Contraception to stop climate change

September 16th, 2009 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

A month or so back I did a satirical post about the Green Party promoting abortion as a way to combat . It provoked howls ou outrage.

Just to show how satire can sometimes come close to the truth, Brian Rudman writes today:

Luckily for Mr Goff, the conference was over before party activists had a chance to catch up with research from the London School of Economics arguing was almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change, than conventional green technologies. The principle being it’s much cheaper to hand out to prevent the emitter being born, than it is to cleanse the atmosphere of the carbon he or she will emit, once born, for the next 80-odd years.

If the new leader is uncomfortable backing the case for energy-efficient lightbulbs, how much more embarrassing for him if the party latched on to the idea of free condoms as a way to stop global warming.

So will the Green Party jump at this opportunity to promote condoms to reduce carbon emissions?

Their population policy already says:S

The population cannot be increased beyond its capacity to offset its greenhouse gas emissions. says:

The LSE report called Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost is here.

So who will be first to endorse condoms to fight climate change – the or Young Labour? :-)

Tags: , , ,

79 Responses to “Contraception to stop climate change”

  1. Brian Smaller (4,026 comments) says:

    The hope would be that Greens AND Young Labour would stop breeding. Leave more room for the rest of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Rakaia George (313 comments) says:

    We’d have to start laughing at the Irish again if that happened though…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Johnboy (15,564 comments) says:

    One of the lefty activists late idols Stalin did his bit for climate change long before it become trendy. He liquidated 20 million carbon emitters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    DPF, the Young Greens have been handing out free condoms at various events for years. You really must try to get out more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    “the Young Greens have been handing out free condoms at various events for years”

    One can only hope they use them themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. bill hicks (100 comments) says:

    yesterday we had the water foot print in the news today this crap.HAS anyone in this government heard of coastal erosion ONE AND A HALF FOOT A YEAR How many ancient citys and ports that are under the sea from millions of years of COASTAL EROSION….So called climate change,global warming or now water foot prints are made up by idiots who live to close to the sea….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    Had the fathers of John Key, Nick Smith or Gerry Brownlee used them, there would have been considerable gain to the climate change fight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    Bill English’s father, had he been a fan, could have saved us taxpayers a thousand dollars a month in rorted accomodation allowances as well!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    Mmmmm….just picturing spermy little Michael Laws, Ian Wishart and Matthew Hooten, safely contained in their daddy’s used condoms!
    It’s a travesty!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Manolo (13,516 comments) says:

    Is there an end to the imbecility Global Warming, aka Climate Change, is?
    It continues being used for nefarious purposes, above all increased taxation / regulations and the meddling in the lives of law-abiding citizens.

    The ETS will cost New Zealand dearly. Thank you John Key for this expensive monstrosity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    village idiot said: …just picturing spermy little Michael Laws, Ian Wishart and Matthew Hooten, safely contained in their daddy’s used condoms!

    Or sperm Whale for that matter. Gotcha!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. ben (2,414 comments) says:

    Owen McShane has a nice story (via Not PC). The punchline is this:

    “You know, Owen, if you are Minister of the Environment, eventually you are Minister of Everything.”

    Paul Ehrlich, the great (or at least well-known) environmentalist, put it like this:

    “It seems clear that the first major penalty man will have to pay for his rapid consumption of the earth’s nonrenewable resources will be that of having to live in a world where his thoughts and actions are ever more strongly limited, where social organization has become all pervasive, complex, and inflexible, and where the state completely dominates the actions of the individual.”

    George Reisman explains what is going on in the mind of environmentalists. Condoms as a way to reduce global warming is what follows from a view that nature possesses intrinsic value, and man possesses none.

    If you care about the lot of people, the end result of the environmentalist view can only be evil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    Nice harpooning Toad!

    I’m dissapointed too, that the rubber that was protecting Big Buv’s mum from a life of embarrassment, burst!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    condoms..?..great idea..?

    should be a public campaign here..tv ads and all..

    (along the lines of ‘slip slap slop’..)

    and in that vein..

    can i offer ..

    ‘slap it on!’..before you get on..!”

    or..’slap it on..!..b4 u get it on..!’..

    (aimed at pimply-faced sixteen yr old males…show them the consequences..piles of dirty nappies/sleepless nights..etc..)

    and for women/girls..?

