Large Families Ruining the Planet, Environmentalists Claim This from Britain’s Optimum Population Trust (OPT). In order to stop global warming, people should recycle, drive smaller cars and limit procreation.
“The most effective personal climate-change strategy is limiting the number of children one has,” the report states. “The most effective national and global climate-change strategy is limiting the size of the population.” Does this sound familiar? Does communist China ring a bell?
John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT, claimed if a couple has two children instead of three, it cuts the family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights from London to New York each year. Did you catch that? 620 flights per year? Let's do a little math! Their fuzzy outlandish math always intrigues me. (Not really)
The average person uses about 1.3 gallons (US) of gas per day. If we cut one child out of the family we will save at most 1.3 gallons per day (approximately 420 gallons/year). If that child lives the expected 78 years he or she will use 32,760 gallons over a lifetime. (As long as they are not Al Gore who has used millions.)
Commercial airliners bound from London to New York use a lot of fuel. The larger the aircraft the more fuel consumption. (Generally speaking) Let us assume John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT was referring to a smaller commercial airliner. A Boeing 757 will burn about 15,000 gallons (US) with a light payload. At 620 trips we can estimate the fuel consumption to equal 9,300,000 gallons. Now we must bear in mind that Mr. Guillebaud said that one child less will cut this amount each year!
Only Al Gore could use this much fuel each year and get away with it. A baby has no chance. The global warming fanatics would be and are calling for it's extermination. What other gems do they have in store for us ignorant readers?
"The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude (an order of magnitude?) greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights,” he said. “The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account.” In the western European nations we already have less than two children per household! Why doesn't he take his message to Mexico or some other third world nation where they have large families?
What is their agenda? Population control? Do they want to reduce the population of western nations even more? You can count on it! These people are fellow travelers and comrades of "responsible nations" such as communist China.
China says one-child policy helps protect climate Source: Reuters
Some scientists say that draconian birth control measures such as China's are wrongly overlooked in the fight against climate change, when the world population is projected to soar to about 9 billion by 2050 from 6.6 billion now. For those who don't know China has a global friendly policy of forced abortions for anyone daring to defile mother Earth with another baby. Are these ghoulish kooks suggesting that we adopt forced abortions and mandatory sterilization of women just like good old China? Let's see what the head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat has to say.
"Population is clearly an important factor," (In global warming) said Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, at U.N. talks trying to plan a new deal to combat climate change after 2012. Did you catch that? The U.N. is trying to plan a new deal (concerning population) to combat climate change.
“This is the extreme, utterly bizarre end of the environmental movement that you see in science fiction movies,” Dan Gainor, director of the Business & Media Institute said. “That’s how they view human beings – but conveniently never themselves. They think they’re the great enlightened ones.” How true!
This policy of depopulation of sacred mother Earth is near and dear to the U.N. Your babies or future babies are in their sights.
This sort of outrageous propaganda should be labeled by all as a tell of the demonic agenda planned ahead. I say:
"Get the U.N. out of the US now!