should discourage people having children in order to protect them from the ravages of global warming and reduce emissions.

Travis Rieder, assistant director of the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University, told NPR that bringing down global fertility by half a child per woman “could be the thing that saves us.”

“Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” said Mr. Rieder, who has one child.

He proposed procreation disincentives such as government tax breaks for poor people and tax penalties for rich people, a kind of “carbon tax on kids.”

Poor nations would be cut slack “because they’re still developing, and because their per capita emissions are a sliver of the developed world’s. Plus, it just doesn’t look good for rich, Western nations to tell people in poor ones not to have kids,” NPR said.
...

www.washingtontimes.com...

Well, it seems that the AGW camp is already making demands to be able to control people's lives. At least people in western civilizations. Apparently as long as you are from a third world country you could have 20 children if you want, but if you live in a western, first world civilization, then the AGW camp wants to control your life and they have to decide how many children you can have.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Hmmmm...
I pay taxes.. and i'm un able to produce children. Will i get a rebate? Will they re emBIRTH me?

Not shooting the messenger here. Infact have a star and flag for this thread. 😉
Glad you posted this..👍


China has a female shortage crisis..
Per the link provided..
“U.S. environmentalists are taking a page from China’s mandatory one-child policy even as China abandons the policy,” Mr. Morano said in a Friday statement."

Poor nations would be cut slack “because they’re still developing, and because their per capita emissions are a sliver of the developed world’s. Plus, it just doesn’t look good for rich, Western nations to tell people in poor ones not to have kids,” NPR said.

No.

Poor nations are full of poor people. Taxing poor people doesn't generate much revenue.

This whole thing is about money (firstly) and control. Always has been, and always will be.

You will never get an entire society to voluntarily limit the number of children they have. It runs contrary to human nature; to one of the most powerful impulses human beings have.

The AGW crowd knows this full well. In fact, they're counting on the idea that it won't work.

If it actually worked, the money would dry up.

And they're not interested in that.

Pay me or I'll have them...they say,as if they cared.

a reply to: Bigburgh

Was thinking the exact same thing. I'm also unable to have children. Shouldn't we get a bigger tax rebate? We're definitely doing our lifelong part to protect the children of the future from this mad mad mad mad mad world.

I'll expect my check in the mail thanks.

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

Wish i had a meme for this.. but i cant produce one. Lol!

Here...🍻💰💰💰💵💵💵💴💴💴💶💷💸💳

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

One man's opinion to a class of students constitutes the whole "AGW camp"?

Yeah. No.

SJW want socialism

For socialism, you need people to pay for the programs. Lower the population and taxes go up. Taxes go up, more people will bit have money

Boom- an establishment class and the poor class.

The establishment loves it when a plan comes together

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

They're friggin' communists.

Authoritarian bastards.

Every now and then they slip up and let the real agenda be known.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Every now and then they slip up and let the real agenda be known.

It's one man's opinion.

Do you condemn the whole Republican Party for what Michelle Bachman says?

The CLEXIT PDF..clexit.net...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I have 2, but thats my choice.

Mixed feelings here... I know I dont want these twats telling people what to do, and I sure as hell am automatically turned off by the tax BS...

So no.

How about we just educate people and explain the issue instead of treating us like idiot cash cows.

In fact, F this. No, let the world burn if its about a tax. Its insulting at this point. I would rather we all die than perpetuate a perfect slave world.

Really.

Is this more Soros nonsense?

I am kind of curious to see the end of the world and have everyone and all I love die just to see these types of elite socialists go down as well.

Years of climate doom and honestly if it had a valid point I dont care anymore. Its all about taxing us, more specualtive markets, and control. So bite my shorts, mankind.

Let this mother roast and over flow.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

better yet, let's just have an old fashioned World War.

That always seems to keep population down.

a reply to: Chadwickus

It isn't a one man's opinion. We have seen many among the AGW camp in ATS espouse similar decisions, such as limiting how many children people can have.

The problem was solving itself in many european countries like Germany with declining birth rates.

That was until Merkel and her ilk started bringing in millions of people from third world countries. In their african homelands they had tiny carbon footprints that were increased a hundred times when they became new western consumers supplied with new homes, clothes, furniture, appliances, cars, electronics, etc.

They are having many more children with much higher mortality rates than their homelands.

They will reproduce exponentially like rabbits.

Any real environmentalis should be fighting strongly agains mass immigration.

Any supporter of immigration is anti-environment.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I always find it curious, and suspect when anyone uses the
"half a child" as a descriptive....as if somehow a statistical
number is feasible when applied to real life.

Seriously, "Half a child"?

And no just no to more taxes on people having a life and a family!

This is exactly the crap I'm talking about when it comes to climate change.

How the hell are we even supposed to have a scientific discussion about mitigating the worst effects of climate change when idiot "activists" push for policies that outright violate human rights?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Is this plan for whites whose world wide birth rate is about roughly half of those in non-white countries eg, musllim countries which have birth rates twice that of whites.

