On Oct 14 2009, NY Times reporter Andrew Revkin participated via webcam in a climate change conference titled “Covering Climate: What’s Population Got to Do With It?” which was held at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. There he stated that one of the greatest things that an American could do to reduce their carbon footprint was to have less children. He even went on to suggest that in doing so, couples who have less or no children should theoretically be eligible for some kind of carbon credit(1). This sounds like a cap and trade system on human life. Would this mean, theoretically, that a couple wanting to have more than the government allotted number of children would have to buy these carbon credits away from people having less than the government allotted number of children?
This is fanaticism and all fanaticism is dangerous. Now I know Revkin is not a politician and has no legislative power, but he is still an environmental journalist for one of the nations biggest newspapers. Through his articles, he tries to push an agenda that is not only based on highly debatable and so far unproven science, but one which also encroaches on the most basic of human rights. The fact that he wasn’t laughed out of the conference says a lot about the “climate change” movement in general. I applaud energy efficiency as a personal choice. That is exactly what it should be, a personal choice. There should be no governmental mandate telling a person how to live their life and no government plan that rewards or punishes people for living a certain way, as long as that way of life does not infringe on the rights of others. The type of people that would conceive of or support such initiatives are inherently dangerous. These types of people do not believe that we should keep and maintain the planet so that our future generations can enjoy it. They believe that the future generations will be a hindrance to our planet. They believe that all animal life on the Earth, including humans are poisoning the planet irreversibly by just breathing. There have been initiatives in Europe to put carbon taxes on livestock due to methane production. If humans never even existed, there would still be methane producing cattle. So would the planet still be in trouble, or is it just an excuse to raise money for governments whose domestic social policies have put too heavy a financial strain on the governmental coffers?
This is just another example of how the “activists” in this movement want complete and total control of how you live your life. As asinine as this “human cap and trade” idea sounds, these people are serious and that is why everyone else should take it seriously as well.