    “make him slap it on..!..before he gets on..!”..etc..etc..

    and on a more serious note..

    the reasons why africa/the world should all have/get free condoms..

    http://whoar.co.nz/2009/if-you-dont-control-the-population-you-are-just-spitting-into-the-wind/

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    The really sad thing is this is a serious issue. The planet cannot support continuous population growth, it cannot support what we have now because of our behaviour.

    We actually need to talk about what population the Earth can cope with and then work out how to manage this. Or we could ignore everything, keep reading our bibles and go the way the Easter Islanders went.

    Labour Youth are smart and savvy and raise an important issue. They do actually have more to lose because they are young and have more to lose.

    Should we have a serious debate about it or do the wingnuts want to try and deride the left for their temerity in raising the issue?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Should we have a serious debate about it ”

    (are you forgetting where you are..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Steve (4,522 comments) says:

    Idiot said:
    “Mmmmm….just picturing spermy little Michael Laws, Ian Wishart and Matthew Hooten, safely contained in their daddy’s used condoms!
    It’s a travesty!”

    Just picturing Sue Bradford contained in her daddy’s condom.
    No, please, take that thought away!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Johnboy (15,564 comments) says:

    Never realised the Easter Islanders were christians and reading the scriptures caused there downfall till now. Thanks micky it’s just bloody amazing what a dumb sod like me learns from all you leftie genius fellows.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. emmess (1,396 comments) says:

    Alot of countries particularly in Europe and the wealthier parts of East Asia are going to have a lot bigger problems with declining population that imaginary climate change bullshit

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. dimmocrazy (286 comments) says:

    Well Micky, How do you know that? (That the planet cannot cope with continuous population growth)

    It just goes to show that all YOU want is to have other people behave on the basis of your ideas and (mis) conceptions, that’s all.

    We don’t need to “talk” about anything at all, or try to “manage” anything. Labour youth is NOT “smart and savvy” they are just demonstrating their inbred and indoctrinated predeliction for telling other people what to do.

    Best you can do, Micky is leave other people alone and mind you own business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Brian Smaller (4,026 comments) says:

    DPF, the Young Greens have been handing out free condoms at various events for years. You really must try to get out more.

    Unfortunately they keep putting them on their cocks instead of their heads, meaning we suffer from their premature ejaculations anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Brian Smaller (4,026 comments) says:

    Mickysavage – please get Young Labour and the Greens to practice what they preach and get sterilized. Or is it like all things preached by the left – good ideas but someone else has to be the one exterminated/taxed/forbidden from flying on holiday etc etc..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Johnboy (15,564 comments) says:

    “DPF, the Young Greens have been handing out free condoms at various events for years. You really must try to get out more. ”

    Why would wankers like the greenies need condoms anyway?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. davidp (3,557 comments) says:

    toad>the Young Greens have been handing out free condoms at various events for years

    Brett, whispering: “Did you use protection”?

    Jemmaine, whispering: “Yes, but only on my penis”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. grumpy (249 comments) says:

    The scary truth is that both the Greens and Labour regard abortion as a form of contraception, so I think your earlier analogy, although tongue in cheek, was valid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    grumpy, most Greens I know consider abortion to be the least desirable means of family planning.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    Personally, I see no particular problem with reduced population growth. Not in the sense of a one child policy, or other large state interventions. But in the sense of getting rid of current policies we have that are designed to encourage people to have more children than they otherwise would. For example:
    – working for families
    – doctors visits subsidised for children
    – large subsidies on education

    Interestingly, the left are the ones who have encouraged this breeding.

    A basic tenant of some on the right is that we need increasing population to continue to have economic growth. My personal view is that I’m interested in increasing GDP per head, not increasing GDP. If some people choose not to have kids, and our population gradually shrinks as a result, I don’t see what would be wrong with that.

    That is entirely different from going into people’s houses at night, taking their children, and killing them. Which some people seem to think this would involve.

    Our policy should be, pure and simple, if you have kids, you pay for them. If you can’t pay for them, don’t have them. And the govt isn’t going to interfere in that choice by trying to convince you that you should have kids for the good of the country (whatever that may mean).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Had the fathers of John Key, Nick Smith or Gerry Brownlee used them, there would have been considerable gain to the climate change fight.

