Coddington on climate change and population

February 22nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Deborah slays some stupidness:

Last week Sir Jonathan said he was “unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate”.

According to this British toff, we should seriously consider contraception and abortion as weapons against . After all, he reckons, every Pommie child in its lifetime will destroy more than two acres of “old-growth oak woodland”.

I suppose in New Zealand the equivalent would be trashing several hectares of native bush.

I look forward to the reaction from our Family First lobby on hearing New Zealand women, pregnant with a third child, can rush to a certified GP seeking an abortion on the grounds that a nice patch of West Coast beech forest is more important than human life.

Climate change as a reason for an abortion – now that would be a debate!

Tags: , ,

10 Responses to “Coddington on climate change and population”

  1. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    That’s it you see. Once you let these bastards get away with this scam, they’ll use “the environment” as the means to interfere and control and tax and regulate like never before. If voters are stupid enough to let this climate change beast free from its cage, they’ll pay for a long long time and to a greater extent than they ever thought possible. This is the leftist’s Pandora’s box, where government is free from every restraint it ever had to deal with, and can find a reason to do anything it wants. Leftist Nirvana.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Hey, I hadn’t thought of that angle – Cut the DPB to reduce global warming!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Christopher (425 comments) says:

    I don’t get it, how will having fewer kids reduce global warming?

    I mean, sure, it will reduce their carbon emissions and whatnot, but we all know that carbon dioxide doesn’t drive climate.

    So what’s the fuss about?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. baxter (893 comments) says:

    Debs is right about Susan Hampshire….I wonder if PORRITT is aware schools in this country can talk children as young as 14 into having an abortion without advising their parents. Global overpopulation is in my view a greater threat to civilisation than a change in the climate from whatever cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    The British toff has done us all a favour by pointing out environmentalism’s end result. Saving the environment means reducing or eliminating all the things that interfere with it, like human beings. Environmentalism hit the ground running by getting DDT banned in developing countries and needlessly killing 10-30 million people. It continues to lobby against the use of pesticides and GE crops that save lives. It is a movement that has more recently been hijacked by the socialist movement and now also lobbies for taxes and regulations and against trade. In short, a movement whose mostly unstated end goal is to the destitution and destruction of humanity.

    Unfortunately, most people think its global warming that’s the bigger danger. More dangerous than environmentalism? Yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. johnbt (90 comments) says:

    In 1999 the world population hit 6 billion. In 2007 it hit 6.7 billion. That is close enough to the equivalent of the entire population of NZ every 2 weeks ( especially when you take into account the compounding effect ). Or the population of NZ and Australia every 3 months. Another America (God forbid ) in 3 years. Another China, in terms of people, in 12 or 13 years.
    In dear old NZ our population is growing at a rate of around 40,000 per year. That is a good size town. This is happening every year and we are obliged to find food, water, housing, etc, etc, for these people. And further down the track we will need to provide for their offspring. This is compounding.
    Baxter is so right about the greatest threat we face. Forget the climate change thingy. Concentrate on what is causing most of the problems. People. More people and the problems get worse. Even more people and they get worser.
    Some things really get up my nose. Bad spelling and grammar is one (worser doesn,t count). Littering is very, very bad. The big one though is uncontrolled population growth. It is simply unsustainable.
    For those of you who will disagree, I ask if you thought the great economic growth we have experienced in recent years was going to continue forever? Things cannot just keep growing. It is not natural.
    At a guess, I would suggest that it will take another 20 years before the current hysteria re climate change is replaced by the problem that is causing all the problems. That means another 2 billion people, at least. And don,t forget the compounding.
    Life was so much easier when all we had to worry about was the Red Menace or the dangers of Rock and Roll.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. dime (8,746 comments) says:

    what if you the couple wanting to have a child, wipe out a few thousand possums.. would that even up what the kid will destroy?

    and they say global warming isn’t a leftist issue..

    global warming – more tax, abortions, redistribution of wealth, left elite making a heap of money from it, leftist groups getting a tonne of donations, demonising of big business… sounds leftist to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. emmess (1,332 comments) says:

    Notice they only say we ( meaning the West) should have a maximum of have two children (which we do already on average or slightly over in a few countries including NZ and the US)
    Piss off and come back when you have got the countries mostly in the African to reduce their fertility rate to a reasonable levels from the 5,6 or 7 kids per woman they are having at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    Johnbt, the world population is going to top out some point between 11 and 14 billion, it is not expected to grow forever. The sooner developing countries achieves the living standards the first world enjoys, the sooner this stabilisation will happen and the lower the maximum population will be.

    So welcome to the club that wants to see people in the third world prosper and be free of oppression as soon as possible and have the opportunities we are lucky enough to enjoy. You’ll be pleased to know our club is free of those nasty hypocrites who want to see everybody else swallowing the Cool Aid.

    By the way, economic growth can go forever, because the fundamental driver of growth is not the ever-increasing use of resources, but the ever-increasing collection of ideas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    No doubt the Rising Asian Crime Tide in Auckland is behind all of this “stupidity” too…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.