“Please Pay the Climate Change Tax On Your Children” – more from the IPCC’s green doctor.

This is a follow-up to my earlier article on Professor David Shearman, MD, of Adelaide University, and ‘expert reviewer’ for the IPCC.

Professor Shearman also has an article on the website of the organization Doctors for the Environment Australia (which he is president of), in which he worries that the ideal of behavior modification pursued by most global warming activists is largely negated by the fact that today’s generation has been raised in a liberal democracy, and therefore simply will not do as it is told:

We have brought up our children in overt liberal democracy. However all the evidence suggests that we will not curb rising emissions of the basis of behaviour modification alone. We are going to need enforced rules whether at the collective level through carbon trade with penalties OR at the individual level. Eventually society will have to choose between absolute individual liberty and life.

The first step to overcoming this obstacle, Professor Shearman writes, is persuading the governments of the world that curtailing the right to have children is an absolutely essential part of the fight against global warming. He quotes a letter in to the Medical Journal of Australia which notes that

Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing, but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society

Barry N J Walters, Clinical Associate Professor of Obstetric Medicine, Department of Women’s and Infants’ Health, University of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, WA.

What’s deeply worrying here is the reply given by the editor of the Medical Journal of Australia, which agrees with the spirit and demand of the letter, and calls for ‘a second ecological revolution':

In reply: I agree with Walters. One must wonder why population control, which was such a popular topic during the 1970s, is spoken of today only in whispers. Is this because of the discovery of new oil in the 1980s, taking resource scarcity off the public agenda? Is it because of politicians and economists, so keen on the growth trail that “. . . one for mum, one for dad and one for the country”1 seems an easy solution? Or is it the great religions, intent on outnumbering each other?

Environmental groups have also gone silent on the issue — perhaps afraid to alienate their growing support on other environmental issues.

Population remains crucial to all environmental (and subsequently, health) considerations. The debate needs to be reopened as part of a second ecological revolution (following the failure of the first in the 1960s and 1970s).2 Doctors, as opinion leaders in the community, must be at the forefront of this debate.

Garry Egger, Director1 and Adjunct Professor of Health Sciences21 Centre for Health Promotion and Research, Sydney, NSW.

2 Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW.

Professor Shearwater adds his support to this argument, and proposes a punitive tax on children in an article entitled “Please Pay the Climate Change Tax on Your Children”:

Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being…… They should pay 5,000 dollars (4,400 US) a head for each extra child and up to 800 dollars every year thereafter”

Please Pay the Climate Change Tax on Your Children

Over 18 years, that works out to a climate change child tax of approximately $18,800 US. Professor Shearwater doesn’t comment on what penalties would be imposed on couples failing to pay the tax. Perhaps confiscation is a possibility. Who knows?

The link between children and greenhouse gases is becoming increasingly popular within the climate change community, with the New York Times columnist, Andy Revkin commenting in 2009 that:

More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions.

Revkin raises a possible solution, but is alert to the sensitive nature of the topic and puts the idea of “Baby-Avoidance Carbon Credits” forward as a “thought experiment” for the readers of the New York Times:

I recently raised the question of whether this means we’ll soon see a market inbaby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell  CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation. This is purely a thought experiment, not a proposal. But the issue is one that is rarely discussed in climate treaty talks or in debates over United States climate legislation. If anything, the population-climate question is more pressing in the United States than in developing countries, given the high per-capita carbon dioxide emissions here and the rate of population growth.

Andy Revkin, NYT.

Expect more discussion of the idea of a carbon tax on children over the next year or two, following the failure of cap and trade.

 

 

About these ads

34 responses to ““Please Pay the Climate Change Tax On Your Children” – more from the IPCC’s green doctor.

  1. If they want to reduce the population they should volunteer their children to go first and then having watched them be ‘carbon neutralised’ they can then have the same done to them happy in the knowledge they’re saving the planet from bullsit overload.

  2. Can we start by castrating Professor Shearman … slowly and painfully?

  3. “I recently raised the question of whether this means we’ll soon see a market inbaby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation. This is purely a thought experiment, not a proposal.”

    Sounds more like a proposal than a thought experiment to me. But hey, that’s just the sceptic in me.

    • Yeah, it’s a fairly tranparent form of praeteritio, a rhetorical device where you say something by stating that you’re not actually saying it.

      E.g. “I’m not going to mention his drinking problem and criminal record, that wouldn’t be fair”

  4. If the world enters prolonged cooling (as predicted by Corby etc.) then all these alarmists are going to look very silly indeed. Snowfalls not being a thing of the past and the deluge in drought stricken Australia should have raised red flags for them.

  5. Expert reviewer for the IPCC – says it all really. On a par with being the chief planning officer for Toytown.

  6. That will go over real good with the people of the world, NOT, Where these lemmings come up with shit i donot know but agree with LEMMI they should go first. OT but your posting on the moonbat mad about to big of a house is been linked from the Dailey bayonet in thier weekly round up yesterday , good for you Haunt!

  7. Didn’t we already go down this path a ways back? “Give me liberty or give me death” comes to mind.

  8. He obviously believes that we should start with the untermensch/morlocks.

    How old is this guy? I find his ideas simply evil.

  9. As a feminist, I have a message for people like Dr. Shearman: “Keep your laws – and your taxes – off my body.”

    I’m a moderate, sensible feminist but the quickest way to raise my hackles is for utter strangers – particularly male strangers – to imagine that they should have a say in my reproductive choices.

    • Yep, it’s pretty scary stuff. People scoff at this sort of thing and say, well of course it’s never going to happen, but look at China where just last year they were kidnapping the elderly relatives of women who were pregnant and holding them without charges in detention camps until they came in to be sterilized.