    Bill English’s father, had he been a fan, could have saved us taxpayers a thousand dollars a month in rorted accomodation allowances as well!

    Mmmmm….just picturing spermy little Michael Laws, Ian Wishart and Matthew Hooten, safely contained in their daddy’s used condoms!
    It’s a travesty!

    All you have mentioned have done far more for this country than any member of the previous labour government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    Are you still on the DPB Greenfly?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. francis (712 comments) says:

    This is interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Ryan Sproull (7,059 comments) says:

    MickySavage,

    I am reliably informed that if we control our population, we will get outbred by baddies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Buggerlugs (1,609 comments) says:

    Wear a condom, save the planet? Fuck off. I’m with Brian – how about the Greens and Young Labour put them over their heads and hold their breath as well. Saves me using bullets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Cerium (23,310 comments) says:

    “Our policy should be, pure and simple, if you have kids, you pay for them. If you can’t pay for them, don’t have them. ”

    At the moment it seems that those in NZ (and in other countries) who can least afford it have the most. It isn’t easy turning that around.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Manolo (13,516 comments) says:

    “Are you still on the DPB Greenfly?”

    Is the Pope a Catholic?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. GJ (329 comments) says:

    If only we placed a greater value on life and how important it is, we would all be better off. These policies that think by eradicating life we improve the planet are simply counterproductive!
    It never seizes to amaze me how much money gets spend promoting lies, but how difficult it is to get a truthful message out there.
    Climate change is a classic example that will cost us many dollars because a lie is being promoted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. CharlieBrown (923 comments) says:

    A friend suggested something to me that was quite interesting.

    How about we pay $10000 to every man and women under the age of 25 if they choose to get a vasectomy or have their tubes tied. Although it would be a large amount of money to spend up front, I would ultimately guess it would pay itself of through A) Probable decline in Crime, B) Decline in unemployment and underemployment, and C) less carbon outputs by decrease in rate of population growth.

    Obviously the above benefits are only guesses as no sane researcher will try to quantify this in todays PC climate, but I assume that the only people that take this payment up will be the people that we don’t want to breed (ie, the people who drain the economy and cause crime.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. BlackMoss (62 comments) says:

    Re: the deniers,

    I’m sure there’s no need to worry guys. It’s extremely unlikely that the 8 or so Gigatonnes (that’s billion tonnes) of carbon emitted per year (every year, and think of the atmosphere as the skin of an onion in terms of volume relative to the earth) will cause any effect — I mean just because we know intimately the physics of C02 in the atmosphere, and just because we can match increases in the C02 concentration as originating (in addition to natural increases) from the industrial revolution onwards and becoming sharper as C02 emission increase in recent times, doesn’t say anything. Just because predictions of extreme weather events, glacial melt and artic ice decline have all come about and more quickly than expected, isn’t important. Just because groups of people have studied these things much of their life and have come to general agreement about it, doesn’t mean nothing. When all’s said and done I know that when it comes to these sort of things I’d much rather believe some random guy on a blog. Nothing to worry about people (phew!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. unaha-closp (1,137 comments) says:

    Condoms are okay, but what about even more effective means of capping population like say anti-personel landmines?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    I’ve given up trying to argue the science with them BlackMoss. They either don’t understand it or, for ideological reasons, refuse to accept it, or both.

    BTW, I see that crank Bryan Leyland has been stirring things up with the Gisborne farmers. He’s typical of the sort of “expert” these guys cite. An engineer. Or David Bellamy, a botanist. Academics who have strayed far beyond their area of expertise and are talking through their anal orifices.

    That the Gisborne Herald uncritically prints stuff like Leyland’s ramblings is a journalistic disgrace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Johnboy (15,564 comments) says:

    “That the Gisborne Herald uncritically prints stuff like Leyland’s ramblings is a journalistic disgrace.”

    Quite right toady, the bastard should be permanently muzzled along with those tossers who won’t adopt the gospel according to the IPCC. Bring it up at the next greenie save the world conference after you have smoked all the complimentary pot.
    Maybe a free condom pulled over their heads would shut them up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. burt (8,023 comments) says:

    Cerium

    At the moment it seems that those in NZ (and in other countries) who can least afford it have the most. It isn’t easy turning that around.

