Saturday, September 8, 2007

Children Ruining The Planet! - Adding To Global Warming!

Once I began reading this alarmist story I couldn't put it down. It was such a fascinating piece of fiendish propaganda I was in awe. The journalistic fraud and scientific quackery here is as stunning as it is ghoulish.

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!

21 comments:

CindyS said...

So what if they got their facts a little messed up. Children and (people) are destroying the earth. Its common sense!

alastair said...

I'm sure you're just being sarcastic, Cindy, but in case you're not, let's go bumper-sticker to bumper-sticker:

The children are our future! (wrings hands)

The children are destroying our future!!! (shrieks girlishly)

We must destroy the children in order to save our future, thereby destroying our future!!! (graduates with honours from the man-made global warming fraud academy)

erinzdad said...

Well said alastair!

I was trying to think of a good comeback to her myself. I can't believe some people actually think this way, it's very saddening to me.

Arjuna said...

Erinzdad, you make several mistakes in your piece:
1. A person's "carbon footprint" does not consist entirely of the amount of petroleum they consume; we need to add in all sorts of other things.
2. You forgot to divide the airliner's fuel consumption by its passenger carrying capacity (400?)
3. Just because totalitarian China practices population control, that doesn't make population control "communist" or bad. China also practices eating noodles. Is eating noodles "communist"?
Like it or not, the Earth is of limited size, and for people to have large families is irresponsible.

Anonymous said...

People need to plan their children and family size - and make sure they believe there is enough clean resources for that child to make it through it's life. Teaching responsibility to those children(and adults)is also important. Problem is, those that know this limit their offspring and teach them well while others wildy procreate and don't care. Like the song..."only stupid people are breeding..."

Anonymous said...

Ok, you and your mate are on an island with no chances of ever obtaining another island to live on (i.e. the earth). There are enough renewable resources for you to live comfortably and only procreate twice every 20 years (forgiving the fact that people will be related for this example). If you have more babies than that, one or more of the natural resources will go extinct, endangering everyone on the island with extinction. What is the smartest thing for you to do? It's about carrying capacity and zero load on the earth per person. We were taught to consume, not conserve, and that is to our detriment. Everyone, Please Read August Anson's book Wecskaop: What Every Citizen Should Know About Our Planet" Anson stated, "You might be able to overload the bus with too many people, but when you overload the toilet at the back of the bus, well, you've got a problem…food and other resource shortages may be out there on the horizon as looming problems, but earth's ability to accept, dissipate, cleanse and recycle our societal and industrial wastes appears to be stressed already."

erinzdad said...

Hi Arjuna,

1. I only mentioned petroleum because I wanted to keep it simple, and that was the point of John Guillebaud's statement. I was being gracious to John Guillebaud since we all know that babies don't use petrol directly. (I was trying to follow his arguement)

2. 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." Where in here do you see anything about per passenger? Furthermore, the average intercontinental flight does not carry 400 passengers. It's about 200 - still not enough to pad Mr. Guillebaud's wild accounting figures.

3. If you think totalitarian practices of population control are just dandy then please go live there. I have a hunch you will be back. No, on second thought don't go live there as you will not be able to read my blog. (I am banned in communist China) Now, on your last point. In the west we have negative population growth. Any decrease we contribute is overwhelmed by third world nations. If you want to limit someone's family size try it in Mexico, and let's see if they will be as reasonable as we are here in the west. Does it really make any sense to attack people who already have a negative population growth rate? We in the west are "responsible".

It's the people in fertile third world nations don't care about climate change. Go preach to them instead of trying to guilt everyone for something they didn't do!

Anonymous said...

Erinzdad, I don't follow your "logic" at all! The guy said: "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. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with gas consumption! I have no idea why you latched onto that notion. Basically, he's simply saying a human being has a certain carbon foot print measured over a year and then he's somehow comparing this to the amount of carbon dioxide given off by a jet plane. Not sure how he comes up with the 620 figure, or whether that is correct, but nevertheless, it's got nothing to do with gas consumption.

erinzdad said...

Dear anonymous,

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."