      See http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/this-woman-was-forced-to-be-sterilized-what-would-you-do-2413398

      The thing is, it’s documented in academic history journals that China’s one-child policy was directly inspired by the “Limits to Growth” book. The Chinese leadership were so worried by the supposed science of this now discredit theory they instituted the one-child policy, the effects of which we still see today.

  10. Maybe David Shearman would be interested in establishing voluntary post-birth abortions, by volunteering to personally undergo such a proceedure as a template for others of his faith/beliefs to embrace and mimic? What better way to show your committment to the cause?

    I recall China and Cambodia offered such post-birth medical treatment to its citizens but only in an involuntary manner, but it certainly did lower human caused CO2. ;*)

  11. Instead of offsetting the CO2 emissions of children with taxes, why not do it with hunting licenses. Have a child? You can offset that by shooting an Ecotard–hey, they’re recyclable.
    I mean, if they want to limit the population, they should go first, shouldn’t they?

  12. World population really is a problem. It’s doubled in fifty years and that fact simply cannot be ignored. One of the best ways to start reducing it is to allow 3rd world countries (where the populations are growing) to climb out of their pit by building coal-fired power stations. Hanging a ‘sustainable development’ millstone about their necks will have the opposite effect.

    This Revkin piece is crap: tying a non-problem to a real problem to give the non-problem credence.

  13. wouldn’t it be faster and cheaper just to hunt down and shoot the liberals?
    Think of all the lifetime savings that would make.

  14. A better way of dealing with the Aussie idiots is to start a cull of medics who are unfit to practice . I will refrain from comparing their views with a certain European country in the 1930’s .

  15. Pingback: Eco-Nazi Orders Americans To Pay Carbon Tax On Children (www.infowars.com) | Jbb421's Blog

  16. Pingback: Eco-Nazi Orders Americans To Pay Carbon Tax On Children | Dark Politricks

  17. Pingback: Eco-Nazi Orders Americans To Pay Carbon Tax On Children | Philip Brennan

  18. “Doctors, as opinion leaders in the community, must be at the forefront of this debate.”

    Medical “doctors” (which most don’t even have a PhD) are good at prescribing pills and supporting their shares in big pharma. Give me a F… break! Why should I listen to some idiot “doctor” on the other side of the planet when I don’t even listen to my family doctor when he keeps prescribing me pills. Hey “heir Doctard”, leave my kids alone.

  19. Pingback: IPCC Green Doctor Prescribes End to Democracy to Solve Global Warming « Anti Oligarch

  20. ” The debate needs to be reopened as part of a second ecological revolution (following the failure of the first in the 1960s and 1970s”

    Maybe it is ignorance, but he forgot to count the very first ecological revolution that was invented and started by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party back in the 1930’s. Let’s not be afraid to point the finger to Nasi appeasers when we see one. History is repeating itself. The movement was not terminated by the end of WWII, it got diluted and dissipated. Now is germinating everywhere.

    It’s not a perfect reference but it is a start… from wikipedia:
    “Nazi and Fascist views on ecology

    Historian of fascism Roger Griffin has noted, in an essay on the relationship between fascism, religion and nature that “the place which a transformed relationship to nature occupies within the fascist scheme for national regeneration as well as the role played in it by pagan, “immanentist” or cultic concepts of nature can vary enormously depending on which species of the genus is considered” (pg. 640).[1]

    Admiration of nature was a strong theme of the German Nazi party and the Wagnerian German romanticism that predated it, and is also a key issue for some modern fascist movements. The Nazi government also investigated sustainable forestry. Anna Bramwell claims that the Nazis were at the forefront of conservationism, with Nazi Germany having some of the first legally protected wilderness reserves. This is described as a “gross error” by Frank Uekötter.[2] There were in fact nature reserves in 1838 in the Czech part of Austria-Hungary for example.[3] In fact, the first nature reserves were in Finland at the start of the 1800s.[4] During their rise to power, the Nazis were supported by German environmentalists and conservationists, but environmental issues were gradually pushed aside in the build-up to the Second World War.[5]“

  21. Unless Shearman is already an old duffer is he really suggesting that those people who would be expected to meet *his* pension, healthcare, security and other public services costs should not be born?

    That isn’t just the democratic state being undone but the socialist one too.

    Though imo the latter would be good if it could be achieved without much pain. Far too much coercion involved. The tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny and at times that majority is easily fooled into supporting illiberal measures.

  22. Pingback: Al Gore in China: “Efficiency is the Number One Solution” Praises Their “Unusual Success” | hauntingthelibrary

  23. This is rather mild compared to other eugenicists; especially Margaret Sanger. Anyway, go back to bed. There is NO NO NO NO New World Order.

  24. Pingback: Eco-Nazi Orders Americans To Pay Carbon Tax On Children | ALTNEWS.INFO

  25. Pingback: Eco-Nazi Orders Americans To Pay Carbon Tax On Children | ClipsNewsNetwork

  26. If you refuse to pay the tax maybe they will simply blow your children up like they did in that video. The megalomaniacs are running the asylum.

  27. If the ecoloonies really believe in the mantra they preach about overpopulation then they have a duty to the planet to commit suicide immediately. This would not solve the problem right away but at least it would wipe out the staff of Ecotricity, The Ecologist and most of the Guardian, and that’s a good start.

  28. Pingback: Eco-Nazi Orders Americans To Pay Carbon Tax On Children : Dr. Leonard Coldwell

  29. Pingback: Eco-Nazi Movement Orders Americans To Pay Carbon Tax On Children | NW0.eu

  30. Pingback: IPCC green doctor prescribes end to democracy to solve Global Warming..an “elite warrior leadership” to “battle for the future of the earth” « Follow The Money

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s