    Well in NZ we take money off people who can afford them but are responsible in their choices and throw it at people who can’t afford them and are not responsible in their choices. So it is less than easy to turn it around when we are pushing them in the wrong direction. BUT of course if it is Labour party policy you will defend it even when you do see the bad side of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. unaha-closp (1,137 comments) says:

    Climate change is a classic example that will cost us many dollars because a lie is being promoted.

    No, the lie is that the solution being promoted is in anyway the best solution. Climate change itself is a real issue that requires a real response.

    We could prevent climate change by doing things that are essentially cost free, even economically beneficial. We could slash income/company tax, reduce the size of government and place a high carbon footprint VAT on consumed goods so empowered consumer choice drives us to a lower carbon future.

    We don’t do this because we prefer to elect people like John Key and Helen Clark, whose sole aim in government is to remain in government. So we get an ETS which costs a whole lot of $, has only negative enviromental impact and allows John Key or Helen Clark to stand on a stage somewhere saying “We are doing something”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. RightNow (6,839 comments) says:

    It would be cheaper and more effective population control in NZ to simply scrap the DPB.
    Labour have an obvious problem with that, it would decimate their core voters. I think the free condom ploy is a red herring on that basis, they know none of their voters are responsible enough to use them anyway, so its all for show. In fact I expect to see Labour campaigning heavily on a ‘free beer’ platform soon. Hand out jugs at the pub to bludgers so they can encourage them to get drunk, have unprotected casual sex, and breed more bludgers to vote for Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. BlackMoss (62 comments) says:

    toad, many people are fooled by the false equivalency fallacy, we can’t just blame the journalists… sigh…

    “Because the media are so addicted to the Left vs. Right Pundit Battle format, they regularly present opposing sides without noting the imbalance of evidence between them. The result is that supremely idiotic positions are given equal time with fact-based ones. See, isn’t it “fair” and “objective” how we gave equal airtime to this scientist with mountains of evidence and this wingnut just making s**t up off the top of his head? ”

    (from http://www.ginandtacos.com/2007/06/20/ed-vs-logical-fallacies-part-1-false-equivalency/ )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Nomestradamus (3,136 comments) says:

    Micky Savage:

    The really sad thing is this is a serious issue. The planet cannot support continuous population growth, it cannot support what we have now because of our behaviour.

    Should we have a serious debate about it or do the wingnuts want to try and deride the left for their temerity in raising the issue?

    Ok then, Micky, have it your way. Some families have quite a few children – four or more. Some of these families receive State entitlements benefits. Applying your logic, this is not only putting the world at grave risk, but it’s also a drain on scarce taxpayer resources. You’ve talked up the “smart and savvy” Labour youth. Have they thought about modifying the entitlements benefits scheme – Working for Families, DPB etc – in a way which disincentivises large families dependent on State entitlements benefits? Should we have a serious debate about this, Micky, or will the lefty wingnuts want to try and deride the right for their temerity in raising the issue?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Chris Doms (73 comments) says:

    Wow, lots of global warming deniers here. People obviously not familiar with concepts like independent and complementary lines of evidence and broad scientific concensus. Once everyone puts their idealogies aside, it’s painfully obvious that anthroprogenic global warming is occurring.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. ben (2,414 comments) says:

    Blackmoss

    Here’s a quote from George Reisman that about sums up what you’re saying:

    “The meaning of this insanity is that industrial civilization is to be abandoned because this is what must be done to avoid bad weather.”

    I believe the physics and the forecasts, and I still think any argument for major reductions in living standards and for denying the world’s poorest a way out of poverty for slightly better weather is beyond ludicrous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. unaha-closp (1,137 comments) says:

    toad,

    I’ve given up trying to argue the science with them BlackMoss. They either don’t understand it or, for ideological reasons, refuse to accept it, or both.

    Good news there is neo-liberal solution to climate change capable of overcoming most ideological resistance:

    A- Empower the consumer by:
    1. Slashing income tax.
    2. Paring back the state so that social assistance only caters to the very needy.
    B- GST carbon footprints of consumer goods to levels much higher than those imposed by any mere ETS.

    Resulting in a society where consumers have more money to spend thus facilitiating greater growth, but ensuring that growth is focused on low carbon products driving “green” technological advancement. The economy wins, the planet wins, the right wins.