Let's boil his claim down -
One child extra CO2 = 620 commercial flights from London to New York CO2. Does this claim really sound right to anyone?

That's one olympic pool full of fuel per day! Does a baby produce or emit as much carbon dioxide as burning an olympic pool filled with aviation fuel everyday? Nonsense!!!

Aircraft burn fuel and emit CO2 as one of the products of combustion. Since aircraft burn fuel it is he (not me) who brought fuel into the equation.

Humans emit and produce CO2 as well. It is part of the natural process of life. We also burn fuels whether it's coal, fuel, natural gas or any other form. This also produces CO2. Our total individual fuel usage (all forms) per capita is about 1.3 gallons per day.

Here's where it gets tricky. One extra human (a baby in this case) does not emit as much CO2 as 620 commercial flights from London to New York each year.

I just don't know how to explain it any more clearly than that.

John Guillebaud's statement has everything to do with fuel, that's where energy and carbon foot prints come from!

It takes fuel to be a viable life form, or heat that life form's lattes, or drive to work, or make a shirt, or even fly across the Atlantic ocean.

Carbon foot prints and CO2 and fuel and chemical combustion are all inseperable!

Charley said...

Basically we're talking about redefined eugenics. Are you worth your carbon footprint.
Gore and Armand Hammer, say no more.
But the argument and the means of defining discussion is already skewed, if you agree to talk about it in terms of carbon.
The hell with carbon, lets talk about us.
One human being can change the course of human history and development. So, are we so sure of ourselves, that we know who that person is and therefore can discount anyone else under the guise of necessity.
Surely we are being maneuvered to accept eugenics through the back door.
Therefore, if this is the best our best minds can come up with, then we better find some new best minds.
And till then remember, that carbon footprint they keep talking about is aimed right between your legs.

erinzdad said...

Hi Charley,

Great point. This is eugenics! They want to kill (abort) "mother Earth's" children.

Charley said...

Thanks erinzdad,
I know it hurts a little to have to worry about someone with a smaller carbon footprint getting your job your house, your child - your existence in fact - but maybe that's the only way to make it real that what we got here is a kind of bandwagon with some old unsavory ideas coming back in new disguises. The bottom line of which is unfortunately, if you cast a small shadow you better cast an even smaller footprint, or else....

eechi.10.dy said...

There are so many vague and ambiguous circumstances in the comparison that, eventually, the computation may be right.

> We in the west are "responsible".

We in the west are the most irresponsible, shameless and ignorant as of the CO2 emissions.

Overpopulation is the main cause of devastating world's resources.
Please, read Beyond the Limits by Donella H. Meadows to see WHY this post of yours has made you an regretable idiot.

erinzdad said...

Sorry eechi.10.dy,

Your comment was to "vague and ambiguous." I couldn't make sense of it.

Maybe someone who reads Beyond the Limits by Donella H. Meadows can understand what you were trying to say.

Regretably your comment was incoherent, and you are calling me an idiot?!!!

The only thing I could make out, I think was where you said, "We in the west are the most irresponsible, shameless and ignorant as of the CO2 emissions."

Yes, we in the west emit more CO2 than people in other less developed nations. However, what you fail to realize is that the US is the economic and technology engine of the world. We also feed the world. These things take great amounts of energy.

When it comes to having babies we are below zero population growth which should make us "responsible" from Britain’s Optimum Population Trust (OPT"s) point of view. Unless they just want us to have no children. Which is what I suspect you libs really want anyway.

Bruce said...

Today,we are proud to announce the launch of the new wedding support service sell ffxi gil,packed with features sure to sell ffxi gils delight adventurers across Vana'diel looking to exchange eternal vows with their beloved!Responding to player demands for greater customization,the new service will grant brides and grooms freedom in choosing location,timing,dialogue,and sell Final Fantasy XI Gil more for their ceremony,allowing them to create a truly memorable event all their own.Information on all the features,including in-game sell ffxi gil item vendors and wedding certificates,can be found on the new wedding support site,so head on over sell ffxi gils and get started planning the wedding of your dreams sell Final Fantasy XIGil!

tn requin said...

sleeping bag
tablecloth
travel luggage
car gps
car parts
GPS navigation
portable GPS
lcd tv
flat tv
digital picture frames
unlocked cell phones
wedding dresses
wedding jewelry
chaussures mode
chaussures Femmes
women's shoes
round tablecloth
discount handbags
chaussures sport
chaussures pas cher
fashion bedding
id lanyard
lanyard
creative gadgets
gift ideas
kids wall stickers
wall stickers
bath curtains
kitchen faucet
bathroom faucet

dfadf said...