I would imagine the thing to do would be offer suitable incentives for birth rate reductions in the countries with the highest birth rates.

a reply to: projectvxn

Well, the problem is that the elites are also the very same people pushing for these Chinese type of policies, and since a lot of regular people believe the lie that is AGW, they think it's just for the good of all, when it actually isn't.

Not that long ago I showed how Bill Gates spoke at one of his events about a formula for "fighting climate change" by reducing one, or several factors, and one of those factors includes "people".

...
Climate change is an issue that has plenty of noise surrounding it. There are those who deny it is a problem at all. Others exaggerate the immediate risks.

What I needed was an equation that would help me understand how we might get our CO2 down to zero.

Here’s what I came up with:

P x S x E x C = CO2

People x Services per person x Energy per person x CO2 per energy unit = CO2

That might look complicated. It’s not.

On the right side you have the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) we put in the atmosphere. This is what we need to get to zero. It’s based on the four factors on the left side of the equation: the world’s population (P) multiplied by the services (S) used by each person; the energy (E) needed to provide each of those services; and finally, the carbon dioxide (C) produced by that energy.

As you learned in math class, any number multiplied by zero will equal zero. So if we want to get to zero CO2, then we need to get at least one of the four factors on the left to zero.
Climate Change

Let’s go through them, one by one, and see what we get.

The world’s population (P) is currently 7 billion and expected to increase to 9 billion by 2050. No chance it’ll be zero.

Next, services. This is everything: food, clothing, heat, houses, cars, TV, toothbrushes, Elmo dolls, Taylor Swift albums, etc. This is the number that I was saying earlier needs to go up in poor countries, so people can have lights, refrigerators, and so on. So (S) can’t be zero, either.

Let’s take a look at (E). That’s the energy needed per service. There’s some good news here. Fuel-efficient cars, LED light bulbs, and other inventions are making it possible to use energy more efficiently.
...

www.gatesnotes.com...

Even if anyone wants to claim that Gates wasn't referring to reducing the population, the fact that he does say "we need to reduce carbon footprint to 0" points to him wanting to reduce the population as well since you can't get anywhere near 0 CO2 emissions unless you do reduce the population.

By reducing any of the other factors elites like Gates are still calling for controlling the population by claiming mankind is the cause for climate change when in fact there are other changes occurring to the Earth, and our sun which do affect the climate.

As a matter of fact, elites like the Gates, the Rockefellers, the Ford Foundation, and even Exxon Mobil Foundation among others are linked to other depopulation schemes, such as the willful and forceful sterilizations done in third world countries including India.

...
PRI has numerous documents which demonstrate unambiguously that America's foreign aid agency USAID has underwritten such camps in India for decades. They also establish that the agency – in concert with a host of American charity groups, India's biggest bank and private funders like Bill and Melinda Gates – has been the primary architect and a major overseer of the country’s state-run population control.
...
A 2012 report from the Washington, D.C based global health consulting firm, Futures Group International, for example, outlines USAID's 20 year involvement in one family planning program, funding more than 60,000 “integrative reproductive and child health camps” which provided more than 810,000 sterilizations in a single state in India, in its first 10 years of operation -- even providing transportation to the camps, but only for the sterilization “acceptors.”
...
“Foreign donors have been funding sterilization in India almost since the inception of India's Family Planning Program,” Kerry McBroom, an American human rights lawyer with HRLN in Delhi told PRI. “Donor organizations need to be accountable for rights violations perpetrated with their funding. Activists have made reports of unsafe and unethical sterilization for decades - it's impossible that donors are totally oblivious to the violations.”
...
ALL-AMERICAN FIELD SUPPORT

“Field support” groups listed in various documents include Johns Hopkins University, its affiliated non-profit “health organization” Jhpiego, the New York City-based Association for Voluntary Surgical Contraception (AVSC) which was founded as the Sterilization League of New Jersey in 1937 to “provide for the improvement of the human stock by the selective sterilization of the mentally defective and of those afflicted with inherited or inheritable physical disease." It is currently known as Engender Health.[13]

Other groups financed by USAID to carry out the population control objective in India are the Washington, DC based Centre for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA), which trains health workers and “motivators” on the ground and produces family planning literature, CARE International, Population Technical Assistance Project[14], New York City based Population Council, the Chapel Hill, NC based medical training and technological support group Intrahealth International, and the Washington, D.C based Population Reference Bureau.

These group's websites attest that they are still busy in family planning in India and many acknowledge USAID funding . CEDPA's most recent report lists $5.8 million in grants from the US government in 2010 for example, as well dozens of other private and corporate funders including the Ford Foundation, the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Exxon Mobil Foundation.
...

www.pop.org...

These are the kinds of programs that world elites have implemented in third world nations, and in the past even in first world nation, and they want similar programs among others to be used to simply control every aspect of people's lives.