    This plan is just so much better than any ETS, I expect you to be endorsing it real soon. Climate change being what you are all about, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. grumpy (249 comments) says:

    toad (1581) Vote: 3 6 Says:

    September 16th, 2009 at 11:26 am
    grumpy, most Greens I know consider abortion to be the least desirable means of family planning.

    BUT A MEANS OF FAMILY PLANNING NONE THE LESS!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. RightNow (6,839 comments) says:

    Mickey Savage, what possible point is there in debating population sustainability with people who think it is smart to pay for people to have kids as a career choice? It would be nice to think that going forward the world would have just the right population for sustainability and that humans would (through natural selection) be smarter, healthier and more responsible.
    I just don’t see how leftist ideology has any synergy with that whatsoever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Population control?

    Don’t be silly. We all know the world needs another 10 billion people. We’re never going to get a handle on climate change, water shortages, soil salinity, famine, peak oil etc with only with only 7 billion people. God-damn socialists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. PaulL (5,983 comments) says:

    unaha-closp: the Greens do support bits of that plan – they want a carbon tax rather than an ETS. An ETS won’t achieve much, and will create a lot of opportunities for distortion. A carbon tax has some other problems with bureaucracy, but otherwise is more efficient.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    and broad scientific concensus.

    3/5 Gynecologists support that statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Brian Smaller (4,026 comments) says:

    “Our policy should be, pure and simple, if you have kids, you pay for them. If you can’t pay for them, don’t have them. ”

    At the moment it seems that those in NZ (and in other countries) who can least afford it have the most. It isn’t easy turning that around.

    Not easy, but screaming every time a benefit cut as a disincentive to stop out of control breeding is mentioned, doesn’t help. The bullet needs to be bitten. Stop paying women to have kids when they cannot afford them. If they haven’t got a decent man/partner/girlfriend who can support them, they shouldn’t breed.

    Perhaps the Greens should start handing those condoms out at WINZ offices rather than Green party conventions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. tom hunter (4,562 comments) says:

    Mark Steyn had a good laugh about this two months ago (not online), and as usual made some good points at the same time.

    The intersection of the environment and demography continues apace. In the old days, we worried about “overpopulation” in general, which, if only by implication, indicted the fecund mothers of Asia and Africa at least as much as the developed world, if not more. But eco-demography is a more exact science these days. Issuing a stirring call for the British to breed less, and doing it from the exalted perch of the British Medical Journal, doctors John Guillebaud and Pip Hayes explain the arithmetic: Every new baby born in the United Kingdom will in his or her lifetime produce 160 times more greenhouse-gas emissions than a baby born in Ethiopia.

    We’ve known for years, of course, that a Brit is worse than. . . well, almost anyone apart from a Yank. But we’ve known it only in the very general sense that the Brit is the purveyor of imperialism, colonialism, racism, economic exploitation, and other planetary toxins.

    Now environmentalism enables us to nail down the formula once and for all: An Ethiopian baby is 160 times better for the planet than a British baby. So if you’re an Anglo-Celt and you care about the Earth, have fewer kids. Having fewer children is “the simplest and biggest contribution anyone can make to leaving a habitable planet for our grandchildren.”

    Grandchildren?

    …..Guillebaud and Hayes’s gimlet eye on the British maternity ward is matched by Oregon State professors Michael Schlax and Paul Murtaugh’s equally withering gaze on the American nursery in a study called “Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals.” Or as the Los Angeles Times headline writer put it: “Tie Your Tubes and Save the Planet?”

    Save it for what? And for whom? Presumably for those 160-times-more-environmentally-responsible Ethiopian babies, who’ll get to grow up and enjoy it, albeit briefly. (Ethiopian male life expectancy: 44.6 years.)

    and finishes up with this

    The Germans, Italians, and Spaniards have upside-down family trees of the type the bien-pensants are commending to the Anglo-Americans.

    But a people without grandchildren cannot grandfather in their environmental fetishism for all eternity. The health of the planet will be determined by those who stick around – like the Ethiopians.