Microsoft Office
Office 2010
Microsoft Office 2010
Office 2010 key
Office 2010 download
Office 2010 Professional
Microsoft outlook
Outlook 2010
Windows 7
Microsoft outlook 2010

ninest123 said...

oakley sunglasses, nike air max, prada outlet, air max, nike free, prada handbags, polo ralph lauren outlet, nike air max, longchamp outlet, kate spade outlet, louboutin pas cher, oakley sunglasses, louis vuitton, replica watches, louis vuitton, ugg boots, ralph lauren pas cher, louboutin shoes, ray ban sunglasses, uggs on sale, longchamp pas cher, tory burch outlet, cheap oakley sunglasses, louboutin outlet, longchamp outlet, replica watches, michael kors, ugg boots, ray ban sunglasses, louis vuitton outlet, oakley sunglasses, oakley sunglasses, nike free, nike roshe run, sac longchamp, louis vuitton outlet, louis vuitton, tiffany and co, tiffany jewelry, jordan shoes, louboutin, ray ban sunglasses, nike outlet, gucci outlet, christian louboutin outlet, air jordan pas cher, chanel handbags, polo ralph lauren outlet, longchamp, burberry

ninest123 said...

michael kors, true religion jeans, lacoste pas cher, true religion outlet, nike air max, michael kors outlet, hollister, lululemon, timberland, coach purses, michael kors, true religion jeans, ray ban pas cher, nike air max, hogan, michael kors outlet, ugg boots, burberry, new balance pas cher, ray ban uk, replica handbags, michael kors outlet, ugg boots, north face, michael kors outlet, michael kors outlet, true religion jeans, hermes, abercrombie and fitch, ralph lauren uk, michael kors, air force, tn pas cher, coach outlet, kate spade handbags, nike free run uk, converse pas cher, coach outlet, nike air max, nike roshe, vanessa bruno, nike blazer, vans pas cher, north face, oakley pas cher, sac guess, michael kors, mulberry, hollister pas cher, burberry outlet online

ninest123 said...

nike huarache, ray ban, valentino shoes, nike trainers, instyler, babyliss, lululemon, timberland boots, chi flat iron, north face outlet, vans, baseball bats, longchamp, hollister, herve leger, nike air max, mcm handbags, ghd, nike roshe, giuseppe zanotti, reebok shoes, soccer shoes, nike air max, wedding dresses, hollister, jimmy choo shoes, converse, asics running shoes, vans shoes, new balance, iphone cases, p90x workout, gucci, celine handbags, converse outlet, nfl jerseys, beats by dre, bottega veneta, hollister, abercrombie and fitch, oakley, ferragamo shoes, ralph lauren, louboutin, insanity workout, soccer jerseys, mont blanc, north face outlet, birkin bag, mac cosmetics

ninest123 said...

bottes ugg, karen millen, louis vuitton, barbour, moncler outlet, toms shoes, links of london, hollister, pandora charms, lancel, pandora jewelry, canada goose, thomas sabo, louis vuitton, montre pas cher, louis vuitton, moncler, juicy couture outlet, coach outlet, moncler, moncler, canada goose outlet, louis vuitton, swarovski, barbour jackets, supra shoes, moncler, moncler, canada goose, moncler, ugg,ugg australia,ugg italia, pandora charms, pandora jewelry, ugg pas cher, canada goose uk, canada goose, ugg boots uk, replica watches, wedding dresses, doudoune canada goose, moncler, sac louis vuitton pas cher, canada goose outlet, juicy couture outlet, swarovski crystal, ugg,uggs,uggs canada, marc jacobs, canada goose