    Love the last line:

    I’m chary about predictions but I’d be willing to bet that by the end of this century the anguished Western liberal environmentalist will be on the endangered species list.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. unaha-closp (1,137 comments) says:

    PaulL,

    I know, but the bit of the plan they don’t support (paring back the size of the state) is mission critical to internalised consumption based taxation being effective. If getting our carbon footprints down is the measure, then internal consumption within the NZ economy is going to be the means. An economy that is 50% consumer (and 50% state) is going to be less effective at making positive change than an economy that is 90% consumer (and 10% state). To be most effective we need to expose as much of the economy as possible to the positive pressure of the carbon consumption tax.

    What a consumption tax based plan ultimately will require is an end to state run institutions – no more state run schools, no more state run hospitals. The state could of course still assist poor people into schools and hospitals, but it would need to do so through the private sector – using such mechanisms as school vouchers.

    (I think we could be waiting a long time before the Greens endorse such an approach, even though it is so much better than an ETS.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Cerium (23,310 comments) says:

    “BUT of course if it is Labour party policy you will defend it even when you do see the bad side of it.”

    Not me. Anyway, it seems to have been National policy as well.

    I’m well aware of the problems that a generous DPB have created. It sort of fixed one problem and created another, not worse but bad enough. I just don’t see a quick fix. Slashing could create enormous social issues (beyond what we are seeing now, possibly partially as a result of Ruth Richardson changes a couple of decades ago).

    “Labour have an obvious problem with that, it would decimate their core voters. ”

    Do you have any idea what numbers of beneficiaries vote at all, let alone vote Labour?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Scott (1,736 comments) says:

    Facts are interesting things. According to the Greens the following should be regarded as facts.

    1) Fact — global warming is a reality and is caused by man-made greenhouse gases.

    2) Fact — we have a rising population and this is unsustainable and we need to have less children.

    Is what the Greens say actually true?

    Well 1) is actually very contentious. Is the Earth actually warming up? As I walked to church through the snow on May 31, the first snowfall in our town for five years, I must admit I felt a little sceptical about global warming. Even the Wellington elite must have felt a little sceptical that particular day as it snowed in the middle of Wellington city for the first time in 14 years.
    So the earth may be warming, but it may not. Remember in the 1970s it was a very popular and well accepted scientific prediction that a new ice age was on the way.

    As regard to fact 2) we certainly have a rising population in some countries. However other countries, particularly Western secular countries like our own, have a very low birth rate and need to encourage immigration to sustain our population. Apparently things are worse in Japan and Russia and if there is no immigration and no increase in birth rates than both countries may be out of business in a few generations. So I am not as concerned about rising population as the Greens are.

    On the other hand I am concerned about how anti-human some radical green ideology appears to be. I have a high view of humanity and think we have a right to be here. Now I do care about the seals and the birds and the plants, but surely there is room for us all?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Buggerlugs (1,609 comments) says:

    Academics who have strayed far beyond their area of expertise and are talking through their anal orifices.

    Just like the Green Party. Not sure about the academic bit though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. James Butler (76 comments) says:

    It would be cheaper and more effective population control in NZ to simply scrap the DPB.

    Right, because making people poorer reduces the birthrate, right? I guess that’s why the poorest parts of Africa and Asia have such problems with low birthrates, and rich western countries suffer such terrible overcrowding?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. WilliamPitt (25 comments) says:

    This was not an idea of Young Labour. The subsidised condoms remit debated at conference was brought by the rainbow sector. The Greens and ACT have been the only parties that have been handing out free condoms. DPF your dog whistles are becoming ashamedly obvious. Young Labour has not debated population control so the mention in this blog post is just plain ridiculous. Why did you do it?

    [DPF: I was going off memory as to who was the cosponsor. Checking back, it appears it was the health sector group, not Young Labour. So are you a member of Young Labour, and if so what is your view of the condoms for all proposal?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. AG (1,803 comments) says:

    “Just to show how satire can sometimes come close to the truth…”

    Yes. Making contraception freely available to those who chose to use it is ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME THING as a policy of state-mandated abortion. Just like imposing 100% tax rates is ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE rape. And other ALMOST EXACT ANALOGIES chosen to compete with Cameron Slater in a race to the gutter.

    Catholic, are we?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    DPF asks:

    ” So who will be first to endorse condoms to fight climate change – the Greens or Young Labour? :-)

    Turns out, ACT are in on the act!

    (Thanks WilliamPitt).

    Seems DPF’s memory is as bad as his ‘satire’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. BlackMoss (62 comments) says:

    re: Ben, I’m not totally convinced about what the negative effects of climate change will be either, but I think a few points for thinking about the whole issue can be raised:

    - freak climactic events like hurricanes are known to increase as global temperatures rise, such events cost a lot of money and give rise to large casualties
    - there are certain positive feedback mechanisms that can be imagined, eg methane emissions from swamps with increased temperatures, or desertification, which means there may be a tipping point in terms of temperature rise that take us to quite extreme projections of climate change and some potential difficulties in terms of the ability to grow food in certain regions. At the very least you might imagine a particularly tough transition period in certain regions
    - a rise in sea temperature can adversely affect fishing stocks
    - rising temperatures and continued deforestation may threatens habitats of many species — the dramatic loss of biodiversity has been an indicator of previous mass extinction events — it may be us this time?
    - climate change impacts lots of systems–its not just whether you need your umbrella or not–if the North Atlantic Conveyer switches direction, as has been hypothesized, the UK will be plunged into temperatures that currently Greenland experiences. That seems rather dramatic to me.
    - some countries with millions of people in them are already prone to flooding — further sea level changes will be damaging
    - some countries, in the pacific, may cease to exist altogether, which raises a few questions

    Not to confuse the issue but there are other reasons why change is due regards our thinking on the environment, i.e
    - the reduction of our reliance on oil by exploring alternative energies will benefit us in many different ways — cleaner air, less noise, less production of other gases like N0, N02, S02 which can be harmful to health and the ozone layer.

    As a broader question, why can’t we include the environment as an economic bottom line? Why should farmers be able to pollute common assets such as streams without paying for it. Why should we not be able to consider the effect our economic activity has on other countries? Not to sound preachy, but I think its pretty selfish not to consider possibilities for future generations just because we have it sweet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    Big Bruv asks ‘is Greenfly still on the DPB’?

    Ask Paula Bennet Bruv, she’s more than happy to publicly reveal any and every one’s benefit details.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    Buggerlugs – that would be,

    “how about the Greens and ACT put them over their heads and hold their breath as well. Saves me using bullets.
    (to be accurate)

    Nice use of your intent to murder to emphasise your point. The wonderful thing is DPF won’t ping you for it! He’s quite happy to allow threats of violence toward left-wingers. Try saying the same thing about a Nat MP though! Watch out, it’s the sin-bin for you!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    Greenfly, you are banned, how come you still post here under another name?

    Bennett should reveal how much these parasites steal from us Greenfly, there should be full disclosure when it comes to benefits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    Big Bruv – dry your tears and unclench your jaw, I’ll not hurt you.

    I’d like ‘full disclosure’ too Bruv! Let’s start with Roger Douglas and Bill English. When we’ve finished there, there are plenty of others to run the calculator over before we get to the rapacious Beneficiaries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Bennett should reveal how much these parasites steal from us Greenfly..”

    are you talking about ‘double-dip-bill-from-dipton’..?

    with his pleads for ‘twenty dollars more!’.. on his cleaning ‘entitlements’..eh..?..

    (and just a couple of months ago..whoar..!..)

    (oh..he got it..and more..!..eh..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    Greenfly

    Let’s start with the bludgers, then move onto the pollies, after all, Sir Roger is worth every cent, however I am not sure we get value for money from English and I sure as hell know that the Greens are a waste of space and money.

    So you go first, how much do you steal from us ever week Greenfly?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    Killer response Big Bruv!

    Douglas, worth every cent he rorts, you reckon! He certainly reckons, eh Bruv – “ENTITLED”, that’s what he crows! You are right about Rortin’ Bill English though. He’s a disgrace.

    As to anyone stealing from you Bruv, all the best, that’s what I say to them, good luck to ‘em!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    Speaking of rorts Greenfly, how about that Russ Norman aye?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Fletch (6,142 comments) says:

    That’s not the only weird idea: in the “green page” of the Herald they reprinted an AFP article saying that scientists are seriously considering ‘science fiction’ type alternatives to fix climate change, like giant mirrors in space (yes they are serious) or giant CO2 collection towers. This is in a report released by the Royal Society in Britain.

    I tell you, these people are seriously going to screw us over. The Earth knows what it’s doing; we shouldn’t mess with it ourselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. burt (8,023 comments) says:

    Fletch

    In the 70′s the scientists were hatching plans to spread black soot on the ice caps to maximise solar gain and melt them. There is a pattern here, we have a few cool years and we are due for an ice age, we have a few warm years and we are going to burn…

    I’m not saying we as individuals should not be environmentally aware and responsible, the days of thinking the world is so big it is impossible for us to pollute it passed decades ago when acid rain etc started to be a problem – but is the human impact on CO2 really making stuff all difference – depends if your models treat solar activity as constant because if you do you can probably find causality in any number of false indicators if you fudge the models to make read that way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    How about we put a great big condom over the whole globe?

    We could coat it with a chemically sensitive layer (a bit like those light sensitive glasses), so that when we approach a pending ice-age the coating changes to black; hence warming the earth, and when we approach an hot-age the coating changes to silver: thus cooling the earth.

    I think it’s always important to think on the grand scale.

    Don’t laugh, it’s about as sensible as mirrors in space, or sooting up the polar caps.
    Or, for that matter, the suggestion (by desperate evolutionists) that life on earth originated from ‘Alien Seeding’.
    When such suggestions become common place you know that the pseudo-scientists are getting desperate.

    Academic idiots!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. ben (2,414 comments) says:

    Blackmoss, thanks. These are frequently-made points. I am not a scientist but, FWIW, here are some casual observations:

    a) unstable systems are hard to find in nature because they have a habit of destroying themselves. Perhaps climate is an exception, and scientists are looking at that question hard. But the fact that we are here is prima facie evidence for stability.

    b) the world has previously been much warmer and greenhouse gases much higher concentration. True, under different circumstances, not everything is equal. But this, too, is prima facie evidence for stability.

    c) if we are headed for catastrophe none of the climate policies going in place will prevent it. In fact the track record of governments is so poor that their action could end up accelerating it! (law of unintended consequences) Why governments should start being effective on climate when they are so ineffective elsewhere is unclear.

    d) the precautionary principle you cite works in two ways, one against climate catastrophe, the other in the opposite direction against government catastrophe. Handing governments enormous power and discretion, as current climate policy does, adds to the risk of government run amok. Unlikely as it is, if totalitarianism rises out of climate policy then everybody will lose their privacy and freedom and many people will die. I am personally much more concerned about this than really bad weather.

    e) few in the climate debate know or care about the science. Greenpeace is not warning us about catastrophe because they’ve done the research which shows this. At best they overhead somebody with a PhD raise the possibility, and were happy to go and make that the cornerstone of their next campaign. Warmists generally don’t really care about the science or even the climate. How else to explain the total indifference of warmists to the ineffectiveness of all the policy being proposed. Science is a red herring. The climate debate is about personal values, and one side thinks it has the right to impose theirs on the other. They’re entitled to their view, of course, but I just wish they’d respect dissent.

    Not to sound preachy, but I think its pretty selfish not to consider possibilities for future generations just because we have it sweet.

    Not preachy at all. My only response would be: yes, we have it sweet, but future generations will have it immeasurably sweeter, and I can’t see the ethics in us paupers by comparison sacrificing our economy and livelihoods for almost no gain and for the benefit of people who will be much, much wealthier than we are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Johnboy (15,564 comments) says:

    “WilliamPitt”

    Pleased to meet you Willy. Which one are you. “Pitt the elder”. “Pitt the younger”. “Pitt the tot in smelly nappies”.

    I suppose in view of the topic under discussion you must be Pitt the spermatazoan tossed out in daddys used condom and hatched in the sun.

    Welcome to the blog. :-)

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

    Back to population growth.

    If you look at the areas where population growth is greatest it is in the areas where woman have no or little rights or where people have low incomes and no chance to save for retirement. The average number of children in a Saudi Arabia family is 10 and as they have lots of money but no freedom for woman I would say that it is the lack of freedom for woman that is the greatest cause of population growth.

    Freedom of the individual is the greatest single thing we can do to save this planet, very hard to accept if you are a communist, nationalist or religionist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. toad (3,672 comments) says:

    Johnboy said: …you must be Pitt the spermatazoan tossed out in daddys used condom

    Um, wouldn’t that be Ces Pitt, rather than William Pitt, Johnboy? Which is where you are, from where I’m sitting.